relationships between kindergarten teachers' perceptions of literacy acquisition and...

This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 10:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Relationships Between Kindergarten Teachers' Perceptionsof Literacy Acquisition and Children's Literacy Involvementand Classroom MaterialsRebecca McMahon a , Mark G. Richmond b & Carolyn Reeves-kazelskis ba University of Scrantonb University of Southern MississippiPublished online: 01 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Rebecca McMahon , Mark G. Richmond & Carolyn Reeves-kazelskis (1998) Relationships Between KindergartenTeachers' Perceptions of Literacy Acquisition and Children's Literacy Involvement and Classroom Materials, The Journal of EducationalResearch, 91:3, 173-182, DOI: 10.1080/00220679809597538

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597538

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00220679809597538

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597538

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Relationships Between Kindergarten Teachers’ Perceptions of Literacy Acquisition and Children’s Literacy Involvement and Classroom Materials REBECCA McMAHON University of Scranton

ABSTRACT Relationships between teachers’ perceptions of literacy acquisition and (a) children’s involvement in literacy events and (h) the quantity and quality of classroom literacy materials were examined. The participants were 12 kindergarten teachers and 16 randomly selected students from each teacher’s classroom. For data analysis purposes, responses on the Literacy Acquisition Perception Profile, verified through teacher interviews, were used to label teachers’ perceptions as representing either a reading readiness skills or emergent literacy perspective. Children’s voluntary involvement in literacy events was observed and recorded during a 12-week period. The Inventory of Literacy Indicators was used to assess the quantity and quality of classroom literacy materials. Children in classrooms of emergent literacy teachers participated in a higher number and greater variety of literacy events than did children in reading readiness skills classrooms, and literacy materials in classrooms of emergent literacy teachers were higher in both quantity and quality than were literacy materials in reading readiness skills classrooms.

n the field of education, there are two predominant, con- I flicting views about how learning, in particular learning to read, takes place (Smith, 1992; Strickland, 1990). The two views, referred to in this article as reading readiness skills and emergent literacy, present disparate perceptions of literacy acquisition, suggesting different instructional approaches for young children. Controversies about the best ways to foster children’s literacy acquisition are not new; they have grown out of the heated debates of the 1920s (Chall, 1992). Unfortunately, few published studies have compared the effects of reading readiness skills programs versus emergent literacy programs on the literacy acquisition of young children. There are studies that suggest that teachers’ perceptions influence classroom practices (Cor- nett, 1990; Frerichs, 1993; Harset & Burke, 1977; Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1977; Richardson, 1991), but the extent to which teachers’ perceptions (i.e., reading readiness skills and emergent literacy) are related to selection of

MARK G. RICHMOND

University of Southern Mississippi CAROLYN REEVES-KAZELSKIS

instructional materials as well as children’s voluntary involvement in literacy events has not been addressed.

Historically, the concept of reading readiness has domi- nated the philosophy and pedagogy of beginning reading instruction since its introduction into American education during the 1920s and 1930s (Crawford, 1995). Reading readiness theory has undergone several transformations in its application over the past 100 years (Mason, 1992), and despite the emphasis on a maturational viewpoint present in the early stages of the movement, reading readiness theo- rists eventually adopted a behavioristic model of instruction asserting that children’s readiness could be influenced through direct instruction (Fredius, 1993; Mason, 1992). The emphasis on direct instruction is portrayed through the use of highly structured, skills-based readiness programs (Crawford; Sippola, 1994).

The concept of reading readiness, which initially stressed the importance of waiting until a child is ready to learn to read before providing any type of instruction. eventually shifted to a stance in which being ready became synony- mous with the learner’s having prerequisite skills. Two fac- tors that materialized during the 1950s and 1960s were largely responsible for the shift in thought about reading readiness. First, educators realized that a child’s first 5 years of life are crucial to cognitive development. Second, Sput- nik and the cold war created fear that the American education system lagged behind in international competition. As a result, many teachers of young children began to f i l l the wait time with rigorous, skills-based instruction (Crawford, 1995). That instruction included activities to develop audi- tory discrimination, visual discrimination, memory, general concept development or vocabulary, listening skills, visual- motor skills, letter-name knowledge, letter-sound relationships, and word recognition (Alexander, 1988; Crawford,

Address correspondence to Rebecca McMahon, University of Scranton, Department of Education, Scrunton. PA 18.510-4603.

173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

174 The Journal of Educational Research

1995; Durkin, 1987; Harris & Sipay, 1985; Sippola, 1994; Strickland, 1990; Teale & Sulzby, 1986b).

The assumptions usually associated with reading readiness skills instruction, referred to in several descriptions of this approach (Crawford, 1995; Hall, 1987; Harris & Sipay, 1985; Mason, 1992; Reutzel & Cooter, 1992), are as follows:

I . The visual-perceptual processes involved in reading and writing are centered around unit sound relationships.

2. Children need to be 5 or 6 years old in order to learn to read and write.

3. Literacy instruction should be systematic and sequential. 4. To behave in a literate way, children must acquire the

5 . Direct, systematic instruction is the best method for

6. Teaching literacy is an unemotional, value-free process.

From the 1960s through the 1980s, reading readiness skills instruction characterized most classroom practices and were included in all major basal reading programs (Teale & Sulzby, 1986a). Several sources (Adams, 1990; Durkin, 1987; Robinson, 1990; Rubin, 1993; Sippola, 1994) have pointed out that reading readiness skills instruction remains America’s most widely implemented reading theory in terms of classroom practices.

Despite its continuing popularity, unquestioning belief in the traditional concept of reading readiness skills is waning. Reading research over the past 2 decades has gradually led many teachers and researchers to critically examine the assumptions underlying this perception of beginning literacy (Reutzel & Cooter, 1992). A profound change in the study and articulation of early literacy has resulted in a departure by some educators from the traditional readiness philosophy (Crawford, 1995; Reutzel & Cooter, 1992; Teale & Sulzby, 1986a). The term emergent literucy, coined by Clay ( 1966), has become widely accepted as the appropriate label for the alternative view of literacy acquisition, which gives legitimacy to children’s early, nonconventional reading and writing behav- iors. Emergent literacy has come to symbolize a way of thinking about literacy development in early childhood in which educators create an environment that is rich in print and provides young children with many opportunities to engage in a variety of literacy and language experiences (Frerichs, 1993; Harris & Hodges, 1995; Madison & Speaker, 1994; Sippola, 1994; Teale, 1986a; Teale & Sulz- by, 1989).

An emergent literacy perspective may be described as a belief in the following theoretical principles:

prerequisite skills.

teaching reading.

I . A child’s literacy development begins early in life- possibly at birth (Crawford, 1995; Hall, 1987; Kline, 1988; Teale & Sulzby, 1986b, 1989).

2. To a large extent, beginning reading and writing start naturally through exposure to printed language and the environment experienced by the child (Hall, 1987;

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

International Reading Association, 1986; Strickland & Morrow, 1990; Teale & Sulzby, 1986b, 1989). Reading and writing develop concurrently and interre- latedly, rather than sequentially (Hall, 1987; Interna- tional Reading Association, 1986; Kline, 1988; Teale & Sulzby, 1986b, 1989). Children learn through active engagement by constructing their own knowledge from the world around them, not merely by imitating adults or by rote learning (Crawford, 1995; International Reading Association, 1986; Kline, 1988; Teale & Sulzby, 1986b, 1989). Language is learned through use rather than through practice exercises on how to use language (Harste & Woodward, 1989). The quality and nature of meaning that children construct when they read and write depend largely on their knowledge of the world and language (Strickland & Morrow, 1990) and are influenced by the children’s social and cultural backgrounds (Hall, 1987; Interna- tional Reading Association, 1986). Language learning is risky (Harste & Woodward, 1989). Language learning proceeds from the known to the unknown (Harste & Woodward, 1989), and many children expect that reading and writing will be sense-making activities (International Reading Association, 1986). The functions of literacy are an integral part of the learning process that is taking place (Strickland & Mor- row, 1990; Teale & Sulzby, 1986b; 1989). Exposure to a variety of literature builds a sense of the structures of written text (Strickland & Morrow, 1990).

Harste and Burke (1977) proposed that a particular teacher’s knowledge and belief system about reading provides the foundation from which decisions about reading instruction emanate. Thus, a teacher’s theoretical orientation to reading is linked with goals, procedures, materials, and patterns of interaction in the classroom (Harste, Wood- ward, & Burke, 1977). Professional organizations advise that “all teachers have a belief system, whether explicit or implicit, about how children learn and what they should be learning that guides and influences their practice” (Nation- al Association for the Education of Young Children & National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education [NAEYC & NAECS/SDE], 199 I , p. 24).

Teachers’ perceptions of student learning (Clark & Peter- son, 1987; Sykes, 1986; Zeichner & Liston, 1987), particu- larly when learning to read (DeFord, 1985; Troyer & Yopp, 1990; Weir, 1989), are receiving increasing attention in research because perceptions usually influence classroom practice?. Teachers’ perceptions not only have implications for instructional strategies but also for environmental plan- ning-allocation of design and space, selection of materials, and placement of materials (Morrow, 1980).

“While it is generally accepted that the teacher is an important factor related to success in learning to read, stud-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

JanuaryWebruary 1998 [Vol. 91(No. 3)] 175

ies exploring the teacher variable have resulted in more questions than answers” (DeFord, 1985, p. 35 I ). ’The psy- chological context in which teachers make plans and decisions is a mixture of both articulated and implicit theories, beliefs, and values about teaching and learning (Clark & Peterson, 1986). Studies of teachers’ implicit theories con- stitute the smallest and youngest part of research concerning teachers’ thinking (Clark & Peterson, 1986), which may be partially attributed to the lack of instrumentation for measuring teachers’ assumptions (DeFord, 1985).

Our purpose in this study was to examine the relationships between teachers’ perceptions of literacy acquisition and the extent to which children engage in voluntary literacy events during self-selected activities. In addition, we investigated the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of literacy acquisition and the availability of classroom materials that possess characteristics associated with the facilitation or enhancement of literacy development in the classroom. The following hypotheses and qualitative research questions were addressed:

H.vpotlie.si.s I : There is a significantly higher degree of children’s involvement in literacy events in the classrooms of emergent literacy teachers than in classrooms of reading readiness skills teachers.

Hypothesis 2 : There is a significantly higher quantity of literacy materials available in classrooms of emergent literacy teachers than in classrooms of reading readiness skills teachers.

Hypothesis 3: There is a significantly higher quality of literacy materials available in classrooms of emergent literacy teachers than in classrooms of reading readinevs skills teachers.

Question I : Are there demographic differences between teachers whose perception of literacy acquisition is labeled as reading readiness skills and those whose perception of literacy acquisition is labeled as emergent literacy?

Question 2: Do differences exist in the degree of children’s involvement in literacy events between classrooms of reading readiness skills teachers and classrooms of emergent literacy teachers?

Question 3: Do differences exist in literacy materials available, in terms of quantity and quality, between classrooms of reading readiness skills teachers and classrooms of emergent literacy teachers’?

Participants

The participants in this study were both kindergarten teachers and their students. Twelve female kindergarten teachers from six public school districts in southern Missis- sippi participated in the study. Eleven of the teachers were European American; 1 was African American. Their teach-

ing experience ranged from 2 to 29 years; 7 teachers had a master’s degree.

A total of 192 students participated in this study. Sixteen students were randomly selected for observation from each of the 12 classrooms. They were selected from the two categorical teacher groups (i.e., reading readiness skills and emergent literacy), each of which contained 96 students. Girls (97) accounted for 50.5% of the student participants, and boys (95) accounted for 49.5%. As in the total sample, girls and boys were evenly distributed within the reading readiness skills and the emergent literacy classroom groups. In the total student sample, 60.4% ( 1 16) of the students were European Americans; 32.8% (63) were African Amer- ican. Asian Americans and Mexican Americans constituted the remaining 7%.

Instruments

Two separate instruments were constructed to collect data in this study. The Inventory of Literacy Indicators (ILI) was developed by McMahon, Howe, and Knight to determine the quantity and quality of literacy materials in the classroom. The Literacy Acquisition Perception Profile (LAPP) was developed by the researcher to determine teachers’ perceptions of literacy acquisition.

Inventory of Literacv Indicators (ILI). A careful review of the literature identified nine areas as essential for promoting literacy in early childhood classrooms (McMahon & Howe, 1993). The nine areas are included in the ILI and are labeled as (a) library center; (b) listening center; (c) books and other reading materials; (d) writing center; (e) signs, labels, and directions; (f) materials for recording language; (8) written information about the current day; (h) student work displays; and (i) center area integration. Seventy-one items are distributed among the nine areas; 35 items consti- tute a resource (quantity) component, and 36 items consti- tute an environmental (quality) component for evaluating literacy materials.

Scores on the ILI are based on a 6-point rating scale. The resources (quantity) rating ranges from 0 (none apparent) to 5 (abundant), and the environmental (quality) rating ranges from 0 (not present) to 5 (excellent). Area scores are obtained by averaging the rating of the individual items. Com- ponent scores for quantity (resources) and quality (environmental) are obtained by summing the area averages; the highest possible score for each component is 45. Sample ILI items from two areas, by component, are as follows:

Resources (quantity) rating 0 = none 1 = one 2 =,few 3 = several 4 = muny 5 = abundant

1 . Library Center - I . Elements of softness (e.g., cushions, throw rugs,

pillows, stuffed animals, a rocking chair, sofa, or other comfortable furniture)

~ 2. Bookshelves

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Journal of Educational Research

Theme-related books Posters or bulletin boards encouraging reading or telling about an author and his or her books. “Literature props” (e.g., puppets, felt-board stories, a stage, or a roll movie) - Average score

2 . Listening Center - I . Individual copies of storybook - 2 . Story cassettes with accompanying books - 3. Genres of literature - = Average score

Environmental (quality) rating 0 = not present 1 = poor 2 =fa ir 3 = satisfactory 4 = good 5 = excellent

1 . Library Center Partitioned off from other areas in the room Located in a quiet area Large enough to accommodate at least 4 children Warm, attractive, and inviting Books are shelved by category andor color coded by type Books displayed in a variety of ways (e.g., spines only, front covers, theme display Average score

2 . Listening Center - I . Area is set aside for students to listen to

cassette recordings of favorite stories - 2 . Story cassettes with accompanying books - = Average score

Content validity of the ILI was determined by a panel of three university experts knowledgeable in the fields of reading and early childhood education. Each expert on the panel indicated the extent to which each of the nine areas identified as essential for promoting literacy in an early childhood classroom was accurate and complete. Any item that received a content validity rating of less than 80% was revised or eliminated.

Face validity for the ILI was determined by a group of graduate students enrolled in an early childhood course, each of whom had taught young children. Comments and suggestions related to content, format, and instructions were discussed, and adjustments were made based on the group’s evaluation.

Literacy Acquisition Perception Projlle (LAPP). I developed The Literacy Acquisition Perception Profile (LAPP) with a two-step process (see Appendix). The initial phase included item development and construct validity procedures, and the second phase included test-retest reliability, concurrent and predictive validity, and internal consistency reliability procedures.

I conducted a literature review outlining the evolutionary development of opposing theories of literacy acquisition. The task of clearly delineating the theoretical bases for both reading readiness skills and emergent literacy was a vital step for obtaining definitions that guided the subsequent scale development. The set of theoretical principals charac- terizing each of these perspectives was used to generate an original list of 38 possible items.

The item pool and construct definitions were distributed to a panel of four university experts knowledgeable in the areas of reading and early childhood education. The four experts identified each item as being representative of either a reading readiness skills or emergent literacy perspective. There was unanimous agreement among the experts on every item with regard to the perspective represented.

The degree to which each item portrayed the perspective identified was also rated by the four experts, with a 5-point Likert-type scale. A rating of 1 indicated a weak depiction of the perspective; a rating of 5 indicated a strong portray- al. Space was provided under each item for additional comments and suggestions. We eliminated items with a cumula- tive rating of I6 (an average of 4 on the 5-point scale). The 20 remaining items, 10 of which represented each perspective, made up the initial form of the LAPP. The interrater reliability measure of content validity for the 20 items was 4.64 on a 5-point scale.

A group of doctoral students from various disciplines in education critiqued the instrument’s content, format, and instructions. Changes in the LAPP were made to eliminate ambiguities.

In its final form, the LAPP yields a separate score for each of two subscales-reading readiness skills and emergent literacy. The reading readiness skills (RR) subscale score is calculated by summing the values for each of the 10 reading readiness skills items (Items I , 3, 7, 8.9, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18). Likewise, the emergent literacy (EL) subscale score is calculated by summing the values for each of the 10 emergent literacy items (Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 1 I , 12, 13, 19, and 20). The highest possible score on each subscale is 50.

Test-retest reliability for the LAPP was obtained from a sample of 35 preservice teachers enrolled in an under- graduate curriculum course. The participants responded to the instrument twice, with a 10-day interval between responses. Pearson r correlations were calculated for each subscale; the test-retest reliability for the RR subscale was r( I , 34) = .85 (p < .OO I ) and r( I , 34) = .73 (p < .OO I ) for the EL subscale.

Validity of the LAPP was examined with a sample of elementary teachers (n = 347) who responded to the LAPP and the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP), which was developed by DeFord (1985). We used the TORP scores to examine the concurrent validity of LAPP subscale scores. The TORP was developed to ascertain a teacher’s theoretical orientations toward reading. The TORP, which contains 28 statements concerning a per-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Januarymebruary 1998 [Vol. 91(No. 3)] 177

ceived, instructional aspect of the reading process, includes 10 phonic, 10 skill-oriented, and 8 whole language statements. Participants respond to the TORP on a 5-point Lik- ert-type scale ranging from 5 (strongly disagree) to 1 (strongly agree). A total TORP score represents a teacher’s orientation based on a continuum ranging from decoding (0-65 points) to skills-based (66-109 points) to whole language ( 1 10-140 points) orientations (DeFord, 1985; Reutzel & Cooter, 1992).

We examined concurrent validity with Pearson product- moment correlation procedures. The results indicated a strong, significant, r( I , 346) = -75, p > .O I , negative correlation between TORP scores and RR subscale scores on the LAPP and a significant, r( l , 346) = .32, p = .oOol, positive correlation between TORP scores and EL subscale scores. These results indicate that teachers who have a low total TORP score would score high on the RR subscale of the LAPP; conversely, teachers scoring high on the TORP would be expected to score high on the EL subscale of the LAPP.

Predictive validity of the LAPP was inferred from Pear- son product-moment correlations obtained between subscale scores of the LAPP and school SES, grade level being taught, number of years of teaching experience, and the highest degree held. Nonsignificant correlations were obtained between RR subscale scores and school SES r( I , 346) = .08, p > .05), teaching experience, r ( l , 346) = -.01, p > .05), and highest degree held, r ( l , 346) = -06, p > .05. Likewise, nonsignificant correlations were obtained between EL subscale scores and school SES, r( I , 346) = -.02 p > .05, teaching experience, r ( l , 346) = .01, p > .05, and highest degree held, r( I , 346) = -.004, p > .05. Grade level was significantly correlated, r ( l , 346) = .22, p < .01) with RR subscale scores, suggesting that as the grade level being taught increases, scores on the RR subscale also increase; upper level elementary grade teachers seem to perceive that initiates into literacy should be given a program consistent with traditional reading readiness skills practices. Also, grade level was significantly, r( 1, 346) = -.29, p < .O I , but negatively, correlated with EL subscale scores, suggesting that as the grade level being taught increases, scores on the EL subscale tend to decrease, and conversely, as grade level being taught decreases, EL subscale scores tend to increase. Responses on the LAPP tend to predict the grade levels taught by teachers; high EL subscale scores are associated with teachers of preschool and lower elementary grade levels, and high RR subscale scores are associated with teachers of upper elementary grade levels. That finding supports what is typically found among teachers: Preschool and kindergarten teachers tend to advocate more holistic programs, whereas upper grade teachers are more reading readiness skills oriented.

Internal consistency was established using Cronbach’s alpha. The alpha values were 30 and .77 for the RR subscale and the EL subscale, respectively. The preceding results sug- gested that LAPP cores are sufficiently reliable and valid for research purposes. A copy of the LAPP is appended.

Procedures

From a group of 48 kindergarten teachers in 12 school districts who responded to the Literacy Acquisition Perception Profile, 12 teachers participated in the study because their LAPP scores represented the most extreme theoretical posi- tions of reading readiness skills and emergent literacy. The 12 teachers were assigned to one of two groups of 6, either reading readiness skills or emergent literacy. Prior to data collec- tion, the appropriateness of the categorical group assignments was verified further through an individually conducted semistructured interview with each of the teachers.

Over a period of 12 weeks, eight observations were conducted in each teacher’s classroom, during a time in which children “choose their own activities,” to record the degree of children’s involvement in literacy events. During observation visits to five classrooms, a specialist in the area of early childhood education accompanied the principal investigator to make independent observations to validate the investigator’s observations by establishing interrater agreement. Interrater agreement was established as 92%.

During each of the initial four visits in each classroom, 4 randomly selected children (different children each visit) were observed for a period of 20 min. Approximately 6 weeks later, each of the children was observed for a second 20-min period. An observation guide was used to record the number and type of literacy events in which each child was engaged during each of the observation periods. Anecdotal notes concerning classroom practices were made during these visits. After completing observations of children in each of the classrooms, the principal investigator used the ILI to assess the quantity and quality of classroom literacy materials.

Results

Chi-square tests were used to test the frequency of occur- rence between the total number of literacy events observed in classrooms of reading readiness skills teachers and classrooms of emergent literacy teachers. Significant, xz( 1, 99, N = 200) = 16.82, p < .01, differences in the total number of literacy events were observed between reading readiness skills and emergent literacy classrooms. Children in emergent literacy classrooms engaged in a significantly higher number of literacy events. The overall significant difference between the two categories of classrooms presented a basis for further comparisons in terms of type of observed literacy events. A significantly higher number of literacy events were observed for “Using a Book or Other Reading Material,” xz( I , 99, N = 200) = 16.90, p < .00 I , “Engaged in a Writing Activity,” x2( I , 99, N = 200) = 11.00, p < .001, and “Interacting with Con- textual Print,” x’( I , 99, N = 200) = 8.16, p < .O I , in emergent literacy classrooms than were observed in reading readiness skills classrooms. A significantly higher number of literacy events were observed for “Using Print Related Props,”x2( I , 99, N = 200) = 7.04, p < .O l , in reading readiness skills classrooms than were observed in emergent literacy classrooms.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

1 78 The Journal of Educational Research

Tests to determine mean differences between teachers’ perceptions of literacy acquisition and the quantity and quality of classroom literacy materials were performed within the parameters of a multiple regression analysis. A significant, F( I , 10) = 10.34, p = .009, with an associated R2 of .5 14, relationship between teachers’ perceptions of literacy acquisition and quantity (amount) of classroom literacy materials was obtained, indicating that approximately 5 1 % of the variance in quantity of literacy materials may be explained by teachers’ perceptions of literacy acquisition. Classrooms of emergent literacy teachers had a significantly higher quantity of literacy materials than did classrooms of reading readiness skills teachers. A significant, F( 1, 10) = 14.54, p = .003, with an associated R2 of S93, relationship between teachers’ perceptions of literacy acquisition and quality of available literacy materials was obtained, indicating that approximately 59% of the variance in quality of literacy materials may be explained by teachers’ perceptions of literacy acquisition. Classrooms of emergent literacy teachers had a significantly higher quality of literacy materials available than did classrooms of reading readiness skills teachers.

Demographic differences were evident when comparing teachers categorized as having reading readiness skills and emergent literacy perceptions of literacy acquisition. These differences were in the areas of overall teaching experience, kindergarten teaching experience, and highest degree held. Emergent literacy teachers had a total of 29 years’ more teaching experience than reading readiness skills teachers did. Reading readiness skills teachers, however, had 15 years’ more experience teaching kindergarten. One reading readiness skills teacher had a master’s degree, whereas all six emergent literacy teachers had master’s degrees.

Differences were evident in the degree of children’s involvement in literacy events when comparing the classrooms of reading readiness skills teachers and those of emergent literacy teachers. Children in classrooms of emergent literacy teachers participated in 65% ( 1 29) of the total number (200) of literacy events observed. Also, children in classrooms of emergent literacy teachers participated in each of the nine types of literacy events at least twice. Chil- dren in classrooms of reading readiness skills teachers did not participate at all in four of the nine types of literacy events during observations.

Differences were evident in the types of literacy materials available in the classrooms of reading readiness skills teachers and the classrooms of emergent literacy teachers. The classrooms of emergent literacy teachers scored higher in every section of the ILI on both the environment and resource scales, indicating that both quantity and quality of classroom literacy materials were higher.

Discussion

The findings of the study indicated significant relationships between teachers’ perceptions of literacy acquisition

and children’s involvement in literacy events, the quantity of classroom literacy materials, and the quality of classroom literacy materials. The qualitative data support the sta- tistical findings.

Children in emergent literacy classrooms were observed participating in a significantly higher number of literacy events than were children in reading readiness skills classrooms. Every type of literacy event was observed in emergent literacy classrooms. The findings suggest that teachers in the emergent literacy group believe in the following theoretical principles: (a) Children learn through active engagement by constructing their own knowledge from the world around them, not merely by imitating adults or by rote learning (IRA, 1986; Kline, 1988; Teale & Sulzby, 1986b; 1989), and (b) language is learned through use rather than through practice exercises on how to use language (Harste & Woodward, 1989). Further, the findings of the present study may indicate that emergent literacy teachers are more aware of the interrelated and concurrent development of the four modes of language-listening, speaking, reading, and writing-and, therefore, value children’s involvement in activities that highlight each of those modes. The general atmos- phere in emergent literacy classrooms was conducive to free exploration and experimentation with print.

Children in classrooms of reading readiness skills teachers were not observed participating in four of the nine possible types of literacy events. Failure by children in reading readiness skills classrooms to participate (i.e., self-select) in almost half of the possible types of literacy events illustrates the belief associated with a reading readiness skills perspective that it is the teacher’s responsibility to control the child’s literacy development rather than to give him or her the opportunity to make choices and construct print-related knowledge through interaction in the environment. The fact that children in reading readiness skills classrooms were not as frequently involved in independent interactions with books and print or with writing activities may be attributed to the teachers’ lack of support for early attempts at reading and writing. Also, lack of participation in these types of literacy events (while observations were being conducted) may have resulted from the limited supply of authentic literacy materials present in the classrooms. Materials that possess characteristics associated with the facilitation or enhancement of literacy development were scarce in reading readiness skills classrooms.

The increased amount and superiority of literacy materials in the classrooms of emergent literacy teachers substan- tiates the findings of previous studies (Madison & Speaker, 1994; Sippola, 1994) and provides evidence that those teachers realized the significance of providing children with numerous and varied opportunities to interact with print that is meaningful, functional, and genuine. The importance that emergent literacy teachers place on constructing a physical environment that generates experiences with print in situa- tions that emulate real life is further illustrated by the integration of literacy materials in a variety of classroom cen-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Januaryrnebruary 1998 [Vol. 91(No. 3)] 179

ters. In emergent literacy classrooms, print-related props (i.e.. telephone message pads, computer keyboards, and menus) and contextual print (i.e., recipes, catalogues, mail, directions, and food packages) were included in centers such as housekeeping, blocks, science, and mathematics. As a result, children in emergent literacy classrooms naturally integrated literacy materials into their pretend play, which provided a more authentic depiction of the typical daily experiences they were reenacting. That finding illustrates that emergent literacy teachers believe that children should be actively engaged in using print for real purposes (e.g., writing messages, reading directions) rather than using a prop related to print in an artificial setting (e.g., isolated letter names and sounds).

The only instance in which children in reading readiness skills classrooms were observed participating in more literacy events than children in emergent literacy classrooms occurred when the RR children used print-related props. Print-related props in reading readiness skills classrooms primarily consisted of teacher-made or commercial materials pertaining to isolated concepts such as alphabetical order, identification of upper and lower case letter pairs, and identification of letter sounds identified by Adams ( 1 990) and Chall(1992) as essential for success in beginning reading. Pearson (1996), however, cautioned that the value of phonics is realized only when students can use this knowledge to make and monitor meaning. There was no example of literacy integration with learning in centers present in any of the six reading readiness skills classrooms, and children in those classrooms were never observed using literacy materials during dramatic play. In contrast, children in classrooms of emergent literacy teachers were rarely observed practicing basic reading subskills. Both Pearson ( 1996) and Heibert ( 1996) have cautioned that complete retreat from any and all skill instruction is not warranted because many children may not decipher the alphabetic principle by sheer immersion in print or in listening to oth- ers read. Studies are needed to compare the effects of learning environments that promote reading readiness skills with a combination of reading readiness skills and emergent literacy.

The libraries in the emergent literacy classrooms tended to offer a larger selection of books than the libraries in reading readiness skills classrooms and often included some books written by either the class or by individual students. Several literature props (a sequencing game related to IfYou Give a Mouse a Cookie, wooden characters for retelling A Christmas Story, and a magic carpet from Madeline’s Christmas) were found in emergent literacy classrooms but not in reading readiness skills classrooms. These observations tend to suggest that reading readiness skills teachers do not realize the abundance of knowledge that children gain through independent interactions with books or the many advantages of using literature to illustrate basic print- related concepts.

Children were repeatedly observed writing in daily jour- nals in three of the emergent literacy classrooms but in none

of the reading readiness skills classrooms. Four of the emergent literacy classrooms had permanent writing centers used regularly by the children. Although one reading readiness skills classroom had a permanent writing center available, no children were ever observed in this center. A possible reason for the omission of a designated area and related materials that focus on writing in the reading readiness skills classrooms may be embedded in the teachers’ belief that children are not ready to learn to read and write until they have reached a certain age or have mastered a certain set of prerequisite skills.

Children in emergent literacy classrooms were encour- aged to “kid spell” or write words the way that they sound. Examples of children’s writing (reactions to stories, descriptions of a recent hurricane, interpretations of the first Thanksgiving, and letters to Santa Claus) were displayed in several emergent literacy classrooms. It was obvious by the amount of time and space devoted to writing in the majori- ty of emergent literacy classrooms that children’s early attempts at communicating through print were regarded as valuable and necessary for making progress toward eventu- al success with conventional writing.

Ten computers were distributed among the reading readiness skills classrooms; only 5 computers were available in the emergent literacy classrooms. Despite this discrepancy, children in both reading readiness skills and emergent literacy classrooms were observed interacting with computers the same number of times. An explanation for this finding may be that the computers located in several reading readiness skills classrooms were rarely turned on. Another possible explanation may be that 6 of the 10 computers located in reading readiness skills classrooms were used solely for typ- ing isolated words from a theme-related list posted near the computers. Computers in emergent literacy classrooms were used in conjunction with software for introducing and practicing various mathematics- or language-related concepts and for original writing, rather than for copying word lists.

The amount of environmental print (displays of written language that provided instructions or located materials, printed labels on key objects and classroom areas, examples of children’s attempts at writing or dictated stories, notices, announcements, class-created graphs, and calendar activities) in the emergent classrooms was substantially greater than environmental print in reading readiness skills classrooms. One explanation for this discrepancy could be that the reading readiness skills teachers did not subscribe to the emergent literacy principle that beginning reading and writing, to a large extent, start naturally through exposure to printed language and the environment experienced by the child (Hall, 1987; IRA, 1986; Strickland & Morrow, 1990; Teale & Sulzby, 1986b; 1989). An alternative explanation could be that reading readiness skills teachers do not believe that kindergarten children are capable of using print to receive instructions, locate materials, or identify objects.

We acknowledge that the differences found in the quantity and quality of classroom literacy materials could be attrib-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014


uted partially to possible bias in the instrument used to measure those variables, because completion of the instrument is based on observation at a specific time and because ratings of quality and quantity by observers may be somewhat subjec- tive. We recommend that in future studies in which the Inven- tory of Literacy is used to assess quantity and quality of classroom literacy materials include repeated observations of classroom environments over an extended period of time. Also, in future studies researchers might provide observers with operational definitions for the rating scale options available for environmental (quality) and resource (quantity) areas, to reduce subjectivity in interpretation of the rating scale options. The items, however, that compose the ILI rep- resent environmental elements and resources that are consid- ered to be appropriate for promoting young children’s literacy development, based on a survey of recent literature.

Descriptive differences were noted between teachers categorized as possessing a reading readiness skills perspective and those possessing an emergent literacy perspective in the areas of teaching experience, kindergarten teaching experience, and highest degree held. Although a similar range existed in the number of years of overall teaching experience and in the number of years of teaching in kindergarten, 5 emergent literacy teachers had experience teaching in grades other than kindergarten, but only 3 of the reading readiness skills teachers had experience teaching in a grade other than kindergarten. Further, teaching experience in grades other than kindergarten totaled 60 years for emergent literacy teachers and only 16 years for reading readiness skills teachers. Working with children at other grade levels may have exposed the emergent literacy teachers to facets of children’s literacy development that influenced their perceptions of how literacy is acquired by young children.

Only one of the reading readiness skills teachers held a master’s degree; all 6 of the emergent literacy teachers had obtained advanced degrees. Even though 5 of the emergent literacy teachers had been teaching for 15 years or more, they had obtained advanced degrees during this time and may have been exposed through required course work to more recently accepted approaches to literacy acquisition. Also, all six degrees were received from the same university, possibly indicating that an emergent literacy philosophy with regard to literacy acquisition is advocated by that institu- tion. This explanation, however, would not account for the difference in perspective held by the one reading readiness skills teacher with a master’s degree from the same university.

Collectively, the results of this study strongly suggest that kindergarten teachers’ perceptions of literacy acquisition do affect children’s involvement in literacy events, the quantity of classroom literacy materials, and the quality of classroom literacy materials. These findings support the growing body of research (Bondy, 1990; Clark & Peterson, 1987; DeFord, 1985; Sykes, 1986; Zeichner & Liston, 1987) that identifies teachers’ perceptions as having a critical impact on classroom practices. The significant differences in instructional environment and children’s literacy activities

within the environment that existed in this study between teachers who hold a reading readiness skills perspective and those who hold an emergent literacy perspective of literacy acquisition have implications for teachers as well as for teacher educators. As further research in this area is conducted, the issue of whether the theory in which preservice teachers are instructed gives rise to practice or whether practice (school district-mandated or teacher-preferred practice) influences a teacher’s theoretical belief system will be explored.

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. A summaty Urbana-Champaign, IL: The Reading Research and Education Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Alexander, I. E. (1988). Teaching reading (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Bondy, E. (1990). Seeing it their way: What children’s definitions of reading tell us about improving teacher education. Journal of Teacher Edu- cation, 4/(4), 33-45.

Calfee, R., & Drum, P. (1986). Research on teaching reading. In M. C. Wit- trock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teuching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook uf research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.

Clay, M. M. (1966). Emergent Reading Behaviour. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland Library.

Crawford, P. A. ( 1995). Early literacy: Emerging Perspectives. Journul of Research in Childhood Education, /O( I ). 7 1-86.

Chall, J. (1992). The new reading debates: Evidence from science, art. and ideology. Teachers College Record. Y4(2), 3 15-328.

Cornett, J. W. (1990). Teacher thinking about curriculum and instruction: A case study of a secondary social studies teacher. Theon und Reseurch in Social Education. 2X(3). 248-273.

DeFord, D. E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation to reading. Reading Reseurch Quurterly, 20(3) , 35 1-367.

Durkin, D. (1987). Teaching young children fo read (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Freidus, H. (1993). Recurring themes and current issues. In J. Hendrick (Ed.), Early childhood curriculum resource handbook (pp. I C34). New York: Kraus.

Frerichs, L. C. ( 1993). Kindergarten teacher.s ’perceptions and prucrices in readinghnguage arts. Charleston. SC: National Reading Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 934)

Hall, N. (1987). The emergence of literucy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Harris, A. J., & Sipay, E. R. (1985). How to increase reading ahility: A

guide to developmental and remedial methods. New York: Longman. Harris, T. L., & Hodges. R. E. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary: The

vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both teaching and learning of reading are theoretically based. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Reuding: Theory, research. und practice. Charleston, SC: National Reading Conference.

Harste, J. C., & Woodward, V. A. (1989). Fostering needed change in early literacy programs. In D. S. Strickland & L. M. Morrow (Eds.). Emergent literacy: Young children learn to reudand write (pp, 147-159). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hiebert, E. H. (1988). The role of literacy experiences in early childhood programs, The Elenientury School Journal, XY(2). I6 1-1 7 I .

International Reading Association. ( 1986). Literacy development and pre- first grade reading instruction. Childhood Educution. 63(2), 1 1G1 1 I .

Kline, L. W. (1988, June). Reading: Whole language development, re- newed focus on literature spur change. Curriculum Updtrte. 1-4, 9.

Madison, S. G., & Speaker, R. B. (1994). The cwzstruction oflitrrucy environments in earl! childhood clussroonis: A spectrum qf upprouches. New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 970)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

JanuarylFebruary 1998 [Vol. 91(No. 3)] 181

Mason, J. M. (1992). Emerging literacy in the early childhood years: App1.ving a Vvgotskian model of learning development. Urbana, IL: Cen- ter for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348 667)

McMahon, R., & Howe, M. (1993). Encouraging literacy in an early child-

McMahon, R., Howe. M. E., & Knight, H. V. (1966). Efects of a [iteracy- rich environment on children 's concepts about print. Association for Childhood Education International. Annual International Study Confer- encc, Minneapolis, MN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 399 043)

Morrow, L. M. (1980). Designing the classroom to promote literacy development. In D. S. Strickland & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Young children letrrn to read and write (pp, 121-134). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Association for Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (1991 ). Guidelines for appropriate curriculum content and assessment in programs serving children ages 3 through 8. Young Chil- dren, 21-38.

Pearson, P. D. (1996). In M. F. Graves, P. VandenBroek, & B. M. Taylor (Eds.). Thefirst r: Even child's right to read (pp. 259-271 ). New York: Teachers College Press.

Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B., Jr. (1992). Teaching children to read: From ha.sci1.s to books. New York: Macmillan.

Richardson. V. (1991). The relationship between teacher's beliefs and practice in reading comprehension instruction. Eduiutional Research Jour- nu/. 2X(3). 559-586.

Rohinson, S. S. (1990, April) A survey of literacy programs among preschools. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

Ruhin. D. (1993). A practical approach to teaching reading. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Sippola, A. E. ( 1994). Literacy education in kindergarten classrooms. Reading Horizons, 35( I ), 52-6 I .

Smith, F. (1992). Leaning to read: The never-ending debate. Phi Delta Kappun. 4 3 2 4 4 I .

Strickland, D. S. (1979). On Reading. Childhood Education. 56(2), 67-74. Strickland, D. S. (1990). Emergent literacy: How young children learn to

Yppi Reading Journal, 6(2), 5-1 I .

read and write. Educational Leadership, 47(6). 18-23, Strickland, D. S., & Morrow, L. M. (1988). Creating a print rich environ-

ment. Reading Teacher, 42(2), 156-157. Strickland, D. S.. & Morrow, L. M. (1988). Environments rich in print pro-

mote literacy behavior during play. Reading Teachec 434) . 33G331, Strickland, D. S.. & Morrow, L. M. (1989). Environments rich in print pro-

mote literacy behavior during play. Reading Teacher, 178-1 79. Sulzby, E. (1986). Writing and reading: Signs of oral and written language

organization in the young child. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent liiterac)~ (pp. SO-89). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Sykes, G. (1986). Teaching as reflective practice. In K. A. Sirotnik & J. Oakes (Eds.), Critical perspectives on the organization and improvement of schooling (pp. 229-246). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Teale, W. H. (1982). Toward a theory of how children learn to read and write naturally. Language Arts, 59, 555-570.

Teale, W. H. (1986a). The beginnings of reading and writing: Written language development during the preschool and kindergarten years. In M. R. Sampson (Ed.), The pur.suit of literacy: Earlv reading and writing (pp. 1-29). Dubuque, 1A: KendallMurt.

Teale, W. H. (1986b). Home backgrounds and young children's literacy development. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 173-206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Teak, W. H., & Sulzby. E. (l986a). Literacy and schooling. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent lireracv: Writing and reading (pp.). Nor- wood, NJ: Ablex.

Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986b). Introduction: Emergent literacy as a perspective for examining how young children become writers and readers. In W. H. 'Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. vii-xxv). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Teak, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1989). Emergent literacy: New perspectives. In D. S. Strickland & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Young children learn to read and write (pp. 116-138). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Troyer, S. J., & Yopp, H. K. (1990). Kindergarten teachers' knowledge of emergent literacy concepts. Reading Improvement, 27( I ), 3 4 4 0 .

Weir, B. (1989). A research base for prekindergarten literacy programs. The Reading Teacher, 42.456460.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educationul Review, 57, 2 3 4 8 .

APPENDIX Literacy Acquisition Perception Profile (LAPP)

hroduct i on : The purpose of this instrument is to determine teachers' perceptions of children's literacy acquisition. There are no right or wrong reactions to the statements.

Directions: Please read each item carefully. Identify the response (from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) that best represents your feelings about children's literacy acquisition. Circle the number that corresponds to your response.

I (Strongly Disagree) 2 (Disagree) 3 (Undecided) 4 (Agrec?) S (Strongly Agree)

I . I n order to learn to read, a child needs 10 know the letters of the alphabet and the corresponding letter sounds. 1 2 3 4 s Becoming literate is a continuous, developmental process that begins very early in life. 1 2 3 4 s Beginning reading and writing practices exhibited by young children result from direct instruction, 1 2 3 4 s Meaning. rather than phonic cues, should be emphasized during children's early experiences with print. 1 2 3 4 s Beginning reading and writing practices appear naturally in young children with exposure to environmental print. 1 2 3 4 s In order to become literate. young children must be provided with numerous and varied opportunities to read and write. 1 2 3 4 s

2 .

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. Oral reading mistakes should be corrected immediately. 1 2 3 4 s

(Appendix continue.,)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014


(Appendix continued)

1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 (Disagree) 3 (Undecided) 4 (Agree) 5 (Strongly Agree)

8.

9.

10.

1 1.

12.

13.

14.

Repetition of new words will guarantee their inclusion in a child’s sight vocabulary. 1 2 3 4 s

It is the teacher’s responsibility to control the child’s development in becoming a literate individual.

Learning to read is a social process often influenced by children’s search for meaning. 1 2 3 4 5

Learning to read and write involves taking risks.

1 2 3 4 s

1 2 3 4 5

Opportunities for children to engage in reading and writing activities should be provided throughout the day in all areas of the curriculum. I 2 3 4 S

Play is one of the best ways for young children to learn about

Proficiency in the basic reading subskills has to be acquired before

Reading is essentially the mechanical skill of decoding, or turning

The teaching of literacy must be systematic and sequential in

When presented with an unknown word, children should be

written language. 1 2 3 4 5

one can act in a literate way.

printed symbols into sounds that are language.

operation. 1 2 3 4 s

taught to sound it out.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 15.

16.

17. 1 2 3 4 5

18. Root words should be taught to beginning readers prior to inflectional endings. 1 2 3 4 5

19.

20.

Children acquire valuable information regarding written language when engaged in voluntary, spontaneous play. 1 2 3 4 s

Children acquire literacy as a response to printed language in their social environment. 1 2 3 4 5

Call for Papers The editors of Preparing Middle Level Educators: Practicing What We Preach (New

York: Garland Publishing, Inc.) are developing a text to provide instructors and profes- sors of middle-level education with an array of instructional strategies, activities, and assignments for enhancing instruction in middle-level methods courses and inservice programs. The editors are soliciting succinct descriptions (1 to 3 pages) of best practice that had proved successful in teaching middle-level concepts or components.

For a detailed call and complete guidelines, please contact Dr. Samuel Totten, Uni- versity of Arkansas, College of Education, 107A Peabody Hall, Fayetteville, AR 72701; Telephone (501) 575-6677; e-mail: stotten @comp.uark.edu.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

relationships between kindergarten teachers' perceptions of literacy acquisition and...

Documents