# data[].attributes.body
How positive teacher-student relationships affect the students' ability to learn to read

# data[].attributes.body
How am I interacting with my students?

How can I build positive relationships with my students?

How do students learn to read?

How do teacher-student interactions affect student achievement?

# data[].attributes.body
See my list of possible resources here.

# data[].attributes.headline
Read about: Building Positive Teacher-Student Relationships

# data[].attributes.subject
Read about: Building Positive Teacher-Student Relationships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Student-teacher relationships: Why emotional support matters

© 2013 - 2018 Gwen Dewar, Ph.D., all rights reserved

Supportive student-teacher relationships boost achievement, and protect kids from the effects of stress.
But many students don't get the chance to form such bonds. What can we do to help?
Imagine 120 children, six-year-olds seated at computers.

As part of an experiment, the kids are taking a series of cognitive tests.

But the researchers aren't trying to figure out who's smarter. They're trying to find out if student-teacher relationships affect the way kids think.

So the researchers have taken photographs of all the children's teachers. And just before being given a new problem to solve, each child is shown his or her teacher's face.

The image appears only for a split second, a time span so brief the kids aren't even aware of what they've seen. It's subliminal. But it has an effect, because the kids who have close, affectionate teacher relationships -- as opposed to distant ones -- end up solving many problems faster (Ahnert et al 2012).

The correlation holds up even when you compare kids in the same class. So it's not just about differences in curricula or other classroom characteristics.

It seems to be about something more specific, something peculiar to each student-teacher relationship. And there may be long-lasting consequences.

In the weeks that follow, the children -- German kids who've been attending what English-speakers might call "preschool" or "nursery school" -- begin their first year of elementary school.

The researchers wonder. Do the old relationships still matter? Are the new relationships also linked with problem-solving speed?

To answer these questions, Liselotte Anhert and her colleagues test many of the children again, 5-6 months later -- this time with photos of both their old, preschool teachers and their new, primary school ones. What happens?

Subliminal images of supportive preschool teachers still have a positive effect. Images of supportive primary school teachers do not.

The impact of student-teacher relationships

Experiments like these bolster our intuitions. Secure, supportive relationships are especially important for young children, and may have far-reaching consequences.

But what about older kids? The German experiments seem consistent with the idea that the personal equation matters less as children get older. But there are other explanations.

Most of the children in this study had known their preschool teachers for years -- much longer than they had know their primary school teachers. Perhaps kids need more time to feel personally connected.

And here's another possibility: Student-teacher relationships, even friendly, supportive ones, tend to assume a less nurturing, less physical aspect as kids move from preschool to primary school. Might kids suffer for it? Given what's known about the benefits of affectionate touch, it seems plausible.

But regardless of how we account for these "speed-of-problem-solving" results, we should keep in mind:

Secure, supportive student-teacher relationships are linked with a variety of beneficial effects, and these continue beyond preschool.
How supportive teachers protect kids from stress
For instance, the same researchers who conducted the "subliminal teacher" experiments also measured children's stress hormone levels.

The researchers analyzed daily fluctuations of the hormone, cortisol, as the children went through a typical week in elementary school. They learned that most kids began the school week with fairly normal stress hormone profiles, but showed increasingly atypical patterns as the week progressed -- a sign that these kids were under strain.

By contrast, a subset of children -- kids in supportive, secure student-teacher relationships -- maintained normal stress hormone patterns throughout the week (Anhert et al 2012).

That suggests that positive relationships have a measurable impact in the short-term, even among elementary school children. And there is more.

Kids who experience high quality student-teacher relationships in the early years tend to have fewer behavior problems later on (Hamre and Piata 2001; Rudasill et al 2010).

They show more engagement in the classroom (Wu et al 2010; Hughes et al 2012), and develop better language skills (Spilt et al 2015; Schmitt et al 2012; Maldonado-Carreño and Votruba-Drzal 2011).

There's also evidence that supportive student-teacher relationships influence the way kids get treated by peers.

In a study of 336 American school children, kids who were actively rejected by their peers at the beginning of the school year experienced less bullying later on -- if they had better-than-average relationships with their teachers (Christian Elledge et al 2015).

Can we attribute all these happy outcomes to student-teacher relationships? Not necessarily. Teachers are human beings like the rest of us. They find it easier to maintain positive relationships with kids who are cooperative, attentive, socially adept.

Moreover, kids with strong verbal skills and high levels of self-control are more likely to succeed in both the social and academic domains.

So we can't assume that positive student-teacher relationships cause better classroom engagement or fewer behavior problems. Sometimes it's the other way around.

But researchers are well aware of these complexities, and try to take them into account.

Student-teacher relationships in the early years have predicted outcomes later on, even after researchers control for relevant baseline child characteristics like attention deficits, defiance, socioeconomic status, and IQ (Hamre and Piata 2001; Rudasill et al 2010; Wu et al 2010; Hughes et al 2012).

Furthermore, kids who struggle aren't doomed to poor outcomes. When teachers maintain supportive relationships with students at special risk for behavior problems, those kids improve over time.
The takeaway?
In fact, studies suggest that "at risk" students are more likely than other kids to benefit from supportive student-teacher relationships.

It's hard to escape the implications of these studies. Positive student-teacher relationships can protect students from toxic stress. They may forestall behavior problems, enhance a child's academic prospects, buffer kids from the risk of peer victimization.

And the benefits don't dwindle away as children grow up. On the contrary.

In a meta-analysis of 99 published studies, investigators found that, relative to older students, kids in primary school suffered more setbacks when student-teacher relationships were negative. But positive relationships were particularly beneficial to older students, and overall, "stronger effects were found in higher grades" (Roorda et al 2011).

Indeed, in one large study of American teens, the single most important school-based predictor of academic growth in mathematics -- from the 8th to 12th grades -- was a student's perception of "connectedness" with his or her teachers (Gregory and Weinstein 2004).

So how do we ensure that kids develop these crucial, supportive relationships?

The fact is that all students don't get equal treatment. They don't get an equal opportunity to forge close, supportive relationships with their teachers.

That's because teachers are human beings subject to stresses and strain. They sometimes lack training in the best ways to handle discipline. And teachers, like the rest of us, suffer from unconscious biases that affect the way they respond to kids.

So we need to get serious about helping teachers and students overcome these barriers. Let's take a closer look at the problems.

1. We need to help teachers cope with job stress

Building positive student-teacher relationships requires patience and good humor -- qualities that tend to fizzle out when you're feeling stressed. And unfortunately, teaching is a stressful profession.

For instance, in the United States, a recent study of an urban, Midwestern school district found that 93% of elementary teachers were "highly stressed," and one third of these teachers were experiencing moderate to high levels of burnout (Herman et al 2018).

Similarly, a cross-sectional survey of school teachers in the United Kingdom found that "psychosocial working conditions were at a poor level" for teachers in general (Ravalier and Walsh 2018).

So if we want to help teachers develop positive relationships with their students, we need to address sources of job stress, like poor administrative support, poor teacher-parent communication, and insufficient funding.

In a large U.S. study, positive student-teacher relationships were more common for kids who had parents who stayed in frequent contact with teachers. In addition, e lementary school students were more likely to maintain positive teacher relationships over time when their teachers received higher salaries (O'Connor 2010).

2. We need to provide teachers with specialized training for coping with defiance and disruptive classroom behavior.

It's clear that teachers need and deserve professional guidance for handling classroom conflicts in positive ways. When experts in the Netherlands and the United States have offered such specialized training, student-teacher relationships have improved (Spilt et al 2012b; Capella et al 2012).

3. Schools need to promote practices that make students feel supported and encouraged, not embarrassed and shamed.

There is good evidence on this point: Teachers should use positive, constructive feedback, and avoid personal criticism that shames, demeans, or belittles students.

For example, in recent experiments, British children (aged 7-11 years) were presented with two different kinds of teacher criticism.

One involved personal criticism (e.g.,"I'm disappointed in you.")

The other was focused on the behavior that the teacher wanted to correct ("Can you think of a better way to do it?")
The kids who received personal criticism concluded that their teachers liked them less, and the experience cast a long shadow: Even after success in a subsequent task, the kids continued to view their student-teacher relationship in a negative light.

Did the type of approach matter? It seems to have made a difference to children's perceptions (Skipper and Douglas 2015).

Such results are consistent with studies of younger children. Certain types of criticism can sap motivation, leaving kids feeling disheartened, frustrated, or helpless.

And as I've argued elsewhere, classroom behavior charts -- and other disciplinary techniques that publicly embarrass children -- might also have this effect.

Do these techniques undermine student-teacher relationships?

I can't find any studies addressing this for children. But studies of college undergraduates confirm that antagonistic teacher behaviors -- like embarrassing students, or dismissing their contributions -- turn students off.

They respond more negatively to teachers, and become less engaged in the material. And these effects are evident even when students aren't themselves the target of a teacher's antagonism. Observing the embarrassment of other students is enough (Broeckelman-Post et al 2015; Goodboy et al 2018).

4. We need to train teachers to identify and counteract biases

Teachers are merely human. So like the rest of us, they harbor social biases they've absorbed from the popular culture -- stereotypes that can creep into our thinking whether or not we're consciously aware of it.

And unfortunately, these implicit biases can give rise to stark inequalities in how students are treated.

For example, Jason Okonofua and his colleagues have documented "extreme racial disparities in school disciplinary action in the United States," and the researchers have confirmed one important cause: Teachers tend to perceive the misbehavior of Black students as more troubling (Okonofua et al 2016b).

In experiments, teachers who were asked to make judgments about hypothetical students were more likely to recommend severe punishment for repeat offenders who were Black, rather than White (Okonofua and Eberhardt 2015).

The descriptions of the students -- and their classroom behavior -- was identical. Only their racial identities were different, and that was enough to trigger biased reactions in the teachers.

Children may also be treated differently depending on other factors, like socioeconomic status. For instance, a recent experiment in Switzerland found that teachers were more likely to assign students of lower socioeconomic status to lower academic tracks -- even when their academic records were identical with those of high socioeconomic status students (Batruch et al 2018).

So social biases can create major barriers to the development of quality student-teacher relationships. How can we fix the problem, and address this fundamental unfairness?

The good news is that implicit biases don't have to dictate how we behave. They merely represent our knee-jerk reactions -- the conclusions that our unconscious minds jump to before we use our deliberative, conscious minds to mull the question over.

So we can override our knee-jerk reactions, but we have to actively monitor ourselves, and make a practice of questioning our initial reactions.

Then what? We need to practice empathy, and take a constructive problem-solving approach to perceived misbehavior.

When Jason Okonofua and his colleagues coached middle school teachers to replace punitive discipline policies with empathy and problem solving, student-teacher relationships improved. And school suspension rates were cut in half (Okonofua et al 2016a).

Employing the principles of "positive parenting" in the classroom can help ensure that every child gets the support he or she deserves.

5. We need to help teachers bridge the culture gap

Sometimes students and teachers come from the same cultural background. But often they don't, and that can affect the quality of communication.

For instance, people from different cultures express emotion in somewhat different ways, and it can lead to missed signals.

When researchers compared Turkish immigrant teachers with native Dutch teachers, they found that Turkish immigrant teachers were more likely to detect anxiety and depression in Turkish immigrant children. Native Dutch teachers didn't pick up on the same cues (Crijnen et al 2000).

And cultural differences can affect the way we use and interpret language, leading to fundamental misunderstandings. Writing about the United States in 1988, educational researcher Lisa Delpit noted that the White American teachers she observed addressed their students in a roundabout way. Verbal directives were couched as suggestions or questions, like, "Is this where the scissors belong?"

By contrast, Delpit wrote, many Black American teachers stated the message more directly, (e.g., "Put those scissors on that shelf,") and the difference may have had important consequences.

Kids who'd been raised to respond to explicit directives may not have recognized a teacher's question for what it really was - a veiled command. Kids accustomed to indirect commands may have interpreted imperative language ("Do this") as harsh or angry. Either way, there was potential for misunderstanding and trouble.

So we need to realize that teaching isn't as straightforward as it may seem. Teachers need to tune into the cultural assumptions of their students, and parents need to communicate with teachers about misunderstandings they perceive. Taking the time and effort to learn about cultural differences isn't a frill. It's crucial to successful education.

And what should we do when a relationship just isn't working?

When -- despite our best efforts -- relationships don't improve, I think we're justified in considering the option of classroom re-assignment. For some kids, there is lot at stake.

And for the rest of us, it's time to reconsider the way our schools are organized.

For example, is early education too regimented for naturally restless young children? Especially young boys?

During the early years of schooling, girls outperform boys in attentiveness, task persistence, impulse control, and social skills (McWayne et al 2004; Rimm-Kaufman et al 2009). As a result, girls may find it easier to adapt to school, which could explain why girls are more likely to forge high quality relationships with teachers (Mulolla et al 2012).

Do we simply accept this as the way of the world, or do we decide to change the nature of early schooling so that it's easier for young children to cooperate and follow the rules?

And what about school policies that prevent teachers from offering physical reassurance to their students -- like a pat on the shoulder? Do such rules interfere with the development of quality student-teacher relationships?

What about the expectations of mainstream, secondary schools -- where students are bustled from classroom to classroom, rarely getting the chance to develop personal relationships with their teachers? Are we depriving students an important source of motivation and resilience?

These are questions worth asking.

References: Student-teacher relationships

Barber BK and Olsen JA. 2004. Assessing the transitions to middle and high school. Journal of Adolescent Research. 19:3-30.

Batruch A, Autin F, Bataillard F, and Butera F. 2018. School Selection and the Social Class Divide: How Tracking Contributes to the Reproduction of Inequalities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Broeckelman-Post MA, Tacconelli A, Guzmán J, Rios M, Calero B and Latif F. 2016. Teacher Misbehavior and its Effects on Student Interest and Engagement Communication Education, 65(2): 204-212 2016.

Christian Elledge L, Elledge AR, Newgent RA, and Cavell TA. 2015. Social Risk and Peer Victimization in Elementary School Children: The Protective Role of Teacher-Student Relationships. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2015 Sep 4. [Epub ahead of print]

de Wilde A, Koot HM, and van Lier PA. 2015. Developmental Links Between Children's Working Memory and their Social Relations with Teachers and Peers in the Early School Years. J Abnorm Child Psychol . [ Epub ahead of print].

Delpit LD. 1988. The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review 58(3): p.280.

Goodboy AK, Bolkan S, and & Baker JP. 2018. Instructor misbehaviors impede students' cognitive learning: testing the causal assumption. Communication Education DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2018.1465192

Gregory A and Weinstein RS. 2004. Connection and Regulation at Home and in School: Predicting Growth in Achievement for Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research 19(4): 405-427.

Hamre BK and Pianta RC. 2006. Student-teacher relationships. In: Bear GC, Minke KM, editors. Children's needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention. National Association of School Psychologists; Washington, DC, pp. 59-71.

Hamre BK and Pianta RC . 2001. Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Dev. 72(2):625-38.

Herman KC, Hickmon-Rosa J, Reinke WM. 2017. Empirically Derived Profiles of Teacher Stress, Burnout, Self-Efficacy, and Coping and Associated Student Outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 20 (2): 90.

Maldonado-Carreño C and Votruba-Drzal E . 2011. Teacher-child relationships and the development of academic and behavioral skills during elementary school: a within- and between-child analysis. Child Dev. 82(2):601-16.

Mullola S , Ravaja N , Lipsanen J , Alatupa S , Hintsanen M , Jokela M , and Keltikangas-Järvinen L . 2012. Gender differences in teachers' perceptions of students' temperament, educational competence, and teachability. Br J Educ Psychol. 82(Pt 2):185-206.

O'Connor E . 2010. Teacher-child relationships as dynamic systems. J Sch Psychol. 48(3):187-218.

Okonofua JA and Eberhardt JL. 2015. Two strikes: race and the disciplining of young students. Psychol Sci. 2015 May;26(5):617-24.

Okonofua JA, Paunesku D, Walton GM. 2016a. Brief intervention to encourage empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 113(19):5221-6

Okonofua JA, Walton GM, Eberhardt JL. 2016b. A Vicious Cycle: A Social-Psychological Account of Extreme Racial Disparities in School Discipline Perspect Psychol Sci. 11(3):381-98.

Ravalier JM and Walsh J. 2018. Working conditions and stress in the English education system. Occup Med (Lond). 68(2):129-134.

Roorda DL, Koomen HMY, Spilt, JL, and Oort FJ. 2011 The Influence of Affective Teacher-Student Relationships on Students' School Engagement and Achievement. Review of Educational Research 81 (4): 493-529.

Saft EW and Pianta RC. 2001. Teachers' perceptions of their relationships with student: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly 16:125-141.

Schmitt MB, Pentimonti JM, and Justice LM. 2012. Teacher-child relationships, behavior regulation, and language gain among at-risk preschoolers. J Sch Psychol. 50(5):681-99.

Skalická V, Belsky J, Stenseng F, and Wichstrøm L. 2015a. Preschool-age problem behavior and teacher-child conflict in school: direct and moderation effects by preschool organization. Child Dev. 86(3):955-64.

Spilt JL, Koomen HM, Harrison LJ. 2015. Language development in the early school years: the importance of close relationships with teachers. Dev Psychol. 51(2):185-96.

Vancraeyveldt C, Verschueren K, Wouters S, Van Craeyevelt S, Van den Noortgate W, and Colpin H. 2015. Improving teacher-child relationship quality and teacher-rated behavioral adjustment amongst externalizing preschoolers: effects of a two-component intervention. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 43(2 ):243-57.
Image of children in computer lab by monkeybusinessimages Image of student-teacher hug by Julio Nohara / wikimedia commons Image of high school teacher and student by monkeybusinessimages Image of pensive boy by Charmaineswart / wikimedia commons Image of students at blackboard by Masae / wikimedia commons

Wu JY, Hughes JN, and Kwok OM. 2010. Teacher-student relationship quality type in elementary grades: Effects on trajectories for achievement and engagement. J Sch Psychol. 48(5):357-87.

Title image of teacher surrounded by young children by Jani Bryson / istock

Content last modified 5/2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student-teacher relationships: Why emotional support matters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
© 2013 - 2018 Gwen Dewar, Ph.D., all rights reserved Supportive student-teacher relationships boost achievement, and protect kids from the effects of stress. But many students don't get the chance to form such bonds. What can we do to help? Imagine 120 children, six-year-olds seated at computers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Understanding how sounds are connected to print

In an English alphabetic system, the individual letters on the page are abstract and meaningless, in and of themselves. They must eventually be linked to equally abstract sounds called phonemes, blended together and pronounced as words, where meaning is finally realized.

To learn to read English, the child must figure out the relationship between sounds and letters. Thus, the beginning reader must learn the connections between the approximately 44 sounds of spoken English (the phonemes), and the 26 letters of the alphabet.

What our NICHD research has taught us is that in order for a beginning reader to learn how to connect or translate printed symbols (letters and letter patterns) into sound, the would-be reader must understand that our speech can be segmented or broken into small sounds (phoneme awareness) and that the segmented units of speech can be represented by printed forms (phonics). This understanding that written spellings systematically represent the phonemes of spoken words (termed the alphabetic principle) is absolutely necessary for the development of accurate and rapid word reading skills.

Why are phoneme awareness and the development of the alphabetic principle so critical for the beginning reader? Because if children cannot perceive the sounds in spoken words – for example, if they cannot "hear" the at sound in fat and cat and perceive that the difference lies in the first sound, they will have difficulty decoding or "sounding out" words in a rapid and accurate fashion.

This awareness of the sound structure of our language seems so easy and commonplace that we take it for granted. But many children do not develop phoneme awareness, and for some interesting reasons that we are now beginning to understand.

From the NICHD studies that were initiated in 1965 to understand how the reading process develops, we now have strong evidence that it is not the ear that understands that a spoken word like cat is divided into three sounds and that these discrete sounds can be linked to the letters C-A-T.

Rather, we know it is the language systems in the brain that performs this function. In some youngsters, the brain seems to have an easy time processing this type of information.

However, in many children that skill is only learned with difficulty, and thus must be taught directly, explicitly, and by a well-prepared and informed teacher.

It also has become clear that the development of these critical early reading-related skills, such as phoneme awareness and phonics, are fostered when children are read to at home during the preschool years, when they learn their letter and number names, and when they are introduced at very early ages to concepts of print and literacy activities.

Does this mean that children who have a difficulty understanding that spoken words are composed of discrete individual sounds that can be linked to letters suffer from brain dysfunction or damage? Not at all.

It simply means that the neural systems that perceive the phonemes in our language are less efficient in these children than in other children.

The development of phoneme awareness, the development of an understanding of the alphabetic principle, and the translation of these skills to the application of phonics in reading and spelling words are non-negotiable beginning reading skills that all children must master in order to understand what they read and to learn from their reading sessions.

But the development of phoneme awareness and phonics, while necessary, are not sufficient for learning to read the English language so that meaning can be derived from print. In addition to learning how to "sound out" new and/or unfamiliar words, the beginning reader must eventually become proficient in reading at a fast pace larger units of print such as syllable patterns, meaningful roots, suffixes, and whole words.

The development of reading fluency

While the ability to read words accurately is a necessary skill in learning to read, the speed at which this is done becomes a critical factor in ensuring that children understand what they read.

Children vary in the amount of practice that is required for fluency and automaticity in reading to occur. Some youngsters can read a word only once to recognize it again with greater speed; others need 20 or more exposures. The average child needs between four and 14 exposures to automatize the recognition of a new word.

Therefore, in learning to read, it is vital that children read a large amount of text at their independent reading level (with 95 percent accuracy), and that the text provide specific practice in the skills being learned.

It is also important to note that spelling instruction fosters the development of reading fluency. Through spelling instruction, youngsters receive many examples of how letters represent the sounds of speech and also alert the young reader to the fact that written words are made up of larger units of print (like syllables). This insight lets the developing reader know that word recognition can be accomplished by reading words in larger "chunks" rather than letter-by-letter.

Constructing meaning from print

The ultimate goal of reading instruction is to enable children to understand what they read.

The ability to understand what is read appears to be based on several factors. Children who comprehend well, seem to be able to activate their relevant background knowledge when reading – that is, they can relate what is on the page to what they already know.

Good comprehenders also must have good vocabularies, since it is extremely difficult to understand something you can not define.

Good comprehenders also have a knack for summarizing, predicting, and clarifying what they have read, and they frequently use questions to guide their understanding.

Good comprehenders are also facile in employing the sentence structure within the text to enhance their comprehension.

In general, if children can read the words on a page accurately and fluently, they will be able to construct meaning at two levels. At the first level, literal understanding is achieved. However, constructing meaning requires far more than literal comprehension.

The children must eventually actively guide themselves through text by asking questions like, "Why am I reading this and how does this information relate to my reasons for doing so?," "What is the author's point of view?," "Do I understand what the author is saying and why?," "Is the text internally consistent?," and so on. It is this second level of comprehension that leads readers to reflective, purposeful understanding of the meaning of what they have read.

The development of reading comprehension skills, like the development of phoneme awareness, phonics, and reading fluency, needs to be fostered by highly trained teachers.

Recent research shows that the teacher must arrange for opportunities for students to discuss the highlights of what they have read and any difficulties they have had when reading.

Children's reflections on what they have read can also be directly fostered through instruction in comprehension strategies. These sorts of discussions and activities should be conducted throughout a range of literacy genres, both fiction and nonfiction, and should be a regular component of the language arts curriculum throughout the children's school years.

Other factors that influence learning to read

Our research continues to converge on the following findings.

Good readers are phonemically aware, understand the alphabetic principle, can apply these skills to the development and application of phonics skills when reading and spelling words, and can accomplish these applications in a fluent and accurate manner.

Given the ability to rapidly and automatically decode and recognize words, good readers bring strong vocabularies and good syntactic and grammatical skills to the reading comprehension process, and actively relate what is being read to their own background knowledge via a variety of strategies.

But what factors can provide a firm foundation for these skills to develop?

It is clear from research on emerging literacy that learning to read is a relatively lengthy process that begins very early in development and clearly before children enter formal schooling.

Children who receive stimulating literacy experiences from birth onward appear to have an edge when it comes to vocabulary development, understanding the goals of reading, and developing an awareness of print and literacy concepts.

Children who are read to frequently at very young ages become exposed in interesting and exciting ways to the sounds of our language, to the concept of rhyming, and to other word and language play activities that serve to provide the foundation for the development of phoneme awareness.

As children are exposed to literacy activities at young ages, they begin to recognize and discriminate letters. Without a doubt, children who have learned to recognize and print most letters as preschoolers will have less to learn upon school entry. The learning of letter names is also important because the names of many letters contain the sounds they most often represent, thus orienting youngsters early to the alphabetic principle or how letters and sounds connect.

Ultimately, children's ability to understand what they are reading is inextricably linked to their background knowledge. Very young children who are provided opportunities to learn, think, and talk about new areas of knowledge will gain much from the reading process. With understanding comes the clear desire to read more and to read frequently, ensuring that reading practice takes place.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an English alphabetic system, the individual letters on the page are abstract and meaningless, in and of themselves. They must eventually be linked to equally abstract sounds called phonemes, blended together and pronounced as words, where meaning is finally realized. To learn to read English, the child must figure out the relationship between sounds and letters.

# data[].attributes.headline
Read about: Teaching Preschoolers to Read

# data[].attributes.subject
Read about: Teaching Preschoolers to Read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
teaching methods; learning; young children; reading; writing skills; academic achievement; no child left behind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching Our Youngest: A Guide for Preschool Teachers & Child Care & Family Providers - Index-- Pg 5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is the index page for the publication,