Abstracts
Brown,
M.H. Cromer, P.S. & Weinberg, S.H. (1986). Shared book experience in
kindergarten: helping children come to literacy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,1, (4), 397-405.
The purpose of this study was to determine if exposure to repeated shared
book experience Kindergarten would improve their reading readiness for first
grade reading instruction. The
subjects included in this study were the 1983-1984 Kindergarten class in a small
rural public school in South Carolina. The
experimental group consisted of 228 students of which 72% qualified for free or
reduced lunch. The racial make up
of the experimental group consisted of 70% black and 30% white.
The class was 53% male and 47% female.
The control group consisted of the 1982-1983 Kindergarten class at the
same school. This class had 269
students of which 80% qualified for free or reduced lunch and the racial make up
was 75% black and 25% white. The
class was 49.6% male and 50.4% female. The
researchers decided that both groups were equal because the demographics did not
change in those two years and there was no group IQ test administered to either
class. The teachers were the same
in both years and all but one aide remained the same.
The teachers, aides and the administrators had three workshops of
planning prior to the start of this study.
The study was conducted during a four month period from February to May.
The books that were selected for the shared reading experience included The
Three Billy Goats Gruff, The
Gingerbread Man and The Three Little
Pigs. Each student had eight
personal readings of each of the three books during the four month study.
In
the shared book experience there would be two to three students who sit close
enough to the book so they can see the print.
The stories were read by volunteers, building principals and fifth grade
students. In the eight reading
sessions two of the sessions were read in a small group, two sessions the
students heard the book on tape and in the last four sessions the teacher or the
aide read the story to the students. The
students also had their own copy of the story and a big book copy was also
available for the students to read. Classroom
activities were based around the story. Activities
included art, drama, retellings, singing songs, science, cooking and math.
The
data was collected in September of 1984 when these Kindergarten students entered
first grade and four months after the study had ended.
The students were individually tested on South Carolina's mandated
test, Cognitive Skills Assessment Battery which is administered the first three
weeks of first grade. This test
provides a systematic assessment of the Kindergarten competencies.
The Department of Education only reports the student's trial and group
scores therefore limiting the range of statistical analysis.
Children who score below an 88 on the test are labeled not ready for
first grade. After the treatment
the control group had 73% above the cut off mark while the experimental group
had 83% above the cut off mark. When
the scores were broken down further they revealed that readiness for boys
increased 17% and the girls increased 7%. The
increase in readiness among black children rose 12% and low income children
increased by 13%. When the
researchers analyzed the test by objectives gains were made in 7 out of 12
categories with the greatest gains in the areas of auditory memory and listening
skills.
Shared
book experience is a successful model of literacy development especially in
rural low income populations. This
type of experience makes an impact on readiness especially among the male
population which tends to be at a high risk for failure and lack of prior shared
book experience at home. Children
who perform poorly on the readiness tests in first grade lack the necessary
information needed to learn the reading strategies that are taught in first
grade. The shared book experience
broadens a child's literacy interests because different types of books are
selected for the reading experience. Through
teacher observations the teachers notice the children are more in tune about
print and take part of the literacy events unfolding in front of them.
The shared book experience provides a tool needed for the development of
a child's literacy development and competence.
Copenhaver,
J.F.(2001). Running out of time: rushed read-alouds in a primary classroom.
Language Arts, 79, 148-158.
In today's busy and hurried lifestyle and curriculum that is time
driven and mandated how do teachers make time for read alouds and student driven
dialogue? This problem arose during
Copenhaver's own time spent with her daughter and decided to research this
problem in the classroom.. She wanted to explore the implicit and explicit
expectations of children's talk during reading aloud time.
The teacher she
decided to observe was known
for her rich literature discussions and valued the children's voice but was
“forced” to stick to the time constraints of a skills based reading program.
Copenhaver spent three and half days a week for a year in a multiethnic
class of 20 students in a medium size southern town.
She collected her data through observations and conversations transcribed
in 44 read-aloud sessions. In order
to make unbiased opinions about the students and to fully understand the meaning
of the children's actions and words Copenhaver met with the parents and
visited their homes to observe family interactions and literacy practices.
After these meetings she began documenting her observations.
Since the school
mandated the “skills” based reading instruction program the teacher had to
cut short her allotted time for read-alouds. This resulted in the teacher using comprehension style
questions to elicit brief comments. Copenhaver
categorized the children's responses into two categories, validated and
invalidated. Validated responses
were characterized by the teacher's behavior that included repeating the child
's comment in an affirmative tone, making affirmative remarks and writing
their responses on chart paper. Invalidated
responses were characterized by the teacher reading on as if the comment was not
made, selective hearing in which she ignored the comment if it was called out
and then call on someone who had their hand up.
Since the teacher was tight
on time the comments were required to be on topic and related to the story.
The teacher adopted an efferent stance to literature and this prohibited
the students' wonderings, musing and grand conversations.
Also a group of five children stood out amongst their peers for their
behavior during read-aloud time. Copenhaver
noted that these five received more negative responses than the rest of their
peers.
From Copenhaver's
research we discovered that teachers inhibit the student's responses when the
teacher is hurried or tied to time constraints.
The teachable moment is lost due to the need to move on.
When teachers are rushed limitations are placed on the read-aloud
experience which could possibly encourage a negative attitude towards reading
and foster a sense of a lost voice for the children.
A rushed read-aloud experience has an affect on all children especially
the borderline children as seen in Copenhaver's study.
A read-aloud event is an event that all children can be active
participants. Children learn to
listen, discuss, debate and wonder during these sessions which is discouraged
when we try to hurry through the experience in order to get to the next class.
As educators we want them to become critical thinkers and readers so we
must allow them that experience to listen, react and ponder out loud.
Sipe,
L. R. (2000). The construction of literacy understanding by first and second
graders in oral response to picture storybook read- alouds. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 252-276.
The purpose of Sipe's research was to find out the nature of literary
understanding of a class of first and second graders as indicated by their
verbal responses during storybook read - alouds.
The
study was conducted over a 7 month period in a working class community in a
large Midwestern city. The class
consisted of 27 students, with one moving away during the study, of which there
were 18 first graders and 9 second grade students. There were 15 boys and 12 girls in the class.
The ethnic make up of the class consisted of 23 who were of European
American ethnicity; 3 were African American, 1 was Native American and 8 had
Appalachian heritage. Seven of these students received free or reduced lunch and
nine children were pulled out for remedial reading support.
Sipe collected data through observational notes of classroom
routines and teacher interactions with children, storybook read- alouds that were
divided into three genres: fairy and folk tales, contemporary realistic fiction
and contemporary fantasies. He also
collected data from the student's verbal responses during large group read- alouds, small group read-alouds and one-to -one read-alouds.
Data
was analyzed by using a three fold process of open coding, axial coding and
selective coding as described by Strauss and Corbin's basics of qualitative
research in 1990. In open coding,
codes were assigned between the part-to-whole reasoning and the whole-to-part
reasoning. In axial coding, the connection between categories and its
subcategories were organized and 5 broad categories emerged that were used to
describe the student's responses and literary understanding. From these categories selective coding could begin and were
related to the student's literary stances and actions .
The
five categories of literary understanding that emerged from the coding were
analytical, intertextual, personal, transparent and performative. The
student's stance and action were grouped by how children situate themselves in
relation to the texts, what children do with the texts and how texts function.
The
results of Sipe's findings were that all 5 categories and 3 stances were a
part of the student's verbal responses. There
were more analytical responses made than performative and transparent.
Sipe had noted that sometimes it is difficult to pinpoint one stance or
category over another because they can overlap.
It is also difficult because one stance can be much more obvious than
another.
After
doing the research on literary understanding from read-alouds students did make
various responses to the different levels of literary understanding.
In this particular classroom the students were encouraged to talk during
the read-alouds which allowed them to make connections with their text and their
own experiences. During these read-alouds sessions children were engaged in the
process of asking questions, debating possible answers and looking for
solutions. Read-alouds provided a
potentially rich environment to develop literary understanding.
There is much research available on storybook read-alouds but the
research on the literary understanding of these read-alouds can be more
complete.
Morrow,
L.M. (1988). Young children's responses to one to one story readings in school
settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, (1), 89-107.
This study was designed to study the effects of
one-to -one storybook readings with children from lower socio-economic classes.
Through these frequent story readings the researcher wanted to see if the
students questions and comments increased in complexity as time went on.
There were 79 subjects from three different day care centers.
The maximum family income was $10,000.
The subjects came from mainly single parent homes who read to them once a
month or less. The subjects were
divided into two experimental groups and a control group.
There were 27 children in experimental group one, 25 children in
experimental group two and there were 27 children in the control group.
The materials that were used during the study were 10 illustrated
storybooks. One of the storybooks
was used as an example and the other nine were used during the treatment read-alouds. The storybooks were
selected based on a predetermines set of criteria that was established by the
researcher before the study began. All
the children who participated in the study were given the TOBE II Language Test
of Basic Experience before the study began to establish the ability levels of
the participants.
The Research Assistants conducting the study were given two
training sessions at the beginning in order to familiarize themselves with the
guidelines for reading to the students and the prompts they were to use during
the discussions. They were also provided with a set of guidelines on how to
interact with the children during the read-alouds. They also had practice sessions with children that was
monitored. The Research Assistants
of the control group received a separate training session from the other groups
and they were provided with the reading readiness manuals and workbooks during
their training. The three groups of
children met once a week for 10 weeks. The
first week was a “getting to know you week” so the children would feel
comfortable with the assistants and everyone listened to the same story.
When the study began the experimental groups were divided into 2 separate
groups. The first group, group one
was the “different book group” and these students were read a different
story at each meeting of a total of nine stories.
The second group, group two, was the “repeated book” group which were
read three books for nine weeks. Each
book was repeated three times. Book
two was read during weeks numbered 2,5 and 8.
Book three was read during weeks 3,6 and 9 and book four was read weeks
4,7 and 10. The purpose of the repeated reading group was to assess the
students' comments and questions and to see how they developed over time.
Their post test book was not a new story.
The control group did reading readiness tasks except during week 2 and
week 10 because they needed to be read books 2 and 10 for their pre and post
test assessment scores. Each read
aloud session lasted 15 minutes and all story reading were taped for analysis at
a later time. The second and test
story reads were used for the pre and post test scores.
The children were encouraged to talk about the story but the research
assistant's responses were limited.
The researcher listened to the tapes and analyzed the
responses by putting them into different categories.
The categories were focus on story structure, meaning and the print and
illustrations. The researchers assistant that were not involved in the
reading listened to the tapes and coded the comments.
If a response could fit in two categories it was placed in each category
but only counted once in the total number of comments or questions that were
made. The research assistants who
were the scorers also were given practice sessions on how to score the test
before doing so.
There was a significant difference found in the total number
or questions asked. Both
experimental groups asked more questions than the control group.
The different book group (group 1) asked more than the repeated reading
group(group 2). There was also a
significant difference found in the total comments made.
Both experimental groups commented more than the control group but the
repeated reading group had made more comments than the different book group.
In the total number of questions and comments that were made both
experimental groups scored higher than the control group but the repeated
reading group had more of both types of responses than the different book group.
The scores were further analyzed into more separate categories such as
meaning, story structure, print and illustrations.
In the meaning subcategory both experimental groups scored higher than
the control group. In the area of
drawing on one's experience and details the different book group scored
highest. In interpreting the
repeated reading scored the highest and in the types of responses( narrative,
predictive) the repeated reading scored the highest.
In the area of labeling the different book group scored higher and they
found no difference with the control group and the repeated reading. In the subcategory of story structure the repeated reading
group had more responses than the different book group and they had more
responses than the control group. In
the print subcategory the repeated reading scored
higher than the different book group which did not differ from the
control group. In the illustrations
subcategory the different book group had more responses then the repeated
reading which had more responses than the control. The researchers also analyzed the interactions of the teacher
from session 2 and session 10. They
found that the teachers used less managing behavior at the end of the treatment
than at the beginning. The
interactions of the teachers in the control group stayed the same. The study also found that the teachers used less prompting
over time but there was no change in the control group. The teachers of both experimental groups used more supporting
and informing comments than the teachers of the control group.
From the results of this study the students increased their verbal skills
by participating more often and using more complex language.
The students of the experimental groups asked more questions and made
more comments than the control group. In
particular group one, the different book group, asked more questions where as
group two made more comments. This
might be attributed to the fact that group one was always read an unfamiliar
book and group two had heard the story already and that could lead to a broader
variety of comments. Students are
more intrigued about the story meaning than the structure and instruction should
be focused around the meaning making. Teachers
needs to accommodate the children's needs for discussions on an interpretative
level instead of just relaying on the literal level of comprehension.
Volunteers, aides and older students acting as Buddy readers can help a
classroom teacher to promote one-to -one storybook reading.
It is imperative to stress to parents the importance of reading aloud to
their child at home because of all the benefits that they will be receiving form
that experience.
Morrow,
L.M. & Smith, J.K. (1990). The effects of group size on interactive
storybook reading. Reading Research
Quarterly,25, (3), 213-231.
The purpose of the study was to find out the most beneficial setting for
storybook reading. Would it be
whole class, small groups or one-to-one setting? The
differences that the researchers were looking for would be the dialogue between
the children and the teacher and would these differences help the students in
their story comprehension as assessed through probed recall and in story
retelling (free recall).
There were 27 research assistants and 27 students.
They used 27 Kindergarten and first grade classrooms from five different
middle class school districts. There
was 1 child from each class who was randomly selected to be in all three group
settings. There were 14 boys and 13
girls who were selected. These
children were the only ones picked to read with the research assistant in the
one-to-one setting. The small group
setting was randomly selected a boy and girl from each class who joined the
child who was selected for the one-to-one reading.
The same three children participated each time the story was read in a
small group. In the whole group
setting the entire class listened to the story together.
The materials that were selected included nine storybooks.
Six of the books were used for the treatment sessions and 3 of them were
used in the last three sessions in which the measurements were given. A different book was read to each setting during the
measurement part of the read aloud session.
The storybooks were selected on a certain criteria established by the
researchers before the study began. Comprehension
questions were designed to be used in the probed recall measure.
The questions included eight story
structure questions, which included setting, theme, plot events and resolutions.
The eight traditional comprehension questions included questions asking
for literal, inferential and critical ideas.
The research assistants were given training and a practice
session prior to the start of the study. When
the study began all 27 subjects listened to three stories in a one-to-one
setting, three stories in a small group setting and three stories in the whole
group setting. The third reading of
each story was taped for analyzing later. Guidelines
were established for the adults in regards to their behavior and interactions
during the storybook reading. The
guidelines were divided into three categories, managing, prompting and
supporting and informing. In the
managing interaction the assistant introduced the story and kept the student
discussions focused on the story. In
the prompting interaction the assistant invited students to question and comment
and provided the students with the necessary scaffolding when needed. I n the
supporting and informing interaction the teacher answered questions, related
responses to personal experiences and gave positive reinforcements for their
comments. When the story was
finished the research assistant went
back to the beginning of the book and had the students share and comment on the
story. After each reading the research assistant used the probed and
recall questions for each subject. They
asked 16 comprehension questions and in the free recall the subjects had to
retell the story. In the first six
readings the assistant guided the story retelling because some students were not
familiar with the retelling process. In
the last three testing sessions the students were not helped in their retelling.
The probed and free recall questions were scored by four main
categories, the children's verbal behaviors, the adults' verbal behavior,
the children's probed recall and the children's free recall. The
children's verbal behavior was coded into four major categories, focus on
story structure, focus on meaning, focus on print and focus on illustrations.
Questions and comments that could fit into two categories were placed in
each category but only counted once in the total number of comments or questions
asked. The adult's verbal
behavior were analyzed from the taped sessions. They were coded for the number of times the adult behavior
fit into the interaction categories: managing, prompting and supporting and
informing. The responses were also
coded for negative responses that were given.
In the children's probed recall the research assistants transcribed and
graded the answer to the comprehension questions. In the children's free recall the retellings were assessed
on the basis of story structure and sequence that was given. The research assistant received guidelines of the story to
help them correct the retellings. Children
could receive partial credit for the retellings.
In the initial analysis there were no differences found for story or for
the order that the story was presented so the researchers analyzed the data with
the group size as an independent variable.
In the category of children's verbal behavior they found out that
students asked more questions and made more comments in the small group than in
the one-to-one and whole class settings. The
effect of the setting was significant from the small group compared to the whole
class in the categories of focus on the illustrations, focus on the meaning and
focus on the story structure. The
effect of the group size between small group and one-to-one was not significant
in these areas. There was no
significant effect on group size in the category of focus on print.
In the one-to-one setting there was a tendency to ask more questions
about story structure than the other two settings. In adult verbal behaviors the research assistants gave more
praise in the small group than in the other two settings.
A small group setting appeared to be better than a one-to-one setting for
comprehension. In the children's
probed recall there were higher scores in a small group setting than in the
other two settings. When the scores
were analyzed further the small group scored higher in the number of plot
episodes, resolutions and sequence. The
research assistant interviewed the students and each other about all three
settings. Out of 27 research assistants 18 liked the small group, 6
liked the one-to-one setting and 3 liked the whole class. Out of the children 11 liked the small group, 7 liked the
one-to-one and 2 liked the whole class.(7 students did not respond)
Comprehension scores were higher in a small group than in an
one-to-one and whole class settings.
Small group read-alouds is a more manageable and practical way to conduct read-alouds
in the classroom. The teacher can
read to more children and more children can participate.
Students have a better chance in participating and being involved in a
small group or a one-to-one setting. The
comments which the students made focused on the meaning of the story, the key to
comprehension. The group dynamics
play an important role in the adult's behavior.
Teachers praise and give more positive reinforcements in small group and
one-to-one settings. The adult's
behavior in a large group was more of a managing one. The small group's higher comprehension scores can be
attributed to their increased listening comprehension skills which also aids in
the child's literacy development. Small
group interactions benefit all student as they learn from their peers through
their talk around the storybook. Interactions
between the students can be more important than the actual group size because
the students learn through these interactions.
Teachers want the conversations to be rich and lively but in control of
the meaning making process. One-to-one
reading promotes reading that is fun. This
is especially important to children who are not read to at home.
Small group settings allow children to act as models for one another and
it encourages the passive learners to want to participate.
Questions, comments and discussions from students aids in further and
deeper probing from other students.
Ideally a small group of five to seven students would work best in the classroom
environment for small group read-alouds.
Click here to go back to literature review page
| Home | Table of Contents | Researcher's Background | Literature Review | Field Research |
| Design | Findings | Conclusions | Additional Links | Lesson Plans and Assessments |