Discussion of the Findings

The data triangulation procedures included discussions with the classroom teacher, results from the student surveys and self reflections the scores from the retelling rubric.

The Morrow Retelling Scale was used each week to record the scores of each session. The scores were plotted on a line graph to see if there was any improvement with each intervention. The scores were also recorded for each section of the retelling. Each area of the retelling was analyzed to see what areas improved with the intervention. The scores for setting, theme, plot episodes, resolution and sequence were recorded on a bar graph.

The student's surveys and self reflections were conducted after each retelling section to learn about how the students thought they did in retelling the story to the researcher. The researcher also asked what the easy and hard part of the retelling was. After both interventions were used they were also asked which intervention did they like better and why.

After all the research was completed the researcher sat down with the classroom to discuss the findings of the retellings. The researcher talked about each of the student's strengths and weakness and the interventions. We chatted about how these interventions could be used as part of her read-aloud routines and during other literacy activities in her classroom.

The first intervention which included week number 4-6 had the use of dialogue during the read-aloud to determine if it helps with the story comprehension. The researcher asked question before, during and after the reading of a book to see if the students' scores would increase with this intervention. I had questions already planned that I asked  but I also answered questions that came up that the students had during the read-alouds. The purpose of this intervention was to see how the role of conversations during the read-aloud helps the students better understand the story. The scores for all three students rose with the use of this intervention. (Click here to see the baseline scores)  (Click here to see their scores with the first intervention)

The second intervention was used during the week numbers 7-9. In this intervention the students wore a story glove while we answered questions about the story structure. The parts of the story were reviewed and practiced before the researcher read the story aloud. The three students who were retelling the story for the researcher wore the glove during the assessment piece. The purpose of using the story glove was to see if visual cues would help them to remember to tell the parts of the story. (Click here to view the scores from the second intervention)

Nicholas's baseline average was 2.3 points out of a possible 10 points. The first intervention, dialoguing during the read-aloud, his average was 6.32 points. His second intervention, using the story glove, his average was 6.71 points. Using the dialogue intervention Nicholas's average gained 4.02 points. When the story glove was used Nicholas gained 4.41 points from his baseline score but only gained 0.39 of a point from the first intervention. (Click here to see his scores)

When each section of the retelling scores was analyzed further Nicholas had positive gains from his baseline averages to the first intervention, dialoguing during the read-alouds in every category of the story structure thus showing improvement in his comprehension of the story. He also made improvements in his scores using the second intervention, the story glove. In the category of setting, Nicholas's baseline average score was 0.86 points out of a total of 4 points. His average score with the first intervention was 2.66 points. He gained 1.8 points with this intervention. Nicholas's average score for the second intervention was 2.83 points. This was a gain of 1.97 points from the baseline and a 0.17 of a point from the first intervention. Both these interventions had a positive impact of Nicholas's comprehension of the story in the setting category. In the second category, plot episodes, Nicholas's baseline average was .27 out of a possible 1 point. His scores increased to .32 with the help of the first intervention. He gained 0.05 points with dialoguing during the read-alouds. Nicholas's average score for the second intervention was 0.42 of a point, a gain of 0.15 of a point from his baseline average and 0.10 of a point from the dialoguing intervention. Both interventions helped Nicholas to remember more of the plot episodes and the story glove gave him more of a slight advantage over the dialoguing. In the third category, resolution, Nicholas's baseline average was 0.83 points out of a possible 2 points. His scores raised to an average of 1.66 with the first intervention a gain of 0.83 points. His average score for the second intervention was 1.66 points, a gain of 0.83 from the baseline and the same as the first intervention. Both these interventions had a positive impact in the resolution category but neither of them was stronger than the other. In the sequence category, Nicholas's baseline average was 0.33 out of a possible 2 points and he received an average of 1.33 with the first intervention, a gain of 1 point. His second intervention score was a 1.66 a gain of 1.33 points from the baseline and a 0.33th of a point from the first intervention. Both interventions had a positive impact for Nicholas in retelling the story and remembering the correct sequence. In the last category, theme, Nicholas did not receive any points during the baseline and after the first intervention his average score was .33rd of a point out of a possible 1 point. This was an increase of .33^rd of a point from the baseline. His second intervention average score was a 0.16 of a point, a gain of 0.16 of a point from the baseline and a loss of 0.17 of a point from the first intervention. Both interventions helped Nicholas to recall the theme of the stories with the dialoguing having a slight advantage to the story glove. Overall, Nicholas showed improvement in all aspects of story structure with the use of dialoguing during the read-aloud. He made the most gain in amount of points in the setting category receiving 1.8 points more with the first intervention and 1.97 points more with the second intervention. (click here to see his setting graph)

Brendan's baseline average was 4.53 point out of a possible 10 points. His first intervention, dialoguing throughout the read-aloud, Brendan's average was 7.0 points. The second intervention, using the story glove, his average was 6.32 points. Using the dialoguing intervention Brendan gained 2.27 points. When using the story glove, Brendan gained 1.79 points from his baseline average and lost 0.68ths of a point to the first intervention. (Click here to view his scores)

When Brendan's retelling scores are analyzed further he also made positive gains in almost all areas of story structure with the help of the interventions. In the category of setting, Brendan's baseline average score was 1.37 points out of a total of 4 points. His average score with the first intervention was 3 points. He gained 1.63 points with this intervention. Brendan's average score for the second intervention was 2.77 points. This was a gain of 1.40 points from the baseline and a loss of 0.23rds of a point from the first intervention. Both these interventions had a positive impact of Brendan's comprehension of the story but the first intervention had a greater impact for Brendan. In the second category, plot episodes, Brendan's baseline average was 0.66 out of a possible 1 point. His scores stayed the same 0.66 after the first intervention. He did not gain any points with dialoguing during the read-alouds. Brendan could recall many of the plot episodes during the baseline weeks and the first intervention weeks. Brendan's average score for the second intervention was 0.55 of a point, a loss of 0.11 from his baseline average and a loss from the dialoguing intervention. Brendan scored better in the plot episodes without using the story glove. In the third category, resolution, Brendan's baseline average was 1.16 points out of a possible 2 points. His scores rose to an average of 1.50 with the first intervention, a gain of 0.34 points. His average score for the second intervention was 1.33 points, a gain of 0.17 points from the baseline and a loss of 0.17 of a point from the first intervention. Both interventions had positive impacts for Brendan, but the dialoguing was a stronger intervention than the story glove. In the sequence category, Brendan's baseline average was 1.33 out of a possible 2 points and he received an average of 1.66 with the first intervention, a gain of 0.33 points. His second intervention score was 1.66 a gain of 0.33 of a point from the baseline and he received the same average from the first intervention. Both interventions helped Brendan but neither the first nor the second intervention was more powerful in remembering the sequence. In the last category, theme, Brendan did not receive any points during the baseline and after the first intervention his average score was .16 of a point out of a possible 1 point. This was an increase of .16^th of a point. His second intervention average score was a 0, he stayed the same as his baseline average and a loss of 0.16 of a point from the first intervention. The first intervention was more effective for Brendan in trying to recall the theme of the story. Overall, Brendan showed improvement in setting, resolution, sequence and theme and stayed the same in plot episodes. In the area of setting, he showed the greatest amount of gain by increasing his score by 1.63 points with the first intervention and 1.40 points with the second intervention. (click here to see the setting graph)

Lisa's baseline average was 1.58 out of a possible 10 points. Her first intervention, dialoguing throughout the read-aloud, Lisa's average score was 4.28 points, a gain of 2.70 points from her baseline average. Her second intervention, the story glove, Lisa's average was 5.27 points, a gain of 3.69 points from her baseline average and a gain of 0.99 points from her first intervention. Each week she fluctuated in scores but her overall average in the dialogue intervention increased as well as with the story glove. (Click here to see her scores)

When her retelling scores were analyzed further there was an increase from her baseline average scores to her intervention average scores. In the category of setting, Lisa's baseline average score was 0.05 points out of a total of 4 points. Her average score with the first intervention was 1.88 points. She gained 1.83 points with this intervention. Lisa's average score for the second intervention was 2.55 points. This was a gain of 2.50 points from her baseline score and a gain of 0.67 of a point from the first intervention. Both these interventions had a positive impact of Lisa's comprehension of the story as seen through her retellings. In the second category, plot episodes, Lisa's baseline average was .20th of a point out of a possible 1 point. Her scores increased to .39ths of a point with the help of the first intervention. She gained 0.19 of a point with dialoguing during the read-alouds. Lisa's average score for the second intervention was 0.27, a gain of 0.07 from her baseline average and a loss of 0.12 from the dialoguing intervention. Although both interventions helped Lisa remember more of the plot episodes, the dialoguing was slightly more effective. In the third category, resolution, Lisa's baseline average was 1.0 point out of a possible 2 points. Her scores rose to an average of 1.16 with the first intervention, a gain of 0.16 of a point. Her average score for the second intervention was 1.50 a gain of 0.50 from the baseline and 0.34^th of a point from the first intervention. Again both these interventions were effective with the story glove being slightly more. In the sequence category, Lisa's baseline average was 0.33 out of a possible 2 points and she received an average of 0.66 of a point with the first intervention, a gain of 0.33 of a point. Her second intervention score was a 1.00 a gain of 0.67 of a point from the baseline and a gain of 0.34^th of a point from the first intervention. Both interventions were effective with the story glove being slightly more effective than the dialoguing when it comes to the sequence part of the story structure. In the last category, theme, Lisa did not receive any points during the baseline and after the first intervention her average score was .16^th of a point out of a possible 1 point. This was an increase of .16^th of a point. Her second intervention average score was 0 the same average as her baseline and a loss of 0.16^th of a point from the first intervention. Telling the theme was a difficult concept for Lisa and she remembered it best when it was talked about during the dialoguing intervention. Overall, Lisa showed improvement in all aspects of story structure with the use of dialoguing during the read-aloud and also when using the story glove. She made the most gain in amount of points in the setting category raising her average score from the first intervention by 1.83 points and a total of 2.50 points from the second intervention, the story glove. (click here to see the setting graph)

I was surprised to see how much dialoguing throughout the read-alouds helps with the retellings and leads to a greater understanding of the story. While I was establishing my baseline scores I was surprised to see how low the scores were especially in the setting section. I was surprised how easily it was for the students to forget to name the characters or where the story took place. I thought that this would be the easiest category for them and they could get the most amount of points if they got this part of the retelling correctly. Using the story glove and the dialoguing helped them to gain points in all parts of their retelling but especially in the setting category.

I noticed that their body language changed as I was doing my research. The first three weeks the students sat very straight up and seemed timid to ask questions and to participate. During the dialogue sessions they began to become more relaxed and sat on their heels, inching closer to the book. They were more open to answer questions more freely than before. They appeared less timid and were freer to talk, raise questions and answer questions. The weeks with the story glove were where the atmosphere was more relaxed and they were eager to use the story gloves.

When I walked into the classroom for my second lesson with the story glove, I began to set up my materials. I had the story gloves in a box in my hands. As I was about to sit down I overheard a conversation with two students.

"Oh goody story mittens" said one student.
 The other student replied "they're not story mittens. They are story gloves."

I surprised how excited they were to use the gloves after one lesson and I realized that the story glove was effective in helping to retell the story. Later that day I thought of different ways a teacher could incorporate using the story glove in different literacy activities after it has been modeled and practices with the class.

The three retelling samples from each student is derived from one baseline retelling, one from the first intervention, dialoguing throughout the read-aloud, and the second intervention, using the story glove. I used his three highest scores in each category to show his retellings. In the samples linked below, the highlight and the underlined words are parts of the retelling the students gave to the researcher.

During the baseline weeks, Nicholas's highest retelling score was with the story, The House on East 88^th Street, (Waber, 1962). (Click here to see his retelling sheet)  Although Nicholas received 4 points out of a possible 10, there were areas of weakness in his retelling. (click here to see his retelling rubric) He only received 1 point in the setting category because he named only the crocodile and does not mention where or when the story takes place or the other characters. This category is where the student can receive the most amounts of points and I thought would be easier to do than the rest of the categories. In the area of plot episodes he states 9 out of a possible 18 events and he does retell the story in order. He did recall half of the events in the story.

During the first intervention, dialoguing during the read-aloud, Nicholas's highest retelling score was with the story The Big Orange Splot (Pinkwater, 1977).(click here to see his retelling sheet) Nicholas received 7.5 points out of a possible 10. (click here to see his rubric) This intervention had a positive impact on his ability to retell a story and demonstrate his comprehension of that story. He received 3 out of 4 points in the setting category, an area that showed weakness in the baseline weeks. He remembered to tell all the characters and also where the story took place. In the area of plot episodes, he could recall 4 out of 8 events and received .50 points. He did also remember part of the theme, an area of weakness for all the subjects in this study. Although Nicholas was off task (six times) during his retelling he could remember many of the details of the story because of the dialogue that took place while reading the story.

During the second intervention, using the story glove, Nicholas's highest retelling score was with the story Doctor DeSoto (Steig, 1982) (click here to see his retelling sheet) In this retelling Nicholas scored 7.87 points out of a possible 10. (click here to see his retelling rubric) In the area of setting, which gave Nicholas a low score during the baseline weeks, he could recall all the characters in the story and where the story took place and when it took place. Although he only could recall 6 out of the 16 events in the story, he did recall them in sequential order. In this story he was able to receive partial credit for the theme, an area of weakness amongst the sample group, but an area that could improve with modeling through dialogue and discussion. Both interventions worked well for Nicholas and continuing to use these interventions would be beneficial in helping him to focus on the task at hand and helping to guide him through his literacy development.

During the baseline weeks, Brendan's highest retelling score was with the story, The House on East 88^th Street ( Waber, 1962.) (click here to see his retelling sheet) In this retelling Brendan scored 5.66 points out of a possible 10 points. (click here to see his retelling rubric). In the area of setting he received 2.5 points out of 4. He could recall 12 out of 18 events in the plot episodes which was more than half of the events in the story. The area of theme presented a problem as with Nicholas and Lisa and they all did not receive any points. Overall, Brendan did fairly well for his retellings during his baseline weeks.

During the weeks of the first intervention, dialoguing during the read-alouds, he scored 8.25 points out of a possible 10 points with the story, The Big Orange Splot (Pinkwater, 1977) (click here to see his retelling sheet) and click here to see his rubric of this retelling. In the area of setting he received all 4 points, an improvement from his baseline weeks. In the plot episodes he recalled 6 out of the 8 events, but added a lot of other important details to his retellings. He was able to receive all the points in the area of sequence. The area of theme again was difficult for Brendan and he did not score any points in that category. The area of theme was a problem in many of the retellings and it might not be a concept that Kindergarten children can easily understand and explain.

During the weeks for the second intervention, using the story glove, Brendan's highest retelling was with the story, Harry the Dirty Dog (Zion, 1956) (click here to see his retelling sheet). He scores 7.12 points out of a possible 10 points. (click here to see his rubric) In the setting category he was given 3 out of 4 points. In the area of plot episodes he could recall 10 out of 16 events and received 0.62 points. He was able to recall more than half of the events in the story. He was able to sequence the story and was able to recall the problem in the story but not the solution. One of Brendan's strengths is his memory, so the intervention with dialogue was very beneficial to him. The story glove was helpful and helped him improve his scores from the baseline weeks, but he still scored higher with the dialoguing during the read-alouds. It would be recommended to use the dialoguing during the read-alouds for Brendan to continue to grow in his literacy development.

During the baseline weeks, Lisa's highest retelling was from the story, The House on East 88^th Street (Waber, 1962). (click here to see the retelling) She received 2.27 out of a possible 10 points. (click here to see the rubric) During her baseline weeks, Lisa was not awarded any points in the setting category. She could not recall any of the characters, where or when the story took place. Lisa was able only to recall 5 out of the 18 events in that story. She was able to end the story and she had partial sequence in her retelling. When she was retelling, there would be many long pauses and no responses in her retellings. She did not seem to be able to recall much of the story.

During the weeks of the first intervention, dialoguing during the read-alouds, her highest retelling was with the story, Sylvester and the Magic Pebble (Steig, 1969). (click here to see her retelling) She received a score of 5.18 out of a possible 10 points. (click here to see her rubric). In this retelling, she was able to recall 10 out of 19 events and received a score of 0.52 in the plot episodes. In the area of setting, where she did not get any points, she scored 1.66. She could recall the main character and 2 out of the 3 other characters, but still could not remember where or when the story took place. She was able to recall the problem and the solution in this story and had partial sequence when retelling the story. This intervention helped Lisa to recall many parts of the story that she was not able to recall before.

During the weeks of the second intervention, using the story glove, Lisa's highest retelling score was with the story Harry the Dirty Dog (Zion, 1956). (Click here to see her retelling sheet)  She received 6.87 out of a possible 10 points. (click here to see her rubric). She was able to recall all the characters, where and when the story took place. This was a great improvement from her baseline scores, where she could not recall this category. She was able to retell 6 out of 16 events, a little less than half of the events in the story. She was able to retell the story in sequence and was able to recognize the problem but had difficulty with the solution. The area of theme continued to present problems for Lisa and she was unable to recognize the theme in any of these retellings. Both these interventions proved to be valuable for Lisa as her scores increased from her baseline scores. Lisa would benefit from practice and repetition because her scores had a tendency to rise after the initial introduction, modeling and practice of the intervention. Lisa's literacy development would continue to grow through hands on experiences, engagement in the activities and actively participating. Through these 9 weeks of research, she had shown the most amount of growth.

Click here to listen to a sound bite of Brendan's retelling	Click here to listen to a sound bite of dialoguing before we read a story

After each retelling, I would have the students answer a few questions about how they thought they did in their retellings. I also asked them what the easiest part of the retelling was and what the hardest part of the retelling was. Since they were only in Kindergarten, I asked the questions and transcribed their answers on the student reflection sheet. After I had finished with the interventions, I asked them which intervention did they like better and why? (click here to view the student survey sheet)

Nicholas thought he did well on the retellings and would give himself 9 or 10 points out of a possible 10. Although he thought the retellings in weeks number 3, 4 and 5 were hard, he still thought he did well giving himself a 10 on a scale from 1 to 10.

Brendan also thought he did well on his retellings and would give himself 10 points out of a possible 10 each week and he thought that the retellings were easy.

Lisa thought she did ok on her retellings and would usually give herself 10 points out of a possible 10. In weeks 2 and 5 she gave herself a 5 and an 8. She found most of her retellings easy except for weeks 2 and 5, when she thought that the retellings were hard and she scored herself lower than the other weeks.

After they rated themselves, I asked them to tell me what the easiest part of the retelling was. During the baseline weeks, their responses ranged from one word answers "hamburger" that did not make any sense at all to Nicholas responding "you remember some of the words that were on there." During the next three weeks, intervention number 1, their responses were more thoughtful. Their responses included Nicholas telling me that "you know the whole book and you can remember some of the stuff" to specific parts of the story such as Lisa stating that the easiest part was when "Sylvester was a rock." In the final three weeks during the second intervention, their responses still included specific parts of the story such as Brendan answering the easiest part of retelling is "when the house caught on fire" to Nicholas stating that the easiest part is when "you kinda know some of the details."

They were also asked what the hardest part of the retelling was. During the baseline weeks, their responses included Nicholas' response that the hardest part is that "you don't remember the words that good" to Brendan and Lisa thinking that the hardest part of the retelling was a very specific part of the story such as "I forgot the name of the girl" and "the number of the street was hard to remember." During the first intervention, dialoguing during the read-aloud, their responses included that Brendan thought that the hardest part of the retelling is "when you forget about the stuff in the story". Lisa thought that the hardest part of the retelling was "that I don't know how to read and I can't read." During the second intervention with the story glove, their responses continued along the same thought processes. Lisa thought that the hardest part of the retelling was again "that I can't read" but also thought that "I had a little trouble with the words." Nicholas continued to think that he "didn't really remember the setting" and that "you don't remember some of the parts." Brendan didn't think that there were any parts during this intervention that were difficult but he couldn't remember what parts of the retelling he thought were hard.

After interviewing the students about their feelings with the retellings I could see a common theme among their responses. Lisa thought that it was hard if she can't read and I think she is worried about her ability to be able to read. Brendan always picked out something very specific from the story that he used in his responses for both the easy part and the hard part. Nicholas would respond many times that he would forget some of the stuff. Except for Lisa, Brendan and Nicholas felt very confident about their scores on their retelling, giving themselves either 9 or 10 points each week. Lisa on the other hand did give herself a 5 and an 8 for two weeks but then gave herself 10 for the rest of the weeks.

After I did the interventions, I asked the students which one they like better and why. In week number 7, the first week with the story glove, 2 of the students preferred the dialoguing over the story glove. In week number 8, 2 of the students preferred the story glove over the dialogue. In week number 9, all 3 liked the dialogue over the story glove. When I asked which intervention helped them remember the story better, two students said dialogue over the story glove in week number 7. In weeks number 8 and 9, all three students agreed that the dialoguing helped them to remember the story better. Although there is not a definite consensus each week over which intervention they prefer there is one consensus about which intervention helps them to remember the story better. They all agree that dialoguing throughout the read-aloud helps them to remember the story better.

(Click here to see Brendan's survey for week #3)

(Click here to see Lisa's survey for week #2)

(Click here to see Nicholas's survey for week #3)

(Click here to see Brendan's survey for week #6)

(Click here to see Lisa's survey for week #6)

(Click here to see Nicholas's survey for week #5)

(Click here to see Brendan's survey for week #9)

(Click here to see Lisa's survey for week #9)

(Click here to see Nicholas's survey for week #9)

Student Work Samples:

I had a follow up activity for all the students to work on while I was out of the room having my sample group of students retell the story.  I connected the activity to the book that was shared.  I divided the activities into three categories; beginning sounds, an illustration with a sentence and a flip book to draw and write the beginning, middle and end of the story.

The stories that were used for the beginning sounds activity was An Evening at Alfie's, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and The Island of Skog.  The students did not have much difficulty with this activity.  They were able to find the correct beginning sound and place it in the correct spot.  They have been working in distinguishing beginning sounds as part of the Kindergarten curriculum. The students have made a great deal of progress in their literacy development and are gaining the skills needed to help them begin to learn to read.

The stories that were used for the illustration and the sentence included: Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, The Big Orange Splot and The House on East 88th Street.  These activities asked the students to write a sentence about their picture.  In work sample, Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, the student wrote "I wys CD" which was "I want CD".  In his sentence he has a capital letter for I, the beginning letter for want and can spell CD.  He has allowed for some spacing in his sentence and he is beginning to show some growth in his literacy development.  In the example, The Big Orange Splot, the student wrote  " I lik the color".  She has good spacing although her writing is in all capital letters.  She sounded out the words to spell and used the color chart to figure out how to spell the word color.  There is no period at the end of her sentence.  Her example shows she has some good traits in becoming a reader and writer and has made progress.  An area to work on with this student would be to try and write in lowercase letters except when capitals are needed.  In the sample, The House on East 88th Street, the student wrote "Lyle is sonbd" which would say "Lyle is snowboarding".  He has good spacing in his sentence and mixes capital letters with lowercase letters and there is no period at the end of the sentence.  He knows how to write the character's name and recognizes the sight word is and sounded out the word snowboarding.  When he wrote snowboarding he did not hear the ending sound but did a good job trying it out on his own. He continues to make progress in his literacy growth and is applying the sight word knowledge he has attained and is transferring it into his written language as well.

The next three stories were used for a flip book activity.  Doctor DeSoto, A Chair for My Mother and Harry the Dirty Dog were shared with the students and then they made their own flip books. In the sample, Doctor DeSoto, the student drew the beginning, middle and ending of the story and the teacher helped him write some of the text. His picture in the first box, only showed a part of the beginning not the key piece that the fox had a toothache and went to see the dentist.  In the second box, he drew a detail picture of what the fox was dreaming an important part of the middle of the story. In the last box, he drew a picture of the dentist pulling out the tooth, a part of the ending and but not the key part of the story.  This student understood the sequence of the story and remembered important parts of the story but not the key parts of the story. This demonstrates that the student understood the story but not the main pieces of the story.  In the second story, A Chair for My Mother, the student drew a picture of a fire and wrote fire in the second box, a key event in the middle of the story.  In the third box, he drew a picture of a girl outside an apartment building  in a chair. This illustration is a key part of the ending of the story.  His flip book showed that he understood the sequence of the story and the key events that made up the beginning. middle and the end of the story.  In the third story, Harry the Dirty Dog, the student not only illustrated the sequence of the story but also wrote his sentences. In his first box, he wrote that Harry buried the scrub brush, an important element in the beginning of the story. He started his sentence from the bottom and continued the sentence on top demonstrates a problem with spatial awareness of where to begin to write the sentence. A common problem with beginning writers.  In the second and third boxes he started the sentence at the top and had more room to write.  He realized his error from the first box and corrected it for the following boxes.  His second event he wrote that "Harry runo awway" meaning that "Harry runs away".  He did not hear the last sound in runs and made a good attempt to sound out and spell the word away.  In his third box, he wrote "Harry wus liing oon anothe spug". The student wanted to say that "Harry was lying on another sponge".  His attempts at sounding out the words shows that he has a pretty solid foundation of letter-sound knowledge.  He is able to write the words he knows.  The sentence he wrote, a reader could figure out what he was trying to say.  He had all the right beginning sounds on all the words and confused some of the vowel sounds.  This example shows that this student is using what they have learned in class and applying it to their written work.

After the research was completed the classroom teacher and I had a discussion about the research and the results. I had questions already written up and had Claudia answer the questions. (Click here to see the teacher reflections). One thing that Claudia was able to take away from this experience was being aware of the value of the dialoguing throughout the read-aloud. She felt that it allowed for students' interactions and reflections. It made them active participants and had more "ownership" of the story. She was also very excited to use the story glove as part of her literacy routine. On an individual basis she thought that it helped Nicholas in building his comprehension, his increased attention to details and his ability to be more consistent. In Brendan she thought it helped him build confidence and comprehension and develop a better understanding of story structure. In Lisa's experience she felt that each area of her literacy development had improved and she felt that Lisa is "like a new student". Claudia felt that the interventions helped all the students and not just the ones that were the sample students. The difference that Claudia noticed was that the children want to directly interact with the story and expect to share and think about the literature piece and not just sit and listen. Claudia expected that there would be positive results with the interventions, but the results were better than she expected. She felt that Lisa had significantly improved, not only in her retelling of the stories but in her confidence in herself. Claudia also thought that the interventions were "excellently prepared and presented and engaged all the children".