|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 MOTHER CHILD NARRATIVE S IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS: By VIRGINIA TOMPKINS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 Virginia Tompkins
3 To my mother, Doris Holloway
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my mother, who has offered unwaverin g support over the years I also thank my friends who have been a major sourc e of encouragement ; and my husband, Dallas Tompkins, who has supported me unconditionally. Finally, I thank my mentor Jeff Farrar for his guidance and support.
5 TABLE OF CONTENT S page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 14 Theoretical Background ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 20 Autobiographical Memory Narratives ................................ ................................ ............. 22 Book Narratives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 22 ................................ ................................ ....... 23 ................................ ................................ ................................ 23 ................................ ................................ ........................... 25 Importance for Emergent Literacy ................................ ................................ .......................... 28 Emergent Literacy Outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ 31 Story Comprehension ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 31 Picture Sequencing ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 34 Story Generation ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 34 Control Measurements ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 36 Child Language ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 37 Socioeconomic Status ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 37 Home Literacy Environment ................................ ................................ ........................... 37 Affective Quality of Mother Child Interactions ................................ .............................. 38 Comparisons Between Contexts ................................ ................................ ............................. 39 ................................ ................................ ........ 39 etween Contexts ................................ ................... 40 Print Concepts ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 41 2 CURRENT STUDY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 43 3 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 47 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 47 Control Measurements ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 47 Language ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 47 Socioeconomic Status ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 48 H ome Literacy Environment ................................ ................................ ........................... 48 Affective Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 50 Narrative Measurements ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 50 Book Narratives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 51 Autobiographical Memory Narratives ................................ ................................ ............. 51
6 Narrative Coding ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 52 Narrative Coding Reliability ................................ ................................ ........................... 54 acy Outcome Measures ................................ ................................ 55 Story Comprehension ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 55 Picture Sequencing ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 56 Story Generation ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 56 Print Concepts ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 57 General Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 57 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 61 General Considerations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 61 Descriptive Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 62 Consistency Between Contexts ................................ ................................ ............................... 66 ................................ .......................... 67 Control Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 68 ................................ .. 68 ................................ .. 69 ................................ 72 ........................... 75 ......................... 79 ................................ ......... 79 ................................ ....... 90 ................................ ... 94 .............................. 94 ................................ ....................... 95 ent Literacy ................................ ..................... 95 Literacy ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 96 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 131 ................................ ................................ ......................... 131 ........................ 131 ......... 136 ................................ ................................ ............................. 139 .............. 139 ......... 142 ................................ ................................ ................................ 143 ... 143 Coherence ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 144 Importance of Control Factors ................................ ................................ .............................. 145 Language ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 145 Socioeconomic Status ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 146 Home Literacy Environment ................................ ................................ ......................... 147 Affective Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 148
7 The Role of Different Narrative Con ...................... 151 Mother ................................ ..................... 153 Children as Active Participants ................................ ................................ ............................ 154 Theoretical Perspective ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 155 Contributions of the Current Study ................................ ................................ ....................... 157 Limitations and Future Directions ................................ ................................ ........................ 160 Coding of Mother Child Storybook Interactions ................................ .......................... 16 0 Lack of Traditional Storybook Task ................................ ................................ .............. 161 Further Specificati on of Style Coding ................................ ................................ ........... 162 ................................ ................................ ............. 162 Parent Questionnaire Self Report ................................ ................................ .................. 165 Generalizability of Findings ................................ ................................ .......................... 167 Quantity of Correlations and Sample Size ................................ ................................ .... 168 Correlational Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 168 Implications for Education ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 169 APPENDIX A AFFECTIVE QUALITY CODING ................................ ................................ ..................... 172 B STYLE CODING ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 174 C STRUCTURE CODING ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 176 D STORY COMPREHENSION TASK ................................ ................................ ................... 178 E PICTURE SEQUENCING TASK ................................ ................................ ........................ 180 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 182 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 195
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page Table 2 1. Study Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 46 Table 3 1. Home Literacy Environment Questionnaire ................................ ................................ 59 Table 3 1 continued. Home Lite racy Environment Questionnaire ................................ ................ 60 Table 4 1. Descriptive data for control variables ................................ ................................ ........... 98 Table 4 2. Descriptive data for predictor variables (narrative style) ................................ ............. 99 Table 4 3. Descriptive data for predictor variables (narrative cohesion) ................................ .... 100 Table 4 4. Descrip tive data for predictor variables (narrative coherence) ................................ .. 101 Table 4 5. Descriptive data for story comprehension and picture sequencing ............................ 102 Table 4 6. Descriptive data for story generation ................................ ................................ ......... 103 Table 4 .................. 104 Table 4 ........... 104 Table 4 ......... 105 Table 4 10. Summary of paired samples t contexts ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 106 Table 4 11. Summary of paired samples t between contexts ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 106 Table 4 ect ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 107 Table 4 13. Relations among emergent literacy and home literacy environment ....................... 107 Table 4 style and emergent literacy outcomes .................... 108 Table 4 ................................ ..... 109 Table 4 16. Res ................................ ............................... 109 Table 4 comprehension question elaborations ................................ .......................... 110
9 Table 4 .................. 111 Table 4 questions and control variables ...... 112 Table 4 nsion questions ................................ ............................ 112 Table 4 ............. 113 Table 4 ................. 113 Table 4 AM causal comments ................................ ................................ ................ 114 Table 4 ............ 114 Table 4 25. Relati ........... 115 Table 4 s ................................ ................................ 116 Table 4 outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 117 Table 4 29. Relation among m ...................... 117 Table 4 ................................ ........................ 118 Table 4 literacy outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 118 Table 4 32. Relati ......... 119 Table 4 ......... 119 Table 4 ....................... 120 Table 4 ........................ 120 Table 4 36. Relations a .......... 121 Table 4 outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 122 Table 4 ................ 122
10 Table 4 sequencing from ................................ ................................ ........... 123 Table 4 literacy outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 123 Table 4 ................................ .................. 124 Table 4 ................................ 124 Table 4 ................................ .. 125 Table 4 ................................ ................ 125 Table 4 ............................... 126 Table 4 coherence ................................ 126 Table 4 .................. 127 Table 4 48. Relations among mo ........... 127 Table 4 ........................ 127 Table 4 from multiple predictors ................................ ................................ ........................... 128 Table 4 s picture sequencing from multiple predictors ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 128
11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Summary of Relations that Remained between Predictor Variables an d Outcome Variables after Control Variables were Entered into Hierarchical Regressions .............. 129 4 2 Summary of Control Variables Related to the Predictor and Outcome Variables in Figure 4 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 130
12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy MOTHER CHILD NARRATIVE IN DIFFE RENT CONTEXTS: By Virginia Tompkins August 2009 Chair: Michael J. Farrar Major: Psychology The aim of the current study was construction of narratives with their preschool children in different contexts and the impact these narratives emergent literacy skills Emergent literacy refers to the skills that are developmental precursors to conventional forms of reading and writing and the environments that support the se developments Understanding what facilitates these skills is important to understand because c and oral language skills in later grade school years 37 mother child dyad s created narratives using a wordless storybook as well as autobiographical memory (AM) narratives. arratives were measured in several ways includ ing style (e.g., elaborations, repetitions ); cohesion, (i.e., interclausal connectives such as becaus e); narrative coherence (e.g., utterances about orientations and internal states); episodic coherence (i.e. utterances regarding goals, obstacles, and repairs); and global ratings of narratives, which included ratings of focus, clarity, logic, and talkativ eness. Additionally, by story comprehension, picture sequencing, and narratives using a wordless storybook which were narratives with children In addition, several contro l variables were considered including
13 quality during mother chil d narratives. controlling for factors that were related to predictor and outcome variables. Several independent AM elaborative statements and elaborative tag questions predicted questions in the book context were AM causal comments and AM generations. These findings have important implications for the environments that support
14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The overarc hing aim of this study was to examine the role that mother child co s kills that prepare them for reading long before they enter kindergarten. Preschoolers are the environmental antecedents of the skills that underlie the acquisition of read ing are found early emergent literacy skills are stable over time, and predict their later literacy skills (Dickinson & McCabe, 2001). Thus, it is important to unders skills before they enter school. Emergent literacy refers to the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that are developmental precursors to conventional forms of reading and writing and the environments that supp ort these developments (Whitehurst and Lonigan, 1998). Emergent literacy includes code related skills (e.g., alphabet knowledge), as well as oral language skills (e.g., vocabulary, narrative discourse). The concept of emergent literacy has been around sinc e the 1980s, and was proposed as an alternative to the reading readiness approach (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998) The latter approach implied a dichotomy between readers in which children were either ready for reading instruction or were not. On the other ha nd, the concept of emergent literacy recognizes that the development of literacy encompasses a continuum of skills that build upon one another and that begin to develop well before formal schooling begins. Thus, emergent literacy describes children in the process of becoming readers and writers, and stresses the continuous nature of literacy development.
15 s emergent literacy. As just mentioned, emergent literacy encompasse s a wide range of skills including code related skills, such as knowledge of the alphabet, phonological awareness, letter sound knowledge, and print concepts; as well as oral language skills, such as vocabulary skills, syntactic knowledge, narrative, and emergent reading (i.e., pretending t o read) (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). R esearchers have examined both code related and oral language emergent literacy skills in many ways. Some have focused on identifying how the different components of emergent literacy are related to one another; how th ese skills develop over time; and how different aspects of emergent literacy may change in their relations with one another over time (Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000; Paris & Paris, 2003; Snchal, LeFevre, Smith Chant, & Colton, 2001 ; Speece, Roth, Coo per, & De La Paz, 1999; Trabasso & Stein, 1997; Ukrainetz, Justice, Kaderaveck, Eisenberg, Gillam, & Harm, 2005; Wigglesworth, 1997 ) These researchers have largely been interested in emergent literacy skills in their own right without focusing on the ante cedents of these skills. However, as Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998) argue, not all emergent literacy skills are products of the same experiences. Thus, it is also important to understand what environmental s. R esearchers have examined the predictors of s emergent literacy skills in a variety of ways. Some have modeling of literacy behaviors; parental beliefs about literacy; and literacy related activities, such as trips to the library which are most often assessed through parental report ( e.g., Burgess Hecht, & Lonigan, 2002; Deckner Adamson, & Bakeman 2006 ; Dickinson & DeTemple, 1998; Frijters, Barron, & Brunello, 2000; Snchal & LeFevre, 2002; Weigel, Martin, & Bennett, 2005, 2006 )
16 Foster, Lambert, Abbott Shim, McCarty, & Franze, 2005 ; Sm ith & Dixon, 1995 ; Washington, 2001 ). Researchers have also focused on the specific behaviors that parents engage in when reading books with children, such as directly teaching children about print; linking the text to mprehension questions; and providing explanations (e.g., Baker, Mackler, Sonnenschein, & Serpell, 2001; Deckner et al. 2006; Hammett, van Kleeck, & Huberty, 2003; McArthur, Adamson, & Deckner, 2005; Reese & Cox, 1999 ). Researchers have also focused on par interactions with children ( Baker et al., 2001 ; Bus & van Ijzendorn, 1995; Frosch, Cox, & Goldman, 2001; Sonnenschein & Munsterman, 2002 ). Another way in which researchers have examined the role parents play in youn g child narrative interactions. Broadly speaking, parent child narratives are any conversational exchanges that involve a story structure. Thus, storybook interactions are considered a narrative activit y. However, researchers have also examined parent child narrative interactions other than storybook contexts. In one large scale study, the Home School Study of Language and Literacy Development, researchers examined parent child narratives in different co ntext s including mealtime conversations and play and literacy outcomes (Beals & DeTemple, 1993; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Snow, Tabors, Nicholson, & Kurland, 1 995) For example, talk about past and present events and explanatory Thus, there is already a great deal of evidence that parental support of literacy related activities is very influential i With all of the potential literacy skills to examine, why are narrative skills the focus of the current study rather
17 than some other skill? Many researchers have argued that code related skills (e.g., phono logical processing skills) are important in the process of learning to read ( e.g., B urgess & Lonigan, 1998 ; Sto rch & Whitehurst, 2002 ); however, others have argued that narrative compet ence is also important in the process of learning to read because n arra tive competence is a fundamental understanding onto texts ( e.g., Griffin Hemphill, Camp, & Wolf, 2004; Paris & Paris, 2003). As just mentioned, m any researchers have examined emergent literacy through reading traditional storybooks with children. T he current study aimed to examine mother child narratives in two c ontexts that are not often studied in relation to iteracy skills. These included mother child autobiographical memory (AM) narratives and mother child narratives using a wordless storybook. Mother child AM narratives, or narratives about personally meaningful past events, are a useful context to examine b ecause they are a naturally, and frequently occurring context that mothers and children engage in. Thus, AM talk provide a particularly relevant way parents can model narratives for children. The other context, wordless storybooks, has been used extensive narrative skills (e.g., Lysaker, 2006; Paris & Paris, 2003; Purcell Gates, 1996). F ewer studies have taken advantage of such books for eliciting mother scaffolded narratives of young children. However, the use of wordles s storybooks provides a very useful examination of mother child skills. T production because there is a heavy reliance on the story that has already been written. Thus, wordless storybooks provide a good opportunity to determine how mothers co construct a narrative with
18 children using a book, and how these narratives are related to childre independent of mothers. s with children in two contexts (AM and a wordless storybook) independent assessment of emergent literacy skills. This stud several ways. First although researchers have argued that mother child narrative s are important for emergent literacy ( Beals & DeTemple, 1993; Snow et al., 1995 ; Wareham & Salmon, 2006 ), only a few studies have directly examined mother child AM narratives emergent literacy outcomes (Beals, 2001; Reese, 1995). Similarly, to my knowledge, no studies wordless storybook are related to independent emergent literacy outcomes. Thus, this study aims to replicate and extend previous research that suggests t h narrative interactions with children are rel ated to emergent literac y outcomes. A second related question issue in this study was that previous researchers have not literacy in order to provide evidence for narratives with children and their emergent literacy skills. Third, both mother child AM narratives and wordless storybook narratives were used to assess mother child interaction in order to examine the relative influence of these contexts using consistent coding schemes between contexts. This comparison was made in order to determine
19 rather than a more general i nteractional style used consistently between contexts. Thus, AM and wordless storybook narratives were assessed in terms of whether mothers are consistent between contexts, whether mothers show differences between contexts, and how these two contexts relat e Fourth, several studies of mother child interaction of reading a book. However, these studies do not alwa abilities independently of mothers (i.e., as assessed by an experimenter). This is important to impl read to them, the ability to sequence pictures, and the ability to generate a narrative independently. Fifth, although print concepts are not of central importance for the current study, print concepts will also be assessed. Researchers have provided evi dence that oral language skills are distinct from print concepts as measures of these skills load onto different factors (Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000; Whitehurst, Epstein et al., 1994). Additionally, researchers have also found that parent child stor e.g., Snchal LeFevre, Thomas, & Daley, 1998). Thus, there is reason to believe that mother child To summarize, the questions of thi s study are:
20 1. and wordless storybook narratives with their preschoolers as as sessed be an experimenter ? 2. emergent literacy skills still exist after controlling for a number of other factors 3. children in these two contexts? 4. Wha 5. print concepts a s assessed by an experimenter? To further elucidate why the goals of this study are important to understanding how the remaining introduction will focus first on the theoretical background of the curr ent study. Next, this theoretical background will be applied to the two narrative contexts examined in the current study mother child AM narratives and mother child wordless storybook narratives. Then, the ways in which mother child narratives will be asse ssed will be described in detail. Next the importance of understanding the Finally, the specific emergent literacy outcomes will be described. Theoretical Backgrou nd A major theoretical impetus for narrative development has been the work of Lev Vygotsky (1978), who asserted that individual development can only be understood in its eraction and
21 within the zone of proximal development, a range of tasks too difficult for the child to do alone but which are possible with the help of adults and m ore skilled peers. Vygotsky labeled this type of support scaffolding in which the adult adjusts the support offered during an activity to fit the Initially, adults provide extensive scaffolding of the task; however, a carrying out the task. A key aspect of Vygotskian theory is that through these social interactions, children come to internalize the particular ability being demonstrated ; an d that children eventually can accomplish the task independently. According to Vygotskian theory, several cognitive abilities have a social interactive origin, such as problem solving, memory development, and communication skills (Peterson & McCabe, 1994); thus, this theory is not specific to narrative development. However, several researchers have used this theoretical framew ork to understand narrative development. Children develop narrative skills over time, and initially need the support of parents. Acco rding to a Vygotskian approach to narrative development, the narrative interactions that parents engage in with children play a key role in individual differences in the quality of these narrativ e interactions predict child outcomes. Through narrative interactions, parents can model that these conversations are an important and valued activity. In addition, parent can model what kind of information should be included in narratives. In the current study, the narrative c ont exts of mother child AM and wordless story book interactions were of primary interest ; and how children may internalize the narrative skills modeled in these interactions and display their competence in independent assessments of th eir emergent literacy skills.
22 Autobiographical Memory Narratives Researchers have proposed a Vygotskian approach (also referred to as social interactionist or sociocultural approach) AM narratives or personally meaningful events ( Fivush, Reese, & Haden, 2006 ; Hudson, 1990; Nelson & Fivush, 2004; Peterson & McCabe, 1994 ) They argue that c hildren gradually learn how to talk about their own past experiences through participating in parent guided memory t alk, in which parents model what is considered important to remember and emphasize that talking about the past is a desirable activity. By co constructing their own narratives, young children are socialized to represent and express their experiences in cer tain ways that are socially appropriate, particularly the forms and functions of memory talk. In the earliest stages of memory talk (around ages 2 to 3) providing feedback in an attempt to help them remember an event. Initially children rely on these cues to recall information as adults provide most of the information of the event As children get eir own personal memories (Farrant & Reese, 2000; Fivush & Fromhoff, 1998; Peter son & McCabe, 1992; Reese, Haden, & Fivush 1993). Book Narratives Several researchers have also parent child joint boo k reading in the preschool years. Bus (2003) asserts that because children are initially unfamiliar with the structure of storybooks and how they are communicated, that children need parents to help them bridge this gap. Researchers have found that adults do a great deal of discussion when reading books to younger children (Vigil & van Kleeck, 1996; van participation. For example, adult questions elicit more infor mation than adult comments; and
23 questions ( van Kleeck, 2004 ). In the context of book reading, parents can help children to make sense of the text by p ointing out what is significant, matching e.g., Phillips & McNaughton, 1990; van Kleeck, 2004). As children get older, or as they are repeatedly expos ed to familiar storybooks, children gradually take over more of the responsibility of storytelling. the preschool years ; and researchers have focused on a variety of these processes. However, two common ways of examining mother nts talk about in narrative contexts with children. Researchers of parent child AM narratives have identified two types of discourse styles (Fivush & Fromhoff, 1988; Haden, 1998; Reese & Fivush 1993). High elaborative parents invol ve their children in long conversations about past events, presenting rich and embellished details about the event. Although their children might not always recall information about the event, the parent maintains a coherent story by continuing to share in formation with the child. On the other hand, low elaborative redundant, and lack a story structure. They probe for expected answers from their children and when information is given that does not answer incorporate the information into the narrative and does not embellish (Fivush, 1994).
24 Consequently, elaborative parents give their children more unique information and provide more descriptive information than do repetitive parents (Fivush, 1994). children whose parents engage in a high elaborative style remember more information and also remember different types of information th an do children of pa rents who engage in a low elaborative style (McCabe & Peterson, 1991; Reese et al., 1993). Longitudinal studies have shown that these styles of talk about the past are consistent across time (Reese et al. 1993). Additionally, researchers have found a dire responses at later ages, suggesting that maternal elaborations early in development are important (Reese et al 1993; Farrant & Re ese, 2000). Like AM talk parents differ in qualitative ways when reading books with children. A particular approach to interactive adult child reading dialogical readin g has been used in several intervention studies. This approach, first implemented by Whitehurst, Falco, Lonigan, Fischel, DeBaryshe, and Valdez Menchaca (1988), focuses during parent child book reading, including asking the child open ended questions, encouraging the child to play an active role in storytelling, following in on what the child says, and linking the Other parents use a lower level interactive style that primarily con sists of labeling and describing pictures, and engage only in verbatim reading of the text (Heath, 1982). Several intervention studies using dialogic reading as well as naturalistic high level child book reading (e.g., Haden, Reese, & Fivush, 1996; Huebner & Meltzoff, 2005; Reese, Cox, & Harte
25 2003 ; Snchal Thomas, & Monker, 1995; Snchal 1997 ; Whitehurst, Arnold et al., 1994; Whitehurst, Epstein, et al., 1994). Thus, in these two narrative contexts, maternal conversational These studies of mother child book interactions have used experience. However, in the current study w ordless storybooks were used in order to assess how mother co constructed a narrative with their children independent of text This is important because Hammett, van Kleeck, and Huberty (2003) found that when mothers were asked to share a storybook with th eir children that 63% of mothers focused primarily on reading the story rather than providing extra textual talk. Thus, using a traditional storybook may not adequately assess how mothers create a story independent of the text used to tell the story. In on e of a few studies to do so, Melzi and Caspe (2005) found that mothers could be characterized as either which is si milar to how narrative style has been conceptualized in previous studies Not surprisingly, they found that children of storybuilders produced more information about events and descriptions tha n did children of storytellers. The results of this study sugge st that mothers who are more interactive with children during narrations of wordless storybooks may not only have children who participate more in these interactions with mothers these children may also display better emergent literacy skills as assessed i ndependently of mothers. A second common way of assessing mother child narratives is by examining the content or structure of the narrative. Several components contribute to making for a whole and
26 sophisticated narrative. In the current study, narrative structure was assessed in terms of cohesion, narrative coherence, episodic coherence, and global ratings of coherence. Cohesion refers to conjunctions used to join propositions in the narrative. This is accomplished by using li nguistic devices such as connectives (e.g., and, then, because ) Cohesion is important because i n narrating an event, one has to organize story elements and link meaning across several sentences by creating causal and temporal relations (Pearce, McCormack, & James, 2003 ; Shapiro & Hudson, 1991 ). Narrative coherence was also examined, which refers to the elements that are essential to making a narrative meaningful, such as orienting the listener to the temporal context of the event. Several researchers have examined this apsect of mother child narratives, and categories vary from study to study. However, common aspects of narrative coherence that are measured include actions, spatial and temporal orientations, characters, and internal states. A coherent stor y is one in which all parts of the story are structured so that the entire sequence of events is interrelated in a meaningful way (Shapiro & Hudson, 1991). Sophisticated narratives move beyond simply reporting what happened, to include information that pla ces the event in a spatial and temporal context (Fivush et al., 2006). One also ha s to include information on who was there, the internal reactions of those characters, and what happened Understanding of intentional action and causation leads to highly or ganized, episodic representations of what was experienced. Additionally, episodic coherence was examined, which is similar to narrative coherence, but includes the goals, obstacles, and repairs of a narrative sequence These aspects of narratives are argu ed to be essential for plot development ( e.g., Shapiro & Hudson, 1991). Finally, mother were also examined based on global ratings of logic, clarity, focus, and talkativeness as n arrative compon ents such as global
27 organization develop s throughout a narrative, and may be lost when narratives are analyzed at the level of the single utterance. Examining how mothers p tend to be more descriptive, without reference to motivations or causal and temporal relations (Trabasso & Nickels, 1992). Between the ages of 3 and 9, the proportion (Peterson & McCabe, 1983). A major so urce for increasing narrative competency before formal schooling begins is through narrative interactions with parents. Although young children typically have only grasped the basic outline of a story, they can fill in informa tion if scaffolding is provided (Trabasso & Rodkin, 1994). Several studies of mother child AM interac tions have examined how mothers and coherence narrative coherence in terms of evaluations (e.g., internal states) and orientations (e.g., when, conversation (Fivush, 1991; McCabe & Peterson, 1991; Newcombe & Reese, 2004). Researc hers (Haden, Haine, & Fivush, 1997; Newcombe & Reese, 2004; Peterson & McCabe, 1994). To my sion and episodic coherence in their independent AM narratives (e.g., Buckner & Fivush, 1998; Fivu s h Haden, & Adam, 1995).
28 child book reading has not typically been focused on. This is no t surprising given that researchers have typically used traditional storybooks with text. These books provide the content of the stor y in the text; may not be as relevant. However, in the current study, the aim was to examine how mothers co construct a story with their children from a wordless picture book in order to assess how mothers create the structure of a story when text is absent. heir 1 to 3 year old, Trabasso et al., (1992) found that mothers with younger children focused more on labeling of pictures, whereas mothers of older children focused more on comprehending the story. Likewise, older children were less likely to label pi ctures, and more likely to answer questions with goals, outcomes, and other questions. Although this study was descriptive and cross responses, it did suggest that a s children get older mothers increasingly help children to comprehend the story rather than simply describing the pictures. Importance for Emergent Literacy parent In fact, Bus, van Ijzendoorn, and Pellegrini ( 1995 ) assert ed that b ook reading seems to be one of the most influential and naturally occurring ways parents promote literacy. So why might these other contexts parent guided AM narratives and wordless storybooks (Recall, that the emergent literacy skills of interest in the current study are comprehension, picture sequencing, and narrativ e production independent of mothers.) Generally speaking, because these are all narrative contexts, they share important characteristics. One common characteristic is that they all require understanding of decontextualized language, which
29 is discourse that conveys novel information to others who are physically removed from the things or events being described or who share only a limited amount of background knowledge with the speaker; thus, t he words have to communicate meaning with minimal dependence on co ntextual cues (Dickinson & McCabe, 2001). D uring AM talk, parents engage their children in talk about internal representations of a past event rather than concrete objects or an ongoing event (Fivush et al. 2006). During book reading (whether traditional or wordless) parents often deviate from pictorial representations to conversations about concepts not directly represented in pictures and text (DeTemple & Snow, 2003). This is important because in order to comprehend a narrative, children must learn to g o beyond the literal information provided (e.g., pictures in a book) in order to represent and make sense of the story being presented. Thus, similar to AM and wordless storybook narratives, during reading of traditional storybooks with text, children must also be able to reason about events that are not physically present (e.g., recalling information from previous pages, predicting what will happen next). A second reason to believe that AM and wordless storybook narratives would be related mergent literacy skills is because these contexts provide parents an opportunity to model what narrative elements are important to include in a narrative and how to organize a set of events in a specific sequence to get the narrative told clearly (Beals, 2 001). Through experiences with different types of oral discourse, children gain knowledge about the filling in the structural elements and by asking questions (Griffin et al., 2004 ). Griffin et al. (2004) argue that w ith this foundation, when children encounter narrative macrostructures in written text, knowledge about these discourse forms can support the ability to recognize crucial information and to relate this information within the form of the particular discourse they a re
30 reading As mentioned above, the type of information that has been argued to be essential for a good narrative are elements such as placing the event within a spatial and temporal contex t; orienting the listener to who was there and what happened; identifying the goals, obstacles, and outcomes; and creating a cohesive narrative by linking events temporally and causally. Not much empirical support exists yet for a direct link between thes e two narrative AM narratives, Beals (2001) found that the amount of past and future events during meal times was story comprehension Howev er, past and future talk was not distinguished, making it difficult to conclude whether this relationship was specific to past events. Reese (1995) examined mother child AM narratives and mother child book narratives when children were 40, 46, and 58 month narratives. As mentioned above, few researchers have examined mother child book narratives of ver, some researchers have independent literacy skills. Researchers have found that a higher level interaction style is related ensi on skills (Haden et al. 1996 ); as well as better cued recall for story narratives (Nelson, 1996). predictions and inference during mother story comprehension and story retelling abilities. Thus, there is some evidence that mother child
31 ever, the current study extends these findings by providing further support for the role o f mother child AM narratives Emergent Literacy Outcomes d the theoretical argument that parents help children to ho child book reading interaction. ill be assessed in several ways, including story comprehension, picture sequencing, and story generati on. Story Comprehension Before children learn to decode print, they must be able to comprehend narrative as it is spoken to them. Therefore, one literacy outcome measure for the proposed study will be a n. Whe ther the narrative context is AM or book reading children must construct meaning from these narratives through making inferences, identifying main ideas, and predicting future outcomes. As mentioned above, from a Vygotskian perspective, p arents supp ort this comprehension by ask ing questions during narrative talk theory also proposes that children then internalize these skills. Thus, parents who elucidate these ways of making meaning from narrative are helping their children internalize these abilities and use them independently when comprehending stories on their own. Story comprehension is also important because the ability to comprehend and integrate no vel information is impor tant for success in school Young children acquire knowledge of
32 narrative scripts for sequences of routine activities, such as attending a birthday party ( Hudson & Nelson, 1986 ). Previous research suggests that parents can facilitat through familiar routinized event sequences (Nelson, 1996). However, Paris and Paris (2003) argue that in order to comprehend the information encountered in the classroom setting, children must be able to have a grasp of narra tive skills in a broader sense so that they can understand the novel experiences they encounter even before they begin to read Narrative ability is related to early reading ability in that th e ability to construct stories from picture book s before childre n are decoding print predicts later standardized reading test scores (Van Kraayenoord & Paris, 1996). Scott Paris and his colleagues do not typically examine how parents facilitate this understanding of narrative. However, based on Vygotskian theory it is reasonable to assume that parents who elucidate these ways of making meaning from narratives in all sorts of contexts are helping their children to internalize these abilities and use them independently in both spoken and written language contexts Anoth er reason that story comprehension is important to consider is that the ability to comprehend text not only follows text decoding, but also precedes text decoding, and both are dependent on one another. Paris and Paris (2003) point out that many studies ha ve examined comprehension skills. nding of narrative elements such as how children analyze, infer, and summarize event sequences independent of their decoding abilities. T hese Paris and Paris (2003) argu
33 strengths and weaknesses in terms of story comprehension even before they begin t o decode print. State guidelines are in accordance with these arguments. According to Florida Sunshine State Standards (2007), children in kindergarten are expected to demonstrate the following abilities: Make predictions about text content using pictures, background knowledge, and text features (e.g., title, sub heading, captions illustrations). Use background knowledge, supporting details from text, or another source to determine whether a reading selection is fact or fiction. Retell the main idea or esse ntial message, identifying supporting details (e.g., who, what, when, where, why, how), and arranging events in sequence. Thus, even in Kindergarten when children are just in the beginning stages of lear ning to decode print, there are expectations regarding their story comprehension abilities. Despite the abundance of measurements designed to examine emergent literacy skills such as phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and print concepts, there is no standard m easurement to assess preschool However, some researchers have developed Ni ls, 2004). R esearchers have also adapted story comprehe books A common approach involves an experimenter reading a storybook to the child, and asking the child comprehension questions during the reading, and sometimes after the completion of the story as well ( e.g., Dickinson & DeTemple, 1998; Reese & Cox, 1999; Reese, 1995 ; Sonnenschein & Munsterman, 2002 ).
34 Picture Sequencing ability to sequence pictures into the correct or picture sequencing skills (Fivush & Mandler, 1985; Glaubman, Glaubman, & Ofir, 2001 ; Zalla, Labruyere, & Georgieff, 2006); however, to my knowledge no studies have examined how correctly. As mentioned above, this is a skill that children are expected to have in kindergarten. ability to sequence picture into the correct order. This task requires understanding of the causal nature of events, temporal relations between different events ; and the underlying episodic stru c ture It is atives with their children may help children to understand that these are important aspects of narratives. Story Generation independent narrative development involves presenting the child with a wordless pictu re book and asking the child to construct the story on their own ( e.g., Isbell, Sobol, Lindauer, & Lowrance, 2004; Lysaker, 2006; Melzi & Caspi, 2005; Paris & Paris, 2003; Van Kraayenoord & Paris, 1996 ). Some researchers have also examined pre literate chi to as emergent readings (Sulzby, 1985). However, in the current study, the first approach will be on A book with no print also relieves children of any concerns about decoding, and allows them to focus solely on narrating the story (Lysaker, 2006). because, a s Lysaker (2006)
35 independent of print knowledge, including knowledge of story structure and story c omprehension. Parent understanding about books (Martin & Reutzel, 199 6 ; Zevenbergen & Whiteh urst, 2003). As perspective and predicting what informatio n listeners need (Uccelli, Hemphill, Pan, & Snow d ent narratives (e.g., Berman et al., 1994). However, fewer studies have directly examined how children may emulate narrative structures modeled by parents directly although some AM researchers have (Haden et al., 1997; Newcombe & Reese, 2004; Peterson & M cCabe, 1994) Thus, t form dimensions of narratives in their own stories Previous research has shown that young children have difficulty narrating wordless picture books on their own. In particular Dan Slobin and Ruth Berman have conducted several Frog, Where Are You? (Mayer, 1969) which was used in the current study as the picture sequencing task ( Berman & Slobin, 1994 ). The story generation ta sk used in the current study was a very similar book, Frog Goes to Dinner (Mayer, 1992) which was written by the same author. Trabasso and his colleagues have also extensively analyzed the data from this group of studies (Trabasso & Nickels, 1992; Trabass o & Rodkin, 1994; Trabasso & Stein, 1994). Taken together, this body of research shows that 3 and 4 year
36 olds tend ed to engage in naming and describing of the pictures, with little mention of temporal or causal relations between events. Five year olds, on the other hand, increase d their inclusion of episodic structure, including mention of goals, attempts to achieve those goals, and outcomes. However, at age 5, about half of children included goals and causally structured se quences. By age 9, children incl uded many more episodic structures in their narratives. Thus, there are clearly books. It is reasonable to assume, however, that there may be individual differe nces in these child narratives. This has not often been the focus of research; thus, one aim of the current study was es using a wordless storybook may influence how children can tell a story independently of mothers. Control Measurements The second acy skills still existed after controlling for a variety of control factors. Thus, the specific control variables used in this study will be described; these include d home literacy environment, and m The current study was guided by Urie complex system of relationships affected by multiple levels of the surrounding environment (Bronfenbrenner & Morri s, 1998). This approach has been particularly relevant to emergent as well as SES influence how children become readers.
37 Child Language Farrant & Reese, 2000 ). Regardless of the direction of this r skills were controlled in the current study as researchers reading contexts. In terms of the AM literature, for example, resea rchers have found that young children with higher vocabulary skills have mothers who are more elaborative (Farrant & Reese, 2000; Newcombe & Reese, 2004). In terms of mother child book reading, Deckner et al., (2006) f vocabulary was rel ated to how often mothers diverged from reading text to ask children questions about the story. Socioeconomic Status socioeconomic status (Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Sel tzer, & Lyons, 1991 ; Smith & Dixon, 1995; Washington, 2001 ), although Dickinson and McCabe (2001) qualify this relationship by home experiences. Thus, both SE the current study. Home Literacy Environment Home literacy environment has been measured in several ways, and often multiple aspects of the home environment are measured together. Researchers have found that c language and literacy outcomes are related to parent child book reading, literacy related activities such as trips to the library, and provision of reading materials in the home ( e.g., Bus et
38 al., 1995; de Jong & Leseman, 2001; Deckner et al. 2006; DeTemple, 20 01; Tabors, Roach, & Snow, 2001 ) to an engaging home environment, such as trips to mu seums, parks, and zoos ( e.g., Foster et al. 2005; Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, & Hemphill, 1991); to parental modeling of literacy behaviors ( e.g., Burgess et al., 2002); and to age of initial exposure to reading ( e.g, Frijters et al ., 2000 ). In the current study, mothers were given a questionnaire that assess ed Affective Qual ity of Mother Child Interactions Another aspect of mother child narrative interactions that has received considerable attention is the affective quality of these interactions. For example, researchers have been interested in how sensitive parents are to t how much physical and emotional warmth parents show towards their children. In terms of book reading interactions, a 2001); chil us during book reading (Frosch et al., 2001); and frequency of parent child book reading (Bus & van Ijzendorn, 1995). In terms of AM talk, researchers do not typically measure the affect quality of the actual interaction; however, several resear chers have shown that children who are classified as securely attached have mothers who are more elaborative (Fivush & Vasudeva, 2002; Re ese & Farrant 2003). Specifically, mothers of securely attached children tend to provide more elaborations regarding emotional and evaluative aspects of past events (Farrar, Fasig, & Welch Ross, 1997; Newcombe & Reese, 2004). Considering that the affectiv e quality of mother child interactions may impact how mothers interact with children, it was important to control for the influence of affective quality in the current study
39 Comparisons B etween Contexts The first and second questions of this stu dy addressed scaffolding); generation); and control variables (e.g., home literacy environment) have been discussed in detail. However, there are some other considerations of the current study that need mentioning. Recall that the third question of this study was whether there would be similarities and etween Contexts Despite the similarities in the conceptualization and measurement of the quality of conversational styl es are related across contexts. Thus, the narrative contexts of interest were co mpared in order to determine whether mothers were consistent in terms of narrative style and structure between contexts contexts would indicate that there is a more general narrative mode t hat mothers use regardless talk in different narrative contexts is more task specific. As mentioned above, these narrative contexts share some similarities, suc h as the type of information that is important to include (e.g., spatial and temporal orientation). However, they are also different in important ways. For example, during AM narratives, the narrators do not have a pictorial representation of the event; ra ther they must rely on their own memory of the event. During wordless storybooks, however, the pictures in the story are available to facilitate narration. Additionally, when discussing AM
40 events, it may be more salient to simply report what happened rathe r than creating episodic structure with goals, obstacles, and repairs like one does when creating a story from a book. Given these similarities and differences, it is unclear whether mothers would be consistent in terms of style and structure between cont exts. In the only study to examine AM talk and book reading were not consistent. However, her methodology differed from typical AM studies in that she examined el aborations on a 5 point scale rather than in terms of frequency. Additionally, mothers were asked to discuss with their children two events from the previous week one in which the child misbehaved and one in which the child behaved well. Typically, mothers are given more open ended instructions for recall in order to elicit personally meaningful events in which they participated with their child ren (e.g., Fivush & Fromhoff 198 8; Reese et al., 1993). An important difference in the current study is that a wor dless storybook will be used to assess mother child book interactions. To my knowledge, AM and wordless book cohesion, coherence). Diff atives B etween Contexts In the question above, mother child narratives were examined for consistency; for example, are mothers who are more elaborative in the AM context also more elaborative in the wordless storybook context? Mother child narratives were also examined in terms of differences question refers to the absolute differences between contexts for each of the variables. Note, that to control for talkativeness between contexts, all variables we re examined in terms of proportions, which represents the percentage of refers to assessing whether certain types of utterances were more prevalent in certain co ntexts.
41 For example, as mentioned above, mothers may be more likely to discuss episodic coherence in the book context. To my knowledge, Crain Thoreson, Dahlin, & Powell (2001) have conducted tional storybook contexts. They AM context. However, the contexts were presented in a fixed order with book reading always occurring first; thus, parents may have be en more elaborative during book reading because it occurred first. In the current study, these contexts were counterbalanced to rule out order effects Additionally, Crain Thoreson et al. (2001) used a traditional story book; t hus, it is not surprising that mothers were less elaborative in the context for which the story was already provided by text. Print Concepts narratives would be relate Many researchers have focused on the development of print concepts first, and the development of story comprehension later. For print concepts at the b eginnin g of first grade predicted their reading comprehension and decod ing at the end of second grade. Fewer researchers have acknowledged that reading comprehension is also important before children are decoding print. Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998), however, ass erted that both translating print into words (what they call inside out skills) and making meaning out of text by using world knowledge, semantic knowledge, and the context of the text (what they call outside in skills) are essential for reading. Researc faceted, and have begun to separate different types of emergent literacy outcomes. Consequently, researchers have moved away from single measures of emergent literacy experience (e.g.,
42 amount of shared reading) (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Researchers have demonstrated that oral language and print concepts are distinct abilities as measures of these skills load o nto different factors (Lonigan et al. 2000; Whitehurst, Epstein et al., 1994). Researchers have also begun to determine which experiences are related to which outcomes ( Snchal et al. 1998 ; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). For example, Snchal et al. (1998) found that storybook reading the importance of clearly defining what aspect of literacy is being measured and the theoretical su
43 CHAPTER 2 CURRENT STUDY The aim of the current study was construction of AM and wordless storybook narratives with their children, and what impact t emergent literacy skills (i.e., story comprehension, picture sequencing, and story generation) independent of the mother child context much like children will be asked to do upon entrance into formal schooling. To my knowledge, Reese (1995) conducted the only study that examined these two n arrative contexts as well as emergent literacy outcomes (i.e., story comprehension, story generation, print concepts) However, a traditional storybook with text was used by Reese (1 995) study in several ways. First, Reese (1995) examined mother child book interactions with a traditional storybook; whereas the current study examined book interactions with a wordless storybook. This task ensured that mothers and children truly created a narrative rather than relying on the text to generate a story. It also allows for a more direct comparison of the narrative structure between tasks (e.g., number of elaborations) which is not easily done with a traditi onal storybook with text Second although Reese (1995) assessed mother child AM any environmental or parental factors (e.g., access to books, parental engagement). Reese ( 1995) acknowledged that narrative style may be indicative of a more general style of maternal es. Thus, the current study aimed to directly examine e discourse (in terms of style and structure) s to determine whether parent scaffolded narratives
44 outcomes. Below, the questions of this study are provided again and include specific hypotheses where relevant. 1. Hypothesis 1: ve style (i.e., elaborativeness) in their co constructed narratives with children was expected to be independent emergent literacy skills. Hypothesis 2: cohesion (i.e., temporal connectives) in their co constructed narrative s with children was expected to be independent emergent literacy skills. Hypothesis 3: coherence (i.e., narrative coherence, episodic coherence, and global ratings) in their co constructed narratives with children was expecte d to be related literacy skills. 2. emergent literacy skills still exist after controlling for a number of other factors known to be related to ch Hypothesis 4 : were expected to exist even after controlling for home literacy environment, socioeconomic status, child age a nd language skills, and mother child affective quality. 3. children in these two contexts?
45 Considering that these two contexts have not been compared, there is no specific hy pothesis for this question. 4. Considering that these two contexts have not been compared, there is no specific hypothesis for this question. 5. print concepts ? Hypothesis 5 : narrative style and structure wa s predicted to be unrelated to
46 Table 2 1. Study Variables Control Variables Predictor Variables Outcome Variables a ge Mother narrative style during AM and book reading contexts eneration: e laborations Child language s kills Mother narrative coh esion during A M and book reading contexts eneration: cohesion Socioeconomic s tatus Mother narrative coherence during AM and book reading contexts tory g eneration: coherence Affective q uality of m other child i nteraction and book narratives tory g eneration: g lobal ratings ppearance of involvement in n arrative Story c omprehension Home l iteracy e nvironment Picture s equencing
47 CHAPTER 3 METHOD Participants Forty six mothers and their children were recruited for this study. Families were compensated with a ten dollar gift card for their participation. One child was dropped from the study because she had completed kindergarten; s ix children were dropped because their parents did not speak English to children at home; and two children were dropped because they were unable to participate in the data collection. Thus, 37 children remained. Children ranged in age from 3;10 to 5;8 (M = 4;8 ) There were 18 male and 19 female children. Thirty two of the children were Caucasian, 3 children were African American, and 2 children were of mixed race. Control Measurements Language Language was measured using standardized assessments of recepti ve and expressive vocabulary. The PPVT 4 (Dunn & Dunn, 2007 ) measures receptive vocabulary, and is normed on samples ranging from 2 years of age to adults. Children were asked to point to a target word out of four possible pictures on a page. The test is broken down into sets of 12 pages, and each child begins with the set that corresponds to their age group. Testing stops when the child has made 8 or more errors in a set. The test takes 10 to 15 minutes to administer. The EVT 2 (Williams, 2006) measures expressive vocabulary, and is also normed on samples ranging from 2 years of age to adults. Children were asked to label pictures and to provide synonyms for words. The test consists of pages with single pictures, and each child begins with the set that corresponds to his or her age group. Testing stops when the child has made 5 consecutive errors. The test takes 10 to 15 minutes to administer. The PPVT 4 and the EVT 2 are normed on the same sample. These assessment produce both a raw score (i.e., total
48 group. A standardized score of 100 is considered average for that age group. Socioeconomic St atus Socioeconomi c Status (SES) was assessed in terms of educ ation and family income which was ascertained on the parent questionnaire described below These variables were kept separate in the analyses as other researchers have argued that multiple, separate, indicators of SES are more powerful predictors of child outcomes than single SES variables (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Caughy, 1996) I n order to correct for the size of the family in assessing family income an income to needs ratio for each family was calculated. This is calculated by dividing family income by the poverty threshold provided by the U.S. Census Bureau from the year when the data was collected, which takes into account the number of adults and children living in a household (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Thus, a family with a ratio of 1.00 would be at the poverty line; whereas a family with a ratio below 1.00 is living below the poverty line. Occupational status was also ascertained in the questionnaire for descriptive purposes. The Hollingshead Occupational Scale was used, wh ich places individuals in a category ranging from 1 to 9, with 9 indicating a more prestigious occupational status (Hollingshead, 1975 ). Home Literacy Environment Mothers were a sel f report questionnaire format. The questionnaire was adapted primarily from Weigel et al., (2005) and Foster et al. (2005), and is intended to cover a wide range of home literacy related practices Rather than using a global score as Foster et al. (2005) d id, several scores were created because of the variet y of questions that were asked; and because individual factors may be masked if all questions are summed to create one score. Additionally, as mentioned above,
49 several oth er studies have identified the c ategories used in the current study as independent pr These categories and the questions that represent each category are given in Table 3 1. They include a Home Interaction score which asked how frequently mothers engaged in activities with children at home such as playing together or telling storie s ; an Outside Activities score, which asked whether mothers had engaged in activities with children outside of the home in the past month, such as going to the zoo or the librar y ; a Classroom Involvement score, as helping with special events; a score, which asked mothers how often children ask to be read to and how often they look at books by themselves; a Home Literacy History score which such as how often they watch educational television and at what age children were first read to; and finally a ng Behavior score, which asked mothers how often they read and how much they enjoy reading. Where relevant mothers were given a forced choice (e.g., hardly ever, once or twice a month, once or twice a week, almost daily); these responses were assigned poi nts with higher points indicating greater frequency. in the study where relevant. This included Home Interaction and Outside Activities for fathers, and Home Interacti on for older siblings. These scores were used for descriptive purposes only, as mothers were the focus of this study; and because not all children in the study lived with their father or had an older sibling. As part of the questionnaire, mothers were also asked to describe their family characteristics, including whether they were divorced, single, or married; whether they worked and if so, whether they worked full time or part time; the number and ages of
50 children living in the household; and the other fam ily members living in the home (e.g., fathers, siblings ). This information was used mostly for descriptive purposes. Affective Quality measure created by Sonnenschein and Munsterman (2002), which was designed to measure mother affective quality during the AM narrative. This rating sca le, which is given in Appendix A assessed four asp aspects were rated on a scale of 1 to 3 with a higher score indicating a more positive int eraction. Scores for each category were summed to create a composite score, which ranged from 3 to 12 question rated on a scale of 1 to 3. Narrative Measurements Mo thers participate d in conversations with their children in three narrative contexts: AM book reading, and fantasy play which were counter bala nced in terms of narrative context. This resulted in a possible of six orders of narrative context. The mother c hild play context will not be discussed further. Because the mother their length, some of them were quite long. In fact, the majority of these interactions were 20 to 30 minutes in length. Thus, the analysis of these narratives is not appropriate for the scope of this project. The wordless storybooks for both mother child and experimenter child tasks were carefully chosen according to the guidelines suggest by Paris and Paris (2003) for choosing a the
51 book had a clear problem, goal, and resolution to enhance the l ikelihood that participants would create a narrative rather than simply describing pictures. Addit ionally, the pictures contained the main elements of stories (e.g., settings, characters). The traditional storybook with text that was chosen for the story comprehension task had a clear sequence of events; offered opportunities to ask the same questions asked by Paris and Paris (2003) (e.g., What do you think happens next? ); and contained the main elements of stories. Book Narratives Mothers were asked to share a wordless storybook with the ir child called Pancakes for Breakfast (dePaola, 1978). As alread y mentioned, a wordless storybook was chosen rather than a book with text to ensure that mothers co construct a story with children rather than simply reading text. Pancakes for Breakfast was chosen because it has a clear story structure. The book is about a woman who wishes to make pancakes for breakfast. However, she encounters many obstacles that she must overcome. At the end of the story, there is a clear resolution to her goal of making pancakes. Mothers were asked to preview the book before constructi ng the story with their child ren as White and Low (2002) found that previewing a wordless storybook helped mothers to tell more elaborative and coherent stories compared to mothers who did not preview the same wordless storybook. Autobiographical Memory N arratives Mothers were asked to think of three events that they had particip ated in with their children They were instructed to remember unique events, excluding memories such as birthdays or holidays as children may already have a schema for these activ ities as suggested by other researchers (e.g., Reese et al., 1993) Other than this restriction, mothers were free to choose any events to discuss rather than limiting them to a particular type of event (e.g., family vacation) in the hopes that mothers wou ld choose events that were salient to the child. The
52 longest AM narrative was chosen for analysis rather than using all three events as some mother child dyads did not produce three AM narratives. Narrative Coding All narratives were transcribed verbatim using the CHILDES system (MacWhinney, 2000); and coded based on the following coding schemes. Style c oding All on topic talk was coded for style, which was assessed in terms of four mutually exclusive categories: elaborations, repetitions, evaluations; and prompts based on previous AM research ( Farrant & Reese, 2000; Reese & Brown, 2000 ; Appendix B ). Elaborations were further classified as wh questions, tag questions, and statements; and repetitions were further classified as wh questions and statements. This distinction is important because research on both mother child AM and book interactions suggest that elaborative 2000; Haden et al., 1996). Regardless of t he context, elaborations are important because the provision of unique information to the narrative indicates an active processing of the event; thus, the same coding scheme was used for both narrative contexts. ed for each independent clause (i.e., subject + verb + complement structures). Proportions of codes for each category were used instead of total frequency as different narrative contexts will be compared. Proportions are more appropriate than frequencies w hen comparing contexts as different contexts may present different demands. Additionally, proportions give a measure of the percentage of clauses that are given a particular Structure coding. Moth er child narratives were also coded for cohesion and coherence (Appendix C ). Cohesion is a measure of interclausal connectives such as and now and then Narrative coherence is a measure of basic narrative components such as orientation to the
53 characters and the setting of the story. Episodic coherence is a measure of the episodic components of a narrative including goals, obstacles, and repairs. Similar to style coding, cohesion and coherence is a measure narratives were coded for each independent clause (i.e., subject + verb + complement structures). These scores were also converted to proportional measures. Unlike style coding, these categories are not mutually exclusive; that is each utteranc e does not necessarily get coded for structure (i.e., content). For example, would not receive a code for structure. Additionally, one independent clause could potentially receive more than one code. For example, would receive a code for spatial orientation (Disney World) as well as temporal orientation (last summer). Ratings of g lobal narrative q uality. In addition to coding for style and structure on a line by line basis, m others were also rated based on their global narrative quality during their AM and book narratives with children ; and children were rated based on their global narrative quality during the story generation task. Although the AM and book narratives involved both mothers and child narratives study Narratives were rated based on four categories including focus, logic, clarit y, and talkativeness. The first three categories were chosen because they represent aspects of narratives that have been argued to indicate a well formed autobiographical story as told by adults ( e.g., Trunk & Abrams, 2009 ). Additionally, AM researchers ha ve argued that level of detail (or talkativeness) is an important part of making a narrative interesting, and have used rating scales to assess talkativeness (e.g., Laible, 2004). Each category was rated on a scale of 1 to 7 with a
54 higher number indicating a higher level of quality. These four ratings were combined to create a composite score that could range from 4 to 28 points. Two coders independently rated each of these narratives; thus, an average score of the two raters were used in the analyses. Narr ative Coding Reliability Affective quality. appearance of involvement for each mother child dyad by watching videotapes of mother child narrative interactions. For each pair of ratings, a diff erence score was calculated. Then, the average of these scores was calculated to determine the average dissonance in agreement for each scale. Pearson product moment correlations were not used to assess reliability as this does not take into account the ma gnitude of differences in ratings. For the AM narrative, the mean ffect indicated that on average, the two raters had a difference in ratings of less than two points for each rating scale. For analyses, an average of the two rate was used. Narrative style and structure For mother story generation narratives, approximately 25% of the narratives were coded for reliability in terms of style, cohesion, and coherence. In terms o 90%; for narrative cohesion, the reliability was 91%; and for narrative coherence, the reliability was 87%. 95%; for na rrative cohesion, the reliability was 94%; and for narrative c oherence, the reliability was 89% Global ratings of narrative quality. Two researchers independently coded global ratings of narrative quality for each mother child narrative and each story ge neration by reading
55 transcripts of the narratives. For each pair of ratings, a difference score was calculated. Then, the average of these scores was calculated to determine the average dissonance in agreement for each scale. As with the affect ratings, Pe arson product moment correlations were not used to assess reliability as this does not take into account the magnitude of differences in ratings. Recall that the total possible points for global ratings was 27. For the AM narrative, the mean difference in 4.94 For the book narrative, the mean difference in global difference was 4.00. These disparities in ratings are greater than they were for the affective ratings; however, this scale had a higher number of possible points (27). For analyses, an average were used. Story Comprehension emergent liter acy skills were measured using three tasks. The first task, adapted from Paris and Paris (2003), assessed story comprehension by asking children a set of 10 questions. An experimenter read the story Sergio Makes a Splash (Rodrig uez, 2008), which is about a penguin who is afraid to learn how to swim, and his experience trying to overcome his fear. This book was chosen because because it was published in the same month in which testing began. T hus it was expected that childr en would be unfamiliar with the book. The experimenter stopped at seven different points in the story to ask comprehension questions, including questions about explicit information, as well as questions that require children to make inferences about implic it information, such as causal relationships understanding of the story. Similar protocols have been used by other researchers (e.g., Reese, 1995; Beals & DeTemple, 1993; Reese & Cox, 1999). The story comprehension questions are
56 listed in Appendix D. For each question, children receive d a score of 0 for an incorrect answer, a score of 1 for a partially correct answer, and a score of 2 for a correct answer for a total of 20 possible points. Approximately 25% of the story comprehension tasks were coded a second time to achieve reliability, which was measured as the proportion of questions that were given the same score (0 2). Reliability was 94%. Picture Sequencing The second task required children to reconstruct an unfamiliar story sequence by arranging five pictures depicting key events in a narrative. The pictures were chosen from the book Frog, Where are You? (Mayer, 1969) This protocol has also been used for childr en of this age by other authors (e.g., Glaubman et al. 2001 ). An initial picture in the sequence was always given in the correct placement. The remaining five pictures were lined up in front of each child in a scrambled order, which remained fixed across participants. The pictures used for t his task are given in Appendix E sequence. Children were given 2 points for each correct placement, for a total of 10 possible points. Children wer e given 1 point each for pictures that were placed in the correct sequence, but not in the correct placement. For example, if cards four and five were placed in slots two and three, children received 1 point each for cards four and five rather than 2 point s for each card. Additionally, children were asked to narrate the story once they sequenced the pictures. As with and structure. Reliability was not assessed for this measure as it was scored objectively. Story Generation T he support. The book chosen was Frog Goes to Dinner (Mayer, 1992), which is a wordless storybook about a boy
57 restaurant. amount of unique information they provide. The coding for structure was also applied to ch coded based on overall story structure in terms of focus, logic, clarity, and talkativeness. These aspects are rated on 5 point scales, with scores of 5 r epresent ed a better narrative. Reliability for this measure was discussed above. Print Concepts The Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA 3; Reid, Hresko, & Hammill, 2001) was used is normed on partic ipants ranging in age from 3;6 to 8;6. It includes three subtests: alphabet knowledge, conventions of print, and construction of meaning from print. This assessment takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes to administer. For each subtest, the testing stops whe n children have provided 3 consecutive incorrect responses. Like the PPVT and EVT, the TERA provides both a raw score and a standardized score. A score of 100 correspond s to the 50 th percentile and represents and average score General Procedures Most of the children in this study were recruited from local preschools through flyers sent home to parents as well as personally greeting parents as they picked up or dropped off children at their preschool. An additional four children were recruited by word of m outh. The child assessments were given to all children in the following order: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Expressive Vocabulary Test, Test of Early Reading Ability, story comprehension, picture sequencing, and story generation. The assessments were g iven in this order because it represents a progression of tasks that are least to most demanding on children. For example, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test requires that children simply point to the picture that corresponds to the
58 word spoken by the exp erimenter. The story generation task, on the other hand, requires the child to narra te an entire storybook. Thus, this task was placed last to ensure that children were comfortable with the experimenter before they were asked to do this task. In general, c hildren completed these tasks over two to three visits, which lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes each The mother a laboratory space on campus approximately one hour. Mothers and children were video and audio taped engaging in the three narrative tasks: mother child AM talk, mother child book reading, and mother child play. These tasks were counterbalanced to ensure that differences across contexts did not affect the nature of any particular narrative context. After the mother child interactions were complete d mothers were asked to complete the parent questionnaire. As mentioned above, t he mother child play context will not be discussed further. With the exception of the four children recruited by word of mouth, all assessments that children no t recruited through preschools, three children were given all assessments in their homes. The fourth child was given the child only assessments at her preschool, whereas the mother sample, 29 mother child dyads were visited in their homes for the mother child interaction; the remaining eight chose to come to the laboratory space for the mother child interaction.
59 Table 3 1. Home Literacy Environment Questionnaire Category Questions I ncluded Home Interaction Tell stories with your child? Teach your child letters, words, or numbers? Teach your child songs or music? Recite rhymes with your child? Work on arts and crafts with your child? Play games with your child indoors? Engage in free play with your child? Play a sport or exercise together? Take your child along while doing errands? Involve your child in household chores? Talk with your child about what happened in preschool that day? Talk with your child about TV programs or videos? Play counting games like singing songs with numbers or reading books with numbers? Read a picture book with your child? Outside Activities In the past month, which of the following have you done wit h your child? Visited a library? Gone to a movie? Gone to a play, concert, or other live show? Gone to a mall? Visited an art gallery, museum, or historical site? Visited a playground, park, or gone on a picnic? Visited a zoo or acquarium ? Talked with your child about his or her family history? Attended an event sponsored by a community, ethnic, or religious group? Attended an athletic or sporting event in which your child was not a player?
60 Table 3 1 continued. Home Literacy En vironment Questionnaire Category Questions Included Classroom Involvement How often have classroom? 30 minutes? Prepared food or materials for special event s such as a holiday celebration or special event? Helped with field trips or other special events? Reading How often does your child ask to be read to? How often does your child look at books by himself or herself? Home Litera cy History Which of the following do you have in your home? for children, magazines for adults (e.g., Newsweek, Sports Illustrated), newspapers, c atalogs, r eligious books, d ictio naries or e ncyclopedias, other books (e.g., novels, non fiction), a computer How many minutes did you or another family member read to your child yesterday? Approximately how many picture books do How often does your child watch educational television programs like Sesame Street? At what age did you or another family member begin to read to your child? Talk with your child about TV programs or videos? Play counting games like singing songs with numbers or reading books with numbers? Read a picture book with your child? How many minutes per day do you spend reading (not counting time spent reading with your child/children)? How much do you enjoy reading?
61 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS General Considerations As stated above, this study aimed narrative interaction with their children in two contexts ( AM and wordless story book ) plays in independent st ory comprehension picture sequencing, and story generation Because of the volume of data, analyses will be outlined prior to reporting the findings. For each variable, it was determined whether the variable was normally distributed. With the exception of the picture sequencing scores, all variables were normally distributed as determined by Shapiro Wilk tests of normality. Examining the descriptive statistics from the picture sequencing scores revealed a skewness statistic of .915, which should be near 0 in normally distributed data; and a kurtosis statistic of .506, which should be near 3 in normally distributed data. Thus, picture sequencing scores were positively skewed, meaning that many children performed poorly on this task. In fact, only two childre n sequenced the pictures correctly. Additionally, picture sequencing scores had a low kurtosis, meaning that the mean scores were flattened rather than peaked. Thus, picture sequencing scores were transformed by calculating the square root of the raw data. Examining the descriptive statistics for the resulting transformed scores revealed a skewness statistics of .401; and a kurtosis statistic of .954. Although the picture sequencing variable was improved by this transformation as evidenced in the improved skewness and kurtosis statistics, as well as examining the data graphically, the transformed picture sequencing scores were not normally distributed based on the Shapiro Wilk test of normality. Thus, results involving the picture sequencing scores will be presented with both raw data as well as transformed picture sequencing scores.
62 Next, one way ANOVAs were used to test for order effects for narrative context in terms of contexts, mothers and children engaged in these three narrative tasks in one of six possible orders There were no order effects coherence or global ratings in either the AM or the book context. Additionally, independent sam ples t tests were used to test for the effect of location (home or laboratory) on mother child narrative variables There were no significant differences in location. Thus, mother child narratives did not differ depending on whether they took place at thei r homes or in the laboratory. Finally, independent samples t tests were used to test for gender on and global ratings in both narrative contexts as well as the emergent literacy outcomes. There were no gender differences in any of these variables. Descriptive Data ascertained on the questionnaire that mothers filled out. Their responses indicated that in terms o f family characteristics, the average family size was 3.68 ( SD = .92 ). In terms of siblings, 11 of the 37 children were only children; 21 children had one sibling, four children had two siblings, and one child had three siblings. None of the children in th is sample lived with individuals other rty two mothers were married, four were single, and one was divorced. Mothers ranged in age from 24 to 43 ( M = 35.49, SD = 4.69). Additionally 28 mothers worked full time, seven mothers worked part time, and two mothers did not work. Of the working mothers, four mothers were graduate students. Next, descriptive data were analyzed for control, predictor, and outcome variables. Table 4 1 provide
63 wo categories, the total possible score is also shown in the table. standardized scores on both receptive vocabulary and expressive vocabulary were above 100, indicating that children in this study had ab ove average language skills in general M indicating that on average, mothers in this sample had a Bachelors degree This was a highly educated sample a s 25% of mothers ha d a Bachelor s degree and another 35% had a graduate degree. The family income of these families ranged from 15,000 to over 300,000 ( M = 92, 111, SD = 57, 442); and as shown in Table 4 1 the average income to needs ratio was 4.54 which is well above the po verty threshold. Mothers were also categorized based on the 9 point Hollingshead Occupational Scale (Hollingshead, 1975). This variable was r (37) = .58, p = .0 for descriptive purposes only. Seven mothers were classified as category 6 (Semiprofessionals; e.g., Sales Managers, Dieticians). Thirteen mothers were classified as category 7 ( Minor Professionals; e.g., Social Workers, Reporters). Six mothers were classified as category 8 (Lesser Professionals; e.g., Nurses, Teachers). Finally, seven mothers were classified as category 9 (Major Professionals; e.g., Physicians, Scientists). Thus, as a group, mothers in this sample were highly educated and were employed in professional occupations that are considered prestigious. Table 4 1 also shows that in terms of affect, mothers were rated positively for the most part in both the AM and the boo k context. Table 4 1 questionnaire. Mothers responded with high scores in the Mother Child Home Interaction
64 portion, indicating that mothers frequently spent time engaging children in inte ractions such as telling stories, reading books, and playing games. Ratings of Father Child Home Interaction as well as Sibling Child Home Interaction indicated that when either a father (n = 30) or an older sibling (n = 16) wa s present in the home, mother s report ed that these individuals do not engage in these activities as frequently as mothers. Paired samples t tests confirmed that mothers spend engaging in these activities, t (29) = 5.17, p < .001; as well as t (15) = 5.82, p < .001. tivities was not significantly different, t (14) = 1.69, p = .11. In terms of Outside A ctivities which included activities such as going to the library, a park, or a museum, mothers reported that they engaged in slightly less than half of the activities l isted within the past month; and mothers and fathers did not differ in this regard, t (29) = 0.63, p = .53. In terms of Classroom I nvolvement which included items such as time spent volunteering eading was high, with most mothers indicating that children frequ ently ask to be read to and look at books by themselves. In terms of Home Literacy History average, indic ating a rich literacy environment. Finally, in terms of mothers reported on average that they enjoyed reading and that they read frequently. Thus, in ent. With the
65 exception of Classroom Involvement mothers indicated a high level of activities that promote 4 1 indicates that there was not much variability in this sample r which suggests that most mothers reported a high level of these activities. Table 4 2 give a sense of what the mother child AM narratives were li ke, as well as proportions of these variables as these will be used in all further analyses. The descriptive data for cohesion is presented in Table 4 3 Table 4 4 There appears to be considerable the AM and book context both in terms of frequencies and proportions. In fact, in many cases, the standard deviations are close to the same value as the mean. The descriptive data for t he emergent literacy outcome s of story comprehension, picture sequencing, and story generation are given in Table 4 5 On average, children answered correctly to over half of the story comprehension questions; however, children did not perform well on the picture sequencing task on average. The narratives produced by children in the picture sequencing were analyzed based on the style and structure coding used for other narratives in this study ture sequencing narratives were not examined as children produced relatively little information in this task As shown in Table 4 5 for several of the narrative variables, the mean was less than 1 occurrence per picture sequencing narrative Thus, these n arratives will be used for descriptive purposes only. Finally, Table 4 6 shows the descriptive data for the story generation task. There was also considerable
66 generation task; and children were able to provide a good deal of information as the mean quality during the story generation task were 14.54 out of 28 points on average. C o nsistency B etween C ontexts Before addressing the first and central question of this study (i.e., the relationship ) comparisons between contexts will be examined to provide a sense of whether mothers narrative interactions with children represented a general way of co constructing narratives. For all correlations, proportional measures were used for narrative variables to adjust for the length of narratives. To determine co nsistency in style, Pearson product moment correlations were examined between contexts for each style variable. As shown in Table 4 7 mothers showed some consistency in style between the AM and book context in terms of evaluations, repetitive statements, and repetitive wh questions. However, elaborations are the key variable of interest in examining narrative style, and they were not related between contexts Next, Pearson product moment correlations were examined between contexts for each structure varia ble (i.e., cohesion, coherence). As shown in Table 4 8 mothers were not consistent in terms of particular cohesive devices (e.g., causal comments) ; however total cohesion was related between narrative contexts. Finally, Pearson product moment correlations were examined between contexts for each structure variable (e.g., comments about internal states, dialogue, etc.). As shown in Table 4 9 mothers were not consistent in their use of narrative or episodic coherence in their AM and book narratives. Thus, in terms of the third between contexts, t hese results suggest that for the most part mothers do display different ways of talking to children depending on the narrative context.
67 Diff etween C ontexts Also of interest was whether mothers differed between context s in terms of proportional use of style, cohesion, and coherence. Paired samples t proportions of s tyle variables, which are summarized in Table 4 10 There were several variables for which mother provided significantly more utterances in the AM context compared to the book context. These included elaborative yes no questions, evaluations, repetitive ye s no questions, and prompts. However, mothers provided more elaborative statements in the book context. Paired samples t coherence variables, which are summarized in Table 4 11 Variables f or which mothers provided significantly more utterances in the AM context included comments about characters, spatial orientations, and goals. Variables for which mothers provided significantly more utterances in the book context included causal and tempor al comments, and comments about dialogue, internal states, obstacles, and repairs. Thus, in terms of the third question of this study which asked mothers did not consistently provide more information in either context. Rather the AM and book contexts clearly presented different demands depending on what aspect of narrative production was examined. For example, the finding that mothers provided proportionally more spatial orientations may have been more frequent because it may be more im portant to provide the orienting context compared to the book context, which has pictures.
68 Control Measures R elations among the emergent literacy outcomes and the control variables using Pear son product moment correlations were examined in order to determine what control variables were controlled for in further analyses. As shown in Table 4 12 story comprehension scores were significantly related to age, receptive vocabulary, and expressive v ocabulary. Picture sequencing education, and family income. However, when using the transformed picture sequencing score, only receptive and expressive vocabulary we re significantly related to picture sequencing. 4 13 shows the relations among the emergent literacy outcomes and the items from the parent questionnaire. literacy outcomes were related to any of the parent questionnaire items. The significant correlations that were found will be used to determine which variables will be used as control fac tors in future analyses with the emergent literacy outcomes. Key Analyses: The Role of Mothers in The key analyses of the current study involve d narrative style and structure in the mot her child AM and book contexts independent child narratives are not of direct importance for the current study, as several studies have examined how mothers influence c d child narratives is n ot responsible for outcomes, Pearson product moment correlations were first examined
69 ny significant relationships were controlled for in subsequent analyses. For all subsequent analyses, Pearson product moment correlations were first examined bot h AM and book narratives. For any significant correlations, Pearson product moment Because of the sample size, the number of variables entered into regression a nalyses needs to be analyses were conducted predicting the e mergent literacy outcome of interest controlling for any variable of interest (i.e., style, cohesion, or coherence) as the predictor variable. As shown in Table 4 14 elaborative statements as well as elabor ative tag question s story comprehension scores. These types of utterances are functionally very similar. Elaborative statements provide children with unique information about the event without eliciting information (e.g., ). Elaborative tag questions provide children with a statement with a tag question that requests confirmation without asking for the child to contribute unique information (e.g., ). The se results
70 M style and emergent literacy outcomes in regression analyses, in relation to the control variables in order to determine if any other variables should be controlled for. Table 4 15 shows the correlations between the control var iables and the mother statements and tag questions expressive vocabulary and en joyment of reading. Thus, these variables were controlled for in the child AM narrative were examined in relation to story comprehension. This relationship was not significant; thus, chil emergent literacy outcomes wa iteracy outcomes controlling for factors that are related to the predictor and outcome variables. First elaborative statements were examined in relation to children story comprehension scores as this was the only emergent lit Although both receptive and expressive vocabulary were related comprehension, only receptive vocabulary was controlled for as these two measures are highly related, r (37) = .77, p < .001 ; and to reduce the number of variables entered into regression analyses Table 4 16 shows the results of the hi elaborative statements as the predictor variable. After
71 ela borative stateme nts style in terms of elaborative tag questions were examined in relation to ch ildren story comprehension scores. As shown in Table 4 17 age, receptive vocabulary, and enjoyment of questions still an additional 8% of the distinguishing between different types of elaborations (i.e., statements, tag questions, wh questions, and yes no questions). AM researcher s do not always make these distinctions however ( e.g., Reese et al., 1993; Reese, 1995 r (37) = .20, p = .23. Thus, wit hout distinguishing between types of elaborations, the conclusion might be However, b oth statement elaborations and tag compr ehension scores. These results suggest that mothers who elaborate d on stories about the past by providing much of the story for the child (as opposed to asking open ended questions) facilitated f a story as it is read to the m as these types of The following is an example of a mother child AM narrative in which they are discussing a family vacation at the Buzz Lightyear Hotel. This mother used many elaborative stateme nts and tag questions in her narrative. Utterances coded as elaborative statements are indicated below with the code S ELAB; and u tterances coded as elaborative tag questions are indicated with the code T ELAB.
72 MOT: We saw Woody and Buzz, remember? [T ELAB ] MOT: We went in our room. [S ELAB] MOT: And we went to check in. [S ELAB] MOT: And they gave you a balloon! [S ELAB] CHI: It was not all that! CHI: There was Jiminey Cricket, Mickey, and stuff. MOT: And Woody. [S ELAB] MOT: And remember our hotel room? ELAB] MOT: And there was that BIG statue of Buzz Lightyear! [S ELAB] MOT: And then across, and in the middle, there was the checker board, right? [T ELAB] CHI: Oh yea, and remember Woody?! MOT: And we took a picture of him. [S ELAB] In this interaction, the mother provides much of the narrative for the child without requesting much information from him. These types of utterances that place little demand on children and provide them w comprehension scores. Next, emergent literac y outcomes were examined. As shown in Table 4 18 the only significant questions in the book question s
73 mothers asked in the mother child book narratives, the better children performed on the story comprehension task. style was examined in relation to the control variables in order to determine if any other variables should be controlled for. As shown in Table 4 19 questions were significantly negatively related to receptive voca bulary, and expressive vocabulary. That is, mothers asked fewer repetitive wh q uestions of older children, and children with better language skills. Additionally, repetitions in the mother child book narratives were examined in relation to story generation. This relationship was not significant, and will not be used as a control variable. emergent literacy outco mes was emergent literacy only emergent literacy outcome related to moth questions, these used as receptive vocabul ary and expressive vocabulary were highly correlated. As shown in Table 4 20 questions comprehension that this is a negative relationship. Thus, the regression analyse s further
74 confirmed that even after controlling for age and language, moth ers who asked fewer repetitive wh questions in the book context had children with better story comprehension scores. The following is an example of a mother child book narrative int eraction. On this particular page of Pancakes for Breakfast the character has just returned home to find that her dog and cat have made a mess of her kitchen. This mother asked repetitive wh questions in an attempt to get the child to contribute to the st ory. Utterances coded in this way are indicated below with the code REPET. MOT: What did they do when she was gone? MOT: What did they do? [REPET] MOT: The kitty cat and puppy? MOT: What did they do? [REPET] CHI: They spilled her milk. CHI: And ate all the things. This example differs from the previous example in which the mother provided details of an AM event. In this example, the mother probes for a correct response rather than providing the information for the child. Mothers who asked fewer of these typ es of questions in the book context had children with better story comprehension scores. Thus, the ls was supported in the AM context, but not in the wordless storybook context. However, one could argue that the literacy. Additionally, the fourth hypothesis was supported in that these relationships remained even after accounting for several control variables.
75 Also relevant is the fourth question of this study, which asked what the relative influences of these con in terms of story comprehension The next as pect of mother cohesion during mother child AM narratives. Cohesion refers to interclausal connectives used to join clauses and includes additive comments (e.g., add), causal comments (e.g., because ), and story comprehension, picture sequencing, and story generation cohesion were examined. As shown in Table 4 21 were significantly related to r (37) = .46, p < .01. cohesion. causal comments causal comments was examined in relation to the control varia bles in order to determine if any other variables should be controlled for. As shown in Table 4 22 fam ily income. As mentioned above, picture sequencing scores were also significantly related to mother child AM narrative were also examined in relation to pictu re sequencing scores. child AM narratives were not related to picture sequencing. It
76 wa s not the case that children who used more causal utterances (or other types of cohesion) had better picture sequencing scores. Thus ch 4 23 after controlling for When picture sequencing scores were substituted for the outcome variable in an additional hierarchical regression with the same predictor variables very similar results were found p < .05. The following is an example from an AM narrative in which the mother was drawing att ention to causal relations in her conversation with her child about having to leave a water park. Utterances that were coded as causal relations are indicated below with the code [CAUS]. CHI: And then we had to leave. MOT: We did have to leave, you're righ t. MOT: Cause it was getting dark. [CAUS] MOT: It was getting dark. MOT: And getting cold. CHI: Everybody was leaving. MOT: Cause it gets cold in the water park when it gets dark. [CAUS] Mothers who provided more causal statements in their AM narratives h ad children with better picture sequencing scores. This suggests that parents who draw attention to causal relations in their AM narratives have children who are better able to recognize those types of relations independent of mothers. As summarized in Tab le 4
77 types o f utterances were relatively low in this context ( M = 1.57). Thus, mothers did not discuss sequencing. As mentione d above, only two children placed all pictures in the correct sequence. Below is an example of a picture sequencing narrative produced by one of these children. The pictures used in this task are provided in Appendix E. CHI: Dog and boy are looking in the jar. EXP: Uh, huh. CHI: With the frog in it. EXP: Yeah. Then what? CHI: The boy went to sleep and the frog walked out of the jar. EXP: Yeah. CHI: And the boy was looking for the frog. EXP: Yep. Now what? EXP: What's going on? CHI: Tell ing his dog to be quiet. EXP: Yeah. And then what? CHI: They found the frogs on the other side of the log. EXP: Yep. And then what? CHI: He's waving goodbye.
78 This child was able to express many key elements to understanding the causal sequence of the event s. He recognized the initiating event that the frog escaped the jar while the boy was asleep; the goal looking for the frog; as well a s the outcome he found the frog In contrast, the following is an example of a child who received a score of 2 out of 10 o n the picture sequencing task. CHI: The frog. EXP: What happens? CHI: And the frog then ribbits. EXP: Mm, hmm. CHI: And now they are on the log. CHI: And he got his hair cut, um for school. EXP: Yeah. What else? CHI: He said he was trying to whistle then he said shh. EXP: Uh, huh. CHI: And then he is calling for his puppy. CHI: And the puppy has this on his face. EXP: Yeah. CHI: And he's trying to reach the snow. CHI: And he went to sleep. CHI: And he laid down. CHI: And it was morning time and it was sno wing. In this example, it is clear that the child is not attuned to the key episodic elements of the story. Rather, her story is more descriptive and her utterances are not causally linked.
79 Interestingly, the differences in children who correctly sequenced pictures are not based on age as picture sequencing scores were not correlated with age. Furthermore, the child in the first example was 5;4 whereas the child in the second example was 5;5. Thus, factors other than picture sequencing scores. In fact, was shown in Table 4 entered into a hierarchic al regression. As with the AM narratives, Pearson product moment correlations were examined pictu re sequencing, and story generation. As shown in Table 4 24 none of the cohesion variables sequencing. Addi tionally, the fourth hypothesis was supported in that these relationships remained even after accounting for several control variables. Again, in terms of the fourth of c The next aspect of mother child narratives that was examined was coherence during mother child AM narratives. Coherence was measured in several ways, including comments about actions, characters, dialogue, internal states, spatial orientations, and
80 temporal orientations. C orrelations were examined among tory comprehension, picture sequencing, and story generation. As shown in Table 4 25 temporal orientations ments temporal orien t ations in ehension, temporal orientations were examined in relation to the co ntrol variables in order to determine if any other variables should be controlled for. As shown in Table 4 26 temporal orientations in the AM context compreh temporal orientations in the AM narratives were related to story comprehension, r (37) = .36, p = .04. Thus, these factors were controlled for in a 4 27 temporal orientations temporal orientations did not contri temporal orientations during AM narratives did not contribute types of comments. In fact, as shown in Table 4 27 temporal orientations during mother child AM narratives were the only independent contributor to their story comprehension. articipation in their literacy development.
81 The following is an example of a mother child AM narrative interaction in which the child mentioned temporal orientations in her conversation about a family trip. Utterances coded as temporal comments are indicat ed with the code [TEMP]. CHI: Yeah, and then we had to leave. [TEMP] CHI: But we tried every one we want. MOT: Didn't we go play in the castle too? CHI: YES! CHI: And then we go get ice cream! [TEMP] MOT: We did get ice cream! ral relations demonstrates how understanding of the timing of events is important to comprehending the event. This type of talk was significantly related to sequenc e events within the mother child context relates to their ability to comprehend a story as it is read to them. In fact, one of the story comprehension questions is about the understanding of temporal relations (i.e., What do you think will happen next? ). N arrative coherence was also examined in terms of episodic components, which included utterances regarding goals, obstacles, and repairs. As shown in Table 4 28 coherence during AM narratives was ion, picture is significant relationship between comments were examined in relation to the control variables in order to determine if any other
82 variables should be controlled for. As shown in Table 4 29 comm ents about goals in the AM narratives were examined in relation to ratings of their story generations, which was not significant. Thus, the only factors that were controlled for were Table 4 30 shows the results of the hierarchical regression predicting global ratings of global ratings of chi and accounted for an additional 13% of the variance in those ratings. Although mothers did not tend to provide many goals in their narratives with children (as was shown in Table 4 4) these results suggest that mothers who did m ention goals in the AM context had children who told independent stories that were rated as higher in quality. An example of explicit mention of goals during an AM narrative comes from one mother child conversation in which the dyad discussed a recent trip to the mall. This mother included many goals of the trip including picking out soap, buying new clothes for school, going to Build a Bear workshop, and eating lunch. Below is an example of a child who was given one of the highest global ratings for the s tory generation task. In this example, the child is discussing the end of the book, which involved the frog jumping from person to person, an attempt to catch the frog, and the final resolution of the boy taking the frog back home. CHI: And she sees the fr og. CHI: Then she cried out, "get this frog away from me."
83 CHI: Then t he frog hopped into some wine. CHI: Then the lady says, "why did you make your frog go into my dinner?" CHI: And the frog came up and kissed the man who had his wine. CHI: Then the me n and the lady left. CHI: And the frog kissed the guy. CHI: Then someone tries to tackle the frog but it was too fast. CHI: Then he kisses the frog and puts it in the outside. CHI: And then the boy cries out, "that's my frog." CHI: Then the man says, "Why did you bring your frog?" CHI: Then the boy says, "Because I wanted him to know what it was like." CHI: Then the boy takes the frog in his hand. CHI: And they drive home. CHI: The frog shouldn't have gone with him. CHI: The frog just hopped out when the y were in restaurant. CHI: Then the boy took the frog upstairs in his house. CHI: Then the boy gets into his pajamas. CHI: Then he goes to bed. In this particular story generation, the child was very talkative, providing many details. The story was also p resented in a very focused, clear and logical way. There were no deviations from the plot of the story, and the events discussed were causally and temporally well organized. These are the characteristics that were included in the global ratings of narrati ves. This excerpt is a good example of why it is important to assess global ratings of narratives. Assessing narratives using the structure coding scheme provides a frequency of how many times different elements of
84 a narrative were mentioned. However, it i s only when narratives are examined globally that one can rate how well the narrator linked these different elements together in a cohesive and coherent way. For example, the question Mothers who provided proportionally more goals in their AM narratives had children who produced story generations with higher global ratings This suggests that when mothers talk about the goals of shared past even ts, children have a better ribution to the mother child AM narratives. Table 4 31 shows the relations among eneration Because this negative relation was unexpected, the relationship between children episodic coherence and narrative coherence was examined. These vari ables were negatively related, r (37) = .66, p higher ratings had children w ho included more episodic components in their story generations, but also included fewer narrative components. It may be that it is difficult for children to focus on both types of narrative components; thus, children who included more narrative coherence (e.g., comments about action, orientations, etc.) included less information r egarding episodic coherence (i.e ., goals, obstacles, and repairs).
85 predict ing generation coherence. Before examining this significant relationship c ontrol variables. As shown in Table 4 32 AM global ratings were significantly related to shown in Table 4 33 related to any control variables, and episodic coherence was related to receptive vocabulary, expressive Table 4 34 shows the results of the first regression predicting childr global tive coherence. These results suggest that proportion of story generation narrative coherence comments once other factors were controlled Table 4 35 shows the mothers coherence. The story generation task, which involved children narrat ing the book Frog Goes to Dinner offered children many opportunities to mention episodic components as the book
86 presented a series of goals, obstacles and repairs. These types of comments were related to cluded ratings based on focus, logic, clarity, narrative production in a more general sense impacts how much episodic information children provide when the y narrate a story on their own. Below are two examples of mother child AM narratives. In the first example, the mother was given a lower global rating score. MOT: Oh, what did we see when we were on the boat? MOT: Remember what was swimming in the water? CHI: A shark! MOT: Oh yeah. MOT: Did he bite you? CHI: No. MOT: What else did we do at Dog Island? In this narrative, the mother did not add much embellishment to the events of th e (being bitten by a shark); and rather than expanding on the sighting of the shark, she quickly moved to a new aspect of the event. Narratives such as these were rated as lower in quality. This narrative contrasts with the next narrative, which was rated more positively. MOT: What did you do right after lunch with Mary? MOT: You and Mary did something by yourselves. MOT: Do you remember? CHI: Um, going in the tan k!
87 MOT: That's right. CHI: And seeing all the sharks like the sand shark. MOT: Yep. MOT: I was nervous. MOT: I was nervous when you did that. MOT: You know why? CHI: Did you see us? MOT: No, but I was nervous. MOT: You know why? CHI: Why? MOT: Because I ha d never let you go by yourself with another kid in a group of strange people away from me. MOT: So I was nervous until you came back. MOT: Then I was happy. MOT: You came back. MOT: And I was happy I let you go. MOT: Because it was an adventure. CHI: Yeah. MOT: And Mary was very helpful. MOT: She held your hand the whole time. CHI: Yes, she did. In this narrative, the mother provided a great deal of embellishment of the events in the narrative. She provided details of the event in a logical way, provided e xplanations of her own
88 mental states, and maintained focus by talking about a particular aspect of the event in detail. Mothers whose narratives w ere rated as higher in quality such as the above example, had children who included more episodic components in their story generations. generation. This child mentioned several episodic components, including goals (e.g., the boy wants to take the frog to dinner the guy tried to get the frog ); obstacles (e.g., the guy could ); as well as repairs (e.g., the boy retrieves his frog and takes it home). CHI: Um the little boy wanted the frog to go dinner. CHI: Then the little boy brought him to dinner. CHI: Then the little boy says bye to the dog and the turtle CHI: Then the little boy puts on his jacket. CHI: And the frog goes in it. CHI: Then they hopped into the car. CHI: And they went to dinner. CHI: And then they read something. CHI: And then the frog hopped into the music thing. CHI: And then the frog wasn't in his seat. CHI: So that was the family that forgot the frog. CHI: And the guy couldn't blow his horn because there was a frog in it. CHI: And then he tries to see what was in it. CHI: And then he got mad he ble w really funny. CHI: And they said, "Holy smoke!" there was a frog in it. CHI: And they notice that there was a frog in it.
89 CHI: And that's what happened. CHI: And it jumped on his face. CHI: Then the frog jumped into his dinner. CHI: Then he went a way. CHI: Then the person was going to eat a frog. CHI: And then they gave it to the lady. CHI: And she was going to eat a frog. CHI: Then she looked at the frog. CHI: And she saw it. CHI: And she hopped away. CHI: And the old lady fell out of her chair. C HI: And it popped into her drink. CHI: Then the frog scared the man. CHI: And the lady didn't want to drink it like that. CHI: And then it hopped into the table. CHI: And the guy tried to get it. CHI: And then lady tried to walk away. CHI: And then, they w ent away. CHI: And they put it in the closet. CHI: And the little boy tried to get it. CHI: And then they said, "hey that's my frog!" CHI: And they walked away. CHI: And then they were grounded that he took his frog to dinner.
90 CHI: Then he took it to his r oom. CHI: And then they had so much fun. This child provided a clear goal of the story from the beginning; she also pointed out several of the obstacles resulting from the frog jumping around the restaurant; and she provided a clear resolution and conclusi on to the story. Mothers whose AM narratives with children were given higher ratings of overall quality in terms of focus, logic, clarity, and talkativeness had children who provided more of these episodic components in their story generations. generation. As shown in Table 4 3 6 context we re related to picture sequencing scores; however, this relationship was no longer significant when examining the transformed picture sequencing scores. Thus, this relationship will not be examined further. Table 4 37 tterances regarding episodic in the book context were significantly related to picture sequencing scores. This relationship was also significant when examining the transformed picture sequencing scores, r (37) = .40, p = .02.
91 AM context and ch were examined in relation to the control variables in order to determine if any other variables should be controlled for. As shown in Table 4 38 cture sequencing scores were significantly Thus, these factors will be controlled for. were examined in rel ation to ratings of their story generations, which was not significant. Table 4 39 shows the results of the hierarchical regression predicting global ratings of ion, 3 % of the variance in ratings of story generation. The book chosen for the mo ther child book interaction Pancakes for Breakfast provided several opportunities for mothers to discuss obstacles. Specifically, in the of eggs, running out of milk, running out of syrup, and coming home to find her pets had ruined her pancake ing redients. Mothers who included more comments about these obstacles had children who were rated as producing higher quality narratives on their own. The following examp les demonstrate how mothers differed in how they discussed the same obstacle in the book context. In the first example, the mother does not draw attention the obstacle of being out of eggs, although she discusses the subsequent action of getting eggs from the chicken. MOT: Ah, look at this! CHI: What?
92 MOT: Where'd she go? CHI: She's going to get cherries. MOT: Cherries? CHI: Yeah. MOT: Chickens don't lay cherries. MOT: What do they lay? CHI: Eggs. CHI: But I said she's gonna get cherries. MOT: Yeah, what's she getting now? CHI: Eggs. MOT: Is she putting cherries in her pancakes? MOT: What kind of pancakes is she making? CHI: Blueberry. The next example differs in that this mother explicitly mention ed the obstacle of being out of eggs by explaining that the egg carton is empty and that the character needs more eggs. She also prompt ed the child to discuss how she resolves the situation. MOT: And then she gets her, this is a container. MOT: And it says E G G S. MOT: But it's empty. MOT: Do you know what E G G S spells? CHI: No. MOT: Mrs. Tackingill needs some eggs. MOT: She doesn't have any eggs.
93 MOT: So what do you think she's gonna do to get eggs? MOT: Where do you think she's gonna go to look for eggs? CHI: She went to her farm, to her chicken farm. Despit e the fact that both of these mothers produced 8 utterances revolving around getting eggs, they differed qualitatively in how they made sense of this action for their children. It was this explicit mention of obstacles in the book context that predicted ho w well children could sequence the events in the picture sequencing task which was initiated by the obstacle of the frog escaping the jar. es. As shown in Table 4 40, these variables were unrelated. outcomes. Additionally, the fourth hypothesis was supported in that these r elationships remained even after accounting for several control variables with the exception of the relationship between Again, in terms of the fourth question of this study regarding the relative role of the AM and book contexts, However, only global rat outcomes.
94 Style in Relation to AM Cohesion and Coherence have been kept separ ate in all analyses thus far, relations between these variables were examined Although AM researchers do not typically examine this relationship, it may be that mothers who are more elaborative are also telling more cohesive or coherent narratives as well. As shown in Table 4 41 elaborative tag questions and temporal comments. As shown in Table 4 42 in terms of AM narrative borative tag questions were significantly related to dialogue comments; and elaborative wh questions were significantly related to character comm ents. As shown in Table 4 43 in terms of AM episodic no questions were related to goal comments; and repetitive statements were related to repairs. Thus, there was some evidence that elaborativeness was related to their narrative structure; however, this was not found consistently for all categories of elaborativeness and narrative structure. Style in Relation to Book Cohesion and Coherence As shown in Table 4 44 for th e book context, there were positive relations were between ; and between elaborative stateme nts were positively related to all coherence variables, including comments about action, characters, dialogue, internal states, spatial orientations, and temporal orientations as shown in Table 4 45 Finally, as shown it Table 4 46 atements in the book context were related to comments about obstacles and repairs. These results suggest that
95 elaborative statements in the book context. Mothe Finally, assessed by the Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA) were examined As shown in Tables 4 47 through 4 49 atives in terms of style and structure (i.e., cohesion and coherence) d three subtests: alphabet knowledge, conventions of print, and construction of meaning from prin t. Thus, these results support the fifth print concepts as they are considered to represent a different type of literacy skill from oral language skills. rgent Literacy picture sequencing scores hierarchical regressions were examined with all predictors in the same model. Table 4 50 shows the results of a hierarchical regress questions, and questions as predictors. Because these three predictor variables were related to different control vari ables, only the control variables that were related to the outcome variable (i.e., age and receptive vocabulary) were entered into the first step of the style var e tag questions and repetitive b ook wh questions made an elaborative statements did not. This suggests that mothers who asked more elaborative tag
96 questions in the AM context and fewer repetitive wh questions in the book context had children with the highest story comprehension scores. Next, a hiera rchical regression was Again, to reduce the number of variables, only the control variables that were related to pictu re education, and family income. As shown in Table 4 51 after controlling for these factors, endently predicted picture sequencing scores; and explained an additional 24% of the variance in picture sequencing scores. Examining the same regression with the transformed picture sequencing scores as the dependent variable resulted in the same findings ; and the overall model added an res. The results of this study are summarized in Figure 4 and elaborative tag q uestions during elaborative tag questions and book repetitive wh quest temporal orientations during AM narratives were also on to mother temporal orientations were not uniquely predictive of story comprehension.
97 ure sequencing scores in separate regressions; and when examining both variables, both context uniquely predicted significant using both raw scores and trans formed scores. episodic coherence in their story generations. Taken together, these results supported the hypothese not every style or structure for each of the emergent literacy outcomes examined story comprehension, picture sequencing, and story generation child narratives uniquely predicted chil child narratives, which are summarized in Figure 4 2. Additionally, the fifth
98 Table 4 1. Descriptive data for contr ol variables Variable M SD Range Possible Points 56.62 6.15 46 70 106.30 13.01 79 133 112.62 11.51 97 135 in Years 16.42 2.1 9 13 20 Family Income to Needs Ratio 4.54 2.85 1.01 13.74 8.72 1.80 5 12 12 9.84 1.29 5.50 12 12 Mother Child Home Interaction 47.30 4.20 38 56 56 Fathe r Child Home Interaction 37.60 9.87 4 51 56 Sibling Child Home Interaction 29.06 11.35 12 45 56 Mother Child Outside Activities 4.58 2.01 0 9 10 Father Child Outside Activities 4.33 1.67 2 8 10 Classroom Involvement 4.97 2.46 1 12 20 7.51 0.80 5 8 8 Home Literacy History 21.78 3.38 10 27 27 7.17 1.65 3 9 9 Note PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test.
99 Table 4 2. Descriptiv e d ata for predictor v ariables (narrative s tyle) Frequency Proportions Variable M SD Range M SD Range 39.8 9 22.80 10 107 9.19 8.83 1 48 .23 .15 .05 .67 Mothers Question Elaborations 1.08 1.94 0 10 .02 .02 .00 .09 Question Elaborations 5.95 3.74 0 14 .16 .11 .00 .47 Elaborations 5.89 3.79 1 16 .16 .09 .04 .41 5. 14 4.36 0 18 .12 .08 .00 .37 2.70 2.92 0 11 .06 .05 .00 .20 Question Repetitions 0.86 1.60 0 6 .02 .04 .00 .14 2.59 2.39 0 10 .06 .05 .00 16 1.62 1.52 0 5 .05 .05 .00 .23 116.08 56.06 1 246 45.92 25.08 0 96 .40 .20 .00 .83 Question Elaborations 1.62 1.89 0 7 .01 .01 .00 .04 Question Elaborations 15.27 9.44 0 33 .13 .06 .00 .28 Elaborations 5.24 5.37 0 25 .04 .04 .00 .17 9.16 7.59 0 39 .08 .06 .00 .27 tatement Repetitions 6.84 5.31 0 22 .06 .03 .00 .13 Question Repetitions 1.81 2.40 0 9 .01 .02 .00 .06 2.78 3.05 0 11 .02 .03 .00 .14 2.59 2.15 0 7 .02 .02 .00 .06 Note. AM = Autobiographical Memory
100 Table 4 3. Descriptive data for p redictor v ariables (narrative c ohesion) Frequency Proportions Variable M SD Range M SD Range 3.62 5.00 0 26 .08 .08 .00 .4 2 1.57 1.95 0 8 .04 .05 .00 .20 Comments 0.49 0.77 0 3 .01 .02 .00 .07 esion Comments 5.68 6.19 0 30 .13 .10 .00 .47 10.89 8.02 0 29 .10 .07 .00 .30 6.89 5.08 0 23 .06 .04 .00 .16 2.00 1.73 0 6 .02 .02 .00 .06 19.78 12.86 0 57 .17 .10 .00 .47 Note. AM = Autobiographical Me mory
101 Table 4 4. Descriptive d ata for predictor v ariables (narrative c oherence) Frequency Proportions Variable M SD Range M SD Range 8.84 7.33 0 29 .22 .14 .00 .68 2.62 2.51 0 1 1 .08 .09 .00 .33 0 .11 0 .52 0 3 .00 .01 .00 .03 0 .84 2.27 0 12 .02 .05 .00 .24 Spatial Orientation s 7.73 5.86 1 27 .21 .11 .03 .43 Temporal Orie ntations 2.41 4.21 0 21 .06 .08 .00 .42 22.54 15.22 5 72 .59 .22 .15 1.05 2.97 1.46 1 6 .09 .05 .03 .25 0 .89 1.54 0 5 .02 .05 .00 .19 Mothers 0 .46 0 .84 0 3 .01 .02 .00 .06 4.32 3.01 1 14 .12 .08 .04 .32 27.08 14.35 0 58 .23 .09 .00 .41 4.30 2.48 0 10 .04 .0 2 .00 .10 3.16 5.89 0 34 .03 .05 .00 .27 8.81 6.18 0 23 .07 .05 .00 .18 Spatial Orientation s 12.14 6.22 0 26 .11 .05 .00 .21 emporal Orien tations 9.27 5.81 0 27 .08 .04 .00 .19 78.24 35.11 0 149 .68 .22 .00 1.21 2.22 1.46 0 5 .02 .01 .00 .05 6.62 3.50 0 18 .06 .03 .00 .15 4.57 2.61 0 10 .04 .02 .00 .10 12.46 6.03 0 29 .12 .05 .00 .27
102 Table 4 5. Descriptive d ata for story comprehension and picture s equencing Frequency Proportions Variable M SD Range M SD Range Possible Points Story Comprehension 11.00 3.67 4 19 20 Picture Sequencing 3.69 2.46 0 10 10 PS: Total On Topic Utterances 9.66 3.60 3 19 PS: Elaborations 8.49 0 .74 3 18 .90 .13 .53 1.00 PS: Additive Comment s 0 .74 1.07 0 4 .07 .09 .00 .36 PS: Causal Comments 0 .34 0 .87 0 4 .03 .06 .00 .27 PS: Temporal Comments 0 .14 0 .43 0 2 .01 .04 .00 .17 PS: Total Cohesion 1.23 1.66 0 6 .11 .14 .00 .55 PS: Action Comments 2.17 1.76 0 8 .24 .17 .00 .56 PS: Character Comments 0 .83 0 .89 0 3 .08 .08 .00 .22 PS: Dialogue Comments 0 .80 0 .90 0 3 .08 .09 .00 .38 PS: Internal States Comments 0 .17 0 .38 0 1 .02 .04 .00 .20 PS: Spatial Orientation s 1.31 1.71 0 8 .14 .17 .00 .67 PS: Temporal O rientations 2.89 2.15 0 8 .31 .23 .00 .83 PS: Total Narrative Coherence 8.17 4.00 2 17 .87 .38 .29 1.83 PS: Goal Comments 0 .31 0 .58 0 2 .03 .05 .00 .20 PS: Obstacle Comments 1.17 1.2 0 0 4 .12 .12 .00 .40 PS: Repair Comments 0 .54 0 .85 0 3 .06 .09 .00 .33 PS: Total Episodic Coherence 2.03 2.15 0 7 .21 .20 .00 .57 Note PS = Picture Sequencing.
103 Table 4 6. Descriptive data for story g eneration Frequency Proportions Variable M SD Range M SD Range Possible Points SG: Total O n Topic Utterances 36.73 12.86 21 66 SG: Elaborations 30.57 12.03 16 60 .84 .14 .49 .98 SG: Additive Comments 3.76 3.83 0 17 .09 .08 .00 .32 SG: Causal Comments 1.41 2.01 0 10 .03 .04 .00 .17 SG: Temporal Comments 1.43 1.52 0 6 .04 .03 .00 .11 SG: Total Cohesion 6.59 6.54 0 27 .16 .12 .00 .43 SG: Action Comments 6.89 3.14 0 16 .14 .09 .00 .44 SG: Character Comments 2.30 2.15 0 6 .04 .05 .00 .27 SG: Dialogue Comments 3.14 4.83 0 22 .05 .07 .00 .29 SG: Internal States Comments 3.76 3.41 0 14 .06 .05 .00 .24 SG: Spatial Orientation s 2.86 1.87 0 8 .05 .03 .00 .17 SG: Temporal Orientations 7.95 6.87 0 23 .11 .07 .00 .22 SG: Total Narrative Coherence 61.27 30.76 1 7 124 1.67 .59 .47 2.94 SG: Goal Comments 1.62 1.57 0 5 .03 .03 .00 .12 SG: Obstacle Comments 8.35 5.25 0 21 .14 .08 .00 .35 SG: Repair Comments 1.51 1.22 0 5 .03 .03 .00 .12 SG: Total Episodic Coherence 11.49 6.59 1 26 19 .09 .02 .47 SG: Global Rating 14.54 5.78 6 27 28 Note SG = Story Generation.
104 Table 4 AM Context 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Book 1. Elaborative Statements .31 Con text 2. Elaborative Tag Questions .23 3. Elaborative Wh Questions .21 4. Elaborative Yes No Questions .05 5. Evaluations .57** 6. Repetitive Statements .42** 7. Repetitive Wh Questions .60** 8. Repetitive Yes No Questions .25 9. Prompts .05 Note AM = Autobiographical Memory.. p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 k narrative contexts AM Context 1 2 3 4 Book Context 1. Additive comments .25 2. Causal comments .05 3. Temporal comments .29 4. Total Cohesion .33* Note AM = Autobiographical Memory; p < .05; ** p < .01.
105 Table 4 s AM Context 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Book Context 1. Action .29 2. Character .11 3. Dialogue .08 4. Internal States .30 5. Spatial Orientations .22 6. Temporal Orientations .15 7. Total Narrative Coherence .18 8. Goals .05 9. Obstacles .13 10. Repairs .03 11. Total Episodic Coherence .09 Note AM = Autobiographical Memory; p < .05; ** p < .01
106 Table 4 10. Summary of paired samples t contexts Comparison t statistic Elaborative Statements AM < Book 4.97** Elaborative Tag Questions AM = Book 1.87 Elaborative Wh Questions AM = Book 2.03 Elab orative Yes/No Questions AM > Book 7.11** Evaluations AM > Book 3.66** Repetitive Statements AM = Book 0.89 Repetitive Wh Questions AM = Book 1.20 Repetitive Yes/No Questions AM > Book 5.10** Prompts AM > Book 2.60* Note AM = Autobi ographical Memory. p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 11. Summary of paired samples t contexts Comparison t statistic Additive Comments AM = Book 1.02 Causal Comments AM < B ook 2.27* Temporal Comments AM < Book 2.17* Action Comments AM = Book 0.45 Character Comments AM > Book 2.95** Dialogue Comments AM < Book 3.44** Internal State Comments AM < Book 5.42** Spatial Or ientation s AM > Book 5.25** T emporal Orientations AM = Book 1.58 Goal Comments AM > Book 8.49 Obstacle Comments AM < Book 3.90 Repair Comments AM < Book 5.75 Note AM = Autobiographical Memory. p < .05; ** p < .01.
107 Table 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Story Comprehension -.33 .17 .37* .35* .52** .29 .12 .04 .15 .04 .10 2. Picture Sequenc ing -.21 .27 .35* .42* 42* .35* .20 .13 .16 .10 3. SG: Global Ratings -.37* .32 .31 .15 .06 .23 .07 .14 .05 -.37* .68** .11 .04 .34* .04 .36* .04 5. PPVT Raw Scores -.77** .26 .03 .04 .24 .13 .21 6. EVT Raw Scores -.20 .03 .11 .21 .14 .04 -.33 .01 .02 .17 .21 8. Income to Needs Ratio -.09 .20 .16 .05 -.45** .45** .08 -.09 .03 -.03 -Note SG = Story Generation; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test. p < .05; ** p < .0 Table 4 13. Relations among emergent literacy and home literacy environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Story Comprehension -.33 .17 .10 07 .06 .11 .08 .04 2. Picture Sequencing -.21 .28 .02 .12 .01 .32 .16 3. SG: Global Ratings -.16 .08 .07 .19 .07 .15 4. Mother Child Home Interaction -.04 .11 .04 .17 .01 5 Mother Child Outside Activities -.12 .08 .31 .13 6 Classroom Involvement -.34* .20 .15 7 nt of Reading -.28 .13 8 Home Literacy History -.46** 9 -Note PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test. p < .05; ** p < .01.
108 Table 4 14. Relations among mothers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Story Comprehension -.33 .17 .35* .42** .25 .07 .08 .02 .21 .31 .11 2. Picture Sequencing -.12 .07 .06 .11 .10 .32 .16 .10 .32 .02 3. Story Generation: Elaborations -.21 .20 .25 .19 .18 .05 .10 .27 .15 4. Elaborative Statements -.46** .36* .15 .32 .24 .32 .40* .46** 5. Elaborative Tag Questions -.26 .51** .07 .09 .12 .13 .28 6. Elaborative Wh Questions -.17 .01 .19 .34* .22 .02 7. Elaborative Yes No Questions -.44** .12 .34* .12 .21 8. Evaluations -.01 .23 .15 .02 9. Repetitive Stat ements -.29 .15 .05 10. Repetitive Wh Questions -.08 .20 11. Repetitive Yes No Questions -.11 12. Prompts -Note AM = Autobiographical Memory. p < .05; ** p < .01.
109 Table 4 Control Variables Elaborative Statements Elaborative Tag Questions .30 .22 PPVT Raw Scores .08 .28 EVT Raw Scores .19 .38* Socioeconomic Status .18 .24 Income to Needs Ratio .13 .15 Affect .36* .26 s AM Involvement .19 .23 Home Literacy Environment Mom Child Home Interaction .05 .28 Mother Child Outside Activities .01 .06 Classroom Involvement .19 .14 22 .39* Home Literacy History .09 .25 .02 .09 Note AM = Autobiographical Memory; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test. p < .05 ; ** p < .01. Table 4 Story Comprehension Predictor B SE B Step 1 .20 .14 .33 Raw PPVT Scores .03 .04 .15 .31 .38 .15 .17 Step 2 .13 .14 .22 Raw PPVT Scores .03 .04 .19 .32 .37 .16 ve Statements 7.74* 4.13* .31* .09* Note AM = Au tobiographical Memory; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. p < .05, ** p < .01.
110 Table 4 question elaborations Story Comprehension Predictor B SE B Step 1 .18 .12 .31 Raw PPVT Scores .03 .03 .17 .80 .74 .18 .19* Step 2 Months .14 .12 .24 Raw PPVT Scores .02 .03 .12 .15 .80 .03 Elaborative Tag Questio ns 48.16* 25.93* .33* .08* Note AM = Aut obiographical Memory; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. p < .05 ** p < .01
111 Table 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Story Comprehension .33 .17 .28 .11 .18 .01 .09 .11 .55** .28 .10 2. Picture Sequencing -.12 .17 .20 .12 .18 .10 .31 .27 .11 .14 3. Story Generation Elaborations -.06 .13 .08 .02 .03 .29 .24 .07 .01 4. Elab orative Statements -.10 .56** .48** .33* .15 .44** .50** .37* 5. Elaborative Tag Questions -.05 .10 .15 .03 .25 .11 .28 6. Elaborative Wh Questions -.47** .44** .34 .40* .33* .56** 7. Elab orative Yes No Questions -.02 .12 .14 .41* .30 8. Evaluations -.21 .11 .03 .49** 9. Repetitive Statements -.25 .22 .06 10. Repetitive Wh Questions -.52** .01 11. Rep etitive Yes No Questions -.02 12. Prompts -Note p < .05; ** p < .01.
112 Table 4 questions and control variables Control Variables .38* uage PPVT Raw Scores .36* EVT Raw Scores .41* Socioeconomic Status .13 Income to Needs Ratio .13 Affect .13 Children .08 Home Literacy Environment Mom Child Home Interaction .06 Mother Child Outside Activities .07 Classroom Involvement .09 .21 Home Literacy History .06 .03 Note PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; EVT = Expressive Vocab ulary Test. p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 questions Story Comprehension Predictor B SE B Step 1 .15 .11 .25 Raw PPVT Scores .04 .03 .20 .16 Step 2 .08 .11 .13 Raw PPVT Scores .02 .03 .1 0 Questions 108.35** 36.54** .46** .18** Note PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. p < .05, ** p < .01.
113 Table 4 teracy Outcomes Story Comp Picture Seq SG Global Rating SG Additive SG Causal SG Temporal SG Total Cohesion Additive comments .02 .17 .03 .01 Causal comments .14 .51** .13 .17 Temporal comments .03 .05 .25 .16 Total cohesion .05 .09 .08 .06 Note AM = Autobiographical Me mory; Story Comp = Story Comprehension; Picture Seq = Picture Sequencing; SG = Story Generation. p < .05 ; ** p < .01. Table 4 22. Relations among mother Control Variables .27 PPVT Raw Scores .35* EVT Raw Scores .42* Socioeconomic Status .42* Income to Needs Rat io .35* Affect .04 .12 Home Literacy Environment Mother Child Home Interaction .28 Mother Child Out side Activities .08 Classroom Involvement .06 .01 Home Literacy History .03 Mom .16 Note AM = Autobiographical Memory; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test. p < .05; ** p < .01.
114 Table 4 23. Results of hierarchical regression predicting Picture Sequencing Predictor B SE B Step 1 .06 .08 .15 PPVT Raw Score .02 .02 .16 .23 .19 .20 Family Income .59* .21* .44* .43** Step 2 C .02 .07 .05 PPVT Raw Score .01 .02 .06 .24 .16 .21 Family Income .63** .18** .47** 24.28** 7.57** .4 9** .17** Note AM = Autobiographical Memory; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. p < .05, ** p < .01. Using transformed Picture Sequencing scores as the dependent variable resulted in p < .05. Table 4 Story Comp Picture Seq SG Gl obal Rating SG Additive SG Causal SG Temporal SG Total Cohesion Additive comments .23 .11 .02 .24 Causal comments .27 .01 .19 .15 Temporal comments .19 .18 .19 .18 Total Cohesion .29 .10 .11 .28 Note Story Comp = Story Comprehension; Picture Seq = Picture Sequencing; SG = Story Generation. p < .05; ** p < .01.
115 Table 4 Story Comp Pictur e Seq SG Global Rating SG Action SG Character SG Dialogue SG Internal State SG Spatial Orientation SG T emporal Orientation SG Total Narrative Coherence Coherence Action Comments .15 .04 .12 .01 Character Comments .07 .15 .01 .18 Dialogue Comments .10 .12 .06 .13 Internal States .02 .12 .06 .12 Spatial Orientations .08 .26 .26 .10 Temporal Orientations .34* .17 .11 .20 Total Narrative C oherence .17 .21 .18 .01 Note AM = Autobiographical Memory; Story Comp = Story Comprehension; Picture Seq = Picture Sequencing. p < .05; ** p < .01.
116 Table 4 temporal orientations and control variables Control Variables .14 PPVT Raw Scores .33* EVT Raw Scores .21 Socioeconomic Status .34 Income to Needs Ratio .02 Affect .20 .02 Home Literacy Environment Mother Child Home Interaction .01 Mother Child Outside Activities .28 Classroom Involvement .04 .16 Home Literacy History .37* .10 Note AM = Autobiographical Memory; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test. p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 27. Results of hiearchical regression predicting child temporal orientations Story Comprehension Predictor B SE B Step 1 .25 .13 .41 Raw PPVT Scores .01 .04 .05 Home Literacy History .13 .18 .12 Temporal Orientations 9.75* 4.12* .37* .31* Step 2 .24 .13 .40 Raw PPVT Scores .01 .04 .03 Home Literacy History .10 .20 .09 Temporal Orientations 8.78 4.71 .33 Temporal Orientations 3.87 8.74 .09 .01 Note AM = Autobiographical Memory; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. p < .05; ** p < .01.
117 Table 4 Story Comp Picture Seq SG Global Ratings SG Goal SG Obstacle SG Repair SG Total Episodic Coherence Goal .08 .12 .46** .03 Obstacle .01 .17 .06 .16 Repair .04 .08 .13 .02 Total Episodic Coherence .04 .06 .27 .03 Note Story Comp = Story Comprehension; Picture Seq = Picture Sequencing. p < .05; ** p < .01. Note AM = Autobiographical Memory; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test. p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 29. Relatio Control Variables .27 PPVT Raw Scores .19 EVT Raw Scores .11 Socioeconomic Status .14 Income to Needs Ratio .04 Affect .34* .33 Home Literacy Environment Mother Child Home Interaction .28 Mother Child Outside Activities .10 Classroom Involvement .17 yment of Reading .25 Home Literacy History .16 .23
118 Table 4 Story Generation Global Ratings Predictor B SE B Step 1 .31 .16 .33 .37 .56 .11 .15 Step 2 .24 .16 .25 .02 .55 .01 49.02* 20.73* .39* .13* Note AM = Autobiographical Memory; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 31. Relations among glob literacy outcomes Ratings of Mothers in AM Context Story Comprehension .20 Picture Sequencing .01 SG: Elaborations .08 SG: Total Cohesion .15 SG: Total Narrative Coherence .39* SG: Total Episodic Coher ence .46** SG Global Rating .23 Note SG = Story Generation; AM = Autobiographical Memory. p < .05; ** p < .01.
119 Table 4 Co ntrol Variables Global Ratings of Mothers in AM Context .04 PPVT Raw Scores .21 EVT Raw Scores .39* Socioeconomic Status .15 Income to Needs Ratio .06 Affect .34* Child .58** Home Literacy Environment Mother Child Home Interaction .22 Mother Child Outside Activities .27 Number of Literacy Materials .12 Classroom Involvement .07 .57** Home Literacy History .1 3 .18 Note. PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test; AM = Autobiographical Memory. Table 4 Control Variables SG: Total Narrative Coherence SG: Total Episodic Coherence .24 .25 PPVT Raw Scores .15 .47** EVT Raw Scores .27 .46** Socioeconomic Status .27 .45** Income to Needs Ratio .28 .27 Affect .01 .02 .13 .25 Home Literacy Environment Mother Child Home Interaction .15 .03 Mother Child Outside Activities .18 .26 C lassroom Involvement 19 .20 .10 .07 Home Literacy History .07 .06 .21 .04 Note: SG = Story Generation; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; EVT = Expressiv e Vocabulary Test; AM = Autobiographical Memory.
120 Table 4 Story Generation Total Narrative Coherence Predictor B SE B Step 1 Raw EVT Scores .01 .01 .22 .01 .02 .04 .01 .01 .03 .01 .03 .09 .07 Step 2 Raw EVT Scores .00 .01 .08 .02 .03 .17 .01 .01 .08 .01 .03 .09 .01 .01 .52 .12 Note EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test; AM = Autobiographical Memory. p < .05, ** p < .01. Table 4 Story Generation Total Episodic Coherence Predictor B SE B Step 1 Raw PPVT Scores .01 .01 .33 .02* .01* .35* .01 .02 .03 .01 .01 .16 t .04 .03 .22 .37* Step 2 Raw PPVT Scores .01 .01 .30 .01 .01 .31 .02 .02 .19 .01 .01 .17 .01 .03 .05 Narratives .01* .01* .49* .12* Note EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test; AM = Autobiographical Memory. p < .05, ** p < .01.
121 Table 4 Story Comp Picture Seq SG Global Rating s SG Action SG Chara cter SG Dialogue SG Internal State SG Spatial Orientation SG Temporal Orientations SG Total Narrative Coherence Coherence Action .13 .18 .14 .04 Character .12 .34* .13 .03 Dialogue .01 .13 .05 .14 Internal States .23 .01 .06 .03 Spatial Orientations .19 .15 .17 .18 Temporal Orientations .12 .26 .12 .06 Total Narrative Coherence .19 .29 .10 .03 Note Story Comp = Story Compreh ension; Picture Seq = Picture Sequencing. p < .05; ** p < .01.
122 Table 4 Story Comp Picture Seq SG Global Ratings SG Goal SG Obstacl e SG Repair SG Total Episodic Coherence Goal .04 .01 .15 .24 Obstacle .21 4 8* .02 .04 Repair .11 .01 .29 .09 Total Episodic Coherence .04 .25 .19 .08 Note Story Comp = Story Comprehension; Picture Seq = Picture Seque ncing. p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 Control Variables .38* PPVT Raw Scores .18 EVT Raw Scores .29 Socioeconomic Status .08 Income to Needs Ratio .01 Affect .07 .01 Home Literacy Environment Mother Child Home Interaction .20 Mother Child Outside Activities .28 Classroom Involvement .11 .11 Home Literacy History .13 havior .17 Note AM = Autobiographical Memory; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test. p < .05; ** p < .01.
123 Table 4 picture sequencing from Picture Sequencing Predictor B SE B Step 1 .06 .08 .15 Raw PPVT Scores .02 .02 .16 Mothe .23 .19 .20 Family Income .59* .21 .44* .43** Step 2 .01 .07 .02 Raw PPVT Scores .02 .02 .18 .23 .17 .20 Family Income .40 .20 .30 34.51* 12.74* .41* .13* Note PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Using trans formed Picture Sequencing scores p = .04 at step 2. p < .05, ** p < .01. Table 4 literacy outcomes Ratings of Mothers in B ook Context Story Comprehension .20 Picture Sequencing .22 SG: Elaborations .22 SG: Total Cohesion .14 SG: Total Narrative Coherence .05 SG: Total Episodic Coherence .14 SG Global Rating .16 Note SG = Story Generation. p < .05; ** p < .01.
124 Table 4 Additive Comments Causal Comments Temporal Comments Style Elaborative Statements .42* .19 .30 Elaborative Tag Questions .32 .25 .34 Elaborative Wh Questions .23 .13 .03 Elaborative Yes No Questions .08 .18 .03 Evaluations .24 .09 .33* Repetitive Statements .05 .17 .06 Repetitive Wh Questions .07 .14 .11 Repetitive Yes No Questions .09 .10 .10 Prompts .09 .20 .30 Note AM = Autobiographical Memory. p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 coherence Action Character Dialogue Internal States Spatial Orienta tions Temporal Orienta tions Elaborative Statements .20 .13 .12 .37* .18 .13 Elaborative Tag Questions .06 .14 .43** .38* .1 6 .21 Elaborative Wh Questions .20 .43** .13 .33* .14 .19 Elaborative Yes No Questions .13 .08 .08 .31 .07 .11 Evaluations .22 .02 .04 .05 .26 .16 Repetitive Statements .17 .33* .09 .03 .05 .17 Repetitive Wh Questions .09 .1 4 .11 .09 .03 .04 Repetitive Yes No Questions .20 .09 .07 .11 .04 .15 Prompts .05 .13 .13 .21 .11 .06 Note AM = Autobiographical Memory. p < .05; ** p < .01.
125 Table 4 Mo Goal Obstacle Repair Elaborative Statements .34* .12 .14 Elaborative Tag Questions .30 .08 .08 Elaborative Wh Questions .14 .27 .15 Elabor ative Yes No Questions .33* .09 .02 Evaluations .28 .04 .07 Repetitive Statements .11 .19 .39* Repetitive Wh Questions .17 .13 .12 Repetitive Yes No Questions .10 .15 .11 Prompts .23 .17 .12 Note AM = Autobiographical Memory. p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 Additive Comments Causal Comments Temporal C omments Style Elaborative Statements .71** .55** .45** Elaborative Tag Questions .02 .16 .05 Elaborative Wh Questions .37* .25 .32 Elaborative Yes No Questions .29 .23 .16 Evaluations .48** .13 .37* Repetitive Statements .22 .01 .12 Repetitive Wh Questions .30 .29 .08 Repetitive Yes No Questions .28 .29 .09 Prompts .24 .06 .24 Note p < .05 ; ** p < .01.
126 Table 4 nce Action Character Dialogue Internal States Spatial Orienta tions Temporal Orienta tions Elaborative Statements .54** .57** .33* .43** .51** .42* Elaborative Tag Questions .13 .18 .16 .11 .02 .04 Elaborative Wh Questions .02 .16 .21 .20 .09 .06 Elaborative Yes No Questions .18 .01 .30 .04 .18 .17 Evaluations .18 .24 .04 .44** .16 .06 Repetitive Statements .07 .07 .11 .03 .12 .17 Repetitive Wh Questions .03 .33* .01 .16 .31 .15 Repetitive Yes No Questions .13 .14 .07 .22 .04 .37* Prompts .02 .13 .23 .07 .11 17 Note p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 Goal Obstacle Repair Elaborative Statements .23 .62** .50** Elaborative Tag Questions .16 .16 .08 Elaborative Wh Questions .17 .11 .09 Elaborative Yes No Questions .05 .33 .14 Evaluations .02 .01 .01 Repetitive Statements .23 .05 .12 Repetitive Wh Questions .20 .42* .13 Repetitive Yes No Questions .11 .53** .15 Prompts .03 .12 .06 Note p < .05; ** p < .01.
127 Table 4 TERA Scores TERA Scores Style Elaborative Statements .03 Elaborative Statements .03 Elaborative Tag Questions .22 Elaborative Tag Questions .12 Elaborative Wh Questions .31 Elaborative Wh Questions .14 Elaborative Yes no Questions .03 Elaborative Yes no Questions .06 Evaluations .29 Evaluations .12 Repetitive Statement .05 Repetitive Statement .04 Repetitive Wh Questions .07 Repetitive Wh Questions .19 Repetitive Yes No Questions .01 Repetitive Yes No Questions .13 Prompts .09 Promp ts .10 Note TERA = Test of Early Reading Ability; AM = Autobiographical Memory. p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 TERA Scores TERA Scores hesion Additive comments .13 Additive comments .03 Causal comments .18 Causal comments .18 Temporal comments .08 Temporal comments .06 Total Cohesion .04 Total Cohesion .09 Note TERA = Test of Early Reading Ability; AM = Autobiographical Mem ory. p < .05; ** p < .01. Table 4 TERA Scores TERA Scores Action .16 Action .14 Character .22 Character .14 Dialogue .12 Dialog ue .29 Internal States .08 Internal States .14 Spatial Orientations .07 Spatial Orientations .11 Temporal Orientations .16 Temporal Orientations .16 Total Narrative Coherence .13 Total Narrative Coherence .07 Goal .08 Goal .11 Obstacle .0 1 Obstacle .04 Repair .12 Repair .12 Total Episodic Coherence .01 Total Episodic Coherence .04 Note TERA = Test of Early Reading Ability; AM = Autobiographical Memory. p < .05; ** p < .01.
128 Table 4 50. Results of hierarchical regression predictin multiple predictors Story Comprehension Predictor B SE B Step 1 .15 .11 .25 Raw PPVT Scores .04 .03 .20 .16 Step 2 .06 .10 .09 Raw PPVT Scores .01 .03 03 .71 4.02 .03 Questions 50.35* 23.34* .34* questions 109.22** 35.70** .47** .29** Note PPVT = Peabody Pictur e Vocabulary Test; AM = Autobiographical Memory. p < .05, ** p < .01. Table 4 multiple predictors Picture Sequencing Predictor B SE B Step 1 Raw PPVT Scores .03 .02 .24 .24 .19 .21 Family Income .60** .21** .45** .42** Step 2 Raw PPVT Scores .01 .02 .05 .24 .15 .21 Family Income .48* .18* .36* 18.24* 6.99* .37* 23.92* 11.63* .29* .24** Note PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; AM = Autobiographical Memory. Using transformed Picture Seque p = .05 at step 2. p < .05, ** p < .01.
129 Predictor Variables Outcome Variables Figure 4 1. Summary of Relations that Remained between Predictor Variables and Outcome Variables after Control Variables were Entered into Hierarchical Regressions Story Comprehension Elaborative Statements Repetitive Wh Questions Picture Sequencing Causal Comments Mot Elaborative Tag Questions Obstacle Comments + + + + Narrative Quality Story Generation: Global Ratings + Comments Story Generation: Episodic Coherence +
130 Predictor Variables Contr ol Variables AM Elaborative Statements AM Affect AM Elaborative Tag Questions Expressive Vocabulary Book Repetitive Wh Questions Age Receptive Vocabulary Expressive Vocabulary AM Causal Comments Receptive Vocabula ry Expressive Vocabulary Family Income Book Obstacle Comments Age AM Goal Comments AM Narrative Quality Expressive Vocabulary Figure 4 2. Summary of Control Variables Related to the Predictor and Outcome Variables in Figure 4 1 Control Variables for Story Comprehension : Age Receptive Vocabulary Expressive Vocabulary Control Variables for Picture Sequencing : Receptive Vocabulary Expressive Vocabulary Family Income Control Variables for Global Ratings of Story Generation: Age Control Variables for Story Generation: Episodic Coherence : Receptive Vocabulary Expressive Vocabulary
131 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION mother rgent literacy skills. This study was measured; several variables were controlled for; mothers and children participated in two ves were assessed in multiple ways (i.e., style, cohesion, coherence globally ). The results will be discussed in terms of skills story comprehension, picture sequencing, and story generation; and the aspects of ives that predicted these outcomes. Recall that the first three hypotheses of this mprehension best predictor. elaborative statements and elaborative tag questions were mothers who used fewer repetitive wh questions in the book context had children with better story comprehension scores. on the other hand, did not predict elaborative tag questions during mother child AM narratives sig story comprehension scores. As mentioned above, there is limited research on the role of
132 narrative talk during mealtimes was related to narrative talk included both past events and future events and was not coded base d on utterance on, Elaine Reese (1995) found that elaborations played an important child AM narratives and mother child book narratives when children were 40, 46, and 58 months old, as well as literacy elaborations during AM talk over time did significantly predicted children narratives. study examined mother child AM narratives concurrently with c narrative style and later literacy skills is important, it is also valuable to understand how mothers directly influence time point. Additionally, there are several factors that were Thus, t he current children
133 literacy outcomes may reflect a more genera controlled for ; additionally, elaborations in another narrative context mother child book narratives did not predic A nother contribution of the current stu S everal studies of mother child AM narratives have distinguished between statements and questions and found that elaborative wh questions se memory talk (e.g., Farrant and Reese, 2000; Reese & Fivush, 1993; Reese et al., 1993 ); whereas use of elaborations did) because the relative role of questions and sta tements may be masked when combined. In fact, in the current study when elaborations were collapsed into the same was no longer significant. In addition to the dis tinction between elaborative statements and elaborative questions, the current study also further examined elab orative questions as wh yes no or tag q uestions. R esearchers have not examined elaborative tag questions independently. Rather, they typically have been coded as elaborative yes no questions (e.g., Farrant & Re ese, 2000; Reese & Brown, 2000). The current results indicated that elaborative tag questions, but not
134 elaborative wh or yes no questions, were significantly related to childr comprehension These finding highlight the importance of distinguishing between different types atements and tag questions are functionally very similar. Elaborative statements simply provide the child with a new piece of information without requiring a response (e.g., We went to the beach ); and elaborative tag questions also provide the child with a new piece of information, but request confirmation of that information (e.g., ). T he current results show the importance of examining these types of questions individually. In fact, when elaborative statements and elaborati ve tag questions were examined simultaneously, elaborative tag questions were a better predictor of predicted story comprehension when e xamined in separate regressions. These results suggest that elaborative tag questions during AM talk play a special role in questions during AM talk, they are providing children with new information about the event w hich places little they read books with text. However, the addition of the tag question may function to engage children in the conversation. Interestingly, moth ers did not tend to use many of these utterances in their talk about the past. As shown in Table 3, mothers asked an average of 1.08 elaborative tag questions per AM event, which was far fewer than the number of elaborative statements; however, these quest ions ranged from 0 10. Thus, even if few on average, mothers produced a range of these types of questions. And when mothers asked more of these types of questions, children had better story comprehension scores. Mothers may be using these questions to gaug e
135 for how to listen to a story and comprehend what is being said much like children were asked to do in the story comprehension t ask questions during AM conversations with children may also that draw later years. Preschoolers need the support of mothers to fill in the infor mation that children may not readily remember ( Fivush et al. 2006 ). In this way, mother child AM narratives and adult child book reading interactions may be very similar in that a more knowledgeable partner provides the majority of the information through statements, and periodically stops to request The difference in these contexts, however, is that adult child book reading does not necessarily have to involve mother and child. Regardless of who the adult is, the adult will be a more kn owledgeable partner because they can read the text and guide the child through the story. understanding of and participation in storybooks ( e.g., Albanese & Antoniotti, 1997; Dickinson & Smith, 1994 another adult who was also there during the event. Because these narratives are personally meaningful, factual events, preschool childr en rely on the scaffolding of a more experienced partner who also experienced the event. Only someone who experienced the event with the child can provide them with the specific information about what happened, who was there, etc. During
136 narratives of past events, then, mothers are providing another context for children to learn abo ut storytelling, but in a personally meaningful way. M others who are more elaborative during these even when the story is told by someone who they do not sustained contact with (an experimenter). The current results did suggest that the two contexts examined were distinct narrative contexts. Reese (1995) argued that [mother do with However, above it was argued that these two contexts share important characteristics. As two different types of narrative, they both involve the temporal sequencing of events; explanation of causal relationships; and inclusio n of important information, such as who was there and where the event took place. So how can these two arguments be reconciled? Although the only narrative variable that mothers used consistently between contexts was total cohesion, and not narrative or ep isodic coherence, this does not mean that these two contexts do not have common characteristics. Mothers use of narrative structure in these two contexts may For example, episodic coherence in the book context (i.e., obstacle comments); and episodic coherence in the AM context (i.e., goal I child book reading context were questions indicati ng that mothers who asked fewer repetitive wh questions had children who performed better on the story comprehension task questions added unique variance to
137 participation during storybook interactions. However, unlike the coding scheme used in the current study, the studies of book reading interactions do not typically examine elaborative versus repetitive questions. Researchers argue that questions, particularly wh questions, facilitate child book reading and lead to increase s in child language ab ilities In fact, as mentioned above, a particular approach to adult child reading dialogical reading emphasizes asking children wh questions during book reading to facilitate their participation as part of an overall interactive approach to reading with c hildren. This approach was f irst implemented by Whitehurst et al. (1988); and several intervention studies have since demonstrated its effectiveness ( see Mol, Bus, de Jong, & Smeets, 2008 for a meta analysis of dialogic intervention studies ). The current results suggest that it may be important to measure not only wh questions, but also whether these questions provide new information or repeat prior information. It seems questions were related to lower story com prehension scores. It may be that when mothers repeat wh comprehension of the story. A more beneficial strategy may be to provide an elaborative statement rather than continuing to probe children for an expect ed answer. Other ther child book reading were not independent of mothers Sonnenschein and immediate, or story s tructure comments during mother child book reading interactions the year prior. Additionally, in a training study, Reese and Cox (1999)
138 assigned mothers to one of three styles of book reading with their preschoolers a describer style, which focused on desc ribing pictures; a comprehender style, which focused on story meaning, making inferences, and predictions; and a performance oriented style, which focused comprehe comprehension. However, Haden et al. (1996) found that mothers who naturally adopted a comprehender style had children with better story comprehension scores 2 years later. The results from these studies suggest that the benefit of mother independent story comprehension may not be immediately apparent ear ly in the preschool years. n. There are two key differences, however, in the current study and those just summarized. First, the previous studies have examined mother child book reading with traditional storybooks with text, whereas in the current study mothers were asked to narrat e a wordless picture book. This type of book was chosen because it is a purely narrative task rather than the mother simply r picture sequencing and story generation) because this type of book reading is not a task that mothers regularly engage in with children, which would limit its usefulness in predicting child outcomes. Although mothers were not explicitly asked about their use of such books, several mothers commented that they do not have books like this at home. Second, the way in which mother child narratives were coded differs from the
13 9 coding typically used in mother child book reading interactions, such as extra textual talk. The style coding (i.e., elaborations, repetitions) was used in order to have a direct comparison to the AM narratives. However, other ways of coding mother child book narratives may also be appropriate with this task. For example, using the classifi cation used by Reese and colleagues (e.g., describer, comprehender) may be appropriate here. study. In terms of the relations betwe comments) style, narrative coherence, and glob al ratings did not predict M child AM narratives independently contributed s already mentioned, only a few studies have examined mother explanations during th e AM narrative and highlight the causal nature of events. The current sequencing of events that is required to place pictures from a story in the correct orde r. For example, as shown in Appendix E in this task the child must understand that the boy is looking for his frog because the frog escaped the jar; and that the boy must search for the frog before he can take him home again. These sequences may seem comm on sense to an adult; however, preschoolers have a difficult time sequencing unfamiliar events (Fivush & Mandler, 1985; Zalla et al. 2006).
140 The current results suggest that parents who communicate to children that it is important to understand the reason s behind actions, thoughts, or motivations have children who are better able to recognize and make sense of causal sequences of events. To my knowledge, no studies speci sequencing skills (Fi vush & Mandler, 1985; Glaubman et al., 2001 ; Zalla et al. 2006). However, ading and how inferences (as opposed to other types of inferences such as inferences based on world knowledge) are the most important type of inferences that ad ults can make during book reading interactions with preschoolers. She argues that causal inferences are important because they establish the causal structure of the text; and help children to think about the causal links in stories. Adults are important be cause preschoolers are not explicitly taught strategies for inference making; rather preschoolers learn to focus on causal connections because adults naturally interweave questions and statements about causal inferences during book reading with young child ren. the AM context. child sion was measure independently of mothers. Thus,
141 comprehension skills with another adult. Another possibility is that during the story comprehension task, children we re asked many questions that do not require knowledge of independent story com prehension; rather a more general narrative variable (i.e., elaborative comprehension Picture sequencing may rely more heavily on making causal connections compared to story comprehension. Previous research shows that young children have particular difficulty sequencing unfamiliar but logically related events compared to familiar events (e.g., going to the con nections during familiar AM events may be facilitating children ability to sequence events relationships are highlighting the importance of understanding the underlying connections use of causal comments (but not temporal comments) du ring AM narratives with their children experimenter. Fivush (1991) argued that causal comments are a more complex way of relating events compared to temporal comments whi ch simply link events sequentially. Additionally, current study s uggest that parents who draw attention to causal relationships between events
142 understanding independent of mothers. ing Scores comments about obstacles in the book context. As mentioned above, the book context provided many opportunities for mothers to discuss obstacles to achieving the goal of the story (i.e., to make pancakes). These obstacles included running out of eggs, milk, and syrup. Parents who talked about these obstacles in a greater proportion in their book narratives had children who had better picture sequencing scores. The se results suggest that mothers who talk more frequently importance of this episodic component, which contributes to their understanding of how an obstacle motiv ates subsequent actions. Without awareness of these obstacles, the resulting action may not be as meaningful if it is not understood as having a causal relationship with the preceding event. The examples given above of the two mothers one who did not expli citly mention the obstacle of running out of eggs an d the other who did demonstrated how important it is to be aware of obstacles in a story because they motivate future actions (e.g., going to the hen house to get eggs). Often, mothers even used these obs tacles to ask children what would happen next (e.g., is she going to do? ). This is likely because recognizing the obstacle (i.e. the frog escaped) in the five pictures that children were asked to sequence is crucial to understanding the motivation behind the subsequent actions (i.e., searching for the frog). Thus, being able to recognize this obstacle is critical to being able to sequence the picture s correctly. In the above examples of the child who sequenced the events correctly and the child who did not, it was clear that the child
143 who sequence d the events correctly understoo d these crucial elements in that he explicitly mention ed the obstacle (i.e., The frog walked out of the jar ) and the subsequent action (i.e., The boy was looking for the frog ); whereas the other child did not. The third emergent literacy outcome of interest in the current study was generation their ability to narrate a wordless storybook independently. narratives uniquely predicted children story generations Another important finding of the current study was that which included ratings of focus, logic, clarity, and talkativeness. Goals in the AM context included mention of the purposes of the event. For example, a mother discussing a trip to an amusement park discussed riding the rides and visiting with relatives who lived far away. Mothers who provided proportionally more utterances regarding the goals of their past events had children whose s tory generations were rated more positively. Mention of goals may serve an important function because these utterances point out to children the purpose of the events, which highlights why that particular event is important to talk about. Trabasso and Ste in (1997) argued that goal plans are important for understanding the actions and circumstances of others as well as yourself. Similarly, Bower and Rinc k (1999 ) argue In order to fully comprehend a narrative, the narrator or listener must be able to reason about the connections between goals and other elements of the story.
144 connected to most of the elements of a single event Goals also can provide coherence when there are multiple episodes within a narrative by establishing a hie rarchy among specific episodes (Stein & Glenn, 1979). Trabasso and Stein (1997) acknowledge d the importance of experience for unders t anding goals. They argued th at children acquire knowledge of goal plans by experiencing events in everyday life; and that children must be able to generalize their knowledge of goal plans across different domains. The current results suggest that when mothers talk about the goals of their judged by independent raters. episodic structuring of events as goals are what lets the listener know why the event was relevant and important to talk about. goal comments serve a more general function of helping children to understand the episodic structure of a good story and relate it to another person in a coherent way. Another important find narratives, which included ratings of focus, logic, clarity mention of episodic components in their story generations, which included goals, obstacles, and re pairs. Trabasso and Stein (1997) point ed out that very young children first understand events in very descriptive terms (e.g., objects, people, and states). This early recognition is important for later understanding the epi sodic structure of events: why a n event occurred, what caused it, and what will happen next. T he current makes sense considering that glo bal ratings included aspects such as the logic of the narrative.
145 Maintaining a logical sequence of events is an important aspect to of creating a coherent narrative. of episodic coherence in a more general way through their global narrative quality (at least in the AM context). Importance of Control Factors The fourth hypothesis rent significant even after controlling for all of these facto rs; thus, the fourth hypothesis of this study was supported. that influence this development. Furthermore, different aspects of emergent literacy are the result of differen of some other underlying factor. Figure 2 summarized the various control vari ables that were related to the predictor and outcome variables in the current study. Language narratives (e.g., (Weigel et al., 2005; Whitehurst et al., 1988) with children. Additionally, several researchers e., vocabulary) and other literacy skills (e.g.,
146 Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000; Snchal et al. 1998; Wei gel et al. 2006). In the current study, laborative tag wh ension, variable rather than a control variable (e.g., Dickinson & DeTempl e, 1998; Frijters et al., 2000; literacy outcomes independently perceive their children as linguistically more competent interact with children in a qualitatively narrati vocabulary. Thus, it was not just that mothers produced proportionally more of any particular type of narrative talk when children had better vocabularies. Socioeconomi c Status development. Foster et al. (2005) pointed out that it is important to consider SES because factors such as financial resources and attitudes toward education i nfluence how parents structure their 1998; Duncan & Brooks Gunn, 2000; Foster et al., 2005; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 199 9 ; Storch
147 literacy outcomes of picture sequencing and story generation episodic coherence. Additionally, family income as measured by an income to rolling for SES. Home Literacy Environment questionnaires given to mothers. Based on previous research on the importance of different aspects of the home environment, thes e questions were used to create several categories including mother child Home Environment mother child Outside Activities Classroom Involvement Home Literacy History and Behaviors Of these varia bles, elaborative tag mergent literacy (e.g., Crain Thoreson & Dale, 1992; Payne, Whitehurst, & Angell, 1994; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) even argued that e frequency of parent unrelated to all other home literacy environment variables that were assessed such as moth er child interactions (e.g., reading books, singings songs, reciting rhymes) and home literacy history
148 (e.g., age when parents began reading to children). This may be due to the limited range of responses given by mothers on the questionnaire, as mothers i ndicated high ratings on questions overall. After all, several other studies have found positive relationships between these variables t that are important that were not assessed in the current study. For t t, Weigel, & Martin, 2002; De Baryshe, 1995; Weigel et al., 2006). Again, however, inclusion of parental beliefs in the current study may have been limited in range of responses given that families were from higher SES backgrounds. Previous researchers have found that middle income par ents are more likely to endorse the belief that literacy is a form of entertainment; whereas low income parents are more likely to endorse the belief that reading is a skill to be taught to children. The significance of this difference is that children of parents with an entertainment perspective tend to be more interested in reading, engage in more literacy activities at home; and have better print knowledge (Baker, Scher, & Mackler, 1997; Serpell, Sonnenschein, Baker, & Ganapathy, 2002; Weigel et al., 200 6). Thus, the mothers in the current study may have largely come from the perspective that literacy is a form of entertainment, and thus reported engaging in certain behaviors with high frequencies. Affect ive Quality Another important factor to control fo orative statements, comments about goals in the AM context, and their global
149 child interaction than it is affective quality. within mother child interactions. B reading interactions with their first their decontextualized talk (making inferences and predictions, critical thinking, and external related to some aspects of their narrative talk, which is also consistent with the current study. In a related line of research, researchers have examined the relationship between mother child that securely attached mother chil d dyads used more evaluations (e.g., internal states) over time, and had more consistent narrative style. Additionally, researchers have found that mothers who reported a more secure attachment bond were more elaborative during reminiscing (Farrant & Reese 2000 ; Fivush & Vasudeva, 2002). Cleveland and Reese (2005) found that maternal to amount of information children recall in general. In line with the current f duri assessed independently of mothers (Sonnenschein & Munsterman, 2002). Additionally, Baker et
150 was not related to de Jong & Leseman, 2001; Leseman & de Jong, 1998). This study combined with the results of the current study suggest that mother may have an indirect e teracy outcomes. Controlling for affect in emergent literacy outcomes were not simply due to mothers being more positive in affect. portion of the mother affect scale adopted from Sonnenschein and Munsterman (2002). As was shown in Table 4 but However, it was important to t because, as mentioned above, children also play a unique role in their own literacy development; t heir own engagement in narrative tasks with mothers. Regardless of what control variables were or were not related, however, what is important is that these variables were accounted for. Reese (1995) acknowledged that narrative
151 style may be indicative of a more general style of maternal engagement, and that this quality is th eir ratings of activities involving children, it seems that a more general style of maternal tive variables influenced Another goal of the current study was to examine the consistency between contexts as well as the differen ces between contexts which was stated in question 3 Although several studies have examined mother child narratives in multiple contexts (i.e., AM book reading, and play), consistency between contexts is not always examined (Crain Thoreson et al., 2001; Reese, 1995; Uccelli et al., 2003; Wang Leichtman, & Davies, 2000; Yont, Snow, & Vernon Feagans, 2003). Results are mixed regarding consistency between contexts when it has been examined (Haden & Fivus h 1996; Ho ff Ginsburg, 1991; Laible, 2004 ); although the majority of studies report inconsistency between contexts. Only a few studies have examined consistency between the two contexts reported here AM and book reading. AM talk and book reading were not consistent. However, her met hodology differed from typical AM studies in that she examined elaborations on a 5 point scale rather than in terms of frequency. Also, mothers were asked to discuss with their children two events from the previous week one in which the child misbehaved and one in which the child behaved well. This differs from the open ended instructions for recall that are typically used to elicit personally meaningful events that mothers shared with their children ( e.g., Fivush & Fromhoff 19 98; Reese et al., 1993 ). Additionally,
152 Curenton, Craig, and Flanigan (2008) examined differences in language with children in a book reading task and a conversation about a past event in which children misbehaved. They found that mothers produced more decontextualized language in the AM conversation than in the book reading interaction. Results from these studies as well as the current study suggest that AM and book narrative contexts represen t distinct types of activities in that not correlated between contexts for the most part ; and certain aspects of narrative style and structure were more prevalent in one context versus the other. Additionally, t here were important relations between both mother based on the context. are multifaceted and are a result of multiple processes. literacy. The results of this study suggested that mother child narratives in both AM and book contexts play ed unique independent literacy skills. However, it could be argued that a lthough both AM and book emergent literacy. questions, causal comments, goal comments, and global ratings of narratives in the AM context were significant wh literacy.
153 Reese (1995) has conducted the only study that has examined different narrative contexts She also f narrative s ing interactions predicted neither. Curenton et al. (2008) also argued that mother literacy than book reading interactions because mothers provide more discourse in stories about the pa st. Whereas Curenton et al. (2008) used a traditional storybook a wordless storybook was used in the current study, which is likely to elicit more discourse than a traditional storybook. This suggests that even compared with a book task that should elicit high levels of discourse because the story has to be completely constructed by the narrator, AM narratives still emerged Mother The fifth hypoth variables in either context were significantly The current results support previous research from several studies that shows that oral language skills, which include narrative ability, are distinct from print concepts during the preschool years. Using factor analysis, Lonigan et al., (2000) found tha t oral language and print knowledge were distinct abilities. Similarly, Whitehurst, Epstein et al. (1994) found that oral language and writing skills loaded on different factors. More specifically, they found that teaching of letter knowledge was related t o early reading and writing, whereas parent child storybook reading was related to print
154 print knowledge and not their language (Snchal et al., 1998, Snchal & LeFevre, 2001). Thus, although not central to the current study, the finding that that demonstrate a distinction between oral language skills and print concepts. This lack of a relationship shows that mother child narr oral language skills in terms story comprehension, picture sequen cing, and story generation; and provides further support for the argument that different emergent literacy skills (e.g., oral language skills, print concepts) are not the result of the same experiences Children as Active Participants comprehension. However, finding highlights the importance of taking into a development. AM researchers have acknowledged that children play a role in their own AM development as some researchers have found that later contribution to mother child AM narratives (e.g., Farrant & Reese, 2000). Additionally, McGuigan and Salmon (2004) had children participate in a staged event with an experimenter and found that when two weeks after the event that children recalled a greater proportion of information that they had talked about compared to the Likewise, researchers have also shown that children play a role in their own literacy development. Reese (1995) found that chil child AM and
155 conversational turn at age 3 u niquely predicted their story comprehension at age 5; whereas Thoreson predicted up study, Dale, Crain reading achievement at age 6. Researchers have also shown that child literacy behaviors as well. Snchal, Cornell, and Broda (1995) found that children who produced more vocalizations during book reading interactions were asked more questions and given more feedback from parents than children wi th lower rates of vocalizations. Thus, it is contribution to the Theoretical Perspective The theoretical perspective adopted in the current study was a Vygo tskian approach (also called social cultural or social interactionist perspective ) which ar gues that understanding is learned through social interaction and communication with those around them (Vygotsky, 1978). A great deal of research has used this perspective to explain how parents scaffold AM and book narratives with children with in the same interaction (e.g., Fivush et al., 2006; Hudson, 1990; Nelson & Fivush, 2004; Peterson & McCabe, 1994 ). Researchers have also used a Vygotskian perspective to demonstrate how children internalize the skills modeled by parents by examining childr Haden et al., 1997; Newcombe & Reese, 2004; Peterson & McCabe, 1994 ). The latter approach was taken in the
156 o s independ ent emergent literacy skills both in terms of their own narratives, as well as other skills, such as story comprehension and picture sequencing. According to a Vygotskian approach to narrative development, the narrative interactions t hat parents engage in with children play a key role in development. In the current study, this argument was taken one step further to demonstrate how ependent narrative skills (i.e., story generation task), but also to other tasks that require narrative understanding story comprehension and picture sequencing. Vygotsky argued that individual differences in the quality of parent child narrative inter acti ons predict s child outcomes, which was supported by One surprising findin g was that narrative coherence (e.g., spatial and temporal orientations of structure in their independent narratives. This may seem to go against a Vygotskian ap proach to narrative development. However, the concept of internalization is viewed as a process; thus, immediately. In fact, researchers ision of orienting and evaluative information in narratives with an experimenter at a later point in time ; whereas the relationship narrative structure at the same time point were not always significant ( H aden et al., 1997; Newcombe & Reese, 2004; Peterson & McCabe, 1994 ). Clearly,
157 narrative structu mother acy outcomes in terms of story to the narrative as well as their engagement in the task was taken into account. In most instances, teracy outcomes, or once controlled for, temporal orientations story comprehension was n about time during the same conversation. Although Vygotsky focused largely on the role of children are a ctive in their own development. He argued that an active interplay exists between the individual and the surrounding context of her or his environment. Thus, this finding n narrative development. Contributions of the Current Study This study aimed to further elucidate the role of mother emergen t literacy, and extended the existing literature in several ways. Many of these points have already been discussed; however, they will be briefly restated below. The first aim was to g during AM narratives with children contributes to their emergent literacy skills. The current study provided convincing evidence for this argument considering that even after controlling for several control variables,
158 AM narrative sty le (i.e., elaborations), cohesion (i.e., causal comments) emergent literacy outcomes Additionally, wordless storybooks were used to assess mother child narrati re (i.e., obstacle comments). Importantly, this study went beyond the style coding used by Reese (1995) to include coding of narrative structure (i.e., cohesion, narrative and episodic coherence, global ratings), which has not yet been done. This was impor tant because with the exception of Secondly, mother child AM narratives were compared to mother child wordless sto rybook narratives in order to examine the relative influence of these contexts using consistent coding schemes between contexts. ok context as there outcomes. Additionally, this comparison was made in order to determine whether there were literacy skills rather than a more general interactional style used consistently between contexts. The results from this study suggested that mothers do show unique styles of talking with children in different contexts as different relations emerged betwe literacy skills depending on the context. Additionally, with the exception of total cohesion, mothers were not consistent in style or structure between contexts. These results suggest that
159 these conte in one narrative context signify how they interact with children in another co ntext. As mentioned above, however, the wordless book context may not be as valuable of a predictor if mothers do interacting with children using such books ne eds to be examined in future studies. A third issue that was addressed in this study was that previous researchers have not always taken into account other factors that may underlie the relationship between mot narratives with children mergent literacy outcomes remained after controlling for these variables. Thus, this study provides strong support for the viewpoint that mothers exert a strong influence on Fourth, several studies of mother child book interacti child interaction of reading a book (e.g., ities independently of mothers (i.e., as assessed by an experimenter, h as important implications for how ead to them, the ability to sequence
160 pictures, and the ability to generate a narrative independently. E xamining not only narratives as they were naturally told by children, but also by giving the same measure of story comprehension to all children allowed for the assessment of comprehension questions, much like they would be asked to do in school. For each of these tasks, mothers narratives c ontributed in unique ways showing that it is useful to examine iteracy skills are the result of different Limitations and Future Directions There are several ways in which the curren t study provided valuable contributions to the study that are important to highlight as well Additionally, future directions will be suggested where relevant. Cod ing of Mother Child Storybook Interactions One limitation of the current study may be in the coding scheme used to code mother child storybook narratives. The coding scheme from AM research was applied to the wordless storybook narrative interaction in or der to have a direct comparison between contexts. However, research on mother in other way s These studies differ, though, in that storybooks are typically traditional storybooks with text wh ereas in the current study mothers were asked to co construct a story from a wordless picture book. As mentioned above, this type of storybook was chosen because the goal was for
161 mothers to create a true narrative rather than relying on print for the story The coding schemes from studies of traditional storybooks could be used for wordless book too, however. For textual utterances in terms of their functions (e.g., labeling, predicting what will happen nex questions or statements. However, elabor ative wh questions for example could include a wide outcomes. Lack of T raditional Storybook Task Another limitation of this study is the lack of a traditional storybook task with which to compare the AM and wordless storybook tasks to. The wordless storybook task was chosen in order to elicit a purely narrative interaction f rom mothers and children. However, it may be informative to compare how mothers read a traditional storyb ook with children to how mothers co construct a wordless book with children as the majority of studies have used the traditional storybook task. As the current study suggested, mothers may show distinct narrative styles in an AM versus a book context. It would be interesting to examine whether mothers are more The inclusion of a traditional storybook task may also be important because this type of mpared to creating narratives using a wordless picture book. Although home was not assessed on the parent questionnaire, many mothers conversationally reported that
162 they do not have these types of books in their homes. Thus, the wordless storybook task may not be as ecologically valid as the traditional storybooks with text. Further Specification of Style Coding elaborations) is c oded. Recall that not related to any of the emergent literacy outcomes. However, codin g of these types of comments was coded as a separate dimension from elaborativeness. That is, comments code d as narrative coherence were not necessarily the same comments t hat were coded as elaborations. AM researchers have begun to recognize that studies of mother child AM narratives need to go beyond measuring elaborations to measuring what mothers are elabor ating on (Fivush et al., 2006). The style categories are mutually exclusive: every utterance gets a code and each independent clause only gets one code. As a result, every utterance coded as a type of narrative coherence also received a style code. One pos sibility is that narrative coherence is related to Thus, future studies could further classify the types of narrative coherence into the various style categories to deter narrative coherence of a particular style. Although the picture sequencing task that was used in this study was significantly related whether raw scores or transformed picture sequencing scores were used, the difficulty of this task presents another limitation of the current study This task appeared to be harder fo r preschoolers than originally anticipated. As a result, this variable was positively skewed, with most children scoring low on this task. Transforming this variable improved the skewness and
163 kurtosis, but did not completely correct it. Ideally, one would want the outcome measures used to be normally distributed for the particular age range being examined. Picture sequencing may be particularly difficult for young children. As mentioned above, Fivush and Mandler (1985) found that young children have difficu lty ordering sequences of logically related, but unfamiliar, events, but are better able to sequence events when they follow a script for an event that they are already familiar with (e.g., going to a re staurant). Additionally, Zalla et al., (2006) found s imilar results in that participants made more errors on picture sequencing tasks requiring understanding of causal events (e.g., vase falls off a table) compared to simple action sequences (e.g., going to bed). Naremore (1997) also argues that the combinat ion of a script and a story framework provides children with the optimal circumstances for organizing stories. Thus, the task used in the present study may have been difficult in part because it was an unfamiliar sequence a boy losing his pet frog and find ing it behind a log. Providing children with a scripted event also has a drawback, however. Fivush and Mandler actually assess their understanding of causal r elations as they may just be relying on their memory for how a specific type of event usually unfolds. For young children, a better task may be one which presents an unexpected event within the context of something familiar so that young children are not l imited by the unknown context, but are also not able to simply rely on comments and goal comments sequenci ng scores. This suggests that although this task may have been difficult for children,
164 Future picture sequencing tasks for young children clearly need to be age approp riate in a task is to label pictures for children before they are asked to sequence them, as Fivush and Mandler (1985) did as some of the pictures may have been ambiguous for young children. In fact, in their narrations of the picture sequence in the current study, some children incorrectly labeled the jar in pictures 1 through 3 as other terms such as sink, butter and cup Another possibility is reducing the num ber of pictures that children must sequence. Although the first picture was placed in the correct order for children, it may be difficult for young children to reason about the relations among five other events. Although Fivush and Mandler (1985) also used six pictures in their task, others have used fewer pictures (e.g., Baron Cohen, Leslie, & Frith, 1986). The task used in the present study may have also been difficult because it relied on understanding of causal relationships. The ability to sequence ev ents like those used in the he picture sequencing task that was used. As Zalla et al., (2006) point out, determining the final goal of a character is essential to understanding the action sequencing of that character. In the task used here, the goal finding his frog may have been ove rseen in the pictures where the frog was absent (pictures 3 and 4). I n fact, Trabasso et Frog, Where are You?, which was used for the picture sequencing task in the present study, and found that 4 year olds rarely followed their goal comments with attempts to achieve the goal. They suggested that this was because the goal object of the action (i.e., the frog) was physically absent in many of the pictures. In the second
165 experiment of their study, Trabasso et a l. (1992) addressed this issue by having children narrate a similar book, A boy, a D og, and a Frog which is a wordless storybook by the same author in which the frog is present in the pictures. They found that the presence of the frog in this picture book significantly increased the likelihood that 4 year olds followed their goal comments with attempts to achieve the goal. Thus, in future studies, a more distributed range of scores may result if the experimenter labels the objects in the pictures, uses few er pictures, or includes sequences in which the goal is present in each picture. Parent Questionnaire Self Report rt on a quest ionnaire. Although the variables derived from this questionnaire were not central to the study, they wer e used as control variables. Of all these variables, only mothe eading (e.g., how often child asks to be read to ) were related to any of the variables in this study. As already mentioned, environment that were assessed, such as Mother Child Home Interaction which included frequency of engaging in activities such as reading with children and telling stories. The limited iteracy outcomes. The home literacy environment. Given that m others in this sample were highly educated, it is reasonable to expect that the children in this sam ple did have a rich literacy environment, as previous researchers have shown a link between maternal education and home literacy environment ( e.g., Pucell Gates; 1996; Weigel et al., 2006 ). Alternatively, however, mothers who are more highly educated may b e more aware than less educated mothers of the
166 expectations for what constitutes a rich home literacy environment and respond in a socially desirable way. A related concern is that certain questions may be more likely to elicit a social desirability effect Dickinson and DeTemple (1998) suggest that parents may be more biased when asked questions about their own behavior (e.g., how often they read to their children) or abilities Interestingly, i n the current study, one of the few variables from the questionnaire that was related to the study variables was eading which is not a reflection of parenting behaviors. Socially desirable responses would be problematic if aspects of literacy environment. However, r esults from previous research suggest literacy environment may not be problematic. Dickinson and DeTemple (1998) argued that, ls, they They found that parental reports of book reading experiences with story comprehension, knowledge of definitions, and vocabulary in kindergarten as well as evaluations of in grade1. Similarly, de Jong and Leseman (2001) found that parental reports of reading to their preschoolers predicted their vocabulary and wo rd decoding skills in grade 1. Furthermore, in a five year longitudinal study, S n exposure when children were preschoolers significantly predicted reading abilities in grade 1 and grade 3. Thus, several other studies have used parental reports to successfully predict
167 be expect ed if parents were responding to such measures with inaccurate information. Generalizability of Findin gs As already mentioned, mothers in the current sample were highly educated for the most part. This may limit the generalizability of the findings from the current study to other researchers have et al. ( 2006) found that mothers could be categorized based on their beliefs about their preschool s endorsed a view that it is their responsibility to take an active role teaching their children to read. Conventional mothers, on the other hand, endorsed the belief that preschoolers are too young to learn about reading, and that teaching children to rea d is the responsibility of school teachers. Of particular relevance is that mothers classified as facilitative had significantly greater levels of educational attainment. They also found that facilitative mothers spent more time engaging in language activi ties such as singing songs, telling stories, and playing games with their children. This is relevant because Baker et al., (1997) found that mothers who believe that reading is a source of entertainment had children with more positive views about reading c ompared to children of parents who emphasized reading as a skill to be learned. Thus, mothers in the current study may be more likely to maintain the view that reading is a source of entertainment, which may impact their literacy related behaviors in ways that differ from other less educated mothers. Future studies could examine this possibility by including families from a broader range of backgrounds to determine if the relationships that were found in the current study are consistent across families from varying socioeconomic backgrounds.
168 Quantity of Correlations and Sample Size Another limitation of this study is the sheer number of correlational analyses that were conducted. With such a large number of correlations, one would expect to find some signifi cant findings. This is problematic because it may increase the incidence of Type I errors. That is, any significant correlations that are found may not necessarily reflect true relations between the variables of interest. However, the correlations that wer e examined were planned; they were not used to search for significant relationships. Additionally the correlations that were found to be significant in the current study were in accordance with the hypotheses. Although not all of the relationships that we re hypothesized to be significant were (e.g., the relationship between emergent literacy ), there were no relations between variables that were unexpected. Related to this limitation is the size of the current sam ple. W ith a larger sample size, more stringent criteria could be used to distinguish between significant and non significant results. For example, the use of Bonferroni corrections could alleviate the concern of using multiple correlations. Correlational Design Although this study was not longitudinal, and relied m ostly on correlational analyses, which limit ed and story comprehension s kills, this study still provided valuabl e information. As with many large scale longitudinal studies, a good starting point is to conduct a smaller scale study to determine the relevant intercorrelations before addressing long term change and causality. Thus, the current study can guide the desi gn of future studies of this type. Clearly, an important next step is to examine the relationship between mother supported narratives in these contexts and r each significance in the current study would be significant across time. Indeed, s everal studies
169 narratives (in both AM and book contexts) independent abilities ( e. g., Farrant & Reese, 2000; Fivush, 1991; Lonigan, 1994). Implications for Education who enter school with inadequate literacy related knowledge and skills is an important primary literacy readiness as entrance into kindergarten is age based rather than ability based and children must attain certain levels before they can ful ly achieve later stages in reading development. Thus, assessment of the developmental precursors to literacy achievement before children begin school and experience academic difficulty is a very practical area of research. Se veral researchers have found th initial literacy skill levels are predictive of their reading performance and oral language skills in later grade school years ( e.g., Foster & Miller, 2007 ; Griffin et al., 2004; Storch & Whitehurst, 2001 ), abilities reading comprehension at age 8. Addit i onally the narrative skill s of preschool children is one of the best predictors of later school outcomes for children at risk for academic and language problems (Paul & Smith, 1993). tial that we understand the conditions that promote this early literacy awareness. Researchers working on the Home School Study of Language and Literacy Development project home and classroom experiences strongly predicted their initial starting point in terms of early literacy, th
170 grade (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). Additionally, Foster and Miller (2007) argued that s tudents who enter school w ith enriched literacy skills or who are given the opportunity to gain these skills early on are able to access the general curriculum more effectively than thos e with poor literacy knowledge setting them on the right path for success in reading. The current study provides valuable information about the specific types of scaffolding that may be important to specific emergent literacy outcomes. Additionally, several researchers have found that literacy interventions are most effective when they take place early in the school years, and that when students in need of literacy intervention are not addressed, they quickly fall behind their peers in terms of emergent literacy skills (Wren, 2003). Som young have the sustained interaction with their children which is necessary to internalize thes e interactions (e.g., Peterson, Jesso, & McCabe, 1999). Peterson et al. (1999) point ed out that in order for parent child conversations to affect child outcomes, they must occur frequently and over a long period of time. Teachers do not realistically have this time for one on one extended discourse, which most likely accounts for why some interventions targeting narrative interactions of low income children have failed with preschool teachers but succeeded when parents were involved in the intervention (Pet erson et al., 1999; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998). These studies suggest that early parent and that for children who may be at risk for developing reading difficulties, the best interven tion strategy is to start young and to start with parents. S tudies such as the current one which identify the specific parenting behaviors that promote specific literacy outcomes can increase our
171 understanding of narrative skill as an important aspect of e mergent literacy and provide valuable information that can be applied to further intervention strategies
172 APPENDIX A AFFECTIVE QUALITY CO DING Coding criteria for affective quality ratings (Sonnenschein & Munsterman, 2002) Category Scoring and criter ia Narrative expression 1 Monotonous, flat storytelling, little attention to punctuation 2 Some tonal change, no imitation of voices; moderate expression 3 Expressive, multi tonal reading; imitation of character voices, expression suggests suspense, et c. Contact with child 1 No or very little contact 2 Occasional or very little contact, less than 50% of the time 3 Contact greater than 50% of the time (e.g., arm around child, child on lap) 1 Distracted behavior, li ttle smiling or laughing related to story, irrelevant questions 2 Looks at book/child 25 75% of the time, some appropriate laughing, smiling, asking questions 3 Attends to story most of the time, appears to enjoy story most of the time, asks questions, s miles, laughs 1 Distracted behavior, little smiling or laughing related to story, irrelevant questions
173 2 Looks at book/mother 25 75% of the time, some appropriate laughing, smiling, asking questions 3 Attends to story m ost of the time, appears to enjoy story most of the time, asks questions, smiles, laughs 1 Displays none of behaviors listed below 2 Displays 1 or 2 of the following behaviors: asks child if enjoying story, ackno waning 3 Displays 3 or more of the listed behaviors
174 APPENDIX B STYLE CODING Style Coding (Reese & Fivush, 1993) Mo Elaborations : Mothers introduce the event to the child or add more information to the narrative in the form of a question or statement. M: What did we do? C: We jumped in the water? M. And the water was so cold! Evalu ations utterances that either confirm M: Do you remember where? C: From Georgia? M. Georgia. Very Good! Repetitions : Mothers either repeat the exact content or the gist of a previous utter ance made by either herself or the child. M: No, what was his name? C: I forget his name. M. Do you remember his name? Prompts : Mothers ask the child to say more without providing any information about the narrative. M: Tell me about it.
175 Elaborations : Children provide new information or M: What did you do while we were there? C: I swimmed! Evaluations confirm or negate the meaningful head nods or shakes. M: Did we go to any shows? C: Yup Repetitions and placeholders : Children repeat previous utterance made by mother or child, or provide no new information in their utterance (e.g., I d ). M: Remember when we went to the mountains? C: Mountains
176 APPENDIX C STRUCTURE CODING Coding of Narrative Structure (Shapiro & Hudson, 1991 ) Cohesion Interclausal connectives Additive connectives (e.g., and ) Tempora l connectives (e.g., then, first, next ) Adversative causal connectives (e.g., because, so ) Coherence Basic Narrative Components Actions Events describing action sequence obstacl achieve a goal. Character description information describing characters (i.e., names, physical appearance, and social role). Dialogue Conversations between character s in the form of Internal states ons Spatial orientations Information about the locale (e We were at your
177 Temporal orientations Episodic Components Goals Obstacles Events that interrupt action and include an Repairs Attempts by the characters to rectify obstacles (e.g.,
178 APPENDIX D STORY COMPREHENSION TASK Story Comprehension Task for Sergio Makes a Splash 1. [p. 10 ( ), initiating event ] Tell me what happens at this po int in the story. What is Sergio afraid of? 2. [p. 13 ( Mrs. Waddle tells the class that they are going to learn to swim ), goal ] If you were telling someone this story, what would you say is going on now? What did Mrs. Waddle tell the class? 3. [p. 14 ( Mrs. W ), dialogue ] What do you think Sergio is saying here? Why would he be saying that? 4. [p. 20 ( friends reassure Sergio ), causal inference ] Why are his friends saying that? 5. [p. 1 8, ( Sergio looks scared ), feelings ] Tell me what Se rgio is feeling in this picture. Why do you think so? 6. [p. 21 ( Sergio stands at the top of the cliff ), prediction ] What do you think happens next? Why do you think so? 7. [p. 31 ( Sergio is tired but happy ) outcome resolution ] What happened here? Why does this happen?
179 8. [Book closed, ( Sergio, Mrs. Waddle, classmates ) characters ] Who are the characters in this story? (replacement word s : people, animals) 9. [Book closed, setting ] Where does this story happen? (replacement words: setting, take place) 10. [Book closed, theme ] In thinking about everything that you learned after reading this book, if you knew that Why would you tell him /her that? (replacement words: advice, warn)
180 APPENDIX E PICTURE SEQUENCING T ASK
182 LIST OF REFERENCES comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 3 249 259. Arnold, D. H., & D octoroff, G. L. (2003). The early education of socioeconomically disadvantaged children. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 517 545. Baker, L., Mackler, K., Sonnenschein, S., & Serpell, R. (2001). Parents' interactions with their first grade children duri ng storybook reading and relations with subsequent home reading activity and reading achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 39 415 438. Baker, L., Scher, D. & Mackler, K. (1997). Special issue: Motivation for reading: Individual, home, textual, and classroom perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 32 69 82. Baron Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1986). Mechanical, behavioral, and intentional understanding of picture stories in autistic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4, 113 125. Beals, D. E. (2001). Eating and reading: Links between family conversations with preschoolers and later language literacy. In D. K. Dickinson & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school (pp. 75 92). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing. Beals, D. E. & DeTemple, J. M. (1993). Home contributions to early language and literacy development. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 42 207 215. Bennett, K. K., Weigel, D. J., & Martin, S. S. (2002). skills: Examining family contributions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17 295 317. Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A cross linguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Berman, R. A., Slobin, D. I., Aksu Ko A. A. Bamberg, M., Dansinger, L., Marchman, V., Neeman, Y., Rodkin, P. C., Sebasti n, E., et al. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study Hillsda le, NJ: Erlbaum. Bornstein, M. H., Vibbert, M., Tal, J., & Toddler language and play in the second year: Stability, covariation and influences of parenting. First Language, 12 323 338. Bower, G. H., & Rinck, M. (1999). Goals as ge nerators of activation in narrative understanding. I n S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 111 134). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
183 Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 371 399. Bronfenbrenner, U. & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1, Theore tical models of human development (5 th ed., pp. 535 584). New York: Wiley. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12 407 429. Burgess, S. R., Hecht, S. A., & Lonigan C. J. (2002). Relations of the home literacy environment (HLE) to the development of reading related abilities: A one year longitudinal study. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 408 426. Burgess, S. R., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Bidirectional relations of phonological sensitivity and prereading abilities: Evidence from a preschool sample. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 117 141. Bus, A. G. (2003). Social emotional requisites for learning to read. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Eur dice (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 3 15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bus, A. B. & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Mothers reading to their three year olds: the role of mother child attachment security in becoming literate. Rea ding Research Quarterly, 40 998 1015. Bus, A. B. & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Affective dimension of mother infant picturebook reading. Journal of School Psychology, 35 47 60. Bus, A. G., van Ijzendoorn, & M. H., Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65 1 21. Caughy, M. O. (1996). Health and environmental effects on the academic readiness of school ag e children. Developmental Psychology, 32 515 522. Christian, K., Morrison, F. J., & Bryant, F. B. (1998). Predicting kindergarten academic skills: Interactions among childcare, maternal education, and family literacy environments. Early Childhood Resear ch Quarterly, 13, 501 521. Cleveland, E. S. & Reese, E. (2005). Maternal structure and autonomy support in conversations Developmental Psychology, 41 376 388. Crain Thoreson, C., Da hlin, M. P., & Powell, T. (2001). Parent child interaction in three
184 conversational contexts: Variations in style and strategy. In P. R. Britto & J. Brooks Gunn (Eds.), The role of family literacy environments in promoting young children's emerging litera cy skills (pp. 23 37) San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Crain Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1992). Do early talkers become early readers? Linguistic precocity, preschool language, and emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 28, 421 429. Curenton, S. M., Craig, M. J., & Flanigan, N. (2008). Use of decontextualized talk across story development. Early Education and Development, 19 161 187. Dale, P. S., Crain Thoreson, C, & R obinson, N. M. (1995). Linguistic precocity and the development of reading: The role extralinguistic factors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16 173 187. de Jong, P. F. & Leseman, P. P. M. (2001). Lasting effects of home literacy on reading achievement in school. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 389 414. DeBaryshe, B. D. (1995). Maternal belief systems: Linchpin in the home reading process. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16 1 20. Deckner, D. F., Adamson, L. B., & Bakeman, R. (2006). Chil d and maternal contributions to shared reading: Effects on language and literacy development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27 31 41. dePaola, T. (1978). Pancakes for breakfast Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc. DeTemple, J. M. (2001). Parents and children reading books together. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl & E. B. Eurdice (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 16 36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. DeTemple, J. M., & Beals, D. E. (1991). Family talk: Sources of support for t he development of decontextualized language skills. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6 11 19. DeTemple, J. M., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Learning words from books. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl & E. B. Eurdice (Eds.), On reading books to childre n: Parents and teachers (pp. 16 36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dickinson, D. K., & DeTemple, J. (1998). Putting parents in the picture: Maternal reports of preschool literacy as a prediction of early reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 241 261. Dickinson, D. K. & McCabe, A. (2001). Bringing it all together: The multiple origins, skills, and environmental supports of early literacy. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. Special Issue: Emergent and Early Literacy, 16 186 202.
185 Dickinson, D., & Smith, M. (1994). Long low Reading Research Quarterly, 29 105 122. Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning literacy with langua ge: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Duncan, G. J., & Brooks Gunn, J. (2000). Family poverty, welfare reform, and child development. Child Development, 71 188 196. Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, L. M. (200 7). Peabo dy Picture Vocabulary Test 4 th edition (PPVT 4 ) Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Farrant, K. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2 193 225. Farrar, M. J., Fasig, L. G., & Welch Ross, M. K. (1997). Attachment and emotion in autobiographical memory development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 67 389 408. Fivush, R. (1991). The soc ial construction of personal narratives. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 37 59 81. Fivush, R. (1994). Constructing narrative, emotion, and self in pa rent child conversations about t he past. In U. Neisser and R. Fivush (Eds.), The remembering s elf: Construc tion and a ccuracy in the self narrative (pp. 136 157). New York: Cambridge University Press. Fivush. R. & Fromhoff, F. A. (1988). Style and structur e in mother child conversations about the past. Discourse Processes, 11 337 355. Fivush, R., Haden, narratives over time: Implications for childhood amnesia. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60 32 56. Fivush, R., & Mandler, J. M. (1985). Developmental changes in the un derstanding of temporal sequence. Child Development, 56 1437 1446. Fivush, R., Reese, E., & Haden, C. A. (2006). Elaborating on elaborations: Role of maternal reminiscing style in cognitive and socioemotional development. Child Development, 77 1568 15 88. Fivush, R. & Vasudeva, A. (2002). Remembering to relate: Socioemotional correlates of mother child reminiscing. Journal of Cognition and Development, 3 73 90.
186 Florida Sunshine State Standards ( 2007 ). Florida K 12 Reading and Language Arts Standar ds. Retrieved July 12 th 2009, from http://etc.usf.edu/flstandards/la/new pdfs/points k.pdf Foster, M. A., Lambert, R., Abbot Shim, M., McCarty, F., & Franze, S. (2005). A model of home learning environment and social risk factors in relation to child literacy and social outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20 13 36. Foster, W. A. & Miller, M. (2007). Development of the literacy achievement gap: A longitudinal study of kindergarten through third grade. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38 173 181. Frijters, J. C., Barron, R. W., & Brunello, M. (2000). Direct and mediated influences of home skill. Journal of Education al Psychology, 92, 466 477. Frosch, C. A., Cox, M. J., & Goldman, B. D. (2001). Infant parent attachment and parental child behavior during parent toddler storybook interaction Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 47, 445 474. Gillam, R. B., & Nils, A. (2004 ). Te st of Narrative Language Austin, TX : Pro Ed Inc. Glaubman, R. Glaubman, H., & Ofir, L. (2001 ). Effects of self directed learning, story comprehension, and self questioning in kindergarten. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 361 374. Griffin, T. M., Hemphill, L ., Camp, L., & Wolf, D. P. (2004 ). Oral discourse in the preschool years and later literacy skills. First Language, 24 123 147. Haden, C. A. (1998). Reminiscing with different children: Relating maternal stylistic consistency a nd sibling similarity in talk about the past. Developmental Psychology 34(1), 99 114. Haden, C. A. & Fivush, R. (1996). Contextual variation in maternal conversational styles. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 42 200 227. Haden, C. A., Haine, R. A., & Fivush, R. (199 7). Developing narrative structure in parent child reminiscing across the preschool years. Developmental Psychology, 33 295 307. Haden, C. A. Reese, E., & Fivush, R. (1996 reading: Stylistic differenc es over time and across texts. Discourse Processes, 21, 135 169. interactions during book sharing with preschool children: A cluster analysis study. Reading Resear ch Quarterly, 38 442 468. Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school.
187 Language in Society, 11, 49 76. Hoff Ginsburg, E. (1991). Mother child conversations in different social classes and communicative setting s. Child Development, 62 782 796. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four Factor Index of Social Status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven. Hudson, J. A. (1990). The emergence of autobiographical memory in mother child conversation. I n R. F ivush & J. Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 166 196). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hudson, J. A. & Nelson, K. (1986). Repeated encounters of a similar kind: Effects of familiarity ory. Cognitive Development, 1 253 271. Huebner, C. E., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2005). Intervention to change parent child reading style: A comparison of instructional methods. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26 296 313. Huttenlocher, J. Haig ht, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27 236 248. Isbell, R., Sobol, J., Lindauer, L., & Lowrance, A. (2004). The effects of storytelling and story r eading on the oral language complexity and story comprehension of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32 157 163. Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy project on kindergarten st Reading Research Quarterly, 35 524 546. Laible, D. J. (2004). Mother child discourse surrounding a child's past behavior at 30 months: Links to emotional understanding and early conscience development at 36 months. Merril l Palmer Quarterly, 50 159 180. Leseman, P. P. M., & de Jong, P. F. (1998). Home literacy: Opportunity, instruction, cooperation and social emotional quality predicting early reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 33 294 318. Lonigan, C. J. (1994). Reading to preschoolers exposed: Is the emperor really naked? Developmental Review, 14 303 323. Lonigan, C. J. (2006). Development, a ssessment, and p romotion of p reliteracy s kills. Early Education and Development, 17 91 114. Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and
188 early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36 596 613. Lonigan, C. J. & Whitehurst, G. J. (199 8). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared reading intervention for preschool children from low income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 263 290. do with it? Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6 33 55. MacWhinney, B. (2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, Vol. 1: Transcription format and programs (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates decisions. Reading Psychology, 17 159 180. Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press. Mayer, M. (199 2 ). Frog Goes to Dinner. New York: Dial Press. McArthur, D., Adamson, L. B., & Deckner, D. F. (2005). As stories become familiar: Mother child conversations during share reading. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 51 389 411. McCabe, A. & Peterson, C. (1991). Getting the story: A longitudinal study of parental styles in eliciting narratives and developing narrative skill. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson. Developing narrative structure (pp. 137 173). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum. McGuigan, F., & Salmon, K. (2004). The time to talk: The influence of the timing of adult child Child Development, 75 669 686. Melzi, G., & Caspe, M. (2005). Variations in maternal narrative styles during book reading interactions. Narrative Inquiry, 15 101 125. Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., de Jong, M. T., & Smeets, D. J. H. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent child book readings: A meta analysis. Early Education and Development, 19 7 26. stru cture narratives. Topics in Language Disorders, 18 16 31. Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cognitive development: Emergence of the mediated mind New York: Cambridge University Press. Nelson, K. & Fivush, R. (2004). The emergence of autobiographical mem ory: A social cultural developmental theory. Psychological Review, 111 486 511.
189 Newcombe, R., & Reese, E. (2004). Evaluations and orientations in mother child narratives as a function of attachment security: A longitudinal investigation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28 230 245. Paris, A. & Paris, S. G. (2003). Assessing narrative comprehension in young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 38 36 76. Paul, R. & Smith, R. (1993). Narrative skills in 4 year olds with normal, imp aired, and late developing language. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 36 592 598. Payne, A. C., Whitehurst, G. J., & Angell, A. L. (1994). The role of home literacy environment in the development of language ability in preschool children from low income families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9 427 440. Pearce, W. M., McCormack, P. F., & James, D. G. (2003). Exploring the boundaries of SLI: findings from morphosyntactic and story grammar analyses. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17, 325 334. Peterson, C., Jesso, B., & McCabe, A. (1999). Encouraging narratives in preschoolers: An intervention study. Journal of Child Language, 26, 49 67. Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1983). Developmental psycholinguistics: Three ways of lookat at a chil New York: Plenum. narrative structure and content. First Language, 12 299 321. Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1994). A social interactionist account of developing decontextualized narrative skill. Developmental Psychology, 30 937 948. Phillips, G., & McNaughton, S. (1990). The practice of storybook reading to preschool children in mainstream New Zealand families. Reading Research Quarterly, 25 196 212. Purcell Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV guide. Relationships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 406 428. Reese, E. (1995). Language, narrative, and autobiograp hy. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 4 100 103. Reese, E. & Brown, N. (2000). Reminiscing and recounting in the preschool years. A pplied Cognitive Psychology, 14 1 17. Reese, E. & Cox, A. (1999). Quality of adult book readin Developmental Psychology, 35 20 28.
190 In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to child ren: Parents and teachers (pp. 37 57). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reese, E., & Farrant, K. (2003). Social origins of reminiscing. In R. Fivush & C. A. Haden (Eds.), Autobiographical memory and the construction of a narrative self: Developmental and cultural perspectives (pp. 29 48). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reese, E. & Fivush, R. (1993). Parental styles of talking about the past. Developmental Psychology, 29 596 606. Reese, E., Haden, C. A., & Fivush, R. (1993). Mother child conversations about the past: Re lationships of style and memory over time. Cognitive Development, 8 403 430. Reid, D., Hresko, W., & Hammill, D. (2001). Test of early reading ability (3 rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO ED. Rodriguez, E. (2008). Sergio makes a splash New York: Little, Brown and Company. Scarborough, H.S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). Another look at parent preschooler bookreading: How naked is the emperor? A response to Lonigan (1994) and Dunning, Mason, and Stewart (1994). Developmental Review, 14, 340 347. Snchal M. (1997 expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 24 123 138. Snchal M ., Cornell, E. H., & Broda, L. S. (1995). Age related differences in the organization of parent infant interactions during picture book reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10 317 337. Snchal M ., & LeFevre, J. (2001). Storybook reading and parent teaching: Links to language and literacy development. In P. R. Britto & J. Broo ks Gunn (Eds.), The role of family (pp. 39 52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Snchal M reading skill: A five year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445 460. Snchal M ., LeFevre, J., Smith Chant, B. L., & Colton, K. V. (2001). On refining theoretical models of emergent literacy: The role of empirical evidence. Journal of School Psycholo gy, 39 439 460. Snchal M. LeFevre, J., Thomas, E., & Daley, K. E. ( 1998 ). Differential effects of home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 32 96 116.
191 Snchal M. Thomas, E., & Monker, J. (1996). Individual differences in 4 year old children's acquisition of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 87, 218 229. Serpell, R., Sonnenschein, S., Baker, L., & Ganapathy, H. (2002). Intimate culture of families in the early socialization of literacy. Journal of Family Psychology, 16 391 405. Shapiro, L. R. & Hudson, J. A. (1991). Tell me a make believe story: Coherence and cohesion elicited narratives. Developmental Psychology, 2 7 960 974. Smith, S. S., & Dixon, R. G. (1995). Literacy concepts of low and middle class four year olds entering preschool. Journal of Educational Research, 88 243 253. Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., & Hemphill, L. (1991) Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. ( 1999). Preventing reading difficulties in children. In Reading research: Anthology: The why? of readin g instruction (pp. 148 155) Consortium on reading excellence (CORE). Novato, CA: Arena Press. Snow, C. E., Tabors, P. O., Nicholson, P. A., & Kurland, B. F. (1995). SHELL: Oral language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and first grade childre n. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10 37 48. Sonnenschein, S. & Munsterman, K. (2002). The influence of home based reading interactions on 5 year olds' reading motivations and early literacy development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17 318 337. Speece, D. L., Roth, F. P., Cooper, D. H., & de la Paz, S. (1999). The relevance of oral language skills to early literacy: A multivariate analysis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20 167 190. Stein, N. L. & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53 120). Norwood, NJ : Ablex. Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2001). The role of family and home in the literacy developmen t of children from low income backgrounds. In P. R. Britto & J. Brooks Gunn (Eds.), emergent literacy skills (pp. 53 71). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G J. (2002). Oral language and code related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38 934 947. Readin g Research Quarterly, 20 458 481.
192 Tabors, P. O., Roach, K. A., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Home language and literacy environment: Final results. In D K. D ickinson & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language (pp. 111 138). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Tessler, M. (1991). Making memories together: The influence of mother child joint encoding on the development of children's autobiographical memory style (Doctoral Dissertation, City University, 1991) Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 1096. Trabasso, T. & Nickels, M. (1992). The development of goal plans of action in the narration of a picture story. Discourse Processes, 15 249 275. Trabasso, T. & Rodkin, P. C. (1994). Knowledge of goal/plans: A conceptual basis for narrating Frog, Where are You? In R. A. Bermin & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A cross linguistic developmental study (pp. 85 106). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Trabasso, T., & Stein, N. L. (1994). Using goal plan knowledge to merge the past with the present and the future in narrating events on line. In M.M. Haith, J. B. Benson, R. J. Roberts, & B. Pennington (Eds.), The development of future oriented processes (pp. 323 349). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Trabasso T., & Stein, N. L. (1997). Narrating, representing, and remembering event sequences. In P. W. van den Broek, P. J. Bauer, & T. Bourg (Eds.), Developmental spans in event comprehension and representation: Bridging fictional and actual events (pp. 237 270 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Trabasso, T., Stein, N. L., Rodkin, P. C., Munger, G. P., & Baughn, C. (1992). Knowledge of goals and plans in the on line narration of events. Cognitive Development, 7 133 170. Trunk, D. L., & Abrams, L. (2009). Do younger off topic speech in autobiographical narratives? Psychology and Aging, 24 324 337. Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23 134 158. Uccelli, P., Hemphill, L., Pan, B. A., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Conversing with toddlers about the nonpresent: Precursors to narrative development in two genres. In L. Balter, C. S. Tamis LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handboo k of contemporary issues (pp. 215 237) New York: Psychology Press. Ukrainetz, T. A., Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J. N., Eisenberg, S. L., Gillam, R. B., & Harm, H. M. (2005). The development of expressive elaboration in fictional narratives. Journal of S peech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48 1363 1377.
193 United States Census Bureau ( n.d. ). Poverty Thresholds for 2008 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years. Retrieved July 12 th 2009 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty /threshld/thresh08.html van Kleeck, A. (2003). Research on book sharing: Another critical look. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & Bauer, E. B. (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 271 320). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. van Kleeck, A. (2004). Fostering preliteracy development via storybook sharing interactions: The cultural context of mainstream family practices. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of l anguage and literacy: Development and d isorders (pp. 175 208). New York: The Guilford Press. van Kleeck, A. (200 8 ). Providing preschool foundations for later reading comprehension: The importance of and ideas for targeting inferencing in storybook sharing interventions. Psychology in the Schools, 45 627 643. van Kleeck, A., & Beckley simultaneous book sharing with preschool siblings: An exploratory study of five families. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 11 175 189. van Kraay enoord, C. E. & Paris, S. G. (1996). Story construction from a picture book: An assessment activity for young learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11 41 61. Vigil, A., & van Kleeck, A. (1996). Clinical language teaching: Theories and principle s to guide our responses when children miss our language targets. In M. Smith & J. Damico (Eds.), Childhood language disorders (pp. 64 96). New York: Thieme. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, Q., Leichtman, M. D., Davies, K. I. (2000). Sharing memories and telling stories: American and Chinese mothers and their 3 year olds. Memory, 8 159 178. Wareham, P. & Salmon, K. (2006). Mother child remi niscing about everyday experiences: Implications for psychological interventions in the preschool years. Clinical Psychology Review, 26 535 554. Washington, J. A. (2001). Early literacy skills in African American children: Research considerations. Lear ning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16 213 221. Weigel, D. J. Martin, S. S. & Bennett, K. K. (2005). Ecological influences of the home and the child care center on preschool Reading Research Quarterly, 40 204 2 33. Weigel, D. J. Mart in, S. S. & Bennett, K. K. (2006 ).
194 White, S. & Low, J. (2002). When mothers turn a visual story into a verbal one for their children: Previewing helps with the telling, conversing, and remembering. International Journal of Beha vioral Development, 26 360 370. Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low income families. Developmental Psycholog y, 30 679 689. Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C., Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psycholoy, 86 542 555. Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24 552 559. Whitehurst, G. J. & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). C hild development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69 848 872. Wigglesworth G. (1997). Children's individual approaches to the organization of narrative. Journal of Child Language, 24 279 309. Williams, K. (2006). Expressive Vocabulary Test 2 nd edition (EVT 2), Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Wren, Y. (2003). Using scenarios to evaluate a professional developmental programme for teaching staff. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 19, 115 132. Yont, K. M., Snow, C. E., & Vern on Feagans, L. (2003). The role of context in mother child \ interactions: An analysis of communicative intents expressed during toy play and book reading with 12 month olds. Journal of Pragmatics, 35 435 454. Zalla, T., Labruyere, N., & Georgieff, N. ( 2006). Goal directed action representation in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36 527 540. Zevenbergen, A. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2003). Dialogic reading: A shared picture book reading intervention for preschoolers. In A. van Kl eeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 177 200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
195 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Virginia Tompkins received her Bachelor of Science in p sychology from the University of Flo rida in May 2002 and her Master of Science in developmental p sychology from the University of Florida in August 2007 She relocated to Ohio after receivi ng her Doctor of Philosophy in developmental p sychology in August 2009 and began a job at The Ohio State University at Lima.