1 TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND STORYBOOK READING : SUPPORTING ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT By PAMELA CHALFANT A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE R EQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013
2 2013 Pamela Chalfant
3 This work is dedicated to Larry and our children: Melissa ( Joe), Erin, & Ben. Thank you for your love and endless support. You are my inspiration!
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was conducted with the support of numerous people. I am sincerely grateful to ev eryone who assisted me with my dissertation and supported me in the completion of my doctoral program. First, to all the teachers and children and who were willin g to participate in my study and allow me to come into their classrooms and lives, I owe tremendous gratitude. Without their willingness, commitment, and hard work this dissertation wou ld not have been possible Next I wish to thank Nancy Corbett, Ann Daunic, and Stephen Smith for their mentorship, support, and encouragement I also want to express my gratitude to Vicki, Michell, Shaira, Lynette, and Elizabeth for their kindness, assi stance, and support throughout each phase of my doctoral program I appreciate the support of my committee members, Hazel Jones, Paul Sindelar, and Ruth Lowery, for their patience, leadership, and willingness to ask hard questions to inspire me to think outside the box. Special thanks go to Hazel for guiding me through the single subject design and helping me make important decisions during crucial times of my study. I owe endless gratitude to Holly Lane, the chair of my doctoral committee, for being an awesome mentor and friend. She had a vision for me far beyond what I could see and not only inspired me to reach for that dream, but to attain it. I appreciate her kindness when I made I am sincerely grateful to all the ladies in my cohort who convinced me that I could do what I oft en thought was impossible and who encouraged me to hang in there when things were tough. I want to thank Sha unte for her help with my study and o ther cherished friends who w ere always willing to lend an ear when I needed to talk things out. I especially want to thank my
5 dear friend Lourdes, for her will ingness to assist with my study and for her patien ce, wisdom, laughter, and kindness that helpe d see me through my doctoral program. I am thankful to my parents for instilling in me a strong work ethic and commitment to persist until a job is done. I appreciate their love and encouragement. I am also grateful to my brother and sisters for their su pport and reassurance I would like to thank my three children, Melissa, Erin, and Ben who inspired me to keep my priorities straight and my eye on the goal. I will be forever grateful to my husband, Larry who was with me through out my doctoral program an d encouraged me every step of the way. Without his love, support, understanding, and reassurance this endeavor would not have been possible. Finally, I am grateful for everyone who lifted me up with prayer. Without the combined love support, and inspi ration from my family, friends, mentors, and colleagues my dream could never have become a reality. Most importantly, I thank God for his unending blessings and answer to prayers. I ask that He continue to guide me as I put this accomplishment to work fo r His glory.
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGME NTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13 The Importance of Teacher Student Interactions in the Classroom ................................ ....... 18 Designing Effective Professional Development ................................ ................................ ..... 22 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 26 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ........................ 28 Oral Language Skills ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 30 Whole Group Storybook Reading ................................ ................................ ................... 32 Small Group Storybook Rea ding ................................ ................................ .................... 37 Vocabulary Skills ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 46 Repeated Readings of a Story ................................ ................................ .......................... 47 Target ed Vocabulary Instruction ................................ ................................ ..................... 54 Teacher Student Interactions that Support Vocabulary Growth ................................ ..... 64 Listening Comprehension ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 66 Summary and Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 68 Implications for Practice ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 69 Implications for Futu re Research ................................ ................................ .................... 70 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 72 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 73 Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 73 Schools ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 74 Classrooms ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 75 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 78 Teachers ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 78 Students ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 81 Assessment Instruments ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 84 Screening Instruments ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 84 Pretest and Posttest Instruments ................................ ................................ ...................... 86 Interventions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 90 Interactive Storybook Reading ................................ ................................ ........................ 90
7 Professional Development with Coaching ................................ ................................ ...... 92 Materials ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 96 Dependent Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 96 Observations, Videotaping, and Recording the Dependent Variables ............................ 99 D esign ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 101 Pre Baseline Assessment ................................ ................................ ............................... 102 Baseline ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 102 Intervention Pha se: Teacher Professional Development with Coaching ...................... 103 Intervention Phase: Interactive Storybook Reading ................................ ..................... 103 Maintenance ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 104 Post Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 104 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 104 Interobserver Agreement ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 105 Treatment Integrity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 105 Social Validity ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 106 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 107 Overview of the Study Procedures ................................ ................................ ....................... 107 Reliability of Measurement ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 110 Interobserver Agreement ................................ ................................ ............................... 110 Interscorer Agreement for Student Assessments ................................ ........................... 112 Teacher Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 113 Audrey ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 116 Deborah ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 118 Christine ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 120 Bethany ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 122 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 124 Student Data ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 135 Statistical Analysis of the Data ................................ ................................ ............................. 138 Social Validity Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 142 Teacher Questionnaires ................................ ................................ ................................ 142 Teacher Intervi ews ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 143 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 146 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 148 Overview of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 149 Effects of the Professional Development Intervention on Storybook Reading Practices .... 149 Overview of Changes by Teacher ................................ ................................ ................. 150 Overview of Changes by Dependent Variable ................................ .............................. 155 Professional Development with Coaching Intervention ................................ ....................... 161 Social Validity ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 165 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 167 Implications of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 169 Implications for Practice ................................ ................................ ................................ 170 Implications for Future Research ................................ ................................ .................. 172
8 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 175 APPENDIX A IRB DOCUMENTATION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 177 B CLASSROOM LITERACY ENVIRONMENT CHECKLIST ................................ ............ 180 C TEACHER BA CKGROUND INFORMATION ................................ ................................ .. 181 D LIST OF TARGETED VOCABULARY ................................ ................................ ............. 182 E EXPRESSIVE VOCABULARY MEASURE ................................ ................................ ...... 184 F LISTENING COMPREHENSION MEASURE ................................ ................................ .. 187 G DEPENDENT VARIABLE DESCRIPTIONS ................................ ................................ .... 190 H COMPONENTS OF PROFESSION AL DEVELOPMENT ................................ ................ 192 I READ ALOUD LESSON PLANNING FORM ................................ ................................ .. 193 J READ ALOUD SESSION FEEDBACK FORM ................................ ................................ 197 K BOOK TITLES AND SEQUENCE OF INTRODUCTION ................................ ................ 198 L DATA COLLECTION FORM ................................ ................................ ............................. 199 M TREATMENT INTEGRITY CHECK LIST ................................ ................................ ......... 200 N SOCIAL VALIDITY CHECKLIST ................................ ................................ ..................... 201 O TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................ ................................ ............. 202 P TEACHER RESPONSES TO INTERVIEW ................................ ................................ ....... 20 3 Q PROMPTS FOR TEACHER RESPONSIVENESS ................................ ............................. 217 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 218 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 227
9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 ................................ ................................ 80 3 2 ................................ .............................. 82 3 3 ................................ ................................ ........ 83 3 4 ................................ ...... 83 3 5 ................................ .......... 83 4 1 IOA for Dependent Variables ................................ ................................ .......................... 111 4 2 Interscorer reliability for pre and post assessments ................................ ........................ 113 4 3 Teac her means and range for rate and frequency of talk ................................ ................. 115 4 4 Mean frequency and range for each dependent variable for Audrey ............................... 118 4 5 Mean frequencies and range for each dependent variable for Deborah ........................... 120 4 6 Mean frequencies and range for each dependent variable for Christine .......................... 122 4 7 Mean frequencies and range for each dependent variable for Bethany ........................... 124 4 8 Student means and range for rate and frequency of talk ................................ .................. 135 4 9 Distribution of subjects by race and gender ................................ ................................ ..... 138 4 10 Means and standard deviations of pretests by group ................................ ....................... 139 4 11 Independent samples t test results ................................ ................................ ................... 139 4 12 ................................ ... 141 4 13 ................................ ...... 141 4 14 Responses to social validity questionnaire ................................ ................................ ...... 142
10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Gradual Release of Responsibility Model ................................ ................................ ......... 21 1 2 Conceptual framework for professional development ................................ ....................... 26 3 1 Feedback Form for read aloud sessions ................................ ................................ ............. 95 4 1 Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for rate of teacher talk per minute ...... 114 4 2 Mean length of storybook reading sessions for each phase of the study by teacher ....... 116 4 3 Baseli ne, intervention, and maintenance phases for frequency of total teacher talk ....... 126 4 4 Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for each dependent variable ................ 127 4 5 Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for closed questions ............................. 128 4 6 Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for o pen questions ............................... 129 4 7 Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for extended responses ........................ 130 4 8 Baseline, i ntervention, and maintenance phases for vocabulary support ........................ 131 4 9 Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for affirmations ................................ .... 132 4 10 Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for praise ................................ .............. 133 4 11 Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for clarifications ................................ .. 134 4 12 Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for frequency of student talk ............... 136 4 13 Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for rate of student talk per minute ....... 137 4 14 Pretest to posttest gains in expressive vocabulary for both groups ................................ 140 4 15 Pretest to posttest gains in listening comprehension for both groups. ............................. 141
11 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 T EACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND STORYBOOK READING: SUPPORTING ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT By Pamela Chalfant August 2013 Chair: Holly B. Lane Major: Special Education Many students enter school wi th deficits in early literacy skills and oral language already in place. Research shows that early literacy and oral language skills can be enhanced by rich interactions with adults, and the sooner these skills are developed; the more likely a child is to succeed. Additionally, storybook reading support s teacher student interactions, early literacy, and oral language skills. Since the majority of kindergarten teachers report reading aloud to their students daily, using interactive storybook reading as a venue to support rich teacher student interactions and oral language growth in at risk kindergarteners seem s like a feasible intervention. This goal of this single subject study was to evaluate the effects of p rofessional development (PD) with coaching on the successful implementation of interactive storybook reading strategies in the kindergarten classroom. Key strategies used during storybook reading were examined and oral interactions between teachers and students measured. In addition, the effects of teacher comprehension and expressive vocabulary skills. To allow for comparison of growth, a small group of students was selected from a second kindergarten classroom in the same scho ols using
12 the same criteria. These students were also pre and posttested on their listening comprehension and expressive vocabulary skills. Four kindergarten teachers from four elementary schools implemented the interactive storybook reading intervention with at risk students using a multiple baseline across groups design. The dependent variables were measured by counting the number of responses between teachers and students A maintenance phase was implemented two weeks after the completion of data coll ection to determine if the teachers continued using the strategies. Results indicated that the teachers inc reased both the quantity and quality of their interactions with students from baseline to th e maintenance phase During the course of the interventi on, an increase was observed in the mean frequency for all dependent variables: Furthermore, the participating students showed significant gains in expressive vocabulary Social validity surveys and interviews demonstrated o the intervention, their attitude toward the importance of using these interactive strategies, and the ease in which they have incorporated the strategies into their current practice.
13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Learning to read is a highly valued skill i n our society. In fact, literacy is imperative for attaining knowledge in school and plays a huge role in the future success of a child (Carnine, acquisition of me the text, but to understand what the text means at the individual word, sentence, and passage level. Such understanding is dependent upon an array of complex skills such as kno wledge of vocabulary, syntax, semantics, verbal reasoning, and other structures of language (Scarborough, 2003). Recognizing the important role that early acquisition of language plays in later reading success, many researchers have focused their attentio n on the implementation of effective interventions to support the development of t hese critical language skills. Unfortunately, the mastery of reading is not easy for all children. Indeed, many students experience significant problems in learning to read (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). According to Scarborough (1998), children who have difficulty learning to read often continue to have reading problems, whereas those who get off to a good start in reading generally maintain that success. Furthermore, Sta novich (1986) noted that children with weak vocabularies read less, learn fewer words, and lag further and further behind their peers who read well. The term succes sful with reading and poor readers becoming increasingly inferior readers. Other researchers add more specifically that children who fail to become proficient readers in the primary grades tend to remain poor readers into adulthood (Adams, 1990; Juel, 19 8 8; Torgesen & Burgess, 1998).
14 Considering the bleak outlook for children who struggle to read, comprehensive reports have been funded to disseminate research evidence of how early literacy and language skills develop and what effective instructional strate gies should be incorporated in classrooms. The report of the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) reviewed evidence based research studies and published their report on how to implement the most effective reading strategies in the classroom. More recently, research on the development of early literacy skills in children from birth to five was synthesized and published, Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP, 2008). However, despite federal funding and the accumulation of knowledge about evidence based reading interventions for at risk students, there has been little success in closing the achievement gap (Carnine et al., 2006). As a result of the focus on learning more about at risk students, researchers have found that many children enter school with large gaps in literacy skills already in place. In addition, those children who are most at risk for learning difficulties often come from low income families, have limited oral language knowledge, developmental delays, an d fewer literacy related experiences. Further, researchers have concluded that children identified with oral language deficits require support throughout their school years, and the earlier these problems are resolved, the more chance they have of being s uccessful (Bishop & Adams, 1990; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Nation & Snowling, 2004; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994; Snow, Porche, Tabors, & Harris, 2007; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). The early literacy skills that are crucial for building the foundation for r eading success in later years generally fall into two broad classes: (a) letter knowledge and experiences with the sounds of the language, and (b) language skills including vocabulary and concept knowledge (Carnine et al., 2006; Cunningham & Zibulsky, 2011 ; Hart & Risley, 1995). Literacy skills,
15 knowledge of many different concepts, and an extensive vocabulary impact success in reading, reading comprehension (Neuman, Roskos, Wright, & Lenhart, 2007). When children start school lacking the knowledge of concepts and skills needed to succeed, they almost immediately fall behind and often experience life long setbacks in achievement (Carnine et al., 2006; Mendelsohn, Dreyer, Brockmeyer, Berkule Silberman, & Morrow, 2011; Shonkoff, 2000). A variety of early literacy skills including name writing, letter knowledge, and phonological awareness are supported through storybook reading (Aram, 2006; Bus, van IJzendoorn, &Pellegrini 1995). Whitehurst et al. (1988) found that reading stories interac tively with children who are at risk for academic failure also increases their expressive and receptive language (as measured by standardized, norm referenced tests). Furthermore, outcomes of numerous research studies show increased acquisition of targete d words through the use of read alouds (Beck & McKeown, 2001; Biemiller & Boote Stoolmiller, 2004; Elley, 1989; Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005; Loftus, Coyne, McC oach, Zipoli, & Pullen, 2010). In 1985, Anderson, Hiebert Scott, and Wilkinson published a report that was influential in the field of reading research, Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading. In this document, the authors state the following activity brought the importance of reading aloud to the forefront for parents and teachers all over the country and inspired researchers to further investigate the benefits of reading aloud (Lane & Wright, 2007). In contrast, however, Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) reported a decade later that shared reading accounted for only a very small portion of the variance in reading ability in the primary grades. They also suggested tha t more studies be conducted to determine what
16 specific strategies used during storybook reading actually contribute to future literacy developmen t. Despite the findings of Scarborough and Dobrich (1994), a number of studies have established evidence of the various benefits of reading aloud to children. In their quantitative meta analysis, Bus, van IJzendoorn, and Pellegrini (1995) found that storybook reading is related to language growth, emergent literacy, and reading achievement. The studies they revie wed targeted young children from low income homes and examined the effects of the frequency of storybook reading. They concluded that the strength of the association between reading aloud and language skills (effect size = 0.67) is greater than one of the largest predictors of reading problems, phonemic a wareness (effect size = 0.48). In addition, other researchers have strong evidence that interactive storybook reading is an important activity that contributes to the early literacy and language developmen t of young children (Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002; Whitehurst et al., 1994). These researchers contend that through listening to stories, children are exposed to (a) vocabulary that they may not encounter in daily conversations, (b) the syntactic structure of language, and (c) concepts of print. These language and early literacy skills are important aspects of reading and play a role in the development of decoding, print production, and comprehension skil ls (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). Vocabulary achievement, which has been linked to greater reading comprehension scores in later grades, is also enhanced by interactive storybook reading (Bus et al., 1995; Elley, 1989; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Senechal & LeFevr e, 2002; Whitehurst et al., 1999 ). Mol, Bus, and de Jong, (2009) conducted a meta analysis on the oral language and literacy benefits of interactive story book reading in whole and small group settings Results of
17 the 31 quasi experimental studies that wer e quantitatively reviewed (n = 2,049 children) showed that the growth in oral language skills of young children who received interactive storybook reading interventions increased 28% more than their peers who were not part of the intervention. The authors concluded that both the quality and frequency of storybook reading are important factors that enhance oral language gains (Bus et al., 1995 ; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). Many children enter kindergarten already lagging behind their peers. These children, who are most at risk for learning difficulties, often come from low income families; have limited oral language knowledge, developmental delays and fewer literacy related experiences. When children start school with oral language deficits, they almost im mediately fall behind and often experience life long setbacks in achievement. Researchers have strong evidence that storybook reading contributes to the language development of young children when implemented effectively. Additionally, storybook reading activities generall y take place daily in kindergarten classrooms. A large survey of elementary reading practices in the United States shows that teachers spend a moderate to considerable amount of time reading aloud to children during the school day (Teal e, 2003). However, more studies need to be done to determine what specific strategies used during storybook reading actually contribute to literacy development (Brabham & Lynch Brown, 2002; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). After analyzing the body of resear ch on rds, researchers and educators need to gain greater insight into what actually happens during storybook reading in order for children to experience greater achievement from it.
18 The Importance of Teacher Student Interactions in the Classroom Vygotsky (1978) explained that learning is a social activity. He discussed language as a mechanism for thinking and concluded that all social interactions, past and present, influence cognitive construction. Through dialogic interactions with peers and a supportive tea cher, Vygotsky contends, students can develop a deeper understanding of certain concepts and activities that prepare them to engage in similar subsequent activities. Social interactions, according to Vygotsky, are necessary for development to occur (Bodr ova & Leong, 1996). Learning then is shaped by interactions with others and is grounded in social activities. These types of activities are made available through the dialogic scaffolds of teaching and learning. Vygotsky theorized that what children can do with the support of others might be more child can do with assistance today, she will be able to do by h In support of Vygotsk information and clarifications in the classroom, allow students to express their opinions, and make personal connections, there are numerous benefits. Interactions of this nature en hance student understanding, f oster critical thinking, improve communication skills and have positive effects on peer relationships (Gambrell, 1996; Hadjioannou, 2007; Wells, 2000). Some researchers claim that active engagement is the best tool to increase le arning for at risk students (Palinscar & Klenk, 1992 ; Pressley, 1998). Contrary to these theories, observations reveal that teachers do most of the talking in classrooms, making about twice as many utterances as do students. In other words, most classroom discussions are still dominated by teacher talk (Fisher, 2005). In over half of the interactions between teachers and students, students do not produce any language. Typically, when students do respond, they provide only simple information recall statem ents. This pattern
19 of teacher language freely, but also limits their ability to engage in more complex learning (Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991). In order for students to feel comfortable engaging in conversations, teachers should create a supportive environment where children feel safe asking questions. Teachers can encourage rich dialogue by responding to students with praise and by showing a true interest in what a c hild has to say. In this way, teachers may also reassure students who are reluctant to answer questions through encouragement and supportive teacher responses (Mohr & Mohr, 2007). Teachers who support student discussion know that cognitive strategies impr ove with student practice. These teachers also know that it is valuable to provide time for students to reflect, form ideas, and allow their thinking to evolve. Students who are actively engaged in rich conversations can become reflective, critical think e rs with support and practice. In other words, t eachers need to encourage additional interactions allow sufficient time for student s to respond and provide ample opportunities for practice (Fisher, 2005). One method of encouraging teacher student intera ctions in the early grades is through dialogic or interactive storybook reading. This well validated technique is based on the theory that when children practice using language in authentic contexts such as storybook reading, their vocabulary and oral lan guage development is enhanced. In these dialogic interactions, teachers are encouraged to give students specific feedback regarding language, scaffold and extend student responses, and ask open ended questions to encourage children to access their backgro und experiences and make personal connect ions (Whitehurst et al., 1988).
20 Through questions and discussion, children are encouraged to engage in higher level thinking. By using the CROWD mnemoni c developed by Whitehurst and his colleagues (1994) teachers are better able to remember the questioning techniques These question types include (a) Completion prompts, (b) Recall prompts, (c) Open ended prompts, (d) Wh prompts, and (e) Distancing prompts. A modified version of the CROWD strategy was used in this study to design the majority of the dependent variables : (a) as king closed or recall questions; (b) asking open questions (e.g., Why do you think that happened?); (c) extending responses; (d) repeating and affirming responses; and (e ) praising responses. developmental level and the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Th e ZPD as described by Vygotsky a s the distance between the actual developmental level, as determined by individual problem solving, and the developmental level as determined through problem solving under fully matured, but with some assistance the child can reac h his full potential and these skills will fully develop or emerge. Another way to explain this concept is by using the term scaffolding. Scaffolding allows a child to experiment with new concepts and strategies in ways that normally would not be possible without assistance. Over time, with much practice, a child will develop expertise and then share those expert skills with others. The model that explains this type of learning is called the Gradual Release of R esponsibility Model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). This optimal learning model developed by Pearson and Gallagher (1983) illustrates the
21 moves from taking most of the responsibility for performing a task to gradually transferring that responsibility to the student. Throu gh this process of gradually assuming more of the responsibility, students become more competent and independent learners (Fisher & Frey, 2008). These theories surmise that more learning occurs through rich, purposeful interactions with others. According to Fisher and Frey (2008), however, these interactions should not be limited to adult and child exchanges. A more complete model of implementation for the gradual release of responsibility moves from modeled to guided instruction, which is then followed b y collaborative learning, and then independent practice as shown in Figure 1 1. Figure 1 1 Gradual Release of Responsibility Model (adapted from Pearson & Gallagher, 1983 and Fisher & Frey, 2008) This guidance provided by teachers to students can take the form of interactions during storybook discussions. In interactive storybook reading, teachers model reading a story fluently, think aloud to demonstrate metacognition, support thinking by asking open ended questions, and
22 assist students in recalling a nd summarizing the story. In time, teachers will gradually release this responsibility as the students become more comfortable participating in oral discussions with the teacher and each other and making connections to create meaning from a narrative text The goal is to eventually release total responsibility to the readers as they begin to read on their own, ask questions about what they are reading, make connections to the story, and discuss their ideas with others as they develop a clear understanding of the story. For this type of instruction to be effective, teachers must establish a purpose for the lesson, model their thinking during the reading of the story, ask strategic questions, support student responses, and guide the discussions. All this is done while maintaining a flow to the story being read, keeping students on track, and providing opportunities for student engagement. Not surprisingly, supporting student interactions does not come easily to all teachers of young children. Although teac hers read aloud to students daily, they may not be skilled in supporting rich language interactions. According to the National Research Council (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), an effective teacher is one who recognizes the individual needs of students and implements the right combination of instructional strategies that will enable them to succeed. Because each child has different needs, teachers must have sufficient knowledge of many efficient strategies in order to make informed decisions about which st rategies will work best. Additionally, teachers must use their instructional time strategically in order to ensure that all students meet expected learning standards. This study sought to enhance the content knowledge and skills of kindergarten teachers to enable them to provide their at risk students with the language support they need through effective storybook reading intervention. Designing Effective Professional Development According to a recent report from the National Staff Development Council (NS DC; 2009), sustained and intensive professional development for teachers is related to student
23 achievement gains. Furthermore, high quality professional development (PD) is essential if teachers are expected to implement research based practices in their classrooms and ultimately impact student outcomes (Za slow, Tout, Halle, Whittaker, Lavelle, & Trends, 2010). Because the link between teacher quality and student achievement is fairly clear (Sanders & Rivers, 1996), it is crucial to try and provide teache rs with ongoing professional development and support in an attempt to improve the effectiveness of reading instruction and student achievement. One of the key factors in determining if instruction will promote the desired increase in language skills of you ng students is whether or not the training includes strategies to help teacher s specifically, training teachers to have rich conversations with students can lead to increased opportunities for children to talk, acquire new vocabulary, and use descriptive language key component in determining whether instruction will promote increased o ral language skills (Wasik, 2010). There have been recent studies that link certain models of professional development to change and sustainability of effective literacy practices in elementary classrooms One such model linked partnership and collaborati on, similar to that of a coaching model, to guide teacher activities leading to change and sustainability of practice (Greenwood, Tapia, Abbott, & Walton, 2003). This model provided in depth rationale, classroom demonstrations, and adequate time to practi ce the new strategies. In addition, as the new practices were implemented in the classroom, teachers were provided with extra support to adapt the instructional strategies to the demands and needs of their classrooms.
24 Several studies have concluded that c oaching support may enhance the likelihood of change in teacher practices and increase student outcomes (Blachowicz, Obrochta, & Fogelberg, 2005; Costa & Garmston, 2002; Joyce & Showers, 2002: Wasik & Hindman, 2011). One study provided a coaching model of support for the teachers and identified six essential coaching strategies that effectively supported change in teacher practice and student achievement (Blachowicz, Obrochta, & Fogelberg, 2005). The first coaching technique that the researchers found eff ective was to connect new strategies to ongoing and current literacy practices. In this way, new learning could be built on current strengths and best practices were identified. Other strategies supporting change in practice included (a) choosing to focu s on generative practices, (b) establishing credibility, (c) focusing on student learning, (d) differentiating teacher support, maximized the effect of PD on teach er practice and led to improved student achievement. Additionally, Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon (2001) discovered that PD that (active learning), and is integrated into the daily life of the school (coherence), is more likely to Keeping in mind that the professional development activities in this study were created to facilitate instruction that suppo rts oral language skills in young children, the main goals were to (a) foundations of the early literacy development of young children, (b) oral language dev rough meaningful interactions. This study was situated in the current theory of professional development and teacher learning as proposed by Desimone (2009). Desimone suggests a conceptual framework for
25 studying PD specifically for teachers. Within this framework, are her theory of change and her of five essential features of PD that foster teacher learning, promote change in beliefs and classroom practice, and lead ultimately to increased student learning. These factors are (a) content focus, (b) active learning, (c) coherence, (d) duration, and (e) collective participation. These components of teacher lear ning and change establish an operational theory of the influence of PD on teacher practice and student achievement. the structure of the PD for this study. To be more sp ecific, the content focus of the PD included (a) foundations of the early literacy development of young children, (b) oral language addition, active learning was inco rporated through discussion, modeling, role play, practice, self assessment, and reflection. By allowing teachers to share their beliefs about teaching and learning, prior knowledge, and experiences, coherence was addressed. Furthermore, Desimone recomme nds PD activities are of sufficient duration and that teachers have at least 20 hours of contact time over the semester. However, due to the nature of this study, teachers attended an individualized PD session and received coaching with specific feedback after each read aloud session over the course of the study. Because the training was individualized and coaching and feedback were ongoing it is believed that this amount of time was of sufficient duration. Finally, teachers in the study were encouraged to interact with other teachers in their school in order to establish collective participation, a power ful tool for teacher learning. Figure 1 2 illustrates an adaptation of development. The adapted framew ork was used to guide this study.
26 Figure 1 2 Conceptual framework for professional d evelopment (adapted from Desimone, 2009) Purpose of the Study The goal of this study was to examine the effects of professional development with coaching on interactions between teacher s and students during read alouds in the kindergarten classroom. In addition, this single subject study examined the effectiveness of a structured framework for implementing this type of storybook reading intervention. Although most kinde rgarten teachers read aloud to their students daily, this intervention assisted them in using a framework to guide their development of questioning strategies and responses to students during storybook reading. As teachers became more comfortable with thi s process, they were able to draw on these strategies to support r ich interactions with their students Effectiveness of the intervention was measured by increased interactions between teachers and students. After data oral language skills were assessed by researcher created measures of expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension. The following questions were addressed in this study :
27 1. What are the effects of professional development with coaching on kindergarten te use of closed and open questions with at risk students during storybook reading ? 2. What are the effects of professional development with use of affirmative responses and praise with at risk students during storybook reading ? 3. What are the effects of professional development with coaching on use of extending responses with at risk students during storybook reading ? 4. What are the effects of professional development with coaching on kindergarten tea vocabulary instruction with at risk students during storybook reading? 5. If increases in teacher student interactions occur during storybook reading, w hat effect do those increased interaction s have listening comprehension and expressive vocabulary)? The review in the next chapter provides an analysis of the research related to (a) oral language instruction and later re ading comprehension achievement; (b) the specific oral language needs of at risk children in the primary grades; and (c) interactive storybook and dialogic reading strategies that support oral language development. The remaining chapters provide a description
28 CHAP TER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter presents a review of research focused on the effects of storybook reading strategies on the oral language development of young children. It begins with a brief introduction and overview of the effects of storybo ok reading, and then continues with how the studies were selected f or review. The remainder of this review is organized by the main effects of storybook reading including (a) oral language, (b) vocabulary, (c) teacher student interactions, an d (d) listeni ng comprehension. Educators and researchers both agree that many children experience great difficulty in learning t o read. Those children most at risk come to school with deficits in early literacy skills such as phonological awareness, print awareness, a nd oral language skills (Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998). Because early language development has been linked to later comprehension and reading success, (Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), it is important to focus on the develo pment of these skills as early as possible. Therefore, it is important to determine how to effectively address the oral language needs of at risk kindergarten students. Interactive storybook reading or dialogic reading is an important activity that cont ributes to the early literacy and language development of young children (Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002; Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein, Angell, Smith, & Fischel, 1994). Through listening to stories, children are exposed to vocabulary that they may not encounter in daily conversations. They are also exposed to the syntactic structure of language and the concepts of print. These language skills are important aspects of literacy and play a role in the developm ent of decoding, print production, and comprehension (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). Vocabulary achievement is strengthened by
29 interactive reading and is linked to greater comprehension scores in later grades (Bus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Elley, 1 989; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002; Whitehurst, Zevenbergen, Crone, Schultz, Velting, & Fischel, 1999 ). The selected studies were identified through an extensive review of four databases: EBSCO Host, Academic Search Premier, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. To perform the search, the following key terms were used in various combinations: dialogic reading, early reading interventions, interactive storybook reading, oral language, repeated reading, shared reading, storybook reading, vocabulary, preschool, kindergarten, student interactions, and primary grades. In addition, hand searches were conducted of relevant journals i n the field of education (e.g., The Reading Teacher Reading Research Quarterly Early Childhood Research Quarterly and T h e Journal of Educational Psychology ) Professional books were also searched including the following titles: Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 ; On Reading Books to Children ; and Young Children Learning at Home and School: Beginning Literacy with Language Ancestral searches were also conducted in an attempt to make the review as exhaustive as possible. The studies meeting the following criteria were then selected for inclusion in this review: (a) the primary intervention used was s torybook reading with authentic literature; (b) the interventions were conducted in school settings, with the exception of a seminal study by Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998) that includes reading aloud in the home in addition to reading in preschool settings ; (c) participants were preschool or primary grade students (K 2); (d) the studies were conducted by a teacher or researcher (as opposed to technology based); and (e) the interventions focused on interactions to strengthen oral language skills (e.g., expre ssive and receptive vocabulary and listening comprehension). The search was delimited to English
30 speakers, peer reviewed studies and studies taking place in the last 15 years, with the exception of a few seminal research articles. A total of 23 research studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies selected were organized according to main effects of storybook reading with young children including (a) oral language, (b) vocabulary, an d (c) listening comprehension. For each study the purpose of the res earchers is explained, participants and interventions described, and results reported. Each section ends with an analysis of the findings. All significant outcomes, unless otherwise noted, are reported at .05 alpha. Effect sizes will also be included if they have been reported in the reviewed study. At the conclusion of this chapter, a general discussion of the findings along with implications for practice and research will be discussed. Oral Language Skills Oral language experiences can be described as including (a) receptive and expressive vocabulary knowledge, (b) language use, and (c) listening comprehension skills. An explanation of these individual skills is as follows. Receptive vocabulary describes the language children understand, such as list ening to speech or reading and understanding print. Whereas, expressive vocabulary describes the language used to communicate with others. Listening comprehension refers to the ability to process and understand spoken language. The purpose of these oral language skills is to obtain and share knowledge and experiences. Oral language skills provide a way for children to learn about the world through communication and interactions with others. Therefore, because learning is language based, more fully deve loped oral language skills allow children to refine their thinking, learn about new concepts, and continue to deepen their abilities support learning and the d eve lopment of reading ability.
31 experiences with interactive storybook reading are correlated to the development of oral language skills (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Karweit, 1989; Loni gan, Anthony, Bloomfield, Dyer, & Samwell, 1999; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Whitehurst et al., 1994). This is an important finding because the early development of language skills has been clearly linked to later success i n reading comprehension (Nation & Snowling, 2004; Snow et al., 2007). In a longitudinal study of language and literacy development in children from preschool to fourth grade, Storch and Whitehurst (2002) found a strong relationship between oral language ability in preschool and the deve lopment of reading ability in later grades. In addition, Snow and her colleagues (2007) followed a sample of children from preschool (3 years old) through graduation from high school and tested them on vocabulary and reading comprehension skills throughou t their school years. Results indicated strong correlations between kindergarten receptive vocabulary scores and reading comprehension performance in tenth grade. Kindergarten vocabulary scores also correlated as strongly with fourth, seventh and tenth grade vocabulary scores as they did with reading comprehension performance. Those students who started out with larger vocabularies and stronger emergent literacy skills had better reading comprehension scores in subsequent grades, all the way through hig h school. Although it is encouraging to know that reading storybooks to young children supports oral language skills, some researchers have found that it is more than just reading aloud that produces these effects. The way in which an adult interacts with children while reading aloud is what is related to the language gains obtained (Teale, 2003) When children are given the opportunity to actively participate in reading experiences, they show greater language gains than
32 when books are read aloud without purposeful interactions (Dickinson, 2001; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Karweit, 1989; Whitehurst, Arnold, & Lonigan, 1990; Whitehurst et al., 1988). development after par ticipating in storybook reading sessions. Although there is evidence that small group settings increase the benefits of storybook reading (Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Karweit & Wasik, 1996; Morrow & Smith, 1990), these read alouds took place in whole group s ettings and did not examine the effectiveness of storybook reading in groups of differing sizes. Whole G roup Storybook R eading Karweit (1989) investigated the effects of a storybook reading intervention on the early language and literacy development of pre school children from low income families in a pretest posttest design study. Key features of the intervention included: (a) opportunities for the active invol vement in the stories, and (c) elaboration by the teacher on targeted vocabulary words. The oral language achievement of children attending two Chapter 1 prekindergarten classrooms and participating in the intervention was compared with children in two pr ekindergarten classrooms that participated in storybook reading in their regular curriculum. Children were matched across classrooms based on demographic factors and their score s on the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts at the beginning of the school year. At the end of the school year, positive effects were found for the treatment group on sizes from pre to posttest for the experimental classrooms as compared to the comparison classrooms were 0.51 for receptive vocabulary as measured by the Test of Oral Language Development (TOLD), 0.73 on expressive language, as measured by the TOLD Sentence Imitation, and 0.52 on story comprehension, as measured by the Merrill Langu age Screening
33 Test. The authors concluded that participating in storybook reading sessions that included opportunities for the children to (a) retell the story, (b) respond to questions encouraging active involvement, and (c) have opportunities to hear an d use targeted vocabulary words increased the development of oral language skills in preschool children. abilities. Four year olds in 25 different preschool classrooms were targeted for this study. The participants were enrolled in subsidized preschool programs for children from low income families. Like the Karweit study (1989), this study also took place over the course of the school year. Teachers were videotaped during storybook reading sessions and the tapes were subsequently transcribed and coded. The researchers then identified three different approaches to book reading: (a) teachers and children engaged in extended, cognitively challenging, analytical conversations during the reading and limite d talk before and after reading; (b) teachers questioning children about factual details in the story during and after reading; and (c) teachers and childre n engaged in limited discussions during reading, with extended d iscussion following the story. Results revealed a strong association between receptive vocabulary development as mea sured by the PPVT R and teacher child engagement in analytical discussions. Moderate effects were also evident between story interactions and listening comprehension scores as measured by a listening comprehension indicator designed by the Home School Study research team. This comprehension measure included recall a nd inferential questions. Regression analyses done at the utterance level revealed strong effects of analytical talk on vocabulary ( effect size = 0.51) and moderate effects on listening compr ehension (effect size = 0.25).
34 The outcomes suggest that the pro portion of teacher and child interaction s during reading that includes predictions, analysis of characters or events, and discussion of vocabulary is significantly related to an increase in vocabulary and story comprehension. The authors concluded that te achers could using different read aloud approaches as long as they include the child in analytical discussions about the story. Results also indicate that talk before and after the story is beneficial; however lengthy discussions during the story are not necessary. Furthermore, study outcomes suggest that the use of a various genres of authentic literature as opposed to a majority of predictable books is most valuable. Dickinson (2001) also reported positive effects of storybook reading on the oral language outcomes of 4 and 5 year olds. His research is based on the findings of the longitudinal Home School Study of Language and Literacy Development that began in 1987 by a collaborative team of researchers, including Dickinson. When the study began the children were 3 years old. period. The 74 children in the sample attended 61 different center ba sed preschool classrooms. Of these children, 66 were followed into 58 kindergarten classrooms. The children in the study were from racially diverse, English speaking, and from low income families. According to the author, this sample of children was sel ected because research indicates this population to be at a higher risk of literacy related difficulties. Storybook reading sessions between teachers and students were observed in their classrooms, audio taped, and videotaped. The sessions were then tran scribed and coded. Finally the teachers were interviewed abo ut their read aloud practices. Findings revealed a moderately strong relationship ( r = 0.39, p < kindergarten receptive vocabulary (PPVT R) scores and their engagement in conversations
35 comprehension in kindergarten was also related to their opportunities to engage in interactive, reflective conversations when they were 4 years old ( r = 0.25, p < .04, n = 25). Analyses of the results of all classrooms supported these findings. A positive correlation was also found between (e.g., Why, How, and When), comments during storybook reading tive vocabulary scores at the end of kindergarten ( r = 0.36, p < .003, n = 65). Models that included this interactional variable accounted for over half the variance of the s receptive vocabulary scores. Dickinso n (2001) concluded th at teacher student interactions during storybook reading study sheds light on typical book reading practices of teachers in preschool classrooms serving low inc ome families and brings to the forefront the most effectiv e storybook reading practices. Wasik and Bond (2001) also explored the effects of interactive storybook reading on the oral language development of 4 year olds from low income families. One hundred twenty seven children participated in this study fr om four different Title I early learning centers. Both the morning and afternoon classes at the centers participated. Teachers were randomly assigned to intervention and control conditions. The interve ntion was conducted for 15 weeks and consisted of teachers being trained in interactive reading techniques and extension activities which included defining targeted vocabulary words, asking open ended questions, and providing children with opportunities to talk about the story. Because the read alouds took place in whole group settings, teachers were given guidance in techniques to help the children lis ten when others were speaking.
3 6 Targeted vocabulary was reinforced by presenting concrete objects represen ting the words and by providing several opportunities for children to use the targeted words. Teachers in the control group were given the same storybooks used in the intervention classrooms and read the books the same number of times. Both groups follow ed similar daily schedules and the same curriculum themes. A comparable amount of time was spent on read alouds in both the treatment an d control classrooms. Children in the intervention group scored significantly higher than those in the comparison group on receptive vocabulary tasks as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT III) and on researcher developed receptive and expressive vocabulary tasks which assessed 44 randomly selected words from the 100 words targeted in the stories. Th e authors concluded that interactive storybook reading activities enhance the development of receptive and expressive oral language abilities in young children. Results of the studies reviewed in this section indicate that participation in read alouds that include opportunities for children to retell the story, respond to questions, and use tar geted vocabulary words increase the development of oral language skills (Karweit, 1989). Further, nd receptive vocabulary skills significantly increase when teachers and students interact during storybook reading. In addition, tal k before and after the story is beneficial, however lengthy discussions during the story are not necessary (Dickinson & Smi th, 1994) and may actually be detrimental. Wasik and Bond (2001) caution that when read alouds take place in whole group settings, teachers need guidance in management techniques to help children listen when others are speaking. Oral language gains are en hanced when teachers use specific strategies during storybook reading: (a) elaborate on vocabulary, (b) ask open ended questions, (c) encourage students to
37 retell the story, and (c) provide opportunities for children to discuss the story analytically. As demonstrated in the Dickinson (2001) study, these gains are still evident into the primary grades. Furthermore, these studies all took place during read alouds with the whole class, which may account for some of the small to moderate effect sizes. In the next section, studies are reviewed in which oral language gains continue to be the primary focus, however, children are read to in small group settings. Additionally, a specific reading technique called Dialogic Reading (Whitehurst et al., 1988) will be e xplained and research using this technique will be examined. Small G roup Storybook R eading Dialogic reading is a well validated reading technique based on the theory that when children practice using language in authentic contexts, receive specific feedbac k regarding language, and experience appropriately scaffolded adult child interactions during story reading, language development is facilitated (Whitehurst et al., 1988). More specifically, dialogic reading involves an adult reading aloud to one or more children while incorporating standardized methods for enhancing vocabulary development and expressive language skills. Three general principals guide dialogic interactions: (1) Adults explain and discuss targeted vocabulary. (2) Adults encourage children to actively participate in the story by asking open ended questions. and eliciting thoughtful responses that gradually lead the child to become more skillful at retelling the story. When engaging in dialogic reading with young children, adults prompt children to think about the story in a more analytical way by making predictions about the story and making personal connections to the content of the story. Chi ldren are encouraged to engage in this higher level thinking through questions and discussion. The acronym CROWD was developed
38 by Whitehurst et al. (1994) to assist adults in remembering the questioning techniques. The question types are as follow: 1. C ompl etion prompts: Children complete a s tatement from the story (e.g., When Goldilocks sat in ). 2. R ecall prompts: Questions that require children to recall details from the story (e.g., What did Goldil ocks do when she saw the bea rs? ). 3. O pen ended prompts: These questions encourage children to make inferences from th eir own experiences (e.g., How do you think Baby Bear felt when he saw that his chair was broken? ). 4. Wh prompts: What, where, and why questions, (e.g. What is this calle d? Why did Goldi ). 5. D istancing prompts: Questions that encourage children to make connections from the story t o life outside the text (e.g., Tell abo ut a time when you felt afraid. ). These questioning techniques can be modifi ed to suit the individual needs of children at various developmental levels. Despite the level of support needed, dialogic reading techniques enhance vocabulary knowledge. Upon examining t h e effects of dialogic reading with small groups of children in Head Start programs, Whitehurst and colleagues (1994) found there were significant effects for enhanced writing skills and concepts of print in addition to inc reased expressive vocabulary. Fu rther according to Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998), the frequency of dialogic reading in the preschool setting positively affected both receptive and expressi ve vocabulary development. The following section will examine the research evidence on the effects of dialogic reading practices on the oral language skills of young children in preschool and primary grade s ettings. Whitehurst et al. (1994), sought to examine the effects of their standardized dialogic reading intervention for Head Start centers. In th is st udy, 73 English speaking 3 year olds from low income families were read to in small groups of no more than 5 children. The language
39 skills of these children were all below average as measured by standardized language tests. Books were provided for t he reading intervention to ensure the materials were appropriate for the intervention. It was expected that the children who were read to regularly by teachers and at home would show the largest gains in language ability because of the increased frequency of t he shared reading interaction. Children were randomly assigned within classrooms to one of three conditions: (a) school reading, (b) school plus home reading, and (c) a control group. The parents and teachers were trained using the dialogic reading s tyle videotape training developed by Whitehurst, Arnold, and Lonigan (1990). Both parents and teachers kept logs noting the time spent reading, titles of books read, and length of the boo ks. The intervention lasted 6 weeks, aft er which the children were post tested. In addition, children were assessed 6 months later as a follow up. Results revealed that dialogic reading interventions produce significant effects on both the expressive and receptive vocabulary scores of preschoolers from low income families when implemented in school and in the home. Children participating in the school and home group performed better on all expressive vocabulary tests than the children in the school only condition and better than those in the control group. However, child ren in the school only condition outperformed the children in the control group on expressive and receptive language scores. The effects of the dialogic reading intervention obtained on both measures of expressive vocabulary were still evident 6 months af ter the intervention. In a follow up study, Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998) sought to replicate and extend the research findings of Whitehurst et al. (1994) who found dialogic reading to be effective when used in day care settings and by low income parents o f 3 year old children. In addition, Lonigan
40 and Whitehurst wanted to analyze the effects of using dialogic reading in the home versus school settings with preschoo lers from low income families. One hundred fourteen 3 and 4 year old children from English speaking families who attended child care centers in high poverty areas were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: (a) school group, (b) home group, (c) home plus school group, and (d) control group. These children entered the program with language skills significantly below age level as measured by standardized language tests. The children in this study were pre and post tested on measures of receptive and expressive vocabulary skills and verbal fluency. In addition, verbal production s were assessed through their responses to open ended questions posed by the teacher or parent during a structured reading interaction. Alternate forms were used on each test during the pre and post test sessions. All tests had moderately high reliabili ty across time and form. Teachers and parents were trained in the dialogic reading strategy using a videotape training method over a period of two sessions lasting approximately 30 minutes each. The intervention sessions occurred in small groups of no mor e than 5 children for approximately 10 minutes, 5 days a week for 6 weeks. Students in the home group were involved in on e on one reading with their parents, which occurred 3 to 5 times per week. Teachers and parents filled out daily log sheets that inc luded how often reading occurred and what books were used. Post testing occurred at the end of the 6 week intervention. Well trained doctoral students or Ph.D. level clinicians conducted all assessments. Results revealed that the correlation between the expressive language posttest and the frequency with which the children in the school and the school plus home conditions reported using the dialogic reading intervention was significant. However, only 60% of parents returned
41 their reading logs. There wa The overall effect for the dialogic reading intervention on expressive language was impressive with the combined intervention groups scoring sign ificantly higher on expressive vocabulary scores than the control group. Surprisingly, expressive language scores in the home group were higher than scores in the school group, the home plus school group, or the control group. Outcomes on the receptive l anguage scores at posttest revealed no significant effects for any group. According to the study results, the dialogic reading intervention was more effective in some centers than others. Stronger effects were obtained in centers with more frequent share d reading. The correlation between the posttest of expressive language and the frequency of the inte rvention was significant. The following year, Lonigan et al. (1999) conducted a pretest posttest, randomized, controlled study on the effects of dialogic r eading interventions on the oral language skills of 95 at risk preschool children attending five urban child care centers. The language skills of these children were below average as measured by standardized tests at the beginning of the study The resea rchers pretested and randomly assigned children to an experimental dialogic reading group and a comparison condition where typical shared book reading took place with the teacher. In the treatment condition, children we re read to in small groups of 3 to 5 children for 10 to 25 minutes per day across a six week period. Children in the no treatment comparison group engaged in their regular preschool curriculum. Following the intervention, children in the treatment group showed significant growth from pret est to posttest on the Verbal Expression subscale of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA VE). Effect sizes were 0.77 for the dialogic reading group and 0.55 for the typical reading group. On the listening
42 comprehension task, as measured by the Woodcock Johnson Listening Comprehension (WJ LC) subtest effect sizes were 0.70 and 0.36 respectively for the dialogic reading and typical reading groups. No significant effects were reported for the intervention group as compared to the typical reading group on the expressive and receptive vocabulary tasks as measured by the EOWPVT R and the PPVT Lonigan and his colleagues concluded that their findings were in line with the growin g body of research indicating shared storybook reading can facilitate oral language growth and that typical shared reading can also promote the development of literacy skills in young children. The researchers did not evaluate the techniques used by the t eachers in the typical reading group. However, it was noted that the children in the typical reading group may have experienced a more disciplined approach which allowed them to pay closer attention to the story than the students in the dialogic reading g roup. Lonigan and colleagues surmised that typical shared reading formats may provide groundwork for a more interactive form of shared reading for children with limited prior experiences to these types of interactive literacy activities. In a similar st udy, Hargrave and Senechal (2000) examined the effects of dialogic reading on the vocabulary acquisition of preschool children with poor expressive vocabulary skills. The purpose was to compare whether children made greater gains in vocabulary by being an active participant in dialogic reading or by participating in typic al shared reading situations. In this study, the ratio of children to teacher during the reading sessions was 8:1. According to the authors, this ratio more realistically mirrors the tru e preschool setting where providing interventions with a 5:1 or 3:1 ratio, as done in the Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998) and the Whitehurst et al. (1994) studies, is not likely. The teachers read the books daily during their regular circle time routine wit h their pre assigned groups of 8 children
43 The participants were 36 English speaking child ren between the ages of 3 and 5 years old. Children were recruited from 2 day care centers. I n one center the regular shared reading condition was implemented and i n the other center, the dialogic reading condition. Both centers primarily cared for children from low SES families where 98% of the families qualified for government subsidy to cover child care expenses As in the previous studies reviewed, receptive voc abulary skills were measured using standardized tests of receptive and expressive vocabulary. Teachers from each day care center read the same 10 books provided by the researcher over the 4 week period. To the best of the ll books that the children had not been exposed to previously. Teachers were trained using the dialogic reading training video produced by Whitehurst et al. (1990). All of the teachers were provided with logbooks. They were instructed to record the title s of the books they read along with the date of the reading. Observations were made of each of the teachers in the two centers prior to and during the intervention period to determine fidelity of the dialogic reading intervention. Results of this study sh owed no significant difference s in the receptive vocabulary scores between the pre and posttests. This outcome is consistent with the findings of Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998). However, the children in the dialogic reading group showed a significant dif ference in their expressive vocabulary scores compared to the children in the regular reading group (effect size = 0.79). The children in the regular shared reading group learned new words, but at a lesser rate than those in the dialogic reading group. Ch ildren who were actively engaged in the dialogic reading intervention made significantly greater gains in expressive vocabulary than those in the regular shared reading condition. In contrast to the studies conducted by Whitehurst and colleagues (1994, 19 98) the
44 results of this study also show that dialogic reading can be beneficial in larger groups with a teacher child ratio of 1:8. In addition, the beneficial effects of dialogic reading were produced with only 4 weeks of intervention. The fact that the intervention was effective in increasing language skills over a shorter period of time is added incentive to extend and maintain the dialogic reading strategy over longer periods. Several limitations of the study should be considered: Children in the reg ular shared reading group attended childcare for only 15 days, as opposed to 17 days for the dialogic reading group. Also, teachers in the dialogic reading condition may have read for longer periods of time. In spite of the fact that there were some time discrepancies between the intervention and control groups and that this was a sample of convenience, the findings were still consistent with the findings of other studies of dialogic reading. Hargrave and Senechal concluded that small groups of children w ho were involved in interactive reading could significantly increase their expressive vocabulary after listening to as little as two readings of a story in which targeted words were discussed and pointed out in illustrations. In a meta analysis examining t he effects of reading aloud on the literacy and language development of preschool children, Karweit and Wasik (1996) focused on school based storybook reading with disadvantaged children as opposed to reading practices taking place in the home. Sixty empi rical studies of shared reading were reviewed that took place between the years of 1980 to 1996 and included childre n between the ages of 4 and 5. Karweit and Wasik found, from their extensive review of the research, that the most positive effects on vocab ulary growth and story comprehension occurred when teachers discussed the story before and after reading, provided direct instruction of targeted vocabulary
45 words, and limited questions to story analysis and predictions during the reading. In addition, th most time supporting conversations about the story in small groups, rather than in whole class or individual reading sessions. They concluded that preschool teach ers need additional support in strengthening their understanding of oral language development and the role storybook reading plays in the development of vocabulary and comprehension skills. In summary, these studies reveal that d ialogic reading interventio ns produce significant effects on both the expressive and receptive vocabulary scores of preschoolers from low income families when implemented in small group settings in preschool (Whitehurst et al., 1994). In udy found that stronger effects were obtained in centers with more frequent shared reading. Hargrave and Senechal (2000) also determined that children who were actively engaged in a dialogic reading style intervention made significantly greater gains in e xpressive vocabulary than those in a regular shared reading condition. In a surprising finding, Lonigan et al. (1999) concluded that typical shared reading, as well as dialogic reading, promote s the development of oral language and literacy skills in youn g children. It was noted that the children in the typical reading group may have experienced a more disciplined approach from their teacher which allowed them to pay closer attention to the story than the students in the dialogic reading group. The conclu sion drawn from these studies is that interactive storybook reading in small group settings can be an effective intervention for improving the listening comprehension and expressive language skills of young children who are considered to be at risk for rea ding difficulties (Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Lonigan et al., 1999; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Whitehurst et al., 1994). Further, the benefits of interactive storybook reading were apparent
46 w hen interventions lasted only 4 to 6 weeks. Researchers noted that the frequency with which the interventions took place also had an effect on oral language development (Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998). Storybook reading, whether implemented in small or large group, has oral language benefits for young students. These benefits, apparent over a school year when incorporated in whole group, seem to be enhanced in smaller group settings. In the next section, storybook reading techniques that focus specifically on increasing receptive and expressive vocabulary learning wil l be reviewed. Vocabulary Skills Skilled readers can obtain a significant amount of new vocabulary through wide, independent reading (Anderson & Nagy, 1993). Children in the primary grades, however, who are not yet fluent readers, must learn words in a di fferent way. Nonreaders are able to gain this exposure to unfamiliar vocabulary through oral language experiences such as those that occur during storybook reading (Beck & McKeown, 2001; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Elley, 1989). Due to the varied opportunit ies for using decontextualized language during story discussions, interactive storybook reading is an excellent way to assist students in their language and vocabulary development (Dickinson & Snow, 1987; Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 19 98). Another benefit of reading aloud to children is the exposure to vocabular y they may not hear otherwise. T literature is greater than in all adult conversations, with the exception of courtroom testimony (Hayes & Ahrens, 1988). Although some researchers have discovered that children can learn words through incidental exposure during storybook reading (Elley 1989; Penno et al., 2002; Robbins & Ehri, 1994), specific strategies have been found tha t further enhance vocabulary acquisition. One of those strategies is repeatedly reading a storybook containing sophisticated vocabulary. In the next section, research will be examined that investigates the effects of
47 repeated storybook reading practices on the vocabulary development of young children in preschool and primary grade settings. Repeated R e adings of a S tory In a seminal study, Robbins and Ehri (1994) sought to determine whether kindergarten students from low and middle SES families would incre ase their receptive vocabularies by listening to stories more than once and hearing unfamiliar vocabulary repeated in the stories. Fifty one kindergarteners participated in the study. Using a standardized test of receptive vocabulary, PPVT R, the authors initially screened all the participants. Next, children with extremely high and extremely low scores were excluded to control for regression. Only those with standard scores within 1 standard deviation below or 2 standard deviations above the mean were included in the sample. Children were then separated into 3 ability groups; low, medium, and high, based on their vocabulary scores. Children in each ability group were then randomly assigned to listen to one of two stories. Target ed words, unfamiliar to the students, were selected from the stories and contexts were chosen that supported the clarification of the meanings of the target ed words. Each child listened to a story read by the researcher containing 11 of the target ed words. The story was heard twice on separate occasions with 1 to 4 days between readings. The child sat next to the researcher and observed the text and illustrations. No word meanings were explained; but the story was discussed briefly. After the readings were completed, subject s were tested on 22 targeted words. Eleven of the words were from the story and 11 words were not heard during the story reading. A posttest only design was used, since a pretest would familiarize the children with the target ed words. Students were asse ssed for receptive vocabulary knowledge of the words heard and the words not heard in the stories. The instrument used for this assessment was a multiple choice test designed by the authors.
48 e on the words heard in the story reliably exceeded their performance on the words not heard. More precisely, listening to the stories more than once was an effective means of expanding the receptive vocabularies of the children. Other variables were exa mined using a regression analysis to see if sex, age, story group, or the standardized vocabulary test influenced the difference in performance between words heard and words not heard. Scores on the receptive vocabulary test were the only variable that mo derated differences in performance on the target ed versus non target ed words. That is, students with higher receptive vocabularies as determined by the PPVT R were able to identify more of the target ed words. These results indicate that reading stories a loud to primary grade students contributes to their vocabulary growth and that children with larger vocabularies are more likely to learn new words from listening to stories than children with lower vocabularies. In addition, the number of times children hear words seems to be associated with higher rates of vocabulary acquisition. The authors also concluded that teachers should explain words and actively involve children in the stories read in order to facilitate increased vocabulary learning, especially for those children with weaker vocabularies. Senechal (1997) conducted a similar vocabulary intervention study usin g storybooks with 3 and 4 year olds in a daycare setting. In this pretest posttest design, receptive vocabulary was measured by the PPVT R E xpressive vocabulary assessment consisted of asking the children to name the targeted vocabulary by their pictorial representa tions. This study incorporated three experimental conditions that included a single reading of the story, a repeated reading, and a questioning condition. The story was read 3 times to children in both the questioning and the repeated reading conditions. The children in the questioning condition were asked to name the targeted items during the reading of the story. Ten target words were chosen that represented
49 familiar concepts; however words were chosen that were not likely to be known by the students. All children were pretested for knowledge of the selected words, listened to the story being read, and then were post tested. At the conclusion of the intervention, children in the questioning condition performed 3.7 times better than those in the repeate d reading condition. Children in the questioning condition also performed better on the receptive vocabulary posttest. The aver age performance in the repeated reading condit ions was superior to the single reading condition (effect size = 1.06). However, children in the group that answered questions during the three readings learned more than those who only listened to the sto ry three times (effect size = .56). Very few targeted words were produced after listening to a single reading of the story, whereas children produced the most words after three readings of the story (effect size = 1.50). As expected, children in the ques tioning condition produced more words than those in the repeated reading condition (effect size = 1.75). Senechal concluded that different instructional strategies have differing impacts on creased exposure to readings of a story influenced receptive and expressive vocabulary acquisition fairly equally, whereas actively responding to questions during repeated readings enhanced expressive vocabulary more than receptive vocabulary scores. In o ther words, children learned more words after three readings of a book than after a single reading, so repeated exposures to a story is a good way to build word learning. In addition, even more gains were made when questions were asked during repeated rea dings of a story that allowed children to actively interact and use novel words. Therefore, the strategies adults use when reading books to children may have a greater impact on word learning than was prev iously believed (Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994).
50 Pen no, Wilkinson, and Moore (2002) conducted a similar study to those of Robbins and Ehri (1994) and Senechal (1997) with primary grade students and reported comparable results. The purpose of the study was to examine the vocabulary benefits of repeated expo sure s to a story and the additional effects of explaining the meanings of the targeted vocabulary for children with differing language abilities. Penno et al. (2002) selected 47 English speaking children from two classrooms in a suburban school in Auckland New Zealand. The children in the study r anged in age from 5 to 8 years old and were all at the beginning stages of learning to read. Participants were chosen at this stage to ensure that vocabulary gains could be attributed to listening to the story a nd not to reading of the text. Children were pretested using the Renfrew Action Picture Test (RAPT) and the Word Finding Vocabulary Scale (WFVS). The RAPT is an expressive language test that measures the o a picture and question stimulus. Whereas, the WFVS is a vocabulary test that requires subjects to name the object in a picture. These and vocabulary skills 1 to 2 months before treatment began. The children were also pretested for vocabulary knowledge 1 week prior to the story read ing using multiple choice picture tests. The stories were the n read to the children in small group settings. Children were randoml y assigned to two groups: the explanation group and the no explanation group. In the explanation group, the targeted words were explained in context using three different strategies. The targeted words were (a) repeated using a familiar synonym or a def initional explanation if necessary; (b) illustrated by use of role play, or in other words, using
51 If a target ed word appeared again in the text, the reader wou ld repeat the definitional explanation. For the no explanation group, there was no discussion about the stories. During the first reading, only a brief introduction to the story was given. If a child asked what a word meant, the reader would acknowledge At the end of the story, for both groups, the children returned to their classroom and were called back individually by the researcher, in random order, to retell the story. Eac h story was read and then retold, with each session separated by a week. O ne week after the third reading and retelling, the multiple choice posttest was administered. A multiple th the target ed ed words. These measures were designed to test both receptive and expressive vocabulary skills. The results were consistent with those of other research s tudies, which found that pre readers are able to learn vocabulary from the story context (Elley, 1989; Robbins & Ehri, 1994) and that listening to stories i s related to significant expressive language growth and reading achievement (Bus et al., 1995). The researchers also found that a single reading of a story can result in word learning, but a second and third reading resulted in more accurate usage of the words in retelling tasks. Although some vocabulary growth was evident through incidental learning w hile listening to a story, students made more significant vocabulary gains when the reader provided an explanation of the targeted words. Biemiller and Boote (2006) also investigated the effects of repeatedly reading a story on vocabulary learning. The pa rticipants attended regular kindergarten, first and second grade classrooms in a school with a large population of English Language Learners. The study was a
52 pretest posttest design with the purpose of investigating the differing effect s of repeatedly re ading a story compared to word meaning instruction during storybook reading on the acquisition of vocabulary. In each grade, two books were read twice and another book wa s read four times. An author designed vocabulary test similar to the PPVT R was used To ass ess the targeted vocabulary, students were asked to tell the meaning of the word in a given sentence. (0 points). At the conclusion of the experiment, re sults indicated a significant interaction in gains between the grade of th e student and reading the text two versus four times. Kindergarten 6% higher when a text was read four times as opposed to only two times. For students in firs t grade, the gains were 7% higher when a text was read four times. However, for students in second grade, gains were slightly lower when a story was read four times as opposed to twice. However, across grades, gains were still the largest when words wer e instructed (23% increase) versus non instructed (8% increase). The authors concluded that it was beneficial for kindergarten and first graders to hear stories repeatedly even when meanings of words were not directly taught, keeping in mind that there was even more of an increase in word learning when words were instructed. In second grade, similar gains were made when stories were read either two or four times. Biemiller and Boote surmised that the difference in word gains between grades could be due to kindergarten n addition, if a story is read four rather than two times the students may be more likely to learn different words in subsequent readings. In summary, r eading stories aloud to young childr en has been found to contribute to their vocabulary growth. Additionally, children with larger vocabularies are more likely to learn new
53 words from listening to stories than children with lower vocabularies. Further, the number of times children hear the targeted words seems to be associated with higher rates of vocabulary acquisition ( Robbins & Ehri, 1994). Different instructional strategies, as expected, have (1997) concluded that multiple readings of a story impacted receptive and expressive vocabulary acquisition fairly equally, whereas actively responding to questions during repeated book readings enhanced expressive vocabulary more than receptive vocabulary scores. Penno et al. (2002) found that a single reading of a story can result in word learning, but a second and third reading resulted in more accurate usage of the words in retelling tasks. Similarly, Biemiller and Boote (2006) concluded that it was b eneficial for kindergarten and first graders to hear stories repeatedly even when meanings of words were not directly taught. However, in second grade, similar word gains were made when stories were read either two or four times, in dicating that in higher grades reading a story more than twice may not be as beneficial. Although hearing a story repeatedly has been found to increase word learning, these types of activities may not be as ef fective for children who are at risk for reading difficulties. Childr en with lower vocabulary scores are less likely to learn words from incidental exposure during storybook reading than children with higher vocabulary scores (Coyne et al., 2004; Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Robbins & Ehri, 1994). With this in mind, research ers have investigated whether it is more beneficial for at risk children if teachers provide direct instruction of targeted vocabulary during storybook reading activities (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Justice et al., 2005; Loftus, Coyne, McCoach, Zipoli, & Pullen, 2010; Robbins & Ehri, 1994). In the next section of this paper, the effects of direct instruction of targeted words on vocabulary acquisition through storybook reading will be analyzed.
54 Targeted Vocabulary I nstruction In the fir st of two seminal studies, Elley (1989) conducted a vocabulary intervention of 168 first grade students from seven classrooms in seven different schools who spoke English as their first language. One story was read aloud to the students three times in the course of seven school days. The teachers implementing the intervention were teachers from the school, but reading of the story, whereas the classroom teache r read it the second time. No definition was given of the targeted vocabulary word at any time in the first study and no control group was used. Results indicated that after three readings of the story, the students made a mean vocabulary gain of 15 to 2 0%. Therefore the authors of the study concluded that storybook reading was a significant source of inci dental vocabulary acquisition. In the second study, 140 students in second grade from six schools and six different classrooms participated in the same intervention design with different stories and different targeted words. Both stories were unfamiliar to the students and included enough challenging words for the purposes of the st udy. For the group that heard three readings of the story without expla nation, the mean vocabulary gain from pretest to posttest was 14.8 %, very similar to the group in the first experiment. The mean vocabulary gain for the group that heard the reading with explanations of the targeted words was 39.9%. The control group, h owever, showed an improvement from pre to posttest of only 2%. In addition, the m ean gain for all groups on the five control words, words not occurring in either story, was close to zero for all groups esults indicate that children learn some v ocabulary incidentally after having read, can significantly increase vocabulary gains. Children who received explanations of the meanings of words during boo k reading made greater gains in vocabulary than those who just
55 listened to the story In addition, students who were explicitly taught the vocabulary words in the story were more likely to remember the words and use them in the correct context. Further, children who started out with less vocabulary knowledge gained as much or more from the readings as their classmates, and the learning was found to be relatively permanent. Elley also found that several features of the stories appeared to account for a lar ge portion of the variance in the probability that children will learn the targeted words: (a) the frequency that the word occurs in the story, (b) the helpfulness of the story context, and (c) the frequency of the pictorial representations of the targete d word. Instructional strategies shown to be most effective were the use of familiar synonyms to define the new word, role playing using a voice and pointing to a picture or depiction of the word. It is app arent from this empirical research study that characteristics of storybooks along learning. More than a decade later, Coyne et al. (2004) conducted a longitud inal study with 96 kindergarten children from seven different schools to determine effective methods of increasing vocabulary knowledge and enhancing listening comprehension. Th ese children were considered at risk for developing reading difficulties based on pretest scores. The participants in the study were randomly ass igned to1 of 3 groups with only one group receiving targeted vocabulary instruction during storybook reading. A second group received instruction in phonologic and alphabetic skills, and the remaining group received letter sounds instruction fro m a reading basa l series. All three groups received 30 minutes of intervention daily in a small group from November through May for a total of 108 sessions. The interventions were 30 minute lesson s that accompanied classic or award winning stories. Three targeted words were selected and
56 directly taught from each story. Lessons were sequenced in 20, six day cycles. Two stories were completed in each cycle. At the conclusion of the experiment, the group receiving the storybook intervention scored signi ficantly higher than the other two groups at posttest on an author designed expressive vocabulary measure of the targeted vocabulary. The effect size for the storybook intervention group in compariso n with the code based group was 0.73, whereas the effect size for the storybook group in contrast with the control group was 0.85. The researchers concluded that direct instruction focusing on targeted vocabulary produced moderate effects in vocabulary gro wth and can increase the literacy skills of children at within the context of shared storybook reading is an effective method for increasing the vocabulary In a comparable study, Justice, Meier, and Walpole (2005) examined the impact of elaborated versus non elaborated encounters with new words during storybook reading. Fifty seven kin dergarteners were randomly assigned to a treatment or comparison group. All children in the study were pre and post tested on targeted words from ten storybooks. The treatment group received direct instruction on specific vocabulary words and no instruct ion on other words. The comparison group received storybook reading as typically occurred in the classroom. The children in the treatment group showed significantly greater gains from pre to posttest for elaborated words (effect size = 1.22) verses non e laborated words (effect size = 0.53) and, as expected, outperformed the comparison group on elaborated words. Surprisingly, children with lower vocabulary scores on the pretest made the greatest gains on elaborated words (effect size = 1.34).
57 The followin g year, Biemiller and Boote (2006 ) conducted a study on the word meaning acquisition of primary grade children attending schools serving a high population of lower income families. The sample included 43 kindergart eners, 37 first graders, and 32 second gr aders. These children were served in regular classrooms with a population of 50% English Language Learners. The classroom teachers in this study provided vocabulary instruction embedded in storybook reading. The study design was pretest posttest with ev aluation of the effect of word meaning instruction during storybook reading. Children were divided in each classroom into two groups matched on general vocabulary pretest scores. In each grade, the children in the group that received instruction of word meanings during storybook reading were taught 12 word meaning s from books read twice during one week. Six meanings were taken from each book. Twelve non instructed word meanings from these books were also pre and posttested. During the second week of i nstruction, 12 more meanings were taught while reading a third book. The 12 additional word meanings were again pre and post tested Children in the comparison group did not receive targeted vocabulary in struction during the reading. Across grades, gains from pretest to posttest were 22% for instructed words and 12% for non instructed words; almost double the gains for instructed words. The authors of the study concluded that targeted vocabulary instruction is a promising practice in assisting student s i n acquiring new vocabulary. Silverman (2007) conducted two studies comparing three different methods of vocabulary instruction during read alouds with children in kindergarten and first grade. The three methods of instruction included: (a) contextual, co nnecting targeted words to their use in experiences; (b) analytical, enhancing contextual instruction
58 with semantic analysis of words in contexts o ther than books and experiences; and (c) anchored, augmenting analytical instruction with attention to the written and spoken forms of words. Classroom teachers implemented the intervention s with 94 children in six different kindergarten classrooms. Approximately one third of the children were English Language Learners who at tended two demographically diverse public schools. Classrooms from each school were randomly assigned to each condition. The interventio ns took place over a period of six weeks. Teachers used a researcher desi gned curricula consisting of a three day les son plan format. Lessons lasted 30 minutes and were conducted three times per week. The three methods of vocabulary instruction differed in the levels of discussion of the targeted words, analysis of the words outside the context of the story, and focus on the so unds and letters in the words. Results of this study revealed that children in the analytical and anchored instruction classrooms learned significantly more words on the receptive vocabulary subtests than those in the contextual condition. The ef fect sizes on the anchored and analytical conditions as compared to the contextual condition were 1.02 and 0.67, respectively. Children in the contextual condit ion learned only an average of three out of thirty words during the 6 week intervention as oppo sed to the students in the analytical condition who learned an average of 5.9 words, and those in the anchored condition who learned an average of 6.7 words. Likewise, on the expressive vocabulary subtests, children in the anchored and analytical instruct ion classrooms learned more words than those in the contextual condition. Effect sizes of the anchored condition were 1.19 and for the analytical condition 0.85 as compared to the contextual condition. Children in the contextual instruction classroom lea rned an average of 2.2 words on the expressive subtest, whereas children in the anchored and analytical conditions learned an average of 7.7 and 6.9 words, respectively.
59 to measure the long term effects of the three methods of instruction. Students were again tested on the same measures used in Study 1. Follow up results revealed students from low SES families in the analytical condition performed better than students fr om low SES families in the contextual and anchored conditions. The results of this study suggest that engaging children in active discussions of word meanings during storybook reading promotes more learning of new words than instruction in which children r elate words to the story context and personal experiences in a less analytical way. Furthermore, Silverman concluded that teachers should read stories that expose children to rich vocabulary besides the words that are directly taught. In addition, teache rs should include wide reading of books to children for various purposes at different times of the day in order to provide opportunities to d evelop comprehension and socio emotional communication skills. Beck and McKeown (2007) reported results from two vo cabulary intervention studies they conducted with kindergarten and first graders from low income families. In these schools, teachers provided explicitly designed vocabulary instruction of targeted words from 36 trade books over a period of ten weeks. Be fore the studies began, the students did not differ significantly on their pretest scores for receptive vocabulary as measured by the PPVT III. In the first study, the researchers compared the number of vocabulary words learned by 52 children who received the vocabulary intervention during storybook reading to the number of words learned by 46 children who received no vocabulary instruction, but listened to the same stories. Results of the study indicate the students who received direct and explicit instru ction learned significantly more words. The mean gain of the kindergarten students in the experimental classrooms was 5.58 words, whereas the mean gain for kindergarten students in the
60 comparison classrooms was 1.04 words. The effect size for the experim ental group was 1.17. those first graders in the comparison classrooms it was 1.74. The effect size for those in the experimental group was 1.71. In the second s instruction enhances vocabulary learning. Therefore, the students in the experimental group received the same instruction as those in Study 1 with additional instruction for a subset of the targeted words. This additional instruction was the same explicit vocabulary instruction, but it occurred more frequently and for a longer time. Study 2 took place in a different school, however the population of students was similar in that 81% of the stu dents were eligible for free or reduced priced lunch. All three kindergarten and first grade classrooms at the school participated in the study. In all, 36 kindergarten children and 40 first graders joined the study. The interventio ns took pla ce over a period of nine weeks. Results for kindergartners indicated the pre to posttest gains for the targeted words that received more instruction were significantly larger than the gains for the group that received no extra instruction of the selected words. The mean gain for more instruction was 8.17 words for expressive knowledge (effect size = 2.09) and 8.03 words for receptive vocabulary knowledge (effect size = 2.71). For the group that did not receive extra instruction the mean gain was 2.5 wor ds for the expressive task (effect size = 0.87) and 2.97 for receptive knowledge (effect size = 1.04). The pre to posttest gains for first graders who received more instruction was also significantly higher than the group that did not receive extra instru ction. The mean gain for those that received additional instruction was 6.90 words on the expressive test (effect size =
61 2.09) and 6.88 words on the receptive test (effect size = 2.71). The mean gain for those who did not receive additional instruction w as 3.8 words on the expressive vocabulary test (effect size = 0.869) and 3.10 words on the receptive vocabulary test (effect size = 1.04 ). Although the number of words learned increased across both groups for all the words taught, the students learned more of the words with additional instruction at a faster rate than those who did not receive additional instruction. The researchers concluded that the combination of techniques which include explanations of words, questioning, and discussion during storyboo k reading are effective methods of enhancing the vocabulary acquisition of primary grade students. In a similar study design, Loftus, Coyne, McCoach, Zipoli, and Pullen (2010) examined the effectiveness of a vocabulary intervention designed to supplement c lassroom vocabulary instruction in an urban public elementary school. Participants included 43 kindergarten students who were divided into two groups based on their pretest receptive vocabulary scores on the PPVT III. Twenty students with the lowest PPVT III scores across three classrooms received the supplemental vocabulary intervention. The students received the intervention in small groups for approximately 30 minutes daily following the classroom based instruction. During the intervention, students participated in extended vocabulary activities based on two targeted words from ea ch of the selected storybooks; two other words received no instruction. At ris k students received a total of four additional 30 mi nute sessions in the course of two weeks an d the not at ris k students received a total of four hour s of instruction over two weeks. Following the intervention, the students who received the supplemental instruction obtained higher scores on the targeted vocabulary than on words that were only taugh t during the classroom based instruction on three of four measures. Effect sizes for the intervention were found ranging from 0.42 to 0.69 indicating a significant difference between the amounts of word
62 learning in the two conditions. Prior to the study, students had no appreciable knowledge of the targeted vocabulary. However, after the supplemental instruction they demonstrated both expressive and receptive knowledge of the words. The positive effects on word learning in this study are consistent with other research findings that explicit vocabulary instruction on targeted words within the context of storybook reading can lead to gains in vocabulary knowledge (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Elley, 1989; Justice et al., 2005; Robbins & Ehri, 1994). Pullen, Tuckw iller, Konold, Maynard, and Coyne (2010) report on the results of a vocabulary intervention based on shared storybook reading in the field of special education. This quasi experimental study took place at three elementary schools. Two hundred twenty four first grade students, 98 identified as at risk for reading disability, were the participants in this study. Prior to the intervention, the PPVT 4 was administered to assess receptive vocabulary skills and to identify at risk students. Initial receptive vocabulary scores have been found to 2010; Penno et al., 2002). At risk students were then randomly assigned to a treatment or comparison group. Following a two week intervention, students in the treatment group received vocabulary instruction from the classroom teacher along with small group vocabulary instruction from a research assistant in education. Students in the comparison group only received vocabula ry instruction from the teacher. In the comparison group, a storybook was read aloud by the classroom teacher twice a week and approximately 30 minutes of vocabulary instruction took place after reading. On the day following the classroom instruction, th e research assistant provided the supplemental vocabulary intervention in a small group setting to the students in the treatment group.
63 Students in the treatment group achieved significantly higher posttest scores on receptive and contextual levels of word knowledge compared to the comparison group. Four weeks after the intervention, both groups demonstrated a loss of word knowledge, suggesting that supplemental vocabulary instruction must be maintained over time and opportunities to use and interact with the targeted words must be provided to ensure sustainability of learning. In sum, r esearchers have consistently found that storybook reading enhances the vocabulary development of primary grade students. Although some children learn vocabulary incidentall y through storybook reading, students who are explicitly taught vocabulary words from stories are more likely to remember the words and use them in the correct context ( Elley, 1989). Further, Biemiller and Boote (2006) found that across grade levels, gain s from pretest to posttest were almost double for instructed words. In addition, students who start out with lower vocabulary scores have been found to make greater gains and benefit more from targeted instruction than their classmates (Coyne et al., 2004 ; Elley, 1989; Justice et al., 2005). Use of authentic literature that supports the targeted vocabulary through the context of the story and illustrations has also been found to enhance vocabulary learning (Elley, 1989). Other findings suggest that stude nts who receive additional instruction learn more targeted words at a faster rate than those students who do not receive additional instruction (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Loftus et al., 2010). Although these vocabulary gains are promising, vocabulary instruct ion must be maintained over time and students must be provided opportunities to interact with and use the targeted words to ensure sustainability of learning (Pullen et al. 2010). Silverman (2007) suggests that engaging children in active discussions of word meanings during storybook reading promotes more learning of new words than instruction in which children relate words to the story context and personal experiences in a less analytical way.
64 Through research, several instructional strategies have been established as effective for to repeated readings, questioning strategies, and explicit instruction of targeted words, story interactions have also been found to e nhance vocabulary acquisition. Teacher Student Interactions that Support Vocabulary G rowth Senechal, Thomas, and Monker (1995) conducted a vocabulary intervention study with 4 year old children from middle income homes who were classified as either having larger or smaller vocabularies based on their PPVT R scores Children who differed in word knowledge were chosen because the authors theorized that having larger vocabularies might enhance a amiliar concepts. Therefore, the authors surmised that children with larger vocabularies might learn as much from passively listening to a story as from being actively involved and answering questions. To support this thinking, Robbins and Ehri (1994) fo und that children with larger vocabularies learned more words during repeated readings than those with smaller vocabularies. Senechal and colleagues also believed that children with smaller vocabularies would benefit more from being actively involved and answering questions during storybook reading because research has shown that interactions assist the acquisition of unknown words. Subsequently, children were randomly assigned to either a condition in which they listened passively to a story read to them twice or a labeling condition in which they pointed to illustrations representing the targeted vocabulary during two readings of a selected story. Each child participated individually in three sessions: Sessions 1 and 2 occurred on consecutive days when the story was read, and the third session occurred one week later. After the th ird session, chil dren were post tested for expressive and receptive vocabulary knowledge. The expressive vocabulary assessment consisted of asking children to name the illustra tions depicting the
65 targeted words in the storybook. According to the authors, this method was used successfully in a previous study by one of the authors (Senechal, 1993). To assess receptive vocabulary, the authors used a previously designed test simil ar to the PPVT R (Sene chal & Cornell, 1993, p. 365). The findings of this study revealed that children with larger vocabularies produced more novel words than children with smaller vocabularies. In addition, children who labeled or pointed to illustration s in response to questioning during the story comprehended better and produced more words than those who passively listened to the story. On the receptive vocabulary posttest, children identified 57% of the words they had spoken twice when responding to q uestions during the reading. Further, they correctly identified 35% of the words they had spoken once, but only 30% of the words they did not speak during the storybook readings. Not surprisingly, children who spoke the words remembered more words than t hose who only pointed. Subsequently, the conclusion was made that both verbal and nonverbal responding are effective ways to enhance vocabulary acquisition, especially when the story had rich illustrations and narrative context. Senechal, Thomas, and Mon children with larger vocabularies produce more novel words than children with smaller vocabularies (Elley, 1989; Robbins & Ehri, 1994). Further, children who answered questions during interactive storybook reading understood the story better and produced more words than those who passively listened to the story. In addition to building vocabulary through repeated readings, explaining targeted words, and supporting interactions, researchers have al so focused on the impact of storybook reading on
66 the skills and strategies necessary to comprehen d stories that are read aloud. Listening Comprehension background knowledge, language development, and listening comprehension skills (Beck & McKeown, 2001; Dickinson, 2001; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Karweit & Wasik, 1996; Lonigan et al., 1999) ability to draw upon their background experiences and vocabulary knowl edge to construct meaning from text (Coyne et al., 2009). The goal of comprehension is to understand what is heard or what is read. Therefore, supporting student understanding should be the goal of reading instruction. For primary grade students who are just beginning to read or those who struggle with reading, it makes sense that listening comprehension strategies be suppor ted through storybook reading. listening compreh ension skills of at risk kindergarten students. Sixty two children who attended schools with a high population of students from low SES families participated in the study over the course of the school year. Participants were randomly assigned to the trea tment or control group. The children in the experimental group were not found to be superior to the control group on standard reading readiness skills as measured by the California Achievement Test (CAT). Thirty two children in the experimental group par ticipated in planned, teacher led storybook reading activities while the 30 children in the control group engaged in regular kinde rgarten curriculum activities. Results of the study revealed large positive effects on listening comprehension from pre to pos ttest. On the author created Retelling and Recall of Story Comprehension Tests, effect
67 sizes were 2.12 and 0.98 respectively. The authors concluded that purposeful storybook reading activities have a positive effect on the listening comprehension skills of ki ndergarten students. Santoro, Chard, Howard, and Baker (2008) conducted a study using interactive storybook reading with explicit comprehension instruction and active discussions about the text to promote vocabulary and comprehension growth in at risk first graders. The performance of students most at risk for reading and comprehension difficulties, as well as those who were considered to be on grade level, were assessed prior to the intervention. The intervention consisted of enhancing read alouds w ith comprehension strategies and text based discussions. Students who participated in the interactive read aloud intervention classrooms were compared with students from classrooms where teachers used their own read aloud and comprehension strategies. Res ults indicated that students in the intervention classrooms out performed those in the control group classrooms. Participating students achieved higher levels of vocabulary knowledge and comprehension skills and included higher quality information in stor y retellings. The researchers believe several components of the intervention contributed to their positive outcomes: (a) the intentional emphasis of text structure, (b) the use of visual prompts to facilitate retellings of the story, (c) daily practice o f student retellings, and (d) discussions about the text. In conclusion, Santoro and colleagues found that interactive storybook reading promotes listening comprehension and vocabulary development even in students who are still learning to read. Coyne et al. (2009) examined the role of storybook reading on improving comprehension skills of first grade students in general education classrooms. Forty two first grade teachers participated along with 210 at risk and average achieving first grade students. Th e inter vention included a 16 week read aloud prog ram focused on living things with accompanying storybooks
68 that included these same creatures as main c haracters. In the course of a two week unit, teachers read one informational text and one storybook dail y, spending approximately four days on each book. Instruction included dialogic interactions designed to extend discussions and facilitate connections to the text. Differences between students in the treatment and comparison classrooms included (a) the q uality of student retellings of the stories, (b) vocabulary knowledge, and (c) metacognitive understanding of the differences between expository and narrative texts. Results suggest that effective use of interactive strategies during storybook reading imp roved the comprehension skills of the first graders participating in the intervention. Researchers have concluded that storybook reading activities produce large positive nor, & Smith, 1990). Additionally, Santoro et al. (2008) found that interactive storybook reading can promote listening comprehension and increased vocabulary development in at risk first graders. tive use of interactive strategies during storybook reading improves the comprehension skills of first graders. These strategies include dialogic interactions designed to extend discussions between students and teachers and facilitate to make connections to the text. Summary and Implications The studies analyzed in this review clearly link oral language skills to later success in reading comprehension (Nation & Snowling, 2004; Snow, Porche, Tabors, & Harris, 2007). Interactive storyboo k reading is a valuable tool for increasing the oral language skills of young children. Researchers have found in large group settings that listening comprehension and receptive vocabulary skills significantly increase when teachers and students interact during storybook reading (Dickinson, 2001; Karweit, 1989). In small group settings, dialogic interactions produced significant effects on both the expressive and receptive vocabulary scores
69 of young children from low income families (Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Whitehurst et al., 1994). In addition, multiple readings of a story enhanced receptive and expressive vocabulary skills and the number of times students heard a word was associated with higher rates of vocabulary acquisit ion (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Penno et al., 2002; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Senechal, 1997). Further, students who we re more at risk increased their vocabulary growth when they received direct instruction of targeted vocabulary (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2004; Elley, 1989) and actively discussed word meanings (Senechal, Thomas & Monker, 1995; Silverman, 2007). Additional instruction of targeted voc abulary words helped students learn even more words at a faster rate than those who did not receive additional instruction (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Loftus et al., 2010). Finally, extending discussions and encouraging students to make connections to the text during storybook reading resulted in positive effects on listening comprehension (Coyne et al., 200 9; Morrow, 1990; Santoro et al., 2008). Implications for Practice Research on the language benefits of storybook reading has revealed several key practices that directly impact receptive and expressive vocabulary, as well as comprehensio n skills. In order to enhance the oral language skills of young children, teachers get better results when they (a) use read aloud approaches that include direct explanation of vocabulary words and involve the children in analytical discussions and que sti ons about the story (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Whitehurst et al., 1994; Whitehurst, et al., 1999); (b) limit questions to story analysis and predictions during the reading (Karweit &Wasik, 1996) ; (c) repeatedly read stories, three or more times, especially in kindergarten and first grade (B iemiller & Boote, 2006; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Senechal, 1997; Senechal, Thomas, & Monker, 1995); (d) conduct read alouds in small groups when possible (Karweit &Wasik,
70 1996; Loniga n & Whitehurst, 1998; Morrow & Smith, 1990 ); (e) explicitly teach targeted words within the context of the story (Coyne et al., 2004; Elley, 1989); (f) read stories that expose chi ldren to rich vocabulary other than the words that are directly taught (Sil verman, 2007); (g) provide opportunities to use and interact with the targeted vocabulary over time to ensure story with discussions about the text (Coyne e t al. 2009; Santoro et al., 2008). Implications for Future Research In their meta analysis, Mol et al. (2009) literacy skills were more likely to improve when they engaged in whole group interactive storyb ook re ading as opposed to small group storybook reading. This is in direct contrast to the Karweit and Wasik (1996) findi ng that teachers should read in small groups to maximize oral language benefits. One possible explanation for this finding, as explained by Mol and her colleagues, is that extraneous talk during small group may be distracting if each child in the group is allowed to elaborate on personal experiences. Future research is needed to determine how educators can maximize storybook reading benefits for young children in whole and/or small group. It is interesting to note that researchers seem to obtain greater effects with interactive storybook reading i nterventions than teachers (Mol et al 2009). Additionally, in their meta analysis, Karweit and Wasik (1996) concluded that teachers of primary grade students need more support to strengthen their understanding of oral language development and the role storybook reading plays in the development of vocabulary and comprehension skills. Since interact ions during storybook reading are so important, further research should be conducted to shed more
71 Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998) found that the frequency of dia logic reading in the preschool setting positively affected both receptive and expressive vocabulary development. Other researchers have also concluded that the quality and frequency of book reading are important factors that enhance oral language gains (Bu s et al., 1995; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). It appears that additional teac her professional development with coaching may be necessary in order to provide teachers with the support they need to implement effective interactive storybook reading intervent ions during the school day. Storybook attributes are another consideration for future research. Which books allow for the greatest growth in vocabulary and comprehension? The following story features are recommended for effective storybook reading interv entions: (a) colorful illustrations that help childr en narrate and retell the story; (b) unfamiliar vocabulary that helps students build their vocabular y; (c) illustrations that help clarify unknown vocabulary; (d) diverse co ntent relatable to all childre n; and (e) appropriate length (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Justice, Meyer, & Walpole, 2005). Storybook reading appears to be a promising practice to support the oral language development of preschool and primary grade students and is worth the attention of educators and researchers. Research consistently links early literacy and oral language skills to later success in reading (Nation & Snowling, 2004; Scarborough, 2003; Snow et al., 2007). In addition, researchers have concluded that interactive storybook reading strategies have the potential to improve the oral language skills of young children (Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002; Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein et al., 1994). If teachers effe ctively implement the major components of interactive storybook reading, this
72 intervention could have significant positive effects on the oral language development of children and assist them in becoming successful readers throughout their lives. Conclusio n For over a decade, researchers have confirmed the benefits of effective read alouds for young children (Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002; Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein et al., 1994). Additionally, according t o numerous researchers, there is a clear correlation between early oral language skills and later success in reading (Nation & Snowling, 2004; Scarborough, 2003; Snow et al., 2007). However, previous studies on the effectiveness of storybook reading have focused on student outcomes rather than on the process of promoting effective practices among primary grade teachers. Furthermore, the studies have not discussed a systematic method of assisting teachers in purposefully planning for read alouds with the o bjective of increasin g teacher student interactions. Bridging the gap from research based knowledge to implementation in the classroom is one of the greatest challenges in the field of education (Carnine, 1999; Gersten & Dimino, 2001). Therefore, it is wo rth researching how to help teachers purposely plan for and implement the major components of interactive storybook reading that are linked to the positive effects on the oral language development of children (Brabham & Lynch Brown, 2002). We still need t o know whether teachers who participate in professional development activities and receive coaching to promote the use of interactive storybook reading strategies will effectively implement the intervention in their kindergarten classrooms.
73 CHAPTER 3 METH ODS A single subject multiple baseline across groups design was implemented to measure teacher student interactions during storybook reading before and after profe ssional development activities and coaching occurred. An overarching question guided this stu dy: Can professional development with ongoing practices? More specifically, the follow ing questions were investigated: 1. What are the effects of professional development with coaching on ki use of closed and open questions with at risk students during storybook reading? 2. What are the effects of professional development with use of affirmative responses and praise with at risk students dur ing storybook reading? 3. What are the effects of professional development with use of extending responses with at risk students during storybook reading? 4. What are the effects of professional development with coaching on kin vocabulary instruction with at risk students during storybook reading? 5. If increases in teacher student interactions occur during storybook reading, what effect do those increased skills (i.e., listening comprehension and expressive vocabulary)? The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed description of the methods used to implement this investigation. The following sections describe the (a) setting; (b) participants, inc luding selection criteria; (c) assessment instruments; (d) intervention; (e) dependent variables; (f) design; (g) data analysis; (h) interobserver agreement; (i) treatment integrity, and (j) social validity. Setting This study was conducted in four element ary schools in north central Florida. As required by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB), the researcher obtained a letter of consent from each of the four participating teachers, as well as parental consent for the
74 student particip ants. In addition, an application t o conduct research in the selected district wa s submitted for approval. C opies of the IRB approval can be seen in Appendix A. For the 2012 2013 school year, the racial/ethnic composition of the district was 59.6% White, 19.4% Black, 14.6% Hispanic, 1.5% Asian, .6% American Indian, and 4.3% M ultiracial. Approximately 54% of the students in the d istrict participate in the free or reduced price lunch program (FLDOE, 2012). Schools School A is a Title 1 school that serves k indergarten through fifth g rade students but did not participate in Reading First Approximately 59 d in the free or red uced price lunch program in 2012 2013 Enrollment at the school during that same year, was 692 students. Of these, approximately 93 students were in kindergarten. The racial composition of the school wa s 64% White, 16% Black, 14 % Hi spanic, 1.4 % Asian, and 4 % M ultiracial (FLDOE, 2012). School B is also a Title 1 school that serves kindergarten th rough fifth gra de students. Approximately 72 udents participated in the free or reduced p rice lunch program in 2012 2013. Enrollment at the school during that same year, was 811 students. Of these, 141 students were enrolled in kinde rgarten. The rac ial composition of the school wa s 58 % White, 13% Black, 24% Hispanic, .5% Asian, .4 % American Indian, and 4 % M ultiracial (FLDOE, 2012). The school is a former Reading First school and school personnel have engaged in frequent in service o pportunities to promote literacy in all grades. As a result, storybook reading occurs frequently and is a regular experience of the children in kindergarten classrooms. School C is another Title 1 school that also served as a Reading First school. Enroll ment during the 2012 2013 school year was 635 st udents of which 72% are W hite, 6% a re B lack, 17%
75 are Hispanic, .8% American Indian and 5% are M ulti racial (FLDOE, 2012). Approximately 80 % of the students participated in the free or r educed price lunch pro gram in 2012 201 3. Approximately 9 0 students were enrolled in kindergarten for the 2012 2013 school year School D is a Title 1 school, but did not participate in Reading First. Enrollment during the 2012 2013 school year was 754. Approximately 68% o f the stu dents participated in the free or reduced price lunch program in 2012 2013. The racial co mposition of the school wa s approximately 45% W hite, 17% B lack, 27% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 7% M ulti racial (FLDOE, 2012). In this school, 130 students were enrolled in kindergarten. Classrooms Classrooms in each school are described using information gathered during classroom observations and according to teacher reports. In addition, the Classroom Literacy Environment Checklist (Appendix B) was created by visits to the classrooms. The Literacy Environment Checklist was adapted from the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation Toolkit (ELLCO; Smith & Dickinson, 2002) and the Classroom Literacy Ch ecklist from the National Center for Learning Disabilities and developed by Whitehurst (2004). To maintain anonymity, participating teachers were assigned the following pseudonyms: Audrey, Bethany, Christine, and Deborah. In school A kindergart en classroom had a thoughtfully designed area fo r the display and use of books. F loor cushions and comfortable furniture were accessible to children in the reading area There we re at least 20 or more picture books available of various genres for the chi enjoyment and learning Books were or ganized on shelves and were easily accessed by the students. Books were of fair quality with some newer titles and books but consisted mostly of older books and titles According to Audrey storybook reading wa s part of the da ily classroom routine and occurred at least once a day in whole group settings. This
76 classroom wa s decorated with pictures, posters, student work, poetry charts and printed words, however access to printed materials such as signs, label s, and dictionaries was not evident. Areas were designated for small and large group reading activities including a listening center with songs and stories on tape or compact disc. A word wall wa s displayed in the classroom but there wa s no evidence tha t the students used it. Classroom materials were well organized, accessible to students, and coordinated with learning goal s. Overall, classroom appeared to be a literacy rich environment supportive of the oral language and early literacy needs of young children. In school B, kindergarten classroom also had an area designed for the display and use of books. There were at least 50 or more picture books of various genres and reading levels enjoyment and learn ing. Books were of fair quality with mostly older books that belonged to the teacher personally There wa s e vidence that storybook reading wa s part of the daily clas sroom routine with Bethany reporting that she read aloud to students at least once a day usually in whole group settings. In this classroom, students had access to a variety of printed materials such as poetry charts, printed w ords, and student work. There we re desig nated areas for small and large group reading activities along with a listen ing center with songs and stories on tape or compact disc. There was no evidence of a word wall displayed in the c lassroom. Classroom materials we re well organized, accessible to students, and coordinated with learning goals. Overall, m seemed to be a literac y rich environment supportive of the oral language and early literacy needs of young children. In school C, kindergarten classroom had a designated area for the display and use of books with a table and chairs av ailable for reading. There was a limited amount of age appropriate books available for children ooks that were
77 available were of good quality with some newer boo ks and other older titles Christine reported that she read aloud to students at least once a day usually in whole group settings. This classroom was decorated with student work, story maps, and main character maps. There we re designated areas for small and whole group reading activities along with a listening center wi th songs and stories o n tape or compact disc. There wa s not a word wall displayed in this classr oom, but there wa s a list of verbs on ch art paper visually accessible to children. Classroom materials we re fairly well organized, accessible to students, and coordinated with learn ing goals. Overall, classroom appeared to be a literacy rich environment supportive of the oral language and early literacy needs of young children. In school D, kindergarten classroom had a thoughtfully desig ned area for the display and use of books. The reading center wa s inviting to students with comfortable seats in the corner of the room. There were at least 20 or more picture books available of various genres enjoyment and learning. Book s were of good quality w ith mostly newer titles. There wa s e vidence that storybook reading wa s part of the daily classroom ro utine, with Deborah reporting that she read aloud to students at least once a day usually in whole group settings. In this c lassr oom appropriate resources we re displayed to support literacy such as poetry charts, student s work, pictures and illustrations. There we re desig nated areas for small and large group reading activities along with a listening center wi th songs and stories on compact disc. A word wall was displayed in the classroom with evidence that students use it during instruction and independent center activity time. Classroom materials we re well organized, accessible to students, and coordinated with learning goals. Overall, classroom appeared to be a literacy rich environment that supports the oral language and early literacy needs of young children.
78 Participants Participants included four kindergarten teachers in four Title 1 elementary schools in north central Florida and five of their students, who were considered to be at risk for reading difficulties. To allow for comparison of growth, a small group of students was selected from a second kindergarten classroom in the same schools using the same crite ria. The purpose of this section is to provide details about the teachers and students who participated in this study t he selection criteria and the selection process D escription s of each teacher are self reported as taken from the Background Informat ion Sheet (see Appendix C) teachers completed prior to the beginning of the study. Teachers The researcher contacted the principals and kindergarten teachers from the participating elementary schools and discussed the goals of the study, teacher commitment timeline, and the benefits of the study. Four teachers who are currently teaching kindergarten in the selected public schools volunteered to participate in the study. Teachers who had not previously participated in dialogic or interactive storybook r eading trainings were given priority. In addition, the teachers agreed to be videotaped while conduct ing read aloud sessions 2 to 3 times weekly with a small group o f five at risk students. At this initial meeting with the researcher, teachers filled out the Backgrou nd Information Sheet. Following is a description of each reported background information. This information includes (a) gender, (b) years of teaching experience, (c) years of teaching kindergarten, (d) different grade level s ta ught and for how long, (e) types of degrees and certifications, (f) hours of professional development in reading, and (g) hours of professional development in storybook reading strategies.
79 Audrey was a white female who had been teaching elementary school for 27 years. She taught kindergarten for 12 years, first grade for 12 years and second grade for 3 years. She degree in elementary education and wa s ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) endorsed. For the 2012 20 13 school year Audrey reported having approximately 3 hours of in service training in Language Arts and approximately 4 hours of training in the Com mon Core State Standards. She reported that she has never had training or participated in professional development a ctivities focused on storybook reading strategies. Audrey was interested in participating in this study because she loves story time and reading aloud to her students. She reported having has taught units based on auth or studies and books about holidays Bethany was also a white female who had been teaching elementary school for 18 years. Of that time, she spent 6 years teaching kindergarten, 3 years teaching preschool, 3 years teaching 4 th grade, and approximately 6 y ears teaching art in a private elementary school. Bethany had a ducation and wa s ESOL endorsed. For the 2012 20 13 school year, s he reported attending approximately 20 hours or more of professional development activities f ocused on the Common Core State Standards. Bethany has never had professional development in the area of storybook reading strategies. She explained that she wanted to be part of this study because she is is always open to new opportunities to support student skills and learning Christine was a white female who had 17 years teaching experience. She taught kindergarten for 5 years, first grade for 12 years, and tutored students in various grade levels fo r 10 years. She wa s alternatively certified holding a California teaching license for grades K 12 and a Florida teaching certificate t o teach grades K 6. Christine wa s also ESOL endorsed. She
80 reported attending approximately 10 hours of professional de velopment activities in reading in the 2012 2013 school year but did not participate in training specifically focused on storybook reading strategies. Christine wanted to join the study because she believed it would be a good experience for her and would benefit the students in her classroom. Deborah taught for a total of 8 years. Seven of those years were spent teaching in the kinderg arten classroom, and one year teaching first grade. She had a b elementary e ducation and wa s ESOL end orsed. Deborah reported attending approximately 3 hours of reading related professional development in the 2012 2013 school year. She had never attended training specifically focused on storybook reading strategies. Deborah explained that she wanted to be part of this study because most of her training is in math strategies and she wanted to strengthen her knowledge and skills in reading. Background information on the participating teachers can be found in Table 3 1. All treatment teachers received a se t of 10 storybooks to read during the baseline phase of the study and a set of 20 storybooks for the intervention phase of the study, all of which they were allowed to keep. At the conclusion of the study, teachers received a $200 Target gift card as a to ken of appreciation for participating in the study. Table 3 1 nformation Name Gender Years teaching Years teaching kindergarten Degrees/ Certifications Hours of PD in reading 2011 12 Hours of PD in SBR Audrey Female 27 12 El Ed/ ESOL 7 0 Bethany Female 18 6 El Ed / ESOL 25 0 Christine Female 1 7 5 E l Ed / ESOL 10 0 Deborah Female 8 7 El Ed / ESOL 3 0
81 Students using the expressi ve vocabulary and listening comprehension sections of the Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (FAIR). Following the identification of students at risk by the researcher and the teacher, receptive vocabulary was assessed using the PPVT 4 to furth er determine which students were most at risk for reading difficulties. Five students with the lowest raw scores on the PPVT 4 were then selected to participate in the intervention by the teacher and the researcher. Next, the selected students were prete sted to determine their knowledge of 20 targeted words selected from the storybooks used during the intervention phase of the study. In addition, participating students were pretested on a listening comprehension measure designed by the researcher. Four c omparison classrooms from the same schools were added to control for any threats to internal validity such as maturation Students from the comparison classrooms were identified in the same way students were identified in the treatment classrooms and r eceived the same pre and post assessments. These four control classrooms received the same 10 storybooks the treatment teachers received for baseline to insure the children in these classrooms had access ooks in the treatment classroom s Although teachers in the control classrooms kept the books no professional development or coaching was provided for them A total of 65 students, approximately eight from each classroom, who scored most at risk on the e xpressive vocabulary and listening comprehension portions of the Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (FAIR) were selected by their teachers and the researcher for further screening. Letters of consent were sent home to the parents or guardians o f these students asking permission for the ir ch ild to participate in the study if they qualified and for the researcher to
82 conduct further assessments. A total of 44 students obtained parental consent to participate in the project (fewer students from t he control classrooms returned consents presumably because no intervention was being offered ) The PPVT 4 was then administered to the se students to identify which were most at r isk for reading difficulties. Up to five students from each classroom, with the lowest raw scores on the PPVT 4 were then chosen to parti cipate in the study Additiona l criteria used to select the 36 students in this s tudy included (a) first time in kindergarten, (b) no severe cognitive delays, (c) completed the FAIR assessment successfully, and (d) scored below the norm for children his or her age on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4 (PPVT 4). Table 3 2 provides a summary of demographic information, which was obtained through teacher report and s chool records. This information includes age, gender, race English language learner (ELL) as identified by the school qualified for free or reduced price lunch, and exceptional student services (ESE) as identified by the school. Table 3 2 Summary of student s Treatment Group n =20 Control Group n =16 Mean Age at Pretest 5 years 5 months 5 years 7 months Males 14 13 Females 6 3 White 12 7 Black 5 6 Multiracial 0 1 Hispanic 2 2 Asian 1 0 ESE 1 4 (speech) ELL 1 1 Free or r educed price l unch 19 13 Mean PPVT 4 Raw Score 80 84
83 A summary of the pretest mean scores for all measures and groups are summarized in Table 3 3 Tables 3 4 and 3 5 summarize pretest scores for the treatment a nd control groups by teacher. There were n o significant differences between groups on these pretest scores. Table 3 3 mean scores Dependent Measure Treatment Group Mean (Std. Dev.) Control Group Mean (Std. Dev.) FAIR Expressive Vocabulary 34.15 (15.86) 33.3 8 (13.73) FAIR Listening Comprehension 36.00 (23.03) 38.75 (33.04) SOLID Expressive Vocabulary 16.45 (9.10) 17.69 (11.58) SOLID Listening Comprehension 15.90 (4.587) 17.38 (15.90) Table 3 4 Summary of treatment mean pretest scores by teac her Teacher FAIR Vocabulary Percentile FAIR LC SOLID Vocabulary SOLID LC Audrey 31 48% 24% 14 Bethany 43 28% 15% 18 Christine 28 36% 12% 14 Deborah 36 32% 15% 17 Table 3 5 Teacher FAIR Vo cabulary Percentile FAIR LC SOLID Vocabulary SOLID LC Control A 35 53% 12% 17 Control B 42 60% 31% 19 Control C 35 30% 15% 17 Control D 24 20% 13% 20
84 Assessment Instruments There were two types of assessment instruments administered to the student p articipants in this study S creening instruments were used to determine which students were at risk for reading difficulties In addition, pretest posttest instruments were used to measure student growth in expressive vocabulary and listening comprehensi on. Screening Instruments measures of reading performance were analyzed to determine eligibility: Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (FAIR) and the Peabody Pic ture Vocabulary Test 4 (PPVT 4). FAIR scores were used in this study, because they are the primary indicator of risk for reading failure The PPVT 4 was used at pretest as a risk indicator because receptive vocabulary knowledge is a strong predictor of language and comprehension outcomes and responsiveness to vocabulary intervention (Coyne et al., 2009; Penno et al., 2002; Scarborough, 2005). Florida Assessm ents for Instruction in Reading The FAIR assessments are given to stude nts in grades K 12 three times per year in Florida schools. In grades 3 12 the FAIR is a web based assessment taken on the computer. In grades K 2 teachers give the assessments. In kindergarten, the FAIR is a mandatory instrument used for screening pu rposes. Results of the FAIR predict end of the year per formance on standardized tests. The FAIR consists of Broad Screen/ Progress Monitoring Tools for all children and a Broad Diagnostic Inventory for all children. A Targeted Diagnostic Inventory is pro vided for students who are considered at risk for reading difficulties. The letter naming and sounds, phonemic awareness, listening comprehension, and expressive vocabulary sections of the FAIR are administered to all students in kindergarten at the begin ning of the year. Scores are reported in Success Zones: (a) Green =
85 85% probability of scoring on grade level or above on the Stanford Early School Achievement Test (SESAT), (b) Yellow = 16 % 84% probability of scoring on grade level or above on SESAT, and (c) Red = 15% or less probability of scoring on grade level or above on SESAT. Scoring on the FAIR is conducted and reported through the Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN). According to the State of Florida Department of Education (2009 ), the end of the year performance for kindergarten students ( N = 516) on the FAIR vocabulary test is reported as M = 11.35 with a standard deviation of 4.03. Test retest reliability between the first and second assessments during the school year was mode rate for kindergarten (0.45). Estimates when examining consistency between the second and third administration were larger (0.69) and remained at a moderate level between the first and third administrations (0.44). For the kindergarten listening comprehe nsion portion of the FAIR, individual passage total scores were correlated with the same passages over three time points to assess the strength of consistency over time. The average test retest correlation was 0.61. Content validity for the FAIR was deri ved from national standards for the primary grades, while predictive validity was based on the relationship to the end of the year SESAT in kindergarten. Results from the kindergarten multiple regressions indic ated that 26 % of the variance in SESAT scores was accounted for by performance on the Letter Sounds and Phonological Awareness Tasks during the second assessment period During the first assessment period, 105 of the 122 students who were not at risk on the FAIR screen were also not at risk on the SESAT. The concurrent validity of the expressive vocabulary measure on the FAIR was determined by examining its relationship to the Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT 2; Williams, 2007). In kindergarten, the observed correlation between the FAIR vocabulary test and the EVT 2 was 0.83. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4 (PPVT 4) Before the baseline phase of the study
86 began, the 44 students identified as at risk in each of the four treatment and four control classrooms were pre tested using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4 (PPVT 4), a standardized test of receptive language ability. The PPVT 4 is one of the most wi dely used norm referenced instruments for measuring the receptive vo cabulary of children and adults. The fourth edition PPVT was developed to increase the accuracy of test scores, update stimulus words and pictures, and replace black and white item illustrations with full color art that is more current, realistic, and offers a balance of sex, race, and ethnicity. The authors report internal con sistency reliability and split half reliability as having median scores of .94 or above. The alternate forms reliability is reported as M = 0.89 and the test retest reliability is M = 0.93. Additionally, the authors report the PPVT 4 was correlated with well known standardized language, intelligence, and vocabulary measures as evidence of construct validity. The correlations of the PPVT with these other measures demonstrate the pattern expected of a valid vocabulary measure (Dunn & Dunn, 2007). The raw score of the PPVT 4 was used to further at risk for reading difficulty. Pretest and Posttest Instruments Pre and post intervention measures were created by the researcher to evaluate the effe cts comprehension skills To assess the proximal effects of the intervention, a measure of targeted word knowledge was developed. The listening comprehension measure was created based on the Developmental Reading Assessment 2 nd Edition (DRA2 K 3; Beaver, 2006). Measure of expressive v ocabulary Researcher s who have used standardized measures of vo cabulary have found that these assessments are not sensitive enough to detect small increments of student learning Therefore, it is much less likely that growth in vocabulary skills would be detected in a short amount of time (Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Lonigan &
87 Whitehurst, 1998). Based on previous research, a p roximal measure aligned with the vocabulary targeted for instruction by the teachers was designed by the researcher to more effectively vocabulary skills (Bi emiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2010; Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005; Robbins & Ehri, 1994). The researcher designed protocol is similar to one designed by Michael Coyne and his colleagues and used in his previ ous studies (Coyne et al., 2010; Coyne, Simmons, The 20 targeted words include nouns, verbs, and adjectives selected from the 20 storybooks used in the intervention phase of the study These words were common across the stories and classified as Tier Two words according to well known approach to vocabulary instruction. Tier Two words can be described as being new Students should be able to explain these s lexicon because it can be used across content areas). Beck and her colleagues also recommend defining new vocabulary with words the students already know. These explanations of the words are called, student friendly explanations. Student friendly explanations were provided to the teachers in the study along with the targeted words. The list of wo rds and their student friendly explanations are provided in Appendix D assessed as indicators of their knowledge of the targeted words (e.g., W hat does enormous mean?) Examining definitions as outcome variables is a way to approximat e growth in word knowledge focused more on incremental movement toward (Beck et al., 2002). Definitions have been used as outcome variables in several studies of
88 kin dergarten students et al., 2010; Justice et al., 2005; Penno, et al., 2002). Because giving a word definition is a difficult skill for a kindergarten student, the vocabulary measure also allowed students the opportunity to g ive an exam ple of the word meaning (e.g., W hat is something enormous?). The 20 targeted words were presented to students at pretest and post test. Students were tested individually, and told by the researcher that she was going to say some words and she wa low up question was given so each student had the opportunity to explain For each verb, ______ mean up ne ______ me about something that would be e when you might feel definitions, r esponses were given 2 points for a complete and accurate response, 1 point for a partially complete or partially accurate response, and 0 points for an unrelated or incorrect response. For the examples or follow up questions, each student was given 1 point for a correct example and 0 points for an incorrect example. The range of points available for the expressive vocabulary measure was 0 4 0 for Part A (definitions) and 0 20 for Part B (student examples) Total points possible on the expressive vocabulary measure were 60. Students were post tested on the same vocabulary words to assess their word knowledge at the conclusion of the study ( s ee Expressi ve Vocabulary Measure Appendix E ) Measure of listening c omprehension Listening comprehension skills of the participating students were also measured before and after the intervention. The researcher designed measure is adapted from the Developmental Reading Assessment 2 nd Edition (DRA2
89 K 3; Pearson Learnin g Group, Beaver, 2006). This assessment and rubric can be seen in Appendix F Listening comprehension skills were assessed through a story retelling, along with ended questions. Story retelling allows the researcher to assess t he degree of information student recall, the accuracy of their inferences, use of targeted vocabulary in context, and recall of the story sequence ( Puranik, Lombardino, & Altmann, 2008). Students were assessed individually immediately after hearing a nar rative story read by the researcher. Each student was asked to start at the beginning of the story and tell what happened. All testing sessions were audio recorded. If the retelling was limited, one or more prompts were given to the students to obtain f urther information. Next, each student was asked the story by imilar to the DRA 2, s tudents received a listening comprehension score ranging from 6 48 points based on the listening comprehensi on rubr ic developed by the researcher. Reported scores include d (a) the number of details recalled in sequence from the story, (b) the use of language and vocabulary from the text, (c) naming characters from the story, (d) the need for prompts, (e) thinki ng about the story, and (f) t houghtful personal connections to the story that reflect ed a deep understanding. Levels ranged from emerging story understanding to advanced understanding based on the final score from the rubric. Scores from 6 12 reflect ed a n emerging level of listening comprehension. Scores in the range of 13 24 reflect ed developing listening comprehension. Scores from 25 36 are considered independent understanding and scores above 36 reflect ed an advanced understanding These
90 levels of s tory understanding are based on the DRA 2. All students were assessed on the same story at pretest by Frank Asch A different story of similar length Skyfire by Frank Asch, wa s used for all students at post test. The listening comprehens ion assessment is designed for use with any story read aloud to primary age students (see Listening Comprehension Measure Appendix F) Intervention s The independent variables in this study include professional development (PD) in the implementation of effe ctive storybook reading practices, providing accuracy feedback through coaching, and the interactive storybook reading intervention Interactive Storybook Reading Interactive storybook reading is an intervention that is correlated to the development of o ral language skills in young children (Dickinson & Tabors 2001; Karweit, 1989; Lonigan et al., 1999; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Whitehurst et al., 1994). As stated previously, this is important because the early development of language skills has been c learly linked to later success in r eading comprehension (Nation & Snowling, 2004; Snow et al., 2007). Additionally, Snow et al. (2007) followed a sample of c hildren from preschool (3 years old) through graduation from high school and tested them on vocabu lary and reading comprehension skills throughout their school years. Results indicated that those students who started out with larger vocabularies and stronger emergent literacy skills had better reading comprehension scores in subsequent grades, all the way through high school. Although these research results are promising, it is more than just reading aloud that produces these effects. The way in which an adult interacts with children while reading aloud is what is related to the language gains obtaine d (Teale, 2003) When children are given the opportunity to actively participate in reading experiences, they show greater language gains than
91 when books are read aloud without purposeful interactions (Dickinson, 2001; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Karweit, 19 89; Whitehurst, Arnold, & Lonigan, 1990; Whitehurst et al., 1988). In their meta analysis of the language and literacy benefits of storybook reading, Mol, Bus, and de Jong (2009) concluded that both the quality and frequency of storybook reading are impor tant factors that enhance oral language gains. A high quality storybook reading session is characterized by (a) direct explanations of targeted vocabulary and involving students in analytical discussions and que stions about the story (Beck & McKeown, 2007 ; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Whitehurst et al., 1994; Whitehurst, et al., 1999); (b) questions that support story analysis and predictions during the reading (Karweit & Wasik, 1996); (c) explicit teaching of targeted words within the cont ext of the story (Coyne et al., 2004; Elley, 1989); and (d) facilitati on of the text (Coyne et al., 2009; Santoro et al., 2008). Further, it is suggested that conducting read alouds in small gro up settings when possible further enhances oral language gains, especially for children who are at risk for reading difficulties (Dickinson & Smith, 1994 ; Karweit &Wasik, 1996; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Morrow & Smith, 1990). Interactive storybook readin g is based on the theory that when children practice using language in authentic contexts, such as those that occur during read alouds, their vocabulary and oral language development is enhanced. In these dialogic exchanges teachers are encouraged to (a) give students specific feedback regarding language, (b) scaffold and extend student responses, (c) ask specific questions about and clarify new vocabulary, and (d) ask open ended questions t hat encourage children to access their background experiences and make personal connections (Whitehurst et al., 1988). Through questions and discussion, children are provided
92 with opportunities to engage in higher level thinking, become familiar with story elements, encounter new vocabulary, and make personal connection s to a story. In this study, t eachers purposefully plan ned for their small group interactive storybook reading session by (a) previewing and reading the selected story, (b) writing the objective of the lesson, (c) planning for vocabulary instruction (d) building background, (e) setting a purpose for reading, (f) formulating strategic questions to support s that would encourage interactions and su pport language development. Although all of these elements are important components of interactive s torybook reading, in this study the dependent variables were measured by recording the frequency in which the teacher s (a) asked closed questions (e.g. W hat did the pig ask for?) (b) asked open questions, (e.g., Why do you think that happened?), (c) supported vocabulary understanding, (d) extended student responses by adding to what the student said (e ) repeated and/or affirmed student responses, (f) pra ised student responses, and (g ) clarified student responses. Student responses were also tallied and categorized as either on topic or off topic. See Appendix G for a detailed description of each dependent variable Professional Development with Coaching The researcher provided a professional development (PD) session individually to each teacher after they completed the baseline phase of the study. The planned duration of the PD session was approximately 90 minutes although the actual length varied from teacher to teacher. For each teacher an overview was provided of the foundations of early literacy and oral language development. Other topics addressed during the PD included (a) book selection, (b) vocabulary instruction, (c) building background (d) creating strategic questions and prompts, (e) responding to students and (f ) allowing sufficient wait time for students to respond ( s ee Appendix H for
93 components of the PD sessions ) The researcher modeled each instructional strategy and demonstrated an interactive storybook reading session. During the individualized PD session, the teachers were given all 20 storybooks for the intervention phase. In addition, they each had the opportunity to look through the books, practice storybook reading strategie s and reflect on curr ent practice. For example, after the researcher demonst rated an interactive read aloud, a discussion ensued about selecting books for read alouds the important types of questions to ask, and the length of the read aloud. Teachers r eflected about introducing and providing explicit instruction of targe ted vocabulary from the story They also (a) previewed the student friendly explanations of the words, (b) thought about providing examples and using illustrations from the story to sup port understanding, and (c) considered how to create strategic questions that would assist students in making per sonal connections to the story. As t he teachers continued to reflect about the essential components of the upcoming read aloud sessions, the r esearcher answered questions about how to effectively (a) build background and introduce vocabulary before the read aloud (b) ensure that questions during the read aloud did not interrupt the flow of the story, and (c) prompt students to answer questi ons after the story to support understanding and reinforce targeted vocabulary. understanding of the strategies. The posttest consisted of developing a lesson plan for a read aloud session. The lesson plans were evaluated to ensure they included (a) 3 to 4 targeted vocabulary words for a particular story; (b) lesson focus (objective); (c) background building information for students; (d) setting the purpose for reading; (e) open and closed questions to be asked before, during, and after the story, along with the page number where the question would be asked; (f) possible student and teacher responses; and (g) a wrap up to the lesson. If
94 any of these elements, they received additional assistance to ensure that they understood all the components of effective storybook reading and how to prepare a read aloud lesson plan before beginning the intervention phase of the study. See Appendix I fo r an example of the lesson planning form and sample lesson. Teachers successfully completed the PD session when their lesson plan included all of the essential components. Within two to five days after the PD session, teachers conducted their first read aloud session in the intervention phase. To further assist the teachers in implementing effective storybook reading sessions during the intervention phase the researcher observed each read aloud session and provided coaching. Coaching consisted mainly of providing feedback to teachers using the Feedback Form (s ee Appendix J). Feedback to teachers was focused on increasing the ir use of all of the interactive strategies, with particular emphasis on key elements of high quality storybook reading, such as op en questions, vocabulary suppor t and extending student responses These strategies were targeted because they are widely considered to be hallmarks of an effective read aloud session and likely to promote on language development. Coaching also included assisting teachers when essential lesson components were missing from the read aloud session. For example, if a teacher forgot to introduce the targeted vocabulary before reading and did not clarify or support vocabulary during reading, she was reminded about including vocabulary instruction for the next read aloud session and was given examples of how to incorporate this instruction. Coaching sessions were very quick since the teacher was in the middle of her instructional day. Use of t he Feedback F orm allowed the researcher to give teachers (a) specific information about the number of essential lesson components that were observed (b) a tally of all the dependent variables present in the read
95 aloud, and (c) examples, when necessary, without taking too much time. Figure 3 1 provides a n example of a completed Feedback Form. Figure 3 1 Feedback F orm for read aloud s essions The researcher has previous experience in the creation and implementation of teacher PD across the state of Florida and has conducted PD specific to storybook reading practices. In addition, she has been a literacy coach and a leader and trainer of literacy c oaches in all grade levels and has created and implemented PD for literacy coache s across the state of Florida. The PD sessions were videotaped and analyzed for treatment integrity. An unbiased observer familiar with read aloud strategies completed the Treatment Integrity C hecklist (see Appendix M). However, there was a problem with the video recording possibly due to the length of the PD sessions. Subsequently, because the independent observer did not attend the PD sessions, but relied solely on the video to complete the integrity checklists, it was not possible to score all of the checklists accurately. The researcher was meticulous about covering all
96 components of the PD and visually went through the checklist for each PD session verifying that 100% of the criteria were met. Materials The books selected for the storybook reading i ntervention in this study were high quality, selection included stories that (a) were developmentally appropriate and of high interest for kindergarten chil dren, (b) were narrative and of appropriate length (c) had a clear story structure (d) represent ed culturally a nd ethnically diverse groups (e) had colorful illustrations that add ed to the context of the stor y, (f ) were likely to b e unfamiliar to the st udents, (g ) contained topics of concern to kindergarten children, and (h) had a rich vocabulary selection and foster ed the likelihood of reader child interactions (Hargrave & Senechal, 2000 ; Justice et al., 2005 ). Teachers read the books in a pre selected order to make the read aloud sessions among the participating teachers more readily comparabl e. See Appendix K for book titles and sequence of introduction For the baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases of the study a video camera, audio recorde r, tripod, mic rophone, and laptop computer were utilized. The Feedback Form (see Appendix J) was used to provide teachers with data about their implementation of the strategies during each session. The Data Collection Form (see Appendix L) was used to re cord the frequency of the questions and responses during the baseline, treatment, and maintenance phase s of the study In addition, t he participants received a binder with the power p oint slides and all handouts during the PD sessi on Dependent Variable s The dependent variables in this study represented the various types of effective teacher talk during storybook reading. These included (a) asking closed questions, (b) asking open
97 questions, (c) supporting vocabulary development, (d) extending responses, (e) affirming and/or repeating student responses, (f ) prais ing student responses and (g) clarifying student responses The total of each of these dependent variables during each read aloud session is the total frequency of teach er talk. In the following section, each dependent variable is described in detail Closed questions are those that have a definiti ve answer from the story (e.g., Where did the bea rs go when they left the house? ). Questions with yes or no answers are also considered to be closed questions. Somet imes teachers pose questions and expect students to fill in the blank (e.g., At the party, the pig wore her _______.) This is also considered to be a closed question. For this study, if a tea cher repeated a close d question or rephrased a question to clarify understanding, it was counted only once. In addition, any time the teacher asked students to retell events from the story; the question was counted as a closed question. Open questions are defined for this stu dy as inference type questions in which there is no right or wrong answer (e.g., Why do you think she said that? or What do you think will happen next? ents to think or infer about something that happened in the story or predict what might happen next Open questions are generally considered more desirable than closed questions, because they are more effective at Vocabulary support for this study, is defined as introduc ing the targeted words for the story, providing an explanation for the word that is easy for the students to understand, and rei nforcing the word with a variety of examples. Vocabulary support occurred when the teacher provided meaningful explanations and examples of the targeted word For example, the teacher I f someone feels joyful, they are very happy. The pig in the story felt joyful when
98 her friends gave her a party. You might feel joyful w In this exampl e, there were three instances of vocabulary support because the teacher explained the meaning of the word and gave two examples, one from the book and another the st udents could relate to. Further, if the teacher decided to explain another word from the s tory, it was also coded as vocabulary support using the same criteria as the targeted words. However, i f the targeted word was mentioned and not supported with an explanation or an example it was not coded as vocabulary support Extending a response oc curred when the teacher repeated what the student s said and then added a few more words. Fo r example, if a student responded abou t the nse from the teacher also occurred when the student responded the teacher is modeling a grammatically correct sentence without drawing attenti on to the error and also extending what the student said by adding more detail. Affirming or repeating responses occur red when the teacher confir med correct student responses by nodding, repeating what the student said, or giving an affirmative answer (e.g. Tha affirming and then ) For the purposes of this study, if the teacher nodded and said yes at the same time, only one tally was given for the affirmation. Sometimes teachers responded to s tudents with a question (e.g., He went to the store ? ). This was coded as an affirmation and not a closed question when the teacher did not expect an answer from the student or whe n the student did not reply
99 An example of praising a student response wa coded as an affirmation and not praise because the teacher was simply ackno rather than providing specific praise that would likely Clarifying student responses occurred when the teacher made an attempt to support understanding or cleared up any misunders tandings other than those related to vocabulary For example, if the teacher explain ed why animals at Busch Gardens do tricks, but that most wild animals do not do tricks, it would be coded as a clarification In addition, the teacher might spend some t ime clarifying if a student responded with an incorrect or partially incorrect answer to a question Only one t ally was given for each idea that wa s clarified, no matter how much explaining wa s done. Observations, Videotaping, and Recording the Dependent Variables The researcher monitored the effectiveness of the by observing, videotaping, and recording the frequency of teacher and student talk during baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases of the study. During baseline, only two read aloud sessions were videotaped by one of the teachers. Although videotapes were used for data collection the researcher was present for all subsequent read aloud sessions. Being present in the classroom gave the researcher a context for each r ead aloud and a greater understanding of the classroom dynamics. For example, one read aloud started late r than usual because a student had a nosebleed. Conversation during that read aloud session was cut short because the class was scheduled to go to th e media center. This information could not have been observed on the video of the session. More importantly, being present during each session allowed for the researcher to tally teacher talk in real time and to provide immediate feedback to the teacher.
100 Before each read aloud, t he researcher made sure the camera was charged, the microphone was working properly, the audio recorder was in place, and the tripod was strategically located out of high traffic area s but in a place where all of the students an d the teacher could be seen in the vid eo. An audio recorder was used for each session in case the teacher or the students could not be heard on the videotape. A s previously mentioned, a lthough th e session was being videotap ed, the researcher tallied all teacher and student talk on the Data C ollection Form while present. Following each read aloud session during the intervention phase, t he total occurrences of each dependent variable and lesson elements were then transferred to the Feedback Form and share d with the teacher Because the frequency of the occurrences of each dependent variable was more meaningful to the teachers than rate per minute, only the frequency counts were given to the teacher. Coaching in the form of positive reinforcement and sugg estions for improvement w as provided immediately after the read aloud. Later, but usually the same day, the researcher watched the video of the read aloud in a quiet location with no distractions and recorded the dependent variables and total teacher tal k on the Data Collection Form. Often, this process was repeated to make sure data collection was accurate for each session. The researcher met with the independent observer numerous times during all phases of the study to make sure data were reliably cod ed. The frequency of each dependent variable and total teacher talk from the videotape d session s was then recorded and plotted on simple line graphs Repeated measurements of teacher and student talk were recorded until a stable trend was established dur ing each phase W hen the data were stable for the baseline phase of the study, the intervention phase began, and when the data were stable for the intervention phase, the main tenance phase was implemented.
101 Design This study implemented a single subject mu ltiple baseline across groups design to determine the effects of professional development (PD) with coaching on t reading practices A structured framework for planning and delivering interactive storybook reading was us ed to support tea chers questioning strategies and responses to students during the read aloud sessions. The activities during the PD provided teachers with pedagogical content knowledge, active learning, practice, and coaching support in the effective use of interactive storybook reading interventions to support s oral language development. The goal was to increase the quality and quantity of interactions between these kindergarten teachers and their students during storybook reading time. This design was used because single subject research is a practical methodology for assessing experimental effects under typical classroom conditions. Secondly, it allows for measurement of the process of teacher change as well as the prod uct of that change. In addition bo th maintenance and initial effects can be easily analyzed Further, single subject studies provide a means of analyzing the relationship between individualized interventions and the change in the dependent variable s (Horner, Carr, Halle, McGee, Odom, & Wo lery, 2005). The researcher spent time in the classroom prior to the start of the study to minimize the reactivity threat. Prior to the beginning of the study, the Classroom Literacy Environment C ssro om by the researcher. The purpose of the checklist was to assist the researcher in describing the learning environment in each of the four treatment classrooms. In this multiple baseline design, four teachers were paired with five of their at risk stu dents to evaluate the effects of teacher professional development (PD) with coaching on teacher student interactions during storybook rea ding. This study consisted of five phases, pre
102 baseline assessment, baseline, inte rvention, maintenance, and post asse ssment. A detailed description of each phase is provided in the next sections. Pre Baseline Assessment All students who were identified by their teacher and the researcher as at risk for reading difficulty based on their FAIR assessment scores were invite d to participate. Those who returned a signed parental informed consent form were pre tested individually by the researcher on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4 (PPVT 4), a measure of receptive vocabulary. The researcher has had previous traini ng on the assessment procedures of the PPVT 4. Of these students, up to five of those most at risk in each classroom were selected to partici pate in the study. Those five selected students were then pre tested by the researcher on the researcher created measure s of expressive vocabulary and listening compreh ension skills Baseline Dur ing the baseline phase, each teacher was observed and videotaped while reading aloud to her five at risk students 2 to 3 times per week using her typical read aloud methods. For ea ch session, teachers read a narrative story of their choice (from a coll ection of 10 preselected books). The researcher was present for each session and t he dependent variables were measured by recording the frequency in which the teacher (a) asked closed questions, (b) asked open questions, (c) supported vocabulary development, (d) extended student responses, (e) repeated and/or affirmed student responses, (f) praised, and (g) clarified student responses Read aloud session s during baseline lasted approx imately 12 minutes During the read aloud the researcher s and student responses on the D ata C ollec tion F orm (see Ap pendix L ) The videotapes of the sessions were later viewed an d the data were recorded, graphed, and graphs visually analyzed to identify trends. All four groups of students and teachers started the baseline phase at the same time. When one of the groups showed no
103 significant increases or decreases in the dependent variable s they moved to the in ter vention phase of the study. Intervention Phase: Teacher Professional Development with Coaching After the completion of the baseline phase, teachers individually participated in the professional development (PD) session provided by the researcher The indi vidual PD session was planned for 90 minutes but varied according to each teacher. The following topics were addressed : (a) foundations of early literacy development, (b) effective storybook reading strategies, (c) selecting books, (d) selecting vocabula ry, (e) questioning strategies, (f) extending student responses, (g) supporting vocabulary development (h) responding to students, and (i) praising, affirming, and clarifying student r esponses. In addition, storybook reading intervention strategies were demonstrated and teachers had opportunities to practice the intervention, create questions, and develo p a sample lesson plan for a read aloud session After successful completion of the PD activities the teachers implemented the storybook reading interve ntion. Coaching and specific feedback occurred after each read aloud session to assist teachers in effective implementation of the intervention. Intervention Phase: Interactive Storybook Reading Within two to five days after participating in the PD sessi on, teachers began the interactive storybook reading intervention. During this phase, teachers were observed and video taped by the researcher 1 to 2 times per week while conducting a read aloud with their five at risk students. The stories read during th is phase of the study were pre selected by the researcher and read in a pre determined order Incidents of teacher talk and student responses were tallied and recorded Repeated measurements of the targeted behaviors were collected until there was a stead y increase or until stability was established. Two weeks after the responses across all teachers were stable, the maintenance phase of the study began.
104 Maintenance The maintenance phase took place two weeks following the completion of data collection for each of the four teachers R ead aloud sessions were observed and video taped during the maintenance phase and frequency counts were taken on all dependent variables. This phase lasted until at least three sessions were recorded or until the data showed a stabilized trend. After data collection was completed participants were asked to anonymously complete a social validity checklist focused on whether or not they felt the PD and storybook reading interventions were beneficial, if they noticed a difference in the oral interactions of the children, and if they thought their teaching effec tiveness improved (s ee Appendix O ). Post Assessment All students participating in the study were posttested after data collection was complete. Results of the Listening C omprehension and Expressive V ocabulary subtests of the Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (FAIR) were collected from each classroom teacher. In addition, t he researcher posttested each student individually on the researcher created measures of expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension. Data Analysis The dep endent variables in this study we re the major components of the interactive s torybook reading intervention: (a) asking closed questions, (b) asking open questions, (c) supporting voca bulary development (d) extend ing responses, (e) repeating and /or affirming student responses, (f) prais ing student responses, and (g ) clarifying student responses The teachers were observed and videotaped 1 to 2 times per week while reading the selected stories to the ir five at risk stud ents The researcher recorded all targeted responses of th e teachers and students on the Data Collection F orm (see Appendix L ) Both rate and frequency of teacher talk were recorded, but frequency data were used to make decisions about trends and phases. The
105 frequency with which individual teachers used each of the dependent variables was calculated and scores were plotted on a simple line graph. Total frequency of teacher talk was determined by adding the occurrence o f each dependent variable during a read aloud session. Data were analyzed using systematic visual comparison of responding across conditions (Horner et al., 2005). In visual analysis data points are graphed to observe the pattern types that emerge over time. Visual comparison of the data points allowed the researcher to identify changes in the frequency of the dependent variables as a result of the independent variables (PD, coaching, and the storybook reading intervention). Data were then ana lyzed by observing trend lines and overall means for each teacher. Interobserver Agreement Inter observer agreement was calculated on 33% of the read aloud sessions divided evenly across the baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases of the study. The research er and a doctoral student knowledgeable in read aloud practices independently watched the video of the read aloud sessions and recorded the number of times the teachers used each of the dependent variables on the Data Collection F orm. The results were the n compared using the Total Agreement of Frequency ratio: smaller total divided by the larg er number and multiplied by 100 (Gast, 2010 ). Treatment Integrity The researcher used the treatment fidelity checklist to ensure that all PD sessi ons were impleme nted as defined. At least 90% of the components outlined in the PD intervention section of this proposal were completed to ensure there was integrity of treatment. The average length of the PD session for each of the four treatment teachers was 115 minut es with all teachers scoring 100% on written and verbal checks after each PD session. The PD session for each teacher was videotaped and analyzed for treatment integrity. The researcher was very thorough
106 about covering all components of the PD and comple ted a checklist for each PD session verifying that 100% of the criteria were met. An unbiased observer, familiar with read aloud strategies, completed the treatment integrity checklist (see Appendix M). However, a problem occurred with the video recordin g possibly due to the length of the PD sessions. Subsequently, because the independent observer did not attend the PD, but relied solely on the video to complete the integrity checklists, it was not possible to score the checklists accurately. Social Val idity Following the completion of the study, participants were asked to anonymously complete a social validity questionnaire (Appendix N) to obtain information regarding their satisfaction with the storybook reading and PD intervention with coaching Ques tions focused on whether or not the participants felt the intervention s were helpful, if they noticed a difference in the responses of the children, and whether they thought their teaching effectiveness improved. Teachers responded to each questio n using a 5 point Likert scale. Because teachers responded so favorably to the social validity measure, a follow up interview was conducted with each of the four treatment teachers Interview quest ions can be found in Appendix O. Results of the interview will be discussed in detail in C hapters 4 and 5.
107 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured framework for implementing storybook reading. This framework was designed to increase the quality and quantity of teacher s tudent interactions during read alouds in kindergarten classrooms with students who are at risk for reading difficulties. For this purpose, a multiple baseline across groups design wa s implemented to measure teacher student interactions before and after professional development and coaching occurred. In addition, students in both the treatment and c ontrol groups were pre and post tested on measures of vocabulary and listening comprehen sion to determine their response to the intervention. The overarching question in this study was the following: Can professional development with ongoing specifically, t he follow ing questions were investigated: 1. What are the effects of professional development with use of closed and open questions with at risk students during storybook reading? 2. What are the effects of professional develop ment with use of affirmative responses and praise with at risk students during storybook reading? 3. What are the effects of professional development with use of extending responses with at risk students during storybook reading? 4. What are the effects of professional development with vocabulary instruction with at risk students during storybook reading? 5. If increases in teacher student interactions occur duri ng storybook reading, what effect do those increased comprehension and expressive vocabulary)? Overview of the Study Procedures To investigate the research questions, 4 teach ers and 33 kindergarten students participated in this study. The teachers all and
108 volunteered to participate in the study The resear cher and teachers identified students based on their listening comprehens ion and expressive vocabulary scores on the Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (FAIR), along with below average scores on the PPVT 4. Five students from each classroom were then selected and assessed on researcher created measures of expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension. To allow for comparison of student growth, a small group of students w as selected from a second kindergarten classroom in each school using the same criteria and students were assessed on the same researcher creat ed measures Participating teachers conducted small group storybook reading sessions with the selected students, and each session was videotaped. The researcher was present for each read aloud session and tallie d each use of the following dependent variab les : (a) asking closed questions, (b) asking open questions, (c) supporting vocabulary development, (d) extending student responses, (e) repeating and/or affirming student responses, (f) praising student responses, and (g) clarifying student responses La ter when there were no distractions the researcher watched each video of the read aloud sessions and more accurately recorded the occurrences of each dependent variable on the Data Collection Form (see Appendix L ). During each session student responses were also recorded. This data collection procedure was followed for all phases of the study. During the baseline phase, each teacher conducted 2 to 3 storybook reading sessions per week with her group of at risk students using her typical read aloud met hods. No coaching or feedback was provided during baseline. At the beginning of the intervention phase, each teacher participated individually in a professional development (PD) session that was planned to last approximately 90 minutes, however the actual length varied from teacher to teacher. The PD session addressed (a)
109 fo undations of early literacy, (b) oral language development (c) ele ments of effective read alouds, (d) selecting books, (e ) effe ctive vocabulary instruction, (f) building background, ( g ) setting a pur pose for reading, and (h ) creating strategic questions and prompts. During the PD session the researcher demonstrated effective stor ybook reading strategies. Next, the teachers practiced these methods and created a lesson plan utilizing all the components of the interactive storybook reading framework. After the teacher s successfully completed the PD session by creating a lesson plan using all of the lesson components they began implementing the interactive storybook read ing interventio n with their small group of at risk students The effects of the storybook reading intervention were then measured by tallying the number of dependent variables used by the teacher during each storybook reading session. The researcher was present for ea ch read aloud session and using the Feedback F orm (see Appendix J) gave teachers specific information about the number of occurrences of each dependent variable and other critical lesson components. Teachers were coached on what they were doing well ho w to increase the use of specific variables, and how to include variables that were not observed. Two weeks after data during the intervention phase became stable, the maintenance phase began. During the maintenance phase, d ata were collected while the teacher read any book of her choice (either fiction or non fiction). Lesson plans were not required during this phase and teachers did not receive feedback or coaching. The purpose of this phase was to determine if would continue after the intervention phase ended. Three read aloud sessions were observed and data were collected for each of the four teachers during the maintenance phase.
110 The goal of this chapter is to present results of the analyses of data from this study. First, the reliability of measu rement is provided for the read aloud sessions and assessments. Second, the statistical model is described according to progression through the investigative phases. Third, the results of the dat a analyses are presented. Finally, results of the social v alidity measures are provided. Reliability of Measurement Procedures were implemented during the study to establish reliability of measurement for each dependent variable. The researcher and a re search assistant independently viewe d and coded 33% of the read aloud session videos and calculated interobserver agreement for each dependent variable For the pre and posttests, a second research assistant rescored 25% of the expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension assessments. Interobserver Agreement To ensure that the dependent variables were recorded and measured with integrity, interobserver agreement (IOA) was established between the researcher and an independent observer by watching vid eos of read alouds and discussing definitions of each dependent variable. Dependent variables were specifically de fined (see Appendix G ) and the researcher and observer met several times to ensure reliability of coding. IOA was calculated for 33% of the read aloud sessions divided evenly across the base line, intervention and maintenance phases for each teacher. The Data Collection Form (see Appendix L) was used to record the occurrence s of teacher and student talk for each read aloud session. The obser ver was a doctoral student familiar with teacher questioning and response during storybook reading. IOA was calculated using the formula recommended by Gast (2010): Divide the smaller total by the larger total and multiply by 100.
111 For the baseline phase, IOA was calculated on 33% of the read aloud sessions (i.e., 2 of 6 sessions for Audrey, 3 of 9 sessions for Bethany, 3 of 8 sessions for Christine, and 2 of 7 sessions for Deborah). IOA for teacher talk during baseline ranged from 77 .7% to 92.8% with a mean of 87.1 %. IOA for student talk ranged from 72% to 92% with a mean of 84.2%. For the intervention phase IOA was calculated on 33% of the read aloud sessions (i.e., 5 of 15 sessions for Audrey, 4 of 11 sessions for Bethany, 1 of 4 sessions for Chris tine, and 4 of 14 sessions for Deborah). IOA for teacher talk during the intervention phase ranged from 81 .7% to 98.2% with a mean of 90 .8%. IOA for student talk ranged from 78% to 100% during the intervention phase with a mean of 90.4%. For the mainte nance phase, IOA was calculated on 33% of the read aloud sessions (i.e., 1 of 3 sessions for each of the four teachers). IOA for teacher talk during the maintenance phase ranged from 88 % to 94%, with a mean of 90 .5%. IOA for student talk ranged from 83% to 99%, with a mean of 91%. The means and range of IOA for each dependent v ariable is presented in Table 4 1. Table 4 1 IOA for Dependent Variables Baseline Intervention Maintenance Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Teacher Talk 87% 78 93% 91% 82 9 8% 91% 88 94% Closed 91% 80 100% 93% 77 100% 93% 88 100% Open 93% 75 100% 89% 75 100% 86% 80 100% Extend 98% 78 100% 86% 73 100% 81% 78 83% Vocab ulary 100% -87% 70 100% 92% 80 100% Affirm 79% 70 100% 85% 70 97% 83% 72 91% Praise 98% 83 100% 96% 80 100% 95% 80 100% Clarify 75% 60 100% 80% 67 97% 84% 80 93% Student Talk 84% 72 92% 90% 78 100% 91% 83 99% It is apparent that IOA means for clarifications and affirmations are lower than the other variables. This is because the second observer had a tendency to count repeated comments and
112 remarks by the teacher that the researcher considered to be meaningless. The researcher was more conservative during coding and did not count these repeated comments. To correct this lack of agreement, clearer defi nitions of the dependent variables were created to make the coding more reliable. Interscorer Agreement for Student Assessments Interscorer agreement checks were made to ob tain reliability on the pre and posttests for both the treatment and control groups The researcher conducted and scored all pretests and posttests. To establish interscorer agreement, a research assistant knowledgeable in assessment procedures, but unfamiliar with the study, used the same scoring procedures and scored 25% of the expre ssive vocabulary and listening comprehension assessments for both pre and posttests. Interscorer agreement was calculated by dividing the total agreements by the sum of agreements plus disagreements multiplied by 100 (Gast, 2010). The following formula for calculating interscorer agreement was used. For expressive vocabulary pretests, the interscorer agreement ranged from 80% to 100%, with a mean agreement of 91%. For the liste ning comprehension pretests, interscorer agreement was 100%. For the expressive vocabulary posttests, scores ranged from 85% to 100%, with a mean agreement of 93%. For the listening comprehension posttests, agreement was 100%. Since a rubric was used to score the listening comprehension assessments, scores needed to be within 2 poin ts for each category. Table 4 2 shows the calculations for interscorer reliability for both the pre and posttests Agreements x 100 = Percent of agreement Agreements + Disagreements
113 Table 4 2 Interscorer reliability for pre and post asses sments Expressive Vocabulary Listening Comprehension Pretest Posttest 80% 100% ( M = 91%) 85% 100% ( M = 93%) 100% 100% Teacher Data The focus of this study was on teacher talk during read aloud sessions. Sessions were observed to examine the occurr ence of specific types of teacher talk: (a) asking closed questions, (b) asking open questions, (c) supporting vocabulary development, (d) extending student responses, (e) repeating and/or affirming student responses, (f) praising student responses, and (g ) clarifying student responses The first approach to analyzing these data wa s to examine the rate at which each depe ndent variable occurred and the rate for total teacher talk. Figure 4 1 provides an illustration of these data. A visual inspection of th ese data reveals minimal changes as a result of the introduction of the independent variable (i.e., professional development with coaching). The change in the mean rate of teacher talk is minimal. This result is not surprising, because rate alone is insu fficient to look at these data. In fact, the most desirable features of storybook reading include asking open questions, allowing sufficient wait time for students to respond, and encouraging more on topic student talk. Because each of these features of effective read alouds takes time, their use inherently decreases the rate of teacher talk. In addition, the interactions between teachers and students in the baseline phase reflected mostly closed questions from teachers and one word responses from studen ts. These types of interactions occur frequently and quickly, however, they do not reflect the effectiveness of the read aloud session. For example, Figure 4 aloud session during baseline shows a marked
114 increase in her rate of talk per minute. This is deceiving because this was only a 6 minute read aloud and contained mostly closed questions that required only a yes or no answer from the students and very little think time. Subsequently, the rate per minute spiked. This example illustrates why rate of teacher talk per minute alone is an inadequate way to examine interactions during read aloud sessions. Figure 4 1. Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for rate of teacher talk per minute (all dependent variables combined) for all four teachers during each read aloud session
115 The dependent variables that support effective read alouds can be measured best by counting the frequency in which they occur during eac h read aloud session. Therefore, i n the next s ection, total teacher talk during storybook reading will be discussed as a frequency count for each phase of the study. Total teacher talk is the frequency of the occurrences of all the dependent variables for each teacher during a read aloud session. Fr equency of teacher talk was also a more meaningful measure than rate for the teachers because they were able to see the frequency of the more desirable type s of talk per read aloud session (e.g., open questions and support for vocabulary learning ) Conseq uently frequency information was p rovided to them after each read aloud session These data were plotted on a simple line graph and decisions about movement from one phase to the next were made based on tal teacher talk. At the end of each phase of the study, mean rates per minute and frequency of teacher talk were calculated. for rate and frequency of talk for each phase of th e study is provided in Table 4 3. Table 4 3 Teacher means and range for rate and frequency of talk Teachers Audrey Bethany Christine Deborah Baseline Rate 5.3 5.0 4.8 5.5 Range 2.6 8.8 3.1 6.9 2.6 8.1 4.0 10.3 Frequency 54.16 58 56.12 68.71 Range 26 106 51 82 27 77 56 93 Intervention Rate 7 7.5 6.2 7.1 Range 5.8 9.1 6.1 8.8 4.7 7.9 5.1 8.6 Frequency 131.73 190.81 124.75 118.92 Range 95 165 133 265 102 158 77 164 Maintenance Rate 8.1 8.4 6.4 7.0 Range 7.7 8.7 7.8 9.0 6.1 6.8 6.7 7.3 Frequency 159.66 198.33 173 123.66 Range 143 179 194 203 158 1 84 109 146 Note: Rate refers to number of observations of the dependent variables per minute. Frequency refers to the total number of observations of the dependent variable per read aloud session.
116 As a result of increases in the use of more desira ble st rategies, read aloud sessions increased not only in the frequency of teacher talk, but also in length. The mean length of a read aloud duri ng baseline was 12 minutes. During the intervention phase, the mean length of a storybook reading session increased to 20 minutes. For the maintenance sessions the mean le ngth expanded to 22 minutes. Figure 4 2 illustrates the increase in read aloud session times both by teacher and phase of the study. Figu re 4 2. Mean length of storybook reading sessions for each phase of the study by teacher In the following section results are through the phases of the study is explained and data for each teacher are reported including the mean frequency of teacher talk, the range of mean scores, and the difference in mean scores between baseline and intervention, as well as between intervention and maintenance. Audrey A total of 6 baseline s essions were observed and videotaped for Audrey over the course of two weeks. During basel ine the teachers were unaware of what strategies were being observed and were asked to conduct a read aloud with the targeted students as they normally
117 would. They selected one of the ten books provided for the baseline phase. frequency o f teacher talk for the baseline phase ranged from 26 to 106 occurrences per s ession. Her mean frequency of teacher talk was 54.16. After six read baseline data for frequency of teacher talk were stable. Audrey then participated in a PD session that was scheduled at her convenience The session was held in her classroom after school and lasted 95 minutes. At this time, Audrey received information on the importance of supporting conversations with her students and on how to incre ase teacher student intera ctions. She also received 20 storybooks for the intervention (see Appendix K for the list of titles and sequence of introduction), 20 targeted vocabulary words with student friendly explanations (Appendix D), a sample lesson plan and lesson planning form (Appendix I), and a handout that explained several ways to provide scaffolding and prompts for students responses (Appendix Q). At the end of the PD session, Audrey was able to complete a lesson plan on a story of her choice with 100% accuracy. Components of the lesson plan included (a) detail ing the objective of the lesson; (b) introducing and supporting targeted vocabulary; (c) building background; (d) setting the purpose for reading; and (e) creating strategic open and closed questions to be used before, during, and after reading the story. Finally, Audrey was able to verbally explain how she would respond to and scaffold certain student questions and comments with 100% accuracy. During the PD, Audrey reflected on her current practice and realized that although she was a veteran teacher and frequently conducted read alouds with her students she did not focus on ask ing open questions or on supporting vocabulary learning during storybook reading. Audrey looked forward to start ing the storybook reading intervention, which beg an two days after the completion of her PD session.
118 Intervention data for Audrey were collected over 15 sessions. Her frequency of teacher talk during her read aloud sessions ranged from 95 to 165 occurrenc es. Her mean frequenc y of teacher talk was 131.73. This wa s a positive change of 143.22% from baseline to intervention. Audrey finished the intervention phase of the study after her frequency of teacher talk showed a stable increase Two weeks after sh e completed the intervention, she began the maintenance phase of the study. For the three read aloud sessions Audrey conducted during the maintenance phase, she chose the book s and read aloud to her four targeted students ( o ne student moved during the int ervention phase) during maintenance and her mean frequency of teacher talk was 159.66. This was another increase of 21.2% from the intervention to the maintenance phase an frequency and range for each dependent variable during each phase of the study is presented in Table 4 4 Table 4 4. Mean frequenc y and range for each dependent variable for Audrey Baseline Intervention Maintenance Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Teacher Talk 54.2 26 106 131.7 95 165 159.7 143 179 Closed 24.8 10 54 37.2 29 58 40.6 37 43 Open 3 2 5 8.2 2 13 13.6 12 15 Extend 2.3 0 6 7.9 4 16 12.3 7 20 Vocabulary 1.3 0 3 14.3 7 20 13 11 17 Affirm 19.8 11 35 44.7 25 65 55.3 51 62 Praise .7 0 2 3 .7 0 9 3 1 4 Clarify 5 1 11 15.3 4 25 24.7 17 30 Deborah Seven baseline s essions were observed and videotap ed for Deborah over the course of four weeks. Frequency of teacher talk ranged from 56 to 93 occurrences, with a mean frequency of 68.71. Inte ractions during baseline between Deborah and her students were characterized by
119 many closed questions and yes or no answers from the students. When intervention data for Audrey were showing an increasing trend and baseline data were stable, she participated in the PD session. The 90 minute PD as she requested, after the students were dismissed from school. As in the other schools, t he other kindergarten teachers were invited to attend the PD sessio n. All the kindergarten teachers chose to attend. They received the same information as Deborah until the one on one part of the PD when Deborah began to complete her read aloud lesson plan on a book of her choice Deborah received the 20 storybooks for the intervention along with the 20 targeted words, student friendly explanations, and lesson planning forms. Deborah was able to complete a lesson plan for a storybook reading session with 100% acc uracy detailing an objective for the lesson, introducing vocabulary, building background, and planning for open and closed questions to be used before, during, and after reading the story. Deborah was also able to verbally describe how she would respond t and comments with 100% accuracy. Deborah expressed concern that she had never been informed about the importance of introducing targeted vocabulary before reading a story. She was a little bit worried that this chan ge in her storybook reading routine would be challenging for her Deborah began the intervention phase of the study five days after completing the PD activities. Intervent ion data were collected over 14 read aloud sessions for Deborah. Her frequency of teacher talk ranged from 77 to 164 per session during this phase of the study The mean frequency of teacher talk for Deborah was 118.92. Her mean frequency increased 73.0 7% from baseline to intervention. After the completion of 14 read
120 frequency of teacher talk were showing a stable increase. Two weeks after concluding the intervention, Deborah began the maintenance phase of the study. During the maintenance phase, 146, and her mean frequency was 123.66. This was an increase of 3.9% from intervention to maintenance. variable during each phase of the study is presented in Table 4 5 Table 4 5 Mean frequencies and range for each dependent variable for Deborah Baseline Intervention Maintenance Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Teacher Talk 68.7 56 93 118.9 77 164 1 23.7 109 146 Closed 18.7 9 33 32.9 19 52 30.7 28 34 Open 4 0 8 8.9 0 17 6.8 3 10 Extend 4.7 3 9 5.7 2 11 11.3 9 14 Vocabulary 4.3 0 8 12.9 6 22 12.3 7 20 Affirm 21.4 16 31 33.5 26 53 45.7 39 52 Praise .1 0 1 .1 0 1 0 0 Clarify 16.1 10 27 17.9 9 30 1 7 6 29 Christine During the baseline phase eight read aloud sessions were observed and videotaped over the course of six weeks for Christine. Teacher talk for Christine ranged from 27 to 77 occurrences, with a mean frequency of 56.12 Interactions b etween Christine and her students consisted of mostly closed questions and affirmations. When data were showing a stable increase for both Deborah and Audrey baseline data were showing a stable trend Christine participated in the PD sess ion. The PD session classroom as she requested, after the students were dismissed for the day. The PD session lasted 2 hours and 45 minutes PD session was much longer than the others because she had numerous q uestions about the
121 intervention and frequent conversation ensued as she reflected on her current instructional practice s Christine was excited about receiving the 20 storybooks and at the opportunity to support her targeted stud pment through her read alouds. However, she expressed concern about managing the rest of her students while she was conducting the read aloud with her small group. This issue was resolved by scheduling the teacher assistant she shared with the other kind ergarten teachers to come into her classroom at the time the read aloud was planned. Due to her concern about creating a lesson plan, Christine asked for assistance from the researcher in planning for the first read aloud session in the intervention phase She successfully complete d the lesson plan by the end of the session with 100% accuracy. She also achieved 100% accuracy in verbally explaining how she would scaffold student responses. Two days following completion of the PD activities, Christine beg an the intervention phase. Christine conducted only two storybook reading sessions before Winter Break. During the first week back to school in January, Christine conducted two more storybook reading sessions. On the same day as her fourth read aloud ses sion in the intervention phase, a tragic family emergency occurred Because it was unknown whether or not Christin e would return to work, she was released from the study the following week during intervention ranged from 102 to 158 per session. Her mean frequency of teacher talk was 124.75. This wa s a positive change of 122.29% in the frequency of teacher talk from baseline to intervention. After the researcher discovered in February that Christine had returned t o work, she was invited to re join the study for the maintenance phase This happened approximately seven weeks after Christine dropped out of the study during intervention. Frequency of teacher talk for Christine ranged from 158 to 184 for the maintenan ce phase. Her mean frequency of teacher talk
122 was 173.0. This is an additional increase of 39.27% from the intervention to the maintenance phase. T he researcher discovered that surprisingly, Christine had continued with the storybook reading interventio n after she returned to work, which explains why the dependent variables continued to increase. Christine explained that when she returned to the classroom, even though she was no longer in the study, she knew the interactive strategies she used during st orybook Therefore, she continued to read the books that were given to her, introduce and support vocabulary, and implement the storybook reading framework and strategies according to what she had learned during the PD session and her four coaching sessions. mean frequency and range for each dependent variable during each phase of the study is presented in Table 4 6. Table 4 6. Mean frequencies and range for each dependent variable for Christine Baseline Intervention Maintenance Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Teacher Talk 56.1 27 77 124.8 102 158 173 158 184 Closed 10.9 6 18 27.3 23 34 45 37 51 Open 2.3 1 7 6.3 5 8 10.7 9 12 Extend 1.9 0 3 3 1 5 5.7 4 9 Vocabulary 2 0 5 16 12 23 19.3 13 26 Affirm 25.3 12 36 56.3 35 70 69.7 68 73 Praise 1.4 0 5 4 2 6 6 3 8 Clarify 12.9 8 21 11.8 8 18 16.7 14 20 *This represents an abbreviated intervention phase. Bethany During each of her nine base line sessions, Bethany was observed by the researcher and videotaped while reading aloud to her five at risk students. B ethany spent the longest time in b aseline which occurred over the c ourse of 11 weeks (this included winter break). Frequency of teach er talk ranged from 51 to 8 2 occurrences per session, with a mean frequency of 58.0. Interactions between Bethany and her students consisted mostly of closed questions and
123 affirmations. data showed an increasing trend (other than Christine who had been released from the study), Bethany participated in the PD session. The 2 hour PD session took place classroom at her request, after the students were dismissed for the day. Bethany expressed enthusiasm about the 20 books she received for the intervention and had many questions about the interactive strategies. She was surprised that she needed to write a lesson plan for her read aloud s but she gladly completed the plan wit h lesson plan for her first read aloud in the intervention phase to make sure she was adequately prepared. Bethany completed the lesson plan including all the components with 100% accuracy and was also able to verbally explain how she would respond to and scaffold certain student questions and comments with 100% accuracy. Bethany started the storybook reading intervention three days after the PD session. Intervention data were collected over the course of five weeks and eleven sessions for Bethany. Her frequency of teacher talk during read alouds ranged from 133 to 265 per session. Mean frequency of teacher talk mean frequency increased by 228.98% from baseline to intervention. When intervention phase of the study. Two weeks after the conclusion of the intervention phase, Bethany started the maintenance phase of the study During the maintenance phase Bethany conducted the three read alouds with books of her choice. Her frequency of talk ranged from 194 to 203, with a mean frequency of 198.33. Her frequency of teacher talk increased from intervention to maintenance another 3.94%. A and range for each dependent variable during each phase of the study is presented in Table 4 7
124 Table 4 7. Mean frequencies and range for each dependent variable for Bethany Baseline Intervention Maintenance Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Teacher Ta lk 58 51 82 190.8 133 265 198.3 194 203 Closed 20.8 14 28 56.1 38 77 59.7 53 67 Open 2.4 0 4 12.8 5 25 15 9 21 Extend 1.2 0 3 7.3 4 11 10 6 16 Vocabulary .7 0 2 13.1 6 23 13.7 10 17 Affirm 21.4 19 24 82.5 63 115 80.7 79 84 Praise .4 0 2 5.2 2 9 2.3 2 3 Clarify 10.9 6 23 12.5 8 20 17 15 19 Summary In the following section an overview is provided of teacher gains in frequency of teacher talk and the frequency of the more desirable types of talk (e.g., open questions, vocabulary support, and extendi ng student responses) for each phase of the study. These data are summarized by phase. Baseline phase. During the baseline phase, Deborah had the highest mean frequency of teacher talk with 69 occurrences. She also had the highest mean occurrences per s ession for open questions (4) extending responses (4.7) and vocabulary support (4.3) In contrast, of teacher talk was the lowest overall with a mean of 54 however her instances of closed questions per session (24.8) were the hi ghest of the four teachers Christine had the lowest mean occurrence of open questions (2.3) during baseline. Bethany, however, had the lowest mean occurrences of extending questions (1.2) and supporting vocabulary knowledge (.7) During the baseline ph ase, the overall mean frequency of teacher talk was 59 occurrences per session Intervention phase During the intervention phase, the mean frequency of teacher talk increased to a level as high as 265 occurrences per read aloud session. This is an inc rease in the
125 mean frequency of teacher talk from basel ine to intervention of 141.89%. During intervention, Bethany improved from having one of the lowest means for open questions and the lowest mean of extending student responses to having the highest mea n occurrence s per session of open questions (12.8) and a mean of 7.3 occurrences of extending student responses, second only to Audrey who had a mean of 7.9 occurrences of extending responses Christine had the highest occurrences of vocabulary support wi th a mean of 16 per session. Maintenance phase. Overall, the frequency of teacher talk continued to increase during the maintenance phase to a mean level of 163.66, with an overall increase from intervention to maintenance of 16.1 % During maintenance, Bethany continued to increase her open questions during maintenance with a mean occurrence per session of 19.3. Audrey had the highest mean occurrence of extendin g responses during maintenance with a mean of 12.3. The fact that Christine increased the frequency of every dependent variable from intervention to maintenance was surprising since she dropped out of the study after only four intervention sessions. In a ddition, seven weeks had passed since she h ad been observed or videotap ed reading aloud The following section provides the graphic displays of the results. Figure 4 3 represents the frequency of total teacher talk during the read aloud sessions. Figure 4 4 illustrates all of the dependent variables that c alculated together equal total teacher talk Although increases in closed questions, affirmations, and clarifications are fairly easy to identify on this graph the number of open questions vocabulary support and extending responses represent some of the more important interactions for increasing the effectiveness of the read aloud and the incr ease is more difficult to detect For this reason, each dependent variable is illustrated individually in F i gures 4 5 through 4 11
126 Figure 4 3. Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for frequency of total teacher talk (all dependent variables combined) for all four teachers during each read aloud session
127 Figure 4 4. Baseline, intervention, and mai ntenance phases for each dependent variable
128 Figure 4 5. Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for closed questions
129 Fi gure 4 6. Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for open questions
130 Figure 4 7. Baseline, intervention, and main tenance phases for extended responses
131 Figure 4 8. Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for vocabulary support
132 Figure 4 9 Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for affirmations
133 Figure 4 10 Baseline, intervention, and maintenance p hases for praise
134 Figure 4 11. Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for clarifications
135 Student Data The main focus of this study was to increase the quality and quantity of teacher student interactions during storybook reading The emphasis on certain types of teacher talk was to support teachers in being more purposeful about prompting and encouraging students to engage in rich conversations during storybook reading. In this section, outcomes are discussed for the frequency of student talk. S topic verbal responses during each read aloud session. Student data were recorded along with teacher data for the baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases of the study. Mean rates of f requency of student talk and student talk per minute for each phase of the study are displayed in Table 4 8. Table 4 8. Student means and range for rate and frequency of talk Baseline Rate/min 4.4 3.5 3.8 4.6 Range 2.6 6.8 2.3 6.6 1.7 7.0 3.4 7.8 Frequency 44.66 40.44 44.50 57.85 Range 23 81 29 56 17 63 41 0 Intervention Rate/min 4.9 6.0 4.4 6.1 Range 3.6 6.1 4.8 7.0 3.1 5.9 4.7 8.0 Frequency 87.86 152.72 87.0 94.78 Range 54 129 93 197 59 101 64 141 Maintenance Rate/min 5.8 7.2 4.8 7.1 Range 5.4 6.7 6.6 8.2 4.2 5.7 6.6 7.5 Frequency 114.33 167.33 129 124.33 Range 108 124 140 188 112 148 114 144 Note: Rate refers to number of observations of the dependent variables per minute. Frequency refer s to the total number of observations of the dependent variable per read aloud session. During baseline, s a mean frequency of 57.85 For the other three teachers, total frequency of student talk a veraged 40 4 5 occurrences per session. Student talk pe r minute during the baseline phase ranged from 3.5 to 4.6 with a mean rate per minute of 4.0.
136 Student talk increased significantly during the intervention phase with a mean frequency of 107.80 per se ssion. Th is reflects an increase of 133.42% from baseline to intervention. During the maintenance phase, student talk continued to increase with a mean level of 133.74 occurrences per session. This indicates an overall increase of student talk from inte rvention to maintenance of 24%. Figures 4 12 illustrates the frequency of student talk per sessions and Figure 4 13 the r ate of student talk per minute. Figure 4 12. Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for frequency of student talk
137 Figure 4 13. Baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases for rate of student talk per minute
138 S tatistical Analysis of the Data The data were analyzed to determine if there were differences between the treatment and control groups of students on any of the pretest and posttest measures. This section includes a description of the analyses and the results. To determine if any preexisting differences existed between the experimental and control groups, a chi square (X 2 ) test was used to compare the two groups by race and gender. The X 2 revealed no differences between groups by race (results) or gender (results). Table 4 9 provides a summary of the distribution of subjects by race and gender. Table 4 9. Distribution of subjects by race and g ender Group Male F emale Black White Hispanic Asian Multiracial Treatment 14 6 5 12 2 1 0 Control 13 3 6 7 2 0 1 The means of pretest scores for the treatment and control groups were calculated using independent samples t tests. Next, the pretest scores of the treatment and control groups were compared to determine if any differences between the two groups existed. Although the scores of the treatment group were slightly lower than the control group on all pretests except the FAIR Expressive V ocabulary assessment n o si est means were found. Table 4 10 includes the means and standard deviations for the two groups and the t test results from the analysis. Since the two groups showed no significant differences on the prete st, the use of the pretest measures as covariates was appropriate to reduce the size of the error.
139 Table 4 10. Means and standard deviations of pretests by g roup Dependent Measure Treatment Group (n = 20) Control Group (n = 16) Mean (Std. Dev.) Mean (Std. Dev.) FAIR Expressive Vocabulary 34.15 (15.86) 33.38 (13.73) FAIR Listening Comprehension 36.00 (23.03) 38.75 (33.04) PPVT 4 80.00 (12.13) 84.00 (14.98) SOLID Expressive Vocabulary 16.45 (9.10) 17.69 (11.58) SOLID Listening Comprehension 15.9 0 (4.587) 17.38 (15.90) An assumption of homogeneity of the slope was tested. A violation of this assumption was found for each of the measures, which negated the use of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Therefore, an independent samples t test was c onducted for each of the dependent measures: FAIR Expressive Vocabulary, FAIR Listening Comprehension, SOLID Expressive Vocabulary, and SOLID Listening C omprehension. The independent variable for each of these t tests was group (control vs. treatment). The covariate was the corresponding pretest. The results of the t tests for each of the dependent variables are provid ed in Table 4 11 Table 4 11. Independent samples t test r esults of Variances t test for Equality o Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2 tailed) FAIR Expressive Vocabulary 1.230 .27 6 .600 30 .553 FAIR Listening Comprehension .044 .83 6 282 30 .780 SOLID Expressive Vocabulary 6.792 .01 4 4.321 30 .00 0 SOLID Listening Comprehension 1.004 .32 4 .782 30 .44 0
140 The indepen dent samples t tests showed no significant effects by group for any of the dependent variables except the researcher created expressive vocabulary measure. Although the treatment group scored lower at pretest than the control group for the researcher creat ed measures of expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension, they made greater gains than the control group. Although the gains for listening comprehension were not considered significant by the t tests, the trend was toward greater gains. A graphi c illustration o f these gains is provided in Figures 4 14 and 4 15 Each graph shows pretest and posttest performance means on one dependent measure. The graphs illustrate the difference in gains between the treatment and control groups for each measure. Figure 4 14 Pretest to posttest gains in expressive vocabulary for both groups
141 Figure 4 15 Pretest to posttest gains in listening comprehension for both groups. Although the treatment group scored significantly higher than the control on the targ eted vocabulary, the control group scored higher on the FAIR assessments. Tables 4 12 and 4 13 illustrate a summary of the mean posttest scores for the treatment and control groups by teacher. Table 4 ores by teacher Teacher FAIR Vocabulary Percentile FAIR LC SOLID Vocabulary SOLID LC Audrey 57.3 60 % 45.5 % 25 Bethany 39.6 32 % 49.4 % 22.2 Christine 46.8 56 % 31.6 % 25.8 Deborah 3 9 80 % 49.8 % 25.4 Table 4 scores by teacher Teacher FAIR Vocabulary Percentile FAIR LC SOLID Vocabulary SOLID LC Control A 55 90 % 17 % 25.5 Control B 57 40 % 3 5% 26 Control C 68.3 66.7 % 25.7 % 24.3 Control D 41 66.7 % 18.4 % 20.4
142 Social Validity Measures In addition to the investi gative phases of data collection and analysis of data from pretest and posttest measures, the social validity of the intervention was measured through questionnaires and interviews of the teachers. This section includes a summary of the social validity da ta and the teacher interviews Teacher Questionnaires The intervention used in this study was designed for use as part of regular classroom instruction, therefore the teachers who participated in this study were asked to provide their perceptions of the in tervention strategies and their satisfaction with the intervention. Each teacher was asked to complete a questionnaire with questions focused on whether or not they (a) thought the intervention was helpful, (b) noticed a difference in the responses of th e students, and (c) felt their teaching effectiveness increased. Teachers responded to each question using a 5 s ponses is provided in Table 4 14 Table 4 14 Responses to social validity q uestionnaire Que stion 1 strongly disagree 2 3 4 5 strongly agree The PD prepared me to implement the intervention x xxx The PD took too much time xxxx x xxx I will continue to use SBR intervention strategies xxxx Other teachers might be interested in learning the SBR intervention strategies x xxx I am a more effective teacher after participating in the study xxxx Feedback and coaching were helpful components of the PD xxxx Three of the four t eachers noticed oral language improvements in their students who participated in the intervention. All four teachers stated that they would continue to use the storybook reading intervention strategies in their classrooms, and all teachers thought they we re
143 more effective teachers after participating in the study. In addition, all four teachers reported that the feedback and coaching components of the professional development were very helpful to them. Three of the four teachers agreed that other teacher s at their school would be interested in the intervention. Overall, the teachers responded very favorably to implementation of the intervention in their classrooms. Teacher Interviews Because the teachers seemed to have so much to say about the interventi on on the questionnaires the researcher requested and received an amendment to the IRB (see Appendix A) to include individual teacher interviews. Three to four weeks after the maintenance phase of the study, all four teachers were interviewed individuall y regarding the generalizability and feasibility of the storybook reading interventions and their opinions about the effectiveness of the intervention. See Appendix P for the detailed results of the teacher interviews. The first question in the interview focused on whether the teachers had noticed any changes in their reading instruction since taking part in the study. They were asked to provide examples of these changes. All of the teachers explained that their instruction had changed as a result of the ir I take more time with my storybooks. I as k more questions along the way. nature of how she prepares for the read aloud : ote specific strategies she hat I use a lot of the strategies, especially like the way she approa
144 before I present it to the class, so that it begins to just ignite some questions I want to ask, some All teachers agreed that they would definitely continue usin g the interactive strategies now that the study was complete. However, w hen asked if they would use the strategies with read alouds in small group, they had mixed responses. Audrey thought she might meet with her small group of at risk students on c e a we what else I have going on that week. It has definitely left an impact. Deborah was no t sure she could find tim e to conduct read alouds with her small group, although she stated that she wanted to make some changes for next year. Similar to Audrey, the other two teachers t hought they would conduct small group read alouds at least once per week. When asked about ch the teachers noticed several changes. Audrey discussed students who had low vocabulary scores I think the students continue to be more verbal in cla ss, as done before. I do feel like this project probably benefitted Tanya more than the others. Even hot up and both Lenny and Jason are completely comfortable talking in (whole) definitely asking questions more, and if they d hich is very different from the beginning of They all had increases. Jared had more opportunities to share and to talk in a non threatening environment and to be able to
145 make th ose connections in his own way. Even when he reads aloud by himself now, his level of confidence is amazing! And now Karen will sit on the rug and talk about bo oks with other morning and they read together. They help each other rea d and they talk about the story. reading togethe r and talking about the stories. to want to ask themselves more question s, and are more confident. T participate and ask those questions now class wide assessments in the areas of listening comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. The teachers commented ab out how helpful the professional development activi ties and coaching were to facilitate change in their instruction Audrey discuss ed the importance of writing lesson plans for each read aloud. Deborah commented specifically on the coaching component of this intervention, you gave me sugges have increased my interactions and gotten to that level. Christine liked the fact that she got specific feedback. Whereas Bethany commented on the scaffolded support she received alked me through the first lesson and then Teachers discussed the positive and negative aspects of the intervention and all a greed that the only negative was the extra time it took to write t he lesson plans for each lesson. On the
146 other hand, they all also agreed that writing the lesson plans was an integral part of learning to lesson plan for the book was a job, another task, but like I said, it was so necessary. the time it takes to prepare a lesson, because though Although, I can definitely prepare a lesson much more quickly than I did before Bethany had similar feelin But the positive was that by the end, I could read a story one time and already tell you all the questions I wanted to ask, because I had trained myself at that point of w hat I wanted to pull All four teachers recommended that the other kindergarten teachers in their school be part of a similar professional development experience and be able to receive feedback and coaching on supporting oral language development thro I think it needs to be shared next year with all of our kindergarten teacher s at the beginning of the year. I loud s and m I just feel empowered to share Summary The purpose of this study was to determine if following professional develop ment with coaching, teachers would effectively implement specific strategies during story book reading that support oral language development of at risk kindergarten students. In addition, the researcher investigated the effects of these oral language supp orts on the expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension skills of the participating students, and evaluated the generalization of
147 these strategies to the classroom. The data reveal that the participating teachers substantially increased their implem entation of the strategies during storybook reading. The data also show that when the teachers increased their use of the strategies, there was growth in the expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension skills of the participating students. Further, two weeks after the completion of the intervention phase of the study, all four teachers continued to use interactive storybook reading strategies at a higher rate than in either baseline or the intervention phases of the research. Christine, who dropped out of the study for seven weeks, continued to use the strategies and increased her mean average of each dependent variable from intervention to maintenance. The results of the social validation measure were also favorable. All the teachers agreed that their instruction was more effective after participating in the professional development and receiv ing feedback and coaching. T hey also commented that they saw improvements in the oral language skills of their students Most importantly they said they would continue to use the interactive storybook reading practices in their classrooms during re ading and in the content areas.
148 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION A single subject, multiple baseline across groups design was implemente d to determine the effects of profes sional development with A structured framework for planning and delivering interactive storybook reading was used to support teachers in asking strategic open and closed questions, scaffolding vocabulary development, and responding to students in way s that encourage rich int eractions and support the oral language development of at risk students. Children who begin school lacking early literacy and oral language skills often fall behind. Oral language ski lls, however, can be supported and enhanced through rich conversations in the classroom. Storybook reading, if done effectively, provides a rich context in which teachers can support their students growth in expressive vocabulary and listening comprehens ion skills (Dickinson, 2001; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Karweit, 1989; Whitehurst, Arnold, & Lonigan, 1990; Whitehurst et al., 1988). The framework used in this study was designed to guide teachers in becoming more intentional about asking strategic questio ns and responding to students in such a way that teacher talk becomes a scaffold and student talk is more prevalent In this chapter, a discussion of the findings of this study and their implications is presented. The chapter includes a discussion of both (a) the effects of professional development (PD) with coaching on the interactive strategies used by teachers during storybook reading and (b) the effects of the increased interactions on the expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension skills of the ir students First, the questions investigated by the study and the findings are summarized. Second, the teacher responses to the social validity questionnaire and interviews are presented. Third, limitation s of the study are addressed. F inally, implic ations for teacher practice and future research are discussed.
149 Overview of the Study This study was designed to examine kindergarten teachers use of questioning and interaction techniques during storybook reading in response to a professional development intervention In addition, the researc her examined the effects of increased interactions on the expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension skills of k indergarten students who are at risk for reading difficulties. The main question in this study wa s the following: Can storybook reading practices? More specifically, the follow ing questions were investigated: 1. What are the effects of professional development with c use of closed and open questions with at risk students during storybook reading? 2. What are the effects of professional development with use of affirmative responses and praise with at ris k students during storybook reading? 3. What are the effects of professional development with use of extending responses with at risk students during storybook reading? 4. What are the effects of professional development with c vocabulary instruction with at risk students during storybook reading? 5. If increases in teacher student interactions occur during storybook reading, w hat effect do those oral language skills (i.e., listening comprehension and expressive vocabulary)? Effects of the Professional Development Intervention on Storybook Reading Practices The intervention phase of this study consisted of two parts: the PD session and the storybo ok reading intervention. After completing the baseline phase, each teacher participated in a PD session that lasted approximately 90 minute s. This session provided an overview of (a) the foundations of early literacy and oral language development, (b) bo ok selection, (c) vocabulary instruction, (d) setting a purpose for reading, and (e) creating strategic questions and prompts to support student interactions. Following the overview, the researcher model ed the interactive strategies by demonstrating a rea d aloud session T hen, teacher s had an opportunity to practice
150 the strategies, ask questions, an d preview a sample lesson plan. Finally, they cho se a book and created their own lesson plan for a read aloud using the framework presented in the PD session. After completing the PD activities the teachers implemented the storybook reading intervention in their classrooms using the framework for supporting interactions with the ir participating at risk students. The intervention phase was co nducted to deter mine whether the PD with coaching would increase the quality and quantity of teacher st udent interactions and, if so, whether these more effective storybook reading sessions would make an impact on the targeted student s comprehension skills. Expressive vocabulary skills were measured by asking students to define the targeted words they had discussed during the read alou ds and to give an example of each word. Listening comprehension was measured by retelling a story. A fter each read aloud session, the researcher provided coaching by giving specific feedback to the teachers. This feedback focused on the number of times they used each type of teacher talk Dependent variables included (a) asking closed questions, (b) as king open questions, (c) supporting vocabulary development, (d) extending student responses, (e) repeating and/or affirming student responses, (f) praising student responses, and (g) clarifying student responses The total of all the dependent variables f or each read aloud session was calculated as the total teacher talk for that session. Overview of Change s by Teacher All four teachers demonstrated noteworthy changes in their storybook reading practices They each increased the frequency of teacher talk across the most desirable dependent variables (e.g., open questions, vocabulary support, and extending student responses) and also increased the duration of the storybook reading sessions. These increase s were likely due to the coaching with specific feed back that was provided after each read aloud session. In most cases, teachers improved the quality of the read aloud after each implementation. That is, the teachers began
151 using more of the read aloud strategies that have been shown to promote oral langu age growth A high quality storybook reading session is characterized by (a) direct explanations of targeted vocabulary and involving students in analytical discussions about the story (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Wh itehurst et al., 1994; Whitehurst, et al., 1999); (b) questions that support story analysis and predictions during the reading (Karweit &Wasik, 1996); and (c) discussions about the text (Coyne et al., 2009; Santoro et al., 2008). Components of the PD t ha t possibly contributed to these change s include (a) con tent focus (i.e., oral language development), (b) active learning (i.e., discussion, demonstration, and practice) (c) coherence (i.e., alignment of content with prior teacher knowledge), (d) duration (i.e., coaching over the course of the intervention) and (e) collective participation (discussion with other teachers) These essential features of PD, according to Desimone (2009) foster teacher learning, promote change in beliefs and classroom practic e, and lead ultimately to increased student learning. It is also important to note that teachers apparently understood the value of the intervention because they dedicated additional instructional time to the small group read alouds during both the inter vention and maintenance phases of the study. The decision to increase the length of the read aloud sessions was entirely up to the teachers, and they all increased the lesson duration despite initial reservations that several teachers expressed about the amount of time the intervention would take. I n the following section change in teacher practice will be discussed for each participating teacher. Audrey Although she was a veteran teacher and a finalist for the district teacher of the year award, Aud rey admitted that she never thought of using storybook reading to enhance the oral language skills of her students. After completing the PD session, Audrey realized that she
152 had overlooked the importance of asking open questions, providing wait time, and supporting vocabulary development during her read alouds. Due to this realization, her beliefs about wha t constitutes an effective read aloud changed. As a result, Audrey was determined to add these more effective strategies to her current read aloud pra ctice. With specific feedback after each read aloud session, she refin ed her instruction during storybook reading. She became skilled at introducing voc abulary before the reading and often brought in objects that represented the targeted vocabulary or de monstrated the meaning of word s In addition, she asked strategic open questions that helped students make personal connections to the story and expanded their thinking. Further, Audrey became masterful at reminding other students to be patient in order to allow wait time for one particularly reluctant student to respond. On several instances, when this little girl was given extra time, she came up with surprisingly insightful answers to inference questions. Although data were collected on only 15 read aloud sessions during intervention, Audrey voluntarily read all 20 books she had been given for the intervention phase. She commented that she felt it was important to continue with the intervention, even after the intervention phase concluded, because sh e understood the benefits of implementing the interactive strategies during read alouds and supporting the targeted vocabulary. Apparently a beliefs about the purpose and value of storybook reading led to a change in her instructional p ractice. Bethany d questions and affirmation s. Additionally, t eacher talk dominated the interactions between her and her students. Her storybook reading sessions averaged about 12 minutes during baseline. S he admitted that she often did not take the time to read aloud and when she did, she rarely preview ed the book first.
153 During the PD session, Bethany asked for assistance in completing the lesson plan for her first read aloud session. She expressed concern that she had not completed such a comprehensive lesson plan since her undergraduate days. Over the course of the storybook reading interven tion, Bethany not only used the interactive strategies with her targeted students, but she als o reported implementing them during math and whole group read alouds. Visible changes she reported in her students included (a) increased engagement, (b) imp roved vocabulary knowledge, and (c) motivation to verbally contribut e to discussions by expressing opinions and asking questions. The changes she observed in her students prompted her to continue supporting vocabulary, extending responses, and ask more open questions during her read alouds. By the en d of the intervention phase, Bethany had the highes t mean frequency of open questions per session. In addition, her students made the second highest gains from pretest to posttes t on the SOLID expressive vocabulary measure Christine Alternatively certified to teach grades K 6, Christine expressed conce rn during the PD session that she did not have adequate knowledge about instructional strategies that support risk students, but she was never sure if the strategies she implemented w ould provide the support they needed to make gains in vocabulary and listening comprehension. Christine asked many questions during the PD session and was enthusiastic about learning to implement effective strategies. She was also excited about receiving feedback on her instruction to help her become more successful in supporting the needs of her students. During intervention, Christine had the highest mean frequency of vocabulary support of the four teachers. Although Christine only received four coach ing sessions with feedback during the intervention phase, she noticed visible differences in her students and strongly believed that the interactive strategies she was
154 implementing during her read alouds improved in her instruction. Therefore, s he continu ed implementing the framework for effective storybook reading even after she was released from the study. When she re joined the study for the maintenance phase, she sustained the highest mean of the four teachers for supporting vocabulary. Although her students did not make the highest gains in expressive vocabulary of the four classes, Christine did report noteworthy differences in their verbal abilities and self confidence, characterized by their willingness to contribute to class discussions and ask q uestions. Deborah Only in her eighth year of teaching, Deborah had a natural talent for reading aloud with her students. She was patient about allowing her students time to interact and her questioning prompts contained numerous open questions. During baseline, Deborah had the highest mean frequency of asking open questions and extending student responses per session. However, Deborah was not intentional about planning her read alouds and was not aware of the importance of the strategies she was using. During intervention, she became more purposeful about her support of student interactions and implement ed even more effective storybook reading sessions. Deborah made gains in each of the dependent variables from baseline to intervention with the except ion of praising students. Deborah maintained a steadfast belief from her undergraduate education that students should not receive praise. In fact, the range of praise during baseline and intervention was 0 1. During maintenance, her instances of praise were 0. Despite this unfortunate obstacle, aloud sessions improved in many other ways. instructional routine to include (a) introducing targeted vocabular y before reading the story, (b) supporting vocabulary during and after reading, (c) prompting students to repeat the targeted vocabulary, (d) allowing more time for students to talk, and (e) prompting students to make
155 connections to text. Her students mad e the highest gains from pre to posttest on the SOLID expressive vocabulary measure and one of her at risk students scored the highest in her class on the FAIR Expressive Vocabulary subtest. Overview of Changes by Dependent Variable In the following sectio n, each dependent variable is discussed, detailing changes in the frequency for each phase of the study and changes in implementation of the dependent variable s In addition, an explanation of how the changes recorded can be interpreted as an overall impr ovement in read aloud quality is presented. Closed questions. Teachers noticeably increased their use of closed questions from baseline to the maintenance phase of the study, bu t what is especially important is the change in the types of closed questions. For example, during baseline Bethany read a line in the story that said the fish was scary. She immediately asked the student s s replied Y es. Toward the middle of the intervention phase Bethany started asking diff erent types of closed question during her read aloud s (e.g., hen ). Although t his is a closed question because the answer is in the story, this prompt stimulated different and more complex answe rs from the students because Peter was surprised about a few things. During the intervention and ma intenance phases, teachers asked more intentional closed questions that required deeper thinking from the students and were more related to vocabulary and d etails about the story. Such text dependent questions are recommended by the developers of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) as a way to promote close reading (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). Although their recommendations relate to text that students re ad themselves, learning to answer text dependent questions during read alouds may prepare students for independent close reading skills. Learning to plan more
156 effectively for interactive storybook reading session s leads teachers to create closed ques tions that support encourage rich interactions (Paul & Elder, 2008 ) Open questions The use of open questions showed a marked increase from baseline to maintenance, and like the closed questions, they were much more thoughtfully p lanned A good example of this is that Audrey usually asked only 1 or 2 open questions for each read aloud during baseline One of those open questions during baseline was was unanimous and required onl y ad. students to connect with the characters in the story and make in outsmarting the older boys This involved much more thinking and problem solving As a result, this prompt produced rich conversation as students talked about their ideas. It was also fairly common during baseline for teachers to ignore questions by students. One student asked a great open question about a character in a Unfortunately the teacher did no t acknowledge it However, as teachers became more comfortable with supporting interactions d uring the intervention and maintenance phase s of the study they were much more likely to take advantage of any opportunity that encouraged higher level thinking, questions, a nd responses from their students. Overall 2.5 per session during baseline to a mean frequency of 9.5 per session during intervention, and a mean of 11.2 occurrences per session during the maintenan ce phase of the study. Asking open questions encourages children to think for themselves, share their ideas, and engage in conversations with other students and their teacher (Denton, 2007). In addition, when students learn to apply strategies that fo ste r
157 understanding, such as inferencing, their overall comprehension tends to improve (Block, Gambrell, & Pressley, 2002). Vocabulary support. Vocabulary support also increased from baseline to the maintenance phase. When teachers became more aware of tar geting specific vocabulary words in a story, introducing those words using a student friendly explanation, and reinforcing the words with examples from the story and in other contexts, they increased their vocabulary support from a mean frequency of 2 occu rrences during baseline to a mean of 16.5 occurrences per session during the intervention and maintenance phases. The teachers reported that they continued to reinforce the targeted vocabulary when other stories were read and when opportunities arose duri ng the school day. This increase d focus on vocabulary seemed to lead to an increase in word consciousness that became apparent when the students began asking what unknown words meant during read aloud sessions. Explanations of targeted words are critical to been found to assist students in acquiring new language (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne, times children hear the targeted words seems to be associated with higher rates of vocabulary acquisition (Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005; Robbins & Ehri, 1994). Extending responses frequen cy of 2.5 occurrences per session in baseline, to a mean of 5.5 occurrences during each read aloud in the intervention phase, and a mean frequency of 9.75 occurrences per session in the maintenance phase. The teachers extended responses unintentionally du ring baseline, and when they discovered the benefits of intentionally modeling complete sentences and adding to
158 increase and improve the language use of their st udents by extending and modeling the use of sophisticated language (Mohr & Mohr, 2007). Further, when teachers give students feedback by peers, such as with stu dents trained in reciprocal teaching. Use of these types of strategies lead students to reflect on their thinking processes, become more actively engaged in conversations, and deepen their understanding of the text (Palinscar & Brown, 1984). Repeating and affirming student responses Affir mations of student responses increase d during the intervention and maintenance phase s of the study, but most importantly, teachers became more conscious and intentional about responses. Most of them during baseline, were not aware that they were modeling and gain confidence and encourages them to participate more in the conversation. In addi tion by repeating a student s correct answer s the teacher is modeling back to the student that their language usage is not only correct, but understood (Mohr & Mohr, 2007). Such feedback likely contributed to the increased interactions of the at risk st udents that teachers reported noticing in other instructional settings. It is quite possible that students were more likely to participate in class discussions and to volunteer to answer questions because they had gained confidence as a result of teachers Praising student re s ponses The incidences of praise increased for 3 of the 4 teachers during the intervention and maintenance phases of the study. When the teacher whose praising did not increase was en replied that she was told in her pre service courses not to praise students because it would make the others feel badly. The researcher suggested that she try specific and sincere praise to e ncourage
159 students but her occurrences of praise did not increase The other teachers however, became more conscious of praising students and occurrences increased from an average of 2 to 3 instances of praise per read aloud session during baseline to a n average of 5 or 6 per se ssion in the intervention phase. D uring maintenance a mean frequency of 3 instances of praise occurred per session. efforts when it is delivered in response to a certain behavior, is spontaneous and sincere, and likely in the future. Clarifications was not addressed by one of the research questions, but was added as a dependent variable after the study began. When the researcher began recording the questions and responses of the teachers during the baseline phase it became apparent that the teacher s often m ade comments or clarified student unders tanding in ways that were not reflected in any of the dependent variables. B ecause comments were an important part of supp orting student understanding, this variable was added to the Data Collec tion Form. Although clarification was n ot specifically addressed in each PD session, clarifications increased overall from baseline to maintenance as other teacher talk increased This increase was probably a result of the teacher s becoming more conscio us of the need to support and clarify student understanding of the story Students often have limited background knowledge and their responses may reflect incorrect or only partially correct understanding. By clarifying these student responses, teacher s illuminate their knowledge, and consequently lead students to new learning ( Mohr & Mohr, 2007).
160 Quality of read alouds As mentioned previously, it is not just reading aloud, but the way in which an adult interacts with chil dren while reading aloud that is important (Teale, 2003) When children are provided with the opportunity to participate actively in reading experiences, they show greater increases in oral language skills than when books are read aloud without purposeful interactions (Dickinson, 2001; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Karweit, 1989; Whitehurst, Arnold, & Lonigan, 1990; Whitehurst et al., 1988). In their meta analysis of the l iteracy and language benefits of storybook reading, Mol, Bus, and de Jong (2009) reported that both the quality and frequency of read alouds are important factors that encourage language gains. The main components of high quality read alouds include (a) direct explanations of targeted vocabulary and involving students in analytical discussion s about the story (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Whit ehurst et al., 1994; Whitehurst et al., 1999); (b) questions that support story analysis and predictions during the reading (Karweit & Wasik, 1996); and (c ) facilitat the text (Coyne et al., 2009; Santoro et al., 2008). By using the structured framework for planning and delivering interactive read alouds, teachers in this study became more purposeful a nd strategic about the questions they asked and provided more scaffolds to promote student conversation. Because the teachers delivered more intentional instruction, they increased the frequency of the dependent variables that contribute to high quality r ead alouds. Further, as they became more conscious of scaffolding vocabu lary development and responding to students in ways that encouraged increased interactions, their gained confidence in their thinking and speaking abilities and were more wi lling to interact during the read aloud sessions.
161 Professional Development with Coaching Intervention The professional development (PD) activities in this study were created to facilitate instruction that supports oral lang uage skills in young children. T herefore the main goals were to (a) foundations of the early literacy development of young children, (b) oral language development, and (c) scaffolding child Prior to participating in this intervention, the teachers reported that they enjoyed reading aloud to their students, but never thought about their goals and objectives for storybook reading Further, they d id not realize that read alouds could be a powerful intervention for foster ing oral language development. Reading to children is promoted as being ef fective, but most teachers do not know what makes some read alouds more effective than others. Without PD and extra support on implementing effective storybook reading practices, the focus may be on less important features of read alouds, such as how dramatic or expressive the reading is. The real value of storybook reading is in the questioning and prompts that encourage children to think infer, make connections, problem solve and ask questions to clarify their own understanding. T he literature on professional development supports the use of models that include theory, demonstration, practice, feedback, and ongoing coaching to ensure the transfer and use of the instructional procedures ( Desimone, 2009; Joyce & Showers, 2002). Several studies have concluded that coaching support may enhance the likelihood of change in teacher practices and increase student o utcomes (Blachowicz, Obrochta, & Fogelberg, 2005; Costa & Garmston, 2002; Joyce & Showers, 2002: Wasik & Hindman, 2011). In addition to including these essential i nto the structure of the PD intervention in this study For example, active learning was incorporated through discussion, modeling, role play, practice, self assessment, and reflection.
162 In addition, teachers in the study were encouraged to interact with other teachers at their school and the researcher in order to establish collective participation, a powerful tool for teacher learning. Subsequently teachers reported discussing lessons and books from the study with teachers in their grade levels, as wel l as teachers in other grade levels. One teacher reported having a dozen or more conversations with other kindergarten teachers about the lessons, strategies and books. Consideration of these features in the creation of the professional devel opment like ly contributed to the success ful implementation of the interactive storybook reading intervention In the PD sessions, teachers were informed of the link between the development of oral language skills and later rea ding comprehension performance. The re searcher explained the impact of the lack of vocabulary knowledge in young children (Hart & Risley, 1995; Nation & Snow ling, 2004; Snow et al., 2007) and how to support v ocabulary learning through read alouds (Beck & McKeown, 2001; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001 ; Karweit, 1989; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998) I n order to provide teachers with a theoretical foundation for the research, t he researcher modeled how to (a) choose strategic vocabulary to enhance students current understanding (Beck & McKeown, 2001); (b) select books with rich vocabulary (Beck & McKeown, 2001; Justice et al., 2005; Hargrave & Senechal, 2000) ; (c) create strategic open and closed questions for use before, during, and after reading (Whitehurst et al., 1988) ; and (d) respond to students in a way that encourages them to think and respond to the prompt s (Mohr & Mohr 2007; Wasik, 2010.). In addition, all the interactive storybook reading strategies were demonstrated with an interactive read aloud using the book, Tops & Bottoms by Janet Stevens (1995 ). Both demonstration and time for teachers to practice the new strategies are important factors in determining whether or not teachers will incorporate the strategies into their current instructional
163 practices (Greenwood, Tapia, Abbott, & Walton, 20 03). The teachers then participated in activities to provide practice and checks of understanding (Blachowicz, Obrochta, & Fogelberg, 2005; Desimone, 2009). Rich discussions with the researcher took place throughout the PD session, and the researcher gav e frequent specific feedback during teacher practice. Teachers respond I would say having someone count how many Other comments about the coaching and feedba The last activity in the PD involved the teachers choosing a story and creatin g a lesson plan using the storybook reading framework Garet and colleagues (2001) discovered that PD work (active learning), and is integrated into the daily life of the school (coherence), is more Key elements of the lesson plan includ ed (a) focusing on an objective; (b) introducing and supporting targeted vocabulary; (c) building background; (d) sett ing a purpose for reading; (e) creating strategic closed and open questions to be used bef ore, during, and after reading; and (f) closing with a lesson wrap up. aloud session, having to write the lesson plans for each story, even though I dreaded it, it really made me focus The only major negative is the fact that I had to sit and do my lesson plans. But the positive was that by the end, I could read a story one time and already tell you all the questions I wanted to ask,
164 because I had trained myself at that p Additionally, the context of each PD session was taken into consideration. Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, and Gallagher (2007) suggest that there are many fa ctors that influence whether what teachers learn in PD sessions will be applied to classroom teaching. One of those factors is whether the PD takes place at times and locations that are convenient for the participants. With this in mind, the PD sessions in this study were conducted in individual sessions at times that were chosen by each teacher. The PD sessions contributed to the successful implementation of the interactive strategies during the read aloud sessions However the specific feedback and ong oing coaching were the most powerful elements of th e PD, according to the teachers. d evidence regarding the importance of coaching. They appreciated knowing exactly which strategies they were implementing effectively and whic h ones were not observed. Their he first time I implemented this intervention, you gave me sugges tions on how to make it better you need is that coaching par Christine was unsure how her teaching looked to an outs ide observer and asked if she could see s ome video clips of her teaching. This is important because as Blachowicz et al. (2005) found in their research, supports change in practice. Further, rese arch on video self modeling promotes the value of watching yourself implement something successfully ( Bandura 1997; Bray & Kehle, 1996). liked when you came back and showed me the video clips and highlights. It h elped me to reflect
165 ice if just once they (other teachers) had somebody All four teachers expressed appreciation and enthusiasm for being a part of the study. Although they were not sure at the beginning of the study if the intervention would make a difference in the vocabulary and listening comprehension skills of their students, they were all willing to learn new strategies that had the potential of making their teaching more effective. During the intervention phase, the teachers observed changes in their instruction and improvements in their students. The evidence that what they were doing made a difference for their students affected their beliefs about the purpose of reading aloud, the role of reading aloud in student language development, and how to conduct an effective storybook reading session These changes in belief s contri read aloud practices that was maintained beyond the intervention By the end of the study all the teachers expressed how much they loved the stories, how beneficial the intervention was for them an d their students, and how it y Social Validity Social validation refers to the social significance of the goals, proc edures, and effects of a study with the importance being determined by the participants themselves (Gast, 2010). In order for an intervention to be implemented by teachers, and it s use maintained, participants must be pleased with the effects of the inter vention, believe the intervention produces a significant outcome, and be able to feasibly implement the intervention without difficulty. A social validity questionnaire was given to teacher participants after data collection ended to determine the importan ce and feasibility of this intervention. All four teachers
166 indicated that they felt the use of interactive strategies during read alouds were important and could be easily integrated into their current teaching practice. They also agreed that the use of these strategies supported oral language development in their students and were keys to increasing expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension. Further, they all continued to use the strategies in other subject areas, with all their students followi ng the conclusion of the study. During the teacher interviews that were conducted after teachers completed the social validity questi onnaire, one teacher remarked : It has changed how I will present read alouds in their instruction, the teachers all responded that they are using the strategies throughout their instruction including other content areas. Audrey during the same strategies for asking questions, predicting, especially using the vocabulary. In social cabulary, so it works really well hurry because you only have so much time. But now that I realize the importance of interactions A lot of tim es I would try to get the whole group talking about their prior knowledge. that she p Bethany discussed how she uses the
167 positive responses to the intervention, their attit ude toward the importance of using these interactive strategies and the ease in which they have incorporated the strategies into their current practice have contributed to the effective implementation, generalization, and maintenance of using interactive storybook reading strategies in the kindergarten classroom. Limitations This study had several limitations. The first limitation is the lack of random selection and small sample size. One of the common criticisms of single subject design is that the re sults of the study may not be generalized to larger groups of subjects due to the limited sample size (Gast, 2010) To increase the external validity and generalizability of the results of this study, it would need to be systematically replicated. Second, b ecause this study was conducted with kindergarten students and teachers only, the results cannot be generalized to teachers and students in preschool or other grade levels. Although early literacy and oral language intervention is important for children who are just starting school (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Torgesen & Burgess, 1998), there is also a need to support language development for older students who struggle. The results of this study cannot be generalized to that population of students. T he third limitation is that the storybook reading intervention occurred in a small grou p setting with five students, 1 to 2 times per week. Although the participating teachers reported noticing the benefits of the small grou p setting, they say time does n ot permit them to meet with the ir at risk beginning of the study was finding time to meet with students in small group Another teacher expressed apprehension about wha t her other stude nts would be doing while she conducted the small group read aloud session since she only had a teacher assistant in the room periodically. This concern was addressed by scheduling the assistant to be in the room when she conducted
168 the rea d aloud. Another teacher addressed this issue by having a volunteer in the room during her read aloud sessions. The other two teachers had assistants in the room consistently during their scheduled read aloud time, so this was not an issue. The results of this study are limited to small group implementation and it is not known whether the outcomes would have been the same if instruction had occu rred in a whole group setting, although the teachers did report using the questioning and prompting techniques with their whole class. A fourth limitation could have resulted from the presence of the researcher and the use of a video camera in the classroom. The teachers may have increased their use of interacti ve strategies during their read alouds while the rese archer was present. It is unknown whether or not the teachers will continue to use these strategies when the researcher is no longer present. Further, the presence of the video camera in the classroom may have changed the regular behavior of both the tea chers and the children. Another limitation is that the researcher chose the books and determined the sequence in vocabulary, a clear narrative structure, of appropri ate length, had interesting content for kindergarten children, and contained illustrat ions that supported retelling the story. It is unclear whether teachers will choose stories that contain similar components on their own. However, during the maintenanc e phase teachers chose both narrative and non fiction books that had rich vocabulary, clear structure, illustrations that supported understanding, and were of an appropriate length and interest for kindergarten students. Additionally, targeted vocabulary was previously chosen for the teachers in the study to use with each story and the researcher created the student friendly explanations for each word. Targeted words were common across the 20 narrative stories selected for the study. There is no way of k nowing if teachers in the future will choose
169 words from stories that lexicon or whether the teacher will create explanations of the targeted words that are consistent and understood by the students. Finally, there is a limi tation in the way the PD and ongoing coaching were provided during the study. PD sessions took place one on one, with the exception of Deborah. All the kindergarten teachers at each school were invited to attend the PD, however only the teachers at Debor in the outcomes of the teachers who participated in the individual PD sessions and Deborah, who attended the group session. In addition to the PD, coaching was provided after each read aloud sess ion. T he researcher gave each teacher specific praise and feedback concerning the interactive strategies used and those that were unobserved. It is doubtful that any future PD will provide teache r s with this much scaffolding as they learn to implement th e interactive strategies. However, it is possible that pairs of teachers could collaborate by planning together, observing each other, count ing the number of interactions and providing coaching type support. With the use of a video camera, teachers coul d evaluate their own read aloud sessions by monitoring their use of the interactive strategies and reflecting on their practice. It is also worth noting that although Christine only received four coaching sessions, she continued to implement the intervent ion fo r seven weeks. The gains she made on the dependent variables were comparable to the other teachers and her students made impressive ga ins in expressive vocabulary. Given the gains of Christine and her students, it appears that less coaching may st ill be sufficient. Implications of the Study The results of this study provide evidence that after PD with ongoing coaching, the interactive storybook reading practices of teachers increased in both quantity and quality. The use of the interactive strate gies was successfully implemented by all four teachers following the PD and with ongoing coaching and feedback given after each read aloud session, teachers
170 continued to improve. Further, the participating students showed impressive gains in listening co mprehension and significant gains in expressive vocabulary. The intervention was generalized in each of the classrooms with all teachers reporting that they will not only continue to use the strategies, but that they will use the strategies in content ar eas besides reading, such as science, social studies, and math. For three of the four teachers, there appears to be evidence that they will continue to use the interactive strategies. Deborah was restructuring her centers to provide more time for individ ualized and differentiated instruction. Additionally Audrey and Christine were incorporating the strategies into their small g roup reading instruction once or twice a week. Because the teachers observed changes in skills, and confidence levels, there is a good chance they will continue to use the strategies. The social validity questionnaire and individual interviews also revealed that the professional development, coaching, and feedback were powerful tools in scaf ncorporation of the strategies into their storybook reading instruction Furthermore, t eachers commented that they believe these strategies are necessary for all teachers. This research adds to the literature base in finding an effect ive framework to support teachers who have generally been found to be less effective than researchers when implementing interactive storybook reading (Mol et al., 2009). In addition, t he study has implications for research and practice to support oral l anguage skills in at risk children. Further, there is evidence that a structured framework for using these interactive strategies while reading to childre n and p rofessional development with on going coaching support assist s teachers in implementing effecti ve read aloud strategies in their classrooms. Implication s for Practice The findings of this study have implications for future professional development for teachers the content of pre service preparation programs, and teacher practice Although
171 storyboo k reading is an activity that most teachers utilize in their classrooms, teachers may not be sure what makes read alouds effective (Lane & Wright, 2007) After attending professional development and receiving specific feedback and coaching, the t eachers i n this study successfully implemented strategies that increase d both the quality and quantity of their interactions with students during read alouds As a result, t hese strategies supported the critical development of at s This study reinforces the notion that professional development activities should include opportunities for active learning, observation and feedback in order for the new strategies to be integrated into classroom practice ( Garet et al., 2001) Provid ing teachers with specific feedback and coaching led to effective impl ementation of the intervention. The fact that all four teachers in this study were able to successfully implement the storybook reading intervention and that their at risk students made gains in listening comprehe nsion and expressive vocabulary indicates that with support teachers can implement effect ive read aloud strategies and maintain the use of those strategies over time. Another implication is that teachers need more profession al development with an of targeting and explicitly teaching voc abulary (Beck & McKeown, 2001; Biemiller & Boote 2006; Coyne et al. 2004; Elley, 1989; Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005; Loftus et al., 2010). Knowing what words to teach and supporting vocabulary learning through read alouds is especially important for e arly educators, since oral language skills are a critical indicator of future reading success (Nation & Snowli ng, 2004; Snow et al., 2007). It is apparent that teachers need to learn more about (a) language development (b) effective vocabulary instructio n, and (c )
172 successful storybook reading practices not only durin g professional development, but during pre service prep aration, as well. Findings from this study have particular relevance for schools given the recent emphasis on the Common Core Standards All of the teachers mentioned that they are currently receiving training in the Common Core State Standards (CCS S ). Professional development on e ffective storybook reading practices could be incorporated into CCS S trainings since read alouds provide a context for teachers to meet listening and speaking, languag e and reading standards (Strickland, 2013) Clearly, t eachers should be encouraged to spend more time using effective read aloud strategies with their students to allow for richer interactions, questioning skills, and build background knowledge. Storybook reading, if conducted purposefully, can become a powerful intervention for students who are at risk for reading difficulties. Finally, t eachers should be encou raged to enhance their classroom libraries with books that promote deeper discussions and provide students with opportunities to interact with the books and their peers (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002) O ne of the teachers mentioned in her interview that, a s a result of the intervention, she began putting out books instead of providing worksheets for the students in the mo rning She noticed that her students we re beginning to help each other read, talk about the books, and ask each other questions about the stories I nstead of busywork, students were purposefully reading together, acquiring a love for reading, and expanding their thinking, communication skills, and knowledge. Implications for Future Research There is much room for additional research on met hods for helping teachers improve the quality of their interactions with students. First, the video recordings of the read aloud sessions
173 in this study could be further analyzed for additional data. For example, it would be interesting to record the mean length of utterance (MLU) of the students from baseline to maintenance. It was observed that students not only increased their responses, but that they were speaking in full sentences and asking higher level questions toward the end of the study. It wou ld also be worthwhile to conduct a sequential analysis of the video s to determine what types of teacher talk led to specific types of student responses. Further, vocabulary outcomes of students could be investigated in light of the nature of vocabulary in struction they received during the interactive storybook reading sessions. For instance, once Deborah learned the importance of introducing and supporting vocabulary before, dur ing and after the read aloud, s he made sure to ask questions that led her stu dents to say the targeted words Perhaps because they verbally repeated the targeted vocabulary allowing them to create a phonological representation of the word s (Beck et al., 2002), vocab ulary. Due to the significant outcomes obtained from this study, a logical next step would be to use a large N r andomized control group design to test the effectiveness of the interventions with larger groups of teachers and students. A study of this na ture could shed more light on the effects of professional development with coaching on change in teacher practice, the feasibility of implementing effective storybook reading strategies in other classrooms and the effects of interactive storybook reading strategies on the oral language skills of primary grade students. Future research could also be conducted on the use of questioning strategies to support interactions with students in other grade levels The teachers in this study reported using the strat egies effectively in the content areas and with non fiction books. Further investigation could determine whether teachers of older students would incorporate these strategies effectively in
174 other content areas. In addition, it would be interesting to exa mine what gains might occur with preschool students or students in the upper grades. Another area of future research would be to incor porate the strategies with large groups of students. Although research supports the effectiveness of explicit and systema tic instruction with groups of 4 to 5 at risk students, it would be worthwhile to investigate whether oral language gains are limited to small groups of students with interactive storybook reading interventions or if at risk students would make the same g ains if the interventions were implem ented in large group settings. Because the one o n one PD and extended co aching provided in this study are probably not realistic in most settings, further research could investigate whether other methods of PD would yie ld similar results. For example, it is important to know the effects of the PD intervention when implemented with teachers participating in a group. It would also be worth investigating how much coaching is necessary to yield changes in teacher talk and whether coaching by teachers pa ired to observe each other could be effective Given the pressure of time that most teachers experience as they schedule their daily instruction, future research should examine how much reading aloud is optimal in kindergart en Scarborough and Dobrich (199 4) found that shared reading accounted for only a very small portion of the variance in readin g ability in the primary grades, but these findings were related to naturally occurring read alouds. Perhaps more frequent and in tentional read alouds would yield different results. Further research could also be conducted on the type of book used for read alouds. The use of high s literature provides exposure to (a) vocabulary that students are not likely to enc ounter in daily conversations, (b) the syntactic structure of language, (c) concepts of
175 print, and (d) story structure. In addition, colorful illustrations in authentic literature support vocabulary knowl edge and story retelling Books with these feature s offer an ideal context for rich discussion, however, some of the teachers in the study mentioned using the interactive strategies in other contexts like math, science and social studies. It would be interesting to investigate further the role of books in student outcomes. That is, are the difference s in effects on students related to the use of authentic Finally future research could focus on the effectiveness of read alouds when teachers are provided with professional development and ongoing coaching support, but are free to choose their own books and target ed vocabulary from the story. In the present study, t hese variables were controlled, but it would be interesting to find out what types of books teachers would choose, what vocabulary they would target, and whether those decisions would lead to favorable increases in student questio ning and oral language skills. During the maintenance phase of the study, teachers chose their own books and targeted vocabulary. Although they chose appropriate books and provided some vocabulary support, it was apparent that there was a need for (a) a deeper understanding of tier two words, (b) how to create clear and consistent explanations of the words, and (c) a better understanding of how to provide examples of the words in different contexts. Conclusion This study was conducted to investigate the effects of professional development with ongoing coaching on read alouds conducted by kindergarten teachers. In addition, the effects on the oral language skills of at risk kindergarten students were examined The results indicated that the teachers inc reased both the quantity and the quality of their i nteractions with students from baseline to the maintenance phase of the study. During the course of the intervention, an
176 increase was observed in the mean frequency for all dependent variables: (a) askin g closed questions, (b) asking open questions, (c) supporting vocabulary development, (d) extending responses, (e) affirming and/or repeating student responses, (f) praising student responses, and (g) clarifying student responses. Subsequently, teachers a nd students had richer conversations Teachers reported that students (a) exhibited h igher level thinking skills, (b) made more connections to the stories, (c) began asking higher level questions, (d) became more word conscious, and (e) demonstrated more confidence in their oral language abilities. Furthermore, the participating students showed significant gains in expressive vocabulary as measured by the targeted words they could define from pre to posttest. Listening comprehension outcomes of the treat ment group although not significant, were also slightly higher than children in the control group The findings of this research hold important implications for the use of storybook reading as an effective intervention to support vocabulary and listenin g comprehension skills. Teachers spent an average of 12 minutes conducting read alouds during the baseline phase. During interventio n, they spent an average of 20 minutes reading to students and supporting interactions. By a dding just 8 minutes per day to their read aloud time teachers can significantly enhance the effective ness of their interactions, which has the potential to boost vocabulary and listening comprehension skills of students who are at risk for reading difficulties. Reading aloud, given its current popularity in kindergarten classrooms, holds much potential for improving language skills. With effective professional development, this potential can be realized.
177 APPENDIX A IRB DOCUMENTATION The following are approval letters from the University of Florida Institutional Review Board. The IRB approved the initial proposal and two amendments. The first amendment was to add a control group, and the second was to add teacher interviews for social validity.
180 APPENDIX B CL ASSROOM LITERACY ENVIRONMENT CHECKLIST Classroom Literacy Environment Checklist YES NO 1. There is a thoughtfully designed area designated for the use and display of books. 2. The classroom library area of room is inviting and stocked with age appropriate books at different reading levels for both enjoyment and learning. Quality of books: 3. genres and characters that reflect the diversity and abilities of students. Quantity of bo oks: 4. There is evidence that storybook reading is a part of the daily classroom routine. 5. Students have access to assistive technology to provide access to literacy (object books, software, audio texts, hardware, communication devices) 6. Students have access to a variety of printed materials (phone books, dictionaries, menus, recipes, labels, signs, printed directions, student work, alphabet displays) 7. Listening center is available with songs and stories on tape 8. Classroom has a designated area f or shared large group reading 9. Classroom has a designated area for small group learning. 10. Classroom has appropriate resource books for daily activities (poetry, art, drama, hand rhymes, music, science, cooking) 11. Word walls are displayed and there i s evidence they are used by students 12. vocabulary 13. printed words from thematic lessons 14. A variety of media is available for writing (letter stamps, large writing charts, graphs, pockets charts, enlarged recipe cards, write on boards) 15. Classroom management strategies exist and are enforced in ways that respect students and encourage purposeful engagement. 16. Teachers engage students in conversations that facilitate a mutual exchange of ideas, opinions, and feelings. 17. learning and oral language development. 18. Classroom materials are well organized, accessible to students, and coordinated with learning goals. 19. Students are purposefully engaged in appropriate learning activities. 20. Students appear to enjoy engaging in literacy and language activities.
181 APPENDIX C TEACHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION Teacher Date 1. How many years of teaching experience do you have? 2. How many years have you taught kindergarten? 3. What other grade levels have you taught? For how long? 4. What type of degrees, certifications, and/or endorsements do you have? 5. How many hours of professional development in reading have you had in the past year? 6. Over the course of your career, how many hours of professional development have you had in storybook reading strategies specifically? 7. Briefly explain why you would like to be part of this study.
182 APPENDIX D LIST OF TARGETED VOCABULARY 1. awful you might say it tastes awful. 2. bother It might bother someone, if you talk to t busy. If something bothers you, it annoys (bugs) you. 3. branch A branch is the part of a tree that grows out from the trunk. 4. decide If you decide to do something, you choose to do it. You might decide whether to pla y with puzzles or go to the computer. 5. enormous Something very large in size is called enormous. If something is enormous, it is huge like a giant. 6. frightened might be frighte ned if you hear a loud noise. 7. gasp Gasp is when you take in a short, quick breath through your mouth. (Demonstrate.) If something surprises you, you might gasp. 8. huddle If you huddle somewhere, you sit, stand, or lie holding your arms and legs close to your body. You can also huddle together with others. You might huddle if you are cold or frightened. 9. interrupt If you interrupt someone who is speaking, you say or do something that causes them to stop. You might interrupt the teacher, if you star t talking when she is talking. 10. joyful If you feel joyful, it means you are very happy. You might feel joyful about 11. lonely If you are lonely, you are unhappy because you are all alone or because you 12. mutter
183 13. nod I f you nod, you move your head up and down to answer yes to a question. You might nod if you want to answer yes. 14. patient A person who is patient, waits without getting upset, even if something takes a long time. You might have to be patient when you wa it your turn for a drink at the water fountain. 15. roar If something roars, it makes a very loud noise. This noise is called a roar. A lion roars. It makes a very loud noise when it roars. 16. snout ig is a snout. 17. spoiled If something is spoiled, it is no longer good. If you tell someone the ending of the story before they hear it, you might spoil the story. 18. tame dogs and cats are tame. 19. vet A vet is a doctor who takes care of sick animals. When your dog or cat is sick, you might take them to see the vet. 20. worry If you worry, you keep thinking about a problem or something bad that could happen. You might wo rry about what would happen if you missed the bus or someone
184 APPENDIX E EXPRESSIVE VOCABULARY MEASURE Student Name: _______________________________ Date: ___________________ School: _______________________ ______________ Teacher: ________________ Directions: Tell me what you know about these words. 1. awful A. What does awful mean? _____/2 (If something is awful, it is very bad.) B. Tell me about something that would be awful. _____/1 2. bother A. What does bother mean? _____/2 (If something bothers you, it annoys or bugs you.) B. Tell me about a time when someone bothered you. _____/1 3. branch A. What is a branch? _____/2 (A branch is the part of a tree that grows out from the trunk.) B. Tell me where you might see a branch. _____/1 4. decide A. What does decide mean? _____/2 (If you decide to do something, you choose to do it.) B. Tell me when you had to decide something. _____/1 5. enormous A. What does enormous mean? _____/2 (Something very large in size is called enormous.) B. Tell me about something enormous. _____/1 6. frightened A. scared.) B. Tell me when you might b e frightened. _____/1 7. gasp A. What does gasp mean? _____/2 (Gasp means you take in a short, quick breath through your mouth.)
185 B. Tell me when someone might gasp. _____/1 8. huddle A. What does huddle mean? _____/2 (To sit, stand, or lie holding your arms and l egs close to your body.) B. Tell me when someone or something might huddle. _____/1 9. interrupt A. What does interrupt mean? _____/2 (If you interrupt someone who is speaking, you say or do something that causes them to stop.) B. Tell me when someone interru pted you. _____/1 10. joyful A. What does joyful mean? _____/2 (If you feel joyful, it means you are very happy.) B. Tell me when you might feel joyful. _____/1 11. lonely A. alon B. Tell me when you might feel lonely. _____/1 12. mutter A. heard.) B. Tell me when you might mutter. _____/1 13. nod A. What does nod mean ? _____/2 (If you nod, you move your head up and down to answer yes to a question.) B. Tell me when you might nod. _____/1 14. patient A. What does patient mean? _____/2 (A person who is patient, waits without getting upset, even if something takes a long tim e.) B. Tell me when you needed to be patient. _____/1 15. roar A. What does roar mean? _____/2 (If something roars, it makes a very loud noise.)
186 B. Tell me when something might roar. _____/1 16. snout A. jaws.) B. Tell me where you might see a snout. _____/1 17. spoiled A. What does spoiled mean? _____/2 (If something is spoiled, it is no longer good.) B. Tell me when something might be spoiled. _____/1 18. tame A. What does tame mean? _____/2 (An animal is tame i f it is not afraid of people and B. Tell me about something that is tame. _____/1 19. vet A. What is a vet? _____/2 (A vet is a doctor who takes care of sick animals.) B. Tell me something a vet might do. _____/1 20. worry A. What does worry mean ? _____/2 (If you worry, you keep thinking about a problem or something bad that could happen.) B. Tell me when you might worry. _____/1 Scoring Part A (definition) 0 = no response/unrelated response 1 = partial knowledge 2 = full knowledge Part B (stu dent example) 0 = not applicable 1 = applicable response Total number of points possible Per section Part A (definition) 2 x 20 = 40 Part B (student example) 1 x 20 = 20 Overall total 60 points Total student score Per section Part A (definition) __ ____/40 = _____% Part B (student example) _____/20 = _____% Overall total _____/60 = _____%
187 APPENDIX F LISTENING COMPREHENSION MEASURE Student Name: _____________________________________Date: ___________________ School:______________________________ _______ Teacher:________________________ Title of Story _______________________________________________________________ Recording Sheet Part 1 Retelling the Story Beginning ______ ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Middle ____________________ __________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ End _____________________________________ _______________________________ __________ ___________________ ___________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ If necessary, prompt the student to obtain more informatio n about the story. Keep track of how many and which prompts are used. Prompts: 1. Tell me more. 2. What else do you remember about the story? 3. W hat happened at the beginning? 4. What happened after/ before (an event the student told about) 5. How did the story end?
188 Part 2 Thinking about the story ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ _____ ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ Part 3 Making personal connections to the story think of?) ______________ ________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________ __________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
189 List ening Comprehension Score Sheet EMERGING DEVELOPI NG INDEPENDEN T ADVANCED 1. Retelling: Sequencing Events Includes 1 or 2 details or events from the story Includes at least 3 details or events, may be in random order Includes most important events from the beginning, middle, and end generally in sequenc e Includes all important events from beginning, middle, and end in sequence Score (circle score) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2. Retelling: Language/Vocab ulary Uses general terms from text, limited understanding of key words and concepts Uses some vocab ulary from text/ language, has some understanding of key words and concepts Uses vocabulary from text/ language, has general understanding of key words and concepts Uses important vocabulary from text/ language, has good understanding of key words and conc epts Score (circle score) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3. Retelling: Characters Refers to characters using pronouns, may not give correct information Refers to characters using correct pronouns, may give some incorrect information Refers to most character s by name and includes mostly correct details Refers to all characters by name and gives most of the important details Score (circle score) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4. Retelling: Need for prompts Retells story with 5 or more prompts Retells story wit h 3 or 4 prompts Retells story with only 1 or 2 prompts Retells story with no prompts Score (circle score) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5. Thinking about the story No response, no reason for opinion, or unrelated response Limited response or general reas on for opinion Gives relevant reason for response, and specific story event Gives response and reason that reflect higher level thinking Score (circle score) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6. Making personal connections to the story No response, or makes un related connection Makes connection that reflects limited understanding of the story Makes literal connection that reflects a basic understanding of the story Makes thoughtful personal connections that reflects a deep understanding of the story Score (cir cle score) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Score 6 12 13 24 25 36 37 48
190 APPENDIX G DEPENDENT VARIABLE DESCRIPTIONS Comments at her. Look at this picture. Kids s Comments related to vocabulary, should be tallied as vocabulary Setting the purpose for reading (e.g., In this story, listen to find out why Peter is jealous.) When the teacher says no to an incor M Only code this as a comment if the teacher is setting the purpose for reading or helping students make a prediction. Clarifications An explanation to support understand ing other than a vocabulary clarification Any time the teacher clarifies a concept from the story or explains s omething during conversations (e.g., At Busch gardens the wild animals sometimes do tricks, but most wild animals ) When the teacher explains after the student gives an incorrect answer Vocabulary Teachers sometimes pose a question when they introduce vocabulary (e.g., What does celebration mean?) Code this as a closed question, and then code it as vocabulary when th e meaning of the word is provided Count targeted words as vocabulary again when teachers refer to the same word during the reading, o r ask questions about the word Make a tally mark under the same vocabulary word each time teacher gives an example of the word. (e.g., Party you might have a party. This comment would receive a tally for the vocabulary word and a tally for an example of the word.) Count each time the word is reinforced d urin g the story Vocabulary words targeted: awful, bother, enormous, frightened, gasp, huddle, interrupt, joyful, lonely, mutter, nod, patient, roar, snout, tame, vet, worry Closed questions Questions with yes/no answers or a specific answer (e.g., what do you see here? What did the pig ask for?) wore her _______________.) Code this as a closed question. If the teacher repeats or rephrases the same question, and/or asks each child to respond to the same question, only give one tally. If the teacher asks students to retell events from the story, this is a closed question.
191 Open questions Inference questions or question s with no right or wrong answer (e.g., Why do y ou think the pig wanted balloons? Why did she put on her favorite dress?) Praise praise Affirm When the teache r says something affirmative: yes, uh huh, ok a head, code as affirmation affirmation. If the teacher nods, count it as an affirmation. it as only one tally. Repeat When the teacher repeats If the teacher repeats repetition and an affirmation. If the teacher re repetition. Sometimes teachers repeat what the student says as a question. Count it as a repetition unless teacher is really asking a question. (e.g., the dog ran into to street? Afte r the Extend When the teacher repeats, but adds to what the student says in a complete sentence correcting grammar, code as extend. Student Responses When students respond chorally to a closed question, coun t only once. Code each student response as either on topic or off topic.
192 APPENDIX H COMPONENTS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1. Foundations of the early literacy and oral language development of young children 2. Discussion of the importance of supporting early l iteracy and oral language development in the primary grade classroom 3. Share effective storybook reading research 4. Discuss the elements of effective storybook reading procedures a. Creating a designated area for storybook reading b. Ensuring that all children are seated so they can see the illustrations of the story and easily interact the teacher and each another c. Reading the story to a small group (4 5) of children d. Allowing all children an opportunity to interact e. f. Asking closed questi ons g. Providing ample wait time h. Asking open ended questions i. 5. Model the elements of interactive storybook reading a. Setting the objective b. Choosing vocabulary c. Building background d. Setting the purpose for rea ding e. Creating prompts and questions to support understanding of the text f. Responding to students 6. Allow participants to practice the targeted elements of storybook reading 7. Supply participants with accuracy feedback and clarification of implementation 8. Provi de a question and answer time for further clarifications of expectations 9. Administer a post test consisting of an opportunity for teachers to demonstrate their understanding and application of the dependent variables. (Participants will be given a storybook and asked to create a lesson plan containing all of the targeted elements of storybook reading.)
193 APPENDIX I READ ALOUD LESSON PLANNING FORM Title of Story: ___________________________________________________________ Materials: __________________________ ____________________________________ Targeted Vocabulary: ____________________________________________________ Objective(s): ____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ _____ ________________________________________________________________________ Building Background: Setting the Purpose for Reading: Read the Story/ Prompts:
194 Wrap Up
195 Teacher Sample Lesson Plan Title of Story: Ira Sleeps Over by Bernard Waber Targeted Vocabulary: worry, embarrassed Objective(s): RL.K.1. With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details; L.K.5. With guidance and support from adults, explore word relationships and nuances in word meanings. Building Background: worried about what others will think or say. We may be afraid we embarrassed. embarrassed, you might feel shy or worried about something. embarrassed you might be worried that someone will laugh or make fun of you. I felt embarrassed the other day when I noticed I had a piece of spinach stu ck in my front teeth. I wondered if anybody saw it and thought I looked silly. Setting the Purpose for Reading: embarrassed about something and has trouble telling his thought s and feelings to his best friend, Reggie. As I read the story, think about what Ira is embarrassed about. Read the Story /Prompts: Pages 8 9 When you worry you keep thinking about something bad that might happen. Does Ira seem worried about NOT sleep ing with his teddy bear? Pages 14 15 Ira has now decided Why do you think Ira changed his mind? embarrassed .) I bet th ere are times when you feel embarrassed, too. When have you felt embarrassed? Pages 18 19 Why do you think Ira asks Reggie what he thinks about teddy bears? worri ed What do you think Ira will decide? Why? (Accept all reasonable responses.)
196 Pages 44 45 Why is Ira no longer worried that Reggie will laugh? (Reggie sleeps with a teddy bear, too.) Wrap Up: know that they both slept with teddy bears. Sometimes WE have trouble expressing our thoughts worried abo ut feeling embarrassed. But, unless we express our be feeling the same way you are.
197 APPENDIX J READ ALOUD SESS ION FEEDBACK FORM
198 APPENDIX K BOOK TITLES AND SEQUENCE OF INTRODUCTION Book Titles and Sequence of Introduction for Intervention Phase 1. I Like Myself (Beaumont, 2004) 2. Help! A Story of Friendship (Keller, 2007) 3. 4. Leo the Late B loomer (Kraus, 1971) 5. Bear Feels Sick (Wilson, 2007) 6. 7. Biggest Nose (Caple, 2005) 8. Annie and the Wild Animals (Brett, 1989) 9. Goggles (Keats, 1998) 10. Alligator Boy (Rylant, 2007) 11. Charlie Anderson (Abercrombie, 1995) 12. Can I Kee p Him? (Kellog, 1992) 13. My Mouth is a Volcano (Cook, 2010) 14. Knuffle Bunny: A Cautionary Tale (Willems, 2003) 15. Ira Sleeps Over (Waber, 1972) 16. A Chair for My Mother (Williams, 1984) 17. Sheila Rae the Brave (Henkes, 1985) 18. 19. Caps for Sale (Slobodkina, 1968) 20. Being Friends (Beaumont, 2002) Book Titles for Baseline Phase and Control Classrooms (can be read in any order) 1. Please, Puppy, Please (Lee, 2005) 2. Saturday at the New You (Barber, 1994) 3. The Leaving Morning (Johnson, 2 005) 4. Big Al (Clements, 1997) 5. The Story of Ferdinand (Lawson, 1936) 6. The Story about Ping (Flack, 1933) 7. The Wednesday Surprise (Bunting, 1989) 8. 9. 10. The Wall (Bunting, 1992) Book Title for Listeni ng Comprehension Pretest Book Title for Listening Comprehension Posttest Skyfire (Asch, 1984)
199 APPENDIX L DATA COLLECTION FORM
200 APPENDIX M TREATMENT INTEGRITY CHECKLIST Treatment Fidelity Checklist Trainer ________________ _________ Date________________________ Training # _____________________ Percentage of elements observed ______________ Training Elements (Clearly explained and demonstrated) Observed Not observed Total 1. Early literacy and or al language development of young children 2. Research supporting effective storybook reading and the benefits to young children. 3. Creating a designated reading area 4. Seating children for ease of interaction and ability to see illustrations of story 5. Keeping groups to max of 4 5 children 6. Allowing all children a chance to interact 7. 8. Asking closed questions 9. Providing ample wait time 10. Praising, affirming, and extending responses 11. Model interactive sto rybook reading 12. Allow participants opportunity to practice creating closed questions 13. Allow participants opportunity to practice asking open questions 14. Allow participants opportunity to practice praising, affirming, and extending responses 15. P articipants are given corrective feedback 16. Participant are given opportunity to become familiar with data collection form 17. Question and Answer session is conducted 18. Participants are given opportunity to complete a read aloud lesson plan 19. Cor rective feedback given for lesson plan 20. Follow up training conducted as needed
201 APPENDIX N SOCIAL VALIDITY CHECKLIST Social Validity Checklist Teacher: (optional) _________________________ Date: _______________ 1. Read each item carefully and circ le the phrase that best describes your feelings. 2. Five possible choices have been placed after each statement. Circle only one. 3. Please be sure to answer every item. (Your name on the form is optional.) 1. The interactive storybook reading PD session wa s very helpful. Disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 2. The PD session took too much time. Disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 3. Disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 4. I will continue using interactive storybook reading techniques in my classroom. Disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 5. Other kindergarten teachers might be interested in learning interactive storybook reading techniques. Disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6. I feel I am a more effective teacher since I participated in the interactive storybook reading PD sessions. Disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 7. The accuracy feedback and coaching componen t were useful aspects of the PD. Disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 8. On the back of this form, please describe oral language skill differences that you notice in the selected students.
202 APPENDIX O TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Project SOL ID Interview Probes 1. Have you noticed any changes in your reading instruction since taking part in Project SOLID? If yes, can you tell me about those changes? 2. Did you notice any changes in your instruction in other subject areas? 3. Will you continue to u se interactive storybook reading strategies in your classroom now that Project SOLID has ended? If so, how? (i.e., with the whole class, in small group, at other times besides storybook reading) 4. If you continue to use interactive strategies in small gr oup, how many times per week do you think you will meet with the small group? 5. as a result of participating in Project SOLID? (i.e., asking questions, using t argeted vocabulary, making connections between stories, answering more inference questions, making predictions) 6. school wide or classroom assessment results? What impacts did you notice? 7. What could be added to the professional development and/or coaching components of Project SOLID to make it more helpful? 8. If a colleague, who also teaches kindergarten, asked about the positives and negatives of using interactive s 9.
203 APPENDIX P TEACHER RESPONSES TO INTERVIEW Teacher A Interview 1. Have you noticed any chan ges in your reading instruction since taking part in Project SOLID? If yes, can you tell me about those changes? Answer: Yes. I find that I take more time with my storybooks. I ask more questions along the way. I actually spend more time with the bo ok, so I read less books. Used to books being read. I also read a story in my small group probably once every other week. Which I never did before, so when it ties into our unit. I enjoy that because the kids can have more of an interaction, rather than just a few answering; they can have more opportunity to talk about the stories. My every other Wednesday depending on what else I have going on that week. (During the small group time during the reading block.) It has definitely left an impact. 2. Are the re any changes in your instruction in other subject areas? reading story in that goes with that and use the same strategies for asking questions, predicting, especi introducing a lot of unfamiliar vocabulary, so it works really well for that. 3. Will you continue to use interactive storybook reading strategies in your classroom now that Project SOLID has ended? If so, how? (i.e., with the whole class, in small group, at other times besides storybook reading) Answer: Definitely! Especially in my small group because it gives every child a chance to answer and participate and take part in the conversatio n. You can go over the to respond as much as in small group. Whenever, I read a story in small group, I kept it in my small group. Every small group had the same experience. 4. If you continue to use interactive strategies in small group, how many times per week do you think you will meet with the small group? Answer: I pul l in a story every other week in small group, but actually when the kids probably wo
204 different ending to the story. So still using those strategies but in the guided reading group. 5. skills as a result of participating in Project SOLID? (i.e., asking questions, using targeted vocabulary, making connections between stories, answering more inferen ce questions, making predictions, etc.) Answer: I think the students continue to be more verbal in class, as far as discussions, would have liked to see Taliyah get more vocal, or louder. But she is willing to raise her getting used to the conversation and participating. Sadly, not all of Ta nya how well she learned to think about the story and answer inferencing questions. Anything that required homework or home follow We start a new book on Monday, we read it whole group and then they take a Xerox copy re supposed to read it every night. Then on Thursday, they read it to me for their fluency grade. She would read it to me and sound out the words and she struggled every time, because you could tell it was new to her on Thursday. But in the last week or have asked her to read ar e supposed to sign the book each night that they read, but no one is signing it. So I something they can do. Tell me the steps, what do you do first, next, and last. Today, I an play, something you can make, or can you make a sandwich? Write out the steps for me. She was writing take the freeze tag. What steps do you go throug h to play freeze tag? Just that she wrote that many things on her own. In the grand scheme of things, it will still probably average out to be a low S or something, but even if no one else can tell, I know this little child made progress! I do feel like this project probably benefitted her more than the others. completely comfortable talking in group. I just feel like this really helped. This is impressive! 6. Do you think parti cipating in Project SOLID had a positive impact on the targeted wide or classroom assessment results (especially in listening comprehension or vocabulary)? What impacts did you notice?
205 Answer: I think the project definitely had an impac t on the targeted students. These students consistently pass their accelerated reader (AR) tests now. So, about three times 4/5 or 5/5 consistently. The boys especially improved in their listening skills. When I give unit tests or my reading (treasures) series, on both listening comprehension and reading comprehension, they consistently score well on that. I think the proje ct had a positive effect on that. 7. What could be added to the professional development and/or coaching components of Project SOLID to make it more helpful? on the beginning we did (baseline) where I read the stories and when I on one ended questi lesson plans for each story, even though I dreaded it, it really made me focus on what I was getting the kids to focus on. It really did help! Otherwise, I could have been real general, and flipped through a book and hit some of what I was going for, but this made or 8. If a colleague, who also teaches kindergarten, asked about the positives and negatives of using interactive storybook reading str negatives? Answer: I would say having someone count how many interactions I had with the group was so eye opening. It was something I could never have kept up with or imagined. It was a great feeling t look you made some struggling readers. having to write t he extra lesson plan for the book was a job, another task, but like I said, thro ending, or do I want them to think about does the author wants this to be an informati on book, an entertainment book... So, yeah, I put a lot more thought into picking the story
206 etc. And then we were doing something else and Lori 9. like to make about taking part in Project SOLID? Answer: I would highly recommend it! I just felt like it should be a standard training, one of these in questions and hitting the open somebody come in and make tally marks to give them some feedback on how many comments they make. So, it was insp veteran teacher, you can still teach an old dog, new tricks. Super! Teacher B Interview 6. Have you noticed any changes in your reading instruction since taking part in Project SOLID? If yes, can you tell me about those changes? present it to the class, so that it begins to just ignite some questions I want to ask, some rencing in my stories, and cause and just Accelerated Reader (AR) and other t hings, has really started to increase because It has changed how I will present read alouds forever! 7. Are there any changes in your instruction in other subject areas? but with your Project, I started introducing even my Math differently because now we do a lot more talking about it and turning to your partner, and asking them questions. But I just, like I said, all of this has played together to create that. Next year should be a great with it all. 8. Will you continue to use interactive storybook reading s trategies in your classroom now th at Project SOLID has ended? If so, how? (i.e., with the whole class, in small group, at other times besides storybook reading) Answer: Yes, we have been doing it in the classroom and yes, I will continue to do it! ake the time to read a book aloud. Mainly
207 time to go and find a book. Afte point now of sitting down and reading a book aloud at least 3 days a week, if not more. 9. If you continue to use in teractive strategies in small group, how many times per week do you think you will meet with the small group? Answer: I will always meet with small groups, but not with a read aloud. I would like ear depending on how the district changes things up with the curriculum but I think it would be important. I would Project SOLID that when I have even the guided r eading books (decodable books), I can ose questions and then I repeat those ly next year, I do want to do it. Chicks and Salsa and we talked about what is s about what salsa is and how people eat it and how people make it. Things like that... Another word in the story was guacamole about that and we talked about how to make it and we talked about it for a few days vocabulary more. 10. language skills as a result of participating in Project SOLID? (i.e., asking questions, using targeted vocab ulary, making connections between stories, answering more inference questions, making predictions, etc.) Answer: They tend to want to ask themselves more questions, and are more confident. icipate and ask those questions. If they have a question, they ask me to explain things through and I alouds. They got comfortable with that and are more sure of themselves. how to use it properly. So when they talk aloud to me or to other students, I think
208 more. I think of e finish and encouraged me! 11. Do you think participating in Project SOLID had a p ositive impact on the targeted wide or classroom assessment results (especially in listening comprehension or vocabulary)? What impacts did you notice? 6. What could be added to the professional development and/or coaching components of Project SOL ID to make it more helpful? questions or was unsure how to do something. And there were some books that they themselves when they read. 7. If a colleague, who al so teaches kindergarten, asked about the positives and negatives of negatives? had to sit and do my lesson plans. But the positive was that by the end, I could read a story one time and already tell you all the questions I wanted to ask, because I had trained ves, that would be my only one was that at first, my lesson planning took an hour, it definitely took an hour to sit down and do it. But the positives were the increase in comprehension was uch a positive to at we want and need.
209 And again, I think just the overall effect in the classroom was a positive. It has changed how I do question things. Even in my own house with my own daughter, when we read a book now, I ask these 8. Answer: I think it needs to be shared next year with all of our kindergarten tea chers at the beginning of the year. The more I talk to our different teachers, the more they say, ntly just supposed to be following this idea and there are read alouds, but t feel empowered to share that with the kids! Teacher C Interview 1. Have you noticed any changes in your reading instruction since taking part in Proj ect SOLID? If yes, can you tell me about those changes? Answer: Yes! I noticed that I use a lot of the strategies, especially like the vocabulary thing, because for going to use 2. Are there any changes in your instruction in other subject areas? An swer: Well, I use the vocabulary preview, of course, in the content area also. So, in ld have and on a more consistent basis than I did before. Do you see a difference in your questioning strategies? with the author study (see below) it saves me time, too, because I can utilize something The Flower Garden again in class and we read The Wall and The Wednesday Surprise and so we talked about the stories and I was
210 able to use the questions and things like we used in small group for Project SOLID and it was great because the kids that we had done this with were excited because they had already previewed and so they were able to answer questions and stuff like that. That was real exciting! 3. Will you continue to use interactive storybook reading strategies in your classroom now that Project SOLID has ended? If so, how? (i.e., with the whole class, in small group, at other ti mes besides storybook reading) were developmentally appropriate to the curricular area of K 2. So, never knowing and those character building skills especially in our day and age now. 4. If you continue to use interactive strategies in small group, how many times per week do you t hink you will meet with the small group? even from the video, as much as I tried to keep the time down, it was difficult to do that in a small group center time vs. doing it in whole group. I see the benefits of doing it in small group and what I thought about was to utilize it more with shorter books. Possibly with guided reading or small group reading that way the actual content of the book is less meaty and is mo I definitely saw how beneficial it was to do it in small group, because when I do it in able to give them that little bit pre teach that higher level vocabulary and really g et them using it. That word, interrupt, stuck with Cody and he keeps using it. So, once they get it and start to run with it, you level students want that kids to read those 50 books because they wanted to read with me. They crave it just as much as the others do. Unfortunately, the others need the articulation and really need it for the purpose of articulation instead of sessions over time, not tryi going to play with it and see what I can come up with. 5. skills as a result of participating in Project SOLID? (i.e., asking questions, using targeted vocabulary, making connections between stories, answering more inference questions, making predictions, etc.)
211 Answer: They all had increases. J ared is the one that sticks out the most to me because at the beginning, he was almost incomprehensible, and the ideas he produced were continued to move into it and he had more opportunities to share and to talk in a non threaten ing environment and to build that excitement and to be able to make those in his l evel of confidence now. Even when he reads aloud by himself now, his level of confidence has come out of her shell a little more. still, other things g and talk about books with other kids. anymore because I can put out big books and they read together or I can put out library books and they read together. They help each other read and they talk about the story. year with lots of chiefs and not enough Indians and now The first day back after Sprin g Break, I put big books out and there were kids reat! That was very exciting! Colten concise thoughts and is much more on topic because of that communication we had during those story times. It has helped him to feel more confident about the things he has this. 6. Do you think participating in Project SOLID had a positive impact on the targeted wide or classroom as sessment results (especially in listening comprehension or vocabulary)? What impacts did you notice?
212 ing listen ing for example, at the beginning of the school year had a just finished the illustrations Social Studies and Science content areas. I get really excited about it! In fact, this is the them. They read them on their own. I have a volunteer that comes in and reads the test them how to eliminate answers also, so on the next step in taking a test like that, is learning to eliminate the wrong answers. It all goes together and you can see n 7. What could be added to the professional development and/or coaching components of Projec t SOLID to make it more helpful? Answer: I really liked what we did at the end when you came back and showed me the been a horrible lesson, too many interruptions or whatever, what you see is totally sing on just sitting here and not even having to watch the whole thing, but just a few clips I was vocabulary development as far as pre do enough of. So, from watching the clips and seeing h ow the kids were engaged and how they were accepting of that vocabulary the more times that we used it in the story, it clicked for me, too. It helped me realize that there are things that I need to change and think about ways that I need to grow. I thin k it was important and I think that was a good thing. I would say that would be a good thing to do if you do this again. 8. If a colleague, who also teaches kindergarten, asked about the positives and negatives of using interactive storybook reading strateg negatives? Answer: Project SOLID promoted active listening, and supporting struggling students and it really is beneficial. It is really beneficial to them to have that active listening and to have that rec iprocal communications. That was very positive. The interaction with the
213 want to it was something that they felt they wanted to say. They may go off on tangents a nd it teaches them how to talk and how not to interrupt and all those good forms of communications have to learn to wait and learn to take turns and all those things and in that small group it made it so much easier to focus on that and to teach them those minute communication skills, those simple skills that are going to be lifesavers for t he rest of their careers. That, in and of itself was very, very beneficial. level questions and vocabulary concepts that were introduced in a setting that was non threatening, small group and wit h stories that they could relate to. So, using that vocabulary in a scenario that was within their grasp of understanding and with the colorful illustrations and the fiction and non fiction and the combination of all of those things. I thought that was v ery beneficial, very positive things. The only negatives would be the time it takes to prepare a lesson, because though read. Although, I can most definitely prepare a l esson much more quickly than I did more concise like a guided reading type setting where the book is only 5 6 pages and make it much simpler (fewer vocabulary words, fewer questions) and something that could be done more realistically. So that the time constraint for creating the questions, I could see myself doing the lessons more whole group, rather than small group with a have to take the good with the bad. We have more flexibility of time in whole group vs. small group. So, I could see where in that sense I would do it more, especially with a longer story, I would do it more in whole group than small group, but with a complete story. That was really the only negative that I could come up with. The strategies were great! They were easy to It made sense. The things that you asked me t o work on and try made sense. They pulling teeth to get answers. It seemed to flow really well, the way that you had me do onstraint where there would be any 9.
214 Answer: Well, like I said, I really liked the books you chose. They were very age hat it honestly children are mean to each other and more and more kids seem to be less nice to important that we help with those character building skills and the books you chose were very appropriate for doing that and lended very well to especially kindergart en and first talk to each other? How do we communicate effectively without hurting feelings? How do we have opinions and know when to keep our opinions to ourselves out in our discussions about these books. It was a lot of repetitive, but no t like you got hit by a car with it. They flowed through the stories and all lended themselves in the f you decide to do something again, please keep me in mind, most definitely. Teacher D Interview 1. Have you noticed any changes in your reading instruction since taking part in Project SOLID? If yes, can you tell me about those changes? Answer: Yes the going to ask to make the balance that we talked about, and introducing the vocabulary and building prior knowledge (before reading the story). 2. Are there any changes in your instruction in other subject areas? Answer: I just see that I want my kids to talk more. A lot of times I would try to get the with them actually talking about their prior knowle more. 3. Will you continue to use interactive storybook reading strategies in your classroom now that Project SOLID has ended? If so, how? (i.e., with the whole class, in small group, at other times besides storybook r eading. Answer: I would like to. The problem with doing that in small group is time. But in whole group, I really am doing my stories a lot differently. As far as letting the children interact more. (Tell me more) I used to read the story, I would as k questions, answer the question, move on to the next page. Now if they have a story that gets triggered in their
215 and talk about it. Before I just wanted to hurry be cause you only have so much time. But Tell me how your vocabulary instruction is different. ) And when I get to the page, talking about the vocabulary that I want them to learn. I also started using a graffiti table on Fridays, where they have to draw pictures from the story for the week, and we talk about their pictures and we also write the voc abulary on the table and define it. 4. If you continue to use interactive strategies in small group, how many times per week do you think you will meet with the small group? service training on years and I now with Common Core; I really want to change it up some. 5. What, skills as a result of participating in Project SOLID? (i.e., asking questions, using targeted vocabulary, making connections between stories, answering more inference que stions, making predictions, etc.) ng a lot more. Especially Devin and C olin talk at all at the beginning of the project. Now they have a lot to say about every story. I want to know it. Asking ab about it. Which is very different from the beginning of the Project. 6. Do you think participating in Project SOLID had a positive impact on the targeted wide or classroom assessm ent results (especially in listening comprehension or vocabulary)? What impacts did you notice? Answer: Yes. There was a big impact on their FAIR (vocabulary) assessment and then reader also and they really want to do it now. Before, they only would do it once a week on the one it and they just seem really excited about it! Their scores on AR a re much better now. 7. What could be added to the professional development and/or coaching components of Project SOLID to make it more helpful?
216 training, and you it. But, like the first time I implemented this intervention, you gave me suggestions on coa 8. If a colleague, who also teaches kindergarten, asked about the positives and negatives of negatives? Answer: The positive is that it gets your children talking more and using higher them excited 9. Project SOLID? My principal asked all of the K teachers, who would want to be part of the study. I always volunteer know if they would have enough time. So when nobody else volunt some ideas with her. I really want to learn more about how I can change my centers next e to let the students choose their centers.
217 APPENDIX Q PROMPTS FOR TEACHER RESPONSIVENESS
218 REFERENCES Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Anderson, R. C. & Nagy, W. E. (1993). The vocabula ry conundrum. Technical Report No. 570. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I. A. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Washington, DC: The National Institute of Education. Aram, D. (2006). Early literacy interventions: The relative roles of storybook reading, alphabetic activities, and their combination. Reading and Writing 19 489 515. J. (1998). Vocabula ry acquisition: Research bases. What reading research tells us abou t children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics (pp. 183 217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exerc ise of control. New York: Freeman. Beaver, J. M. (2006). Technical Manual: DRA, Grades K 3 (2 nd edition). Parsippany, NJ: Pearson Education. Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read aloud experiences for young children The Reading Teacher, 55 (1), 10 20. Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107 (3), 251 271. Beck, I.L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: The Guilford Press. Biemiller, A. & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 44 62 Bishop, D.V.M., & Adams, C. (1990). A prospective study of the relationship between specific language impairment, phonological disorders and reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31 1027 1050. Blachowicz, C., Obrochta, C., & Fogelberg, E. (2005). Literacy coaching for change. Educational Leadership 62 (6), 55 58. Block, C. C., Gambrell, L., & Pressley, M. (2002). Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice San Francisco: Jossey B ass.
219 Bodrova. E. & Leong, D. J. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brabham, E. G. & Lynch aloud styles on vocabulary acquis ition and comprehension of students in the early elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (3), 465 473. Bray, M. & Kehle, T. (1996). Self modeling as an intervention for stuttering. School Psychology Review, 25, 358 369. Brophy, J. (1981) Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51 5 32. Bus, A. G., van IJze ndoorn, 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. Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Tomblin, J.B., & Zhang, Z. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1142 1157. Carnine, D. (1999). Campaigns for moving research into practice. Remedial and Special Education, 20 (1), 2 6. Carnine, D. E.J., Tarver, S. J., & Jungjohann, K. (2006). Teaching struggling and at risk readers: A direct instruction approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Coleman, D., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, grades 3 12. Retrieved from Student Achievemen t Partners on June 15, 2013 www.achievethecore.org/stealthesetools Coyne, M.D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipol i, R., Ruby, M., Crevecoeur, Y. C., & Kapp, S. (2010). Direct and extended vocabulary instruct ion in kindergarten: Investigating transfer effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3, 93 120. Coyne, M.D., Simmons, D. E.J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Teaching vocabulary during shared storybook readings: An examination of differential effects. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 12, 145 162. Coyne, M.D., Zipoli, R.P. Jr., Chard, D. J., Faggella Luby, M., Ruby, M., Santoro, L. E., & Baker, S. (2009). Direct instruction of comprehension: Instructional examples from intervention research on listening and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 221 245.
220 Costa, A.L. & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon. Cunningham, A. E. & Zibulsky, J. (2011). Tell me a story: Examining the benefits of shared reading. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research, Volume 3 (pp. 396 411). NY: Guilford. Denton, P. (2007). The power of our words: Teacher langua ge that helps children learn. Turners Fall, MA: Northeast Foundation For Children, Inc. Retrieved from Responsive Classroom on June 15, 2013 www.responsiveclassroom.org/article/open ende d questions better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38 (3), 181 199. Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Book reading in preschool classrooms: Is reco mmended practice common? In D.K. Dickinson, & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Young children learning at home and school: Beginning literacy with language (pp. 175 203). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Dickinson, D.K., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long Term Effects of Preschool Teachers' Book Readings on Low Income Children's Vocabulary and Story Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 29 (2), 104 122. Dickinson, D.K., & Snow, C. E. (1987). Interrelationships among prereading and oral language skills in kindergartners from two social classes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 1 25. Dickinson, D.K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (2007). P eabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson. Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174 187. Fisher, R. (2005). Teacher child interaction in the teaching of reading: A review of research perspectives over twenty five years Journal of Research in Reading, 28 (1), 15 27. Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2008). Learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria: VA: Association for Sup ervision and Curriculum Development. Florida Department of Education (2012). No Child Left Behind, S chool Public Accountability Report Retrieved May 15, 2013 from http://doeweb prd.doe.state.fl.us/eds/nclbspar/year1112/nclb1112.cfm?dist_schl=42_681
221 Gambrell, L. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation. The Reading Teacher, 50 (1), 14 25. Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L.M., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (3), 915 945. Gast, D. L. (2010). Single Subject Research Methodology in Behavioral Scienc es New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. (2001). The realities of translating research into classroom practice. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16 120 130. Greenwood, C. R., Tapia, Y., Abbott, M., & Walton, C. (2003). A building based case study of evidence based literacy practices: Implementation, reading behavior, and growth in reading fluency, K 4. The Journal of Special Education, 37 (2), 95 110. Hadjioannou, X. (2007). Bringing the background to the foreground: What do classroom environments that support authentic discussions look like? American Educational Research Journal, 44 (2), 370 399. Hargrave, A. C. & Senechal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention with preschool children who have limited vocabularies: The be nefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 75 90. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. H ayes, D. P., & Ahrens, M. (1988). Vocabulary simplification for children: A special case of Journal of Child Language, 15 (2), 395 410. Horner, R.H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single subject res earch to identify evidence based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71 (2), 165 179. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 437 447. Justice L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words from storybooks: An eff icacy study with at risk kindergarteners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 17 32.
222 Karweit, N. (1989). The effects of a story reading program on the vocabulary and story comprehension skills of disadvantaged preschool and kindergarten students. Early Education and Development, 1 105 114. Karweit, N. & Wasik, B. A. (1996). The effects of story reading programs on literacy and language development of disadvantaged preschoolers. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 1 319 348. Lane, H. B. & Wright, T. L. (2007). Maximizing the effectiveness of reading aloud. The Reading Teacher, 60 (7), 668 675. Loftus, S.M., Coyne, M.D, McCoach, D. B., Zipoli, R., & Pullen, P.C. (2010). Effects of a supplemental vocabulary intervention on the word knowledge of kindergarten students at risk for language and literacy difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25 (3), 124 136. Lonigan, C.J., Anthony, J.L., Bloomfield, B.G., Dyer, S.M., & Samwel, C. S. (1999). Effects of two share d reading interventions on emergent literacy skills of at risk preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 22 (4), 306 322. Lonigan, C. J ., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). 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. Mendelsohn, A.L., Dreyer, B.P., Brockmeyer, C.A., Berkule Silberman, S.B., & Morrow, L. M. (2011) Fostering early development and school readiness in pediatr ic settings. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research, Volume 3 (pp. 279 294). NY: Guilford. Mohr, K. A ., & Mohr, E. S. (2007). Extending English using the Response Protocol. The R eading Teacher, 60 (5), 440 450. Mol, S.E., Bus, A.G., & de Jong, M. T. (2009). Interactive book reading in early education: A tool to stimulate print knowledge as well as oral language. Review of Educational Research, 79 (2), 979 1007. nor, E.M., & Smith, J. K. (1990). Effects of a story reading program on the literacy development of at risk kindergarten children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 255 273. Morrow, L.M., & Smith, J. K. (1990). The effects of group size on interactive story book reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 25 213 231. Nation, K. & Snowling, M. J. (2004 ). Beyond phonological skills: B roader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27 (4). 342 356.
223 National Early Litera cy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching chi ldren to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00 4769). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. National Staff Development Council. (2 009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad. NSDC: The School Redesign Network at Stanford University. Neuman, S. B., Roskos, K., Wright, T., & Lenhart, L. (2007). Nurturing knowledg e: Linking literacy to math, science, social studies and much more. New York: Scholastic. Palinscar, A. S. & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1 (2), 117 175 Palinscar, A.S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 211 225. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). How to read a paragraph: The art of close reading. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Cr itical Thinking Press. Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8 (3), 317 344. Penno, J.F., Wilkinson, I.A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explan ation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew Effect? Journal of Educational Psychology 94 23 33. Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Yamaguchi, R., & Lawrence, P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that f oster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44 (4), 921 958. Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Pullen, P.C., Tuckwiller, E.D., Konold, T.R., Mayna rd, K. L ., & Coyne, M. D. (2010). A tiered intervention model for early vocabulary instruction: The effects of tiered instruction for young students at risk for reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25 (3), 110 123.
224 Ramirez, J.D., Yeun, S.D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Executive summary, final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early exit and late exit transitional bilingual education programs for language minority children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre Intern ational, U.S.D.O.E. Robbins, C. & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergarteners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology 86 54 64. Sanders, W., & Rivers J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value Added Research and Assessment Center. Santoro, L. E., Chard, D. J., Howard, L., & Baker, S. K. (2008). Making the very most of classroom read alouds to promote comprehension an d vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 61 (5), 396 408. Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading difficulties: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & A. J. Caute (Eds .), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75 199). Timonium, MD: York Press. Scarborough, H. S. (2003). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dicki nson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research Vol. 1 (pp. 97 110 ). New York: Guilford. Scarborough, H. S. & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review 14 245 302. Senechal, M. (1993, March). production and comprehension vocabulary acquisition. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans. expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 24, 123 138. Senechal, M. & Cornell, E. H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 360 374. Senechal, M. & LeFevre, J. (2002). Par reading skill: A five year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445 460. Senechal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. (1995). Individual differences in 4 year acquisition of vocabulary dur ing storybook reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 218 229.
22 5 Shonkoff, J. P. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early child development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Silverman, R. (2007). A comparison of three metho ds of vocabulary instruction during read alouds in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 108 (2), 97 113. Smith, M. W. & Dickinson, D. K. (2002). Classroom Observation Toolkit (ELLCO) Baltimore, MD : Pa ul H. Brookes Snow, C.E., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Snow, C.E., Porche, M.V., Tabors, P.O., & Harris, S. R. (2007). Is literacy enough? Pathways to acade mic success for adolescents Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21 360 401. Storch, S.A., & Whitehurst, G. T. (2002). Oral language and code related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38 (6), 934 947. Strickland, D.S. (2013). Linking early literacy research and the Common Core State Standards. In S.B. Neuman and L.B. Gambrell (Eds.) Quality reading instruct ion in the age of Common Core Standards, (p p 13 25). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Teale, W. H. ( 2003 ). Reading a loud to young children as a classroom instructio nal activity: Insights fro m research and practice. In A. van Kleeck S. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children (p p 114 139). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Torgesen, J.K., & Burgess, S.R. (1998). Consistency of reading relat ed phonological processes throughout early childhood: Evidence from longitudinal correlational and instructional studies. In J. Metsala & L. Ehri (Eds.), Word Recognition in Beginning Reading (pp. 161 188 ) Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vygotsky L. (1978). Mind in society : The development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wasik, B. Strategies from an effective language and literacy professional development coaching model. The Reading Teacher, 63 (8), 621 633. Wasik, B. A. & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psycholo gy, 93 (2), 243 250.
226 Wasik, B. A., & Hindman, A.H. (2011). Improving vocabulary and pre literacy skills of at risk preschoolers through teacher professional development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (2), 455 469. Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquir y in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. Lee & P. Smagor in sky (Eds.), Vygotsk ian perspectives on literacy research (p p 51 85). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Whitehurst, G. J. (2004). Get ready to read! Classroom literacy envi ronment checklist. National Center for Learning Disabilities. R etrieved on February 23, 2012 from www.getreadytoread.org Whitehurst, G.J., Arnold, D.S., & Lonigan, C. J. (1990). Dialogic reading: The hear say method : A video workshop Stony Brook, NY: Aco rn films. Whitehurst, G. J ., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, 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 Psychology, 30 679 689. Whitehurst, G. J. Falco, F., 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, 552 558. Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C.J. (1998). Ch ild development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69 848 872. Whitehurst, G J & Lonigan, C. J. (2002). Emergent literacy: Development from pre readers to readers. In S Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 11 29 ). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Whitehurst, G.J., Zevenbergen, A.A., Crone, D.A., Schultz, M.D., Velting, O. N., & Fischel, J. E. (1999). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention from H ead Start through second grade. Journal of Educational Psycho logy, 91 261 272. Williams, K. T. (2007). Expressive Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Wood, D.J., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17 (2), 89 100. Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Whittaker, J.V., Lavelle, B., & Trends, C. ( 2010 ). Toward the identification of features of effective professional development for early childhood educators. Washington, D.C. : U.S.D.O.E.
227 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Pamela halfant was born in 1959 and lived with her parents, older brother, and four younger sisters in Huntingburg, a small town in Indiana. Pamela graduated from Southridge High School in 1978 and attended Ball State University. She attained a ba Pam ela worked as a teacher and director of preschool centers in Florida. From 1988 1993, she was an early learning specialist in a preschool program for 3 5 year olds with language impairments. From 1996 2004, Pam ela worked as a kindergarten and second grade teacher, and an elementary reading coach in Marion County, Florida. In 2005, Pam ela degree in reading from the University of Central Florida a nd worked as a Reading First Regional Coordinator for the state of Florida until 2008. Pam ela began her doctoral program as a full time student in th e fall of 2008. Her major area of study included special education with a focus on early reading interv entions. While completing her doctoral studies, Pam ela instructed courses, supervised students, and served as a research assistant on Project SELF. She currently continues to work on Project SELF at the University of Florida and looks forward to a succes sful career as an educator, researcher, and author