What’s good for teachers and students
Senechal, M., & Cornell, E. H. (1993). < active participation 01>
Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 28 (4), 361-374. | 001 | |
|Abstract |
|The present study aims to investigate the effects of different reading conditions on children’s receptive and expressive vocabulary. Four adult|
|reading conditions were utilized in the experiment. The four reading measures were the use of what-and where- questions, the use of recasts, |
|the word repetition condition, and the verbatim reading condition. Eighty 4-and eighty 5- years-old children were recruited in the study. |
|Results indicated that requesting active participation in the book-reading interactions did not boost children’s vocabulary learning; reading |
|the book verbatim was just as effective as asking questions or recasting new vocabulary introduced in the book. However, the researchers found |
|the effect of a single reading of a storybook on children’s receptive vocabulary. (L1) |
|Design: 1 storybook |
|Reading conditions:(a) the use of questions (b) the use of recasts (c) repetition (d) read the book verbatim |
|Findings: The reading episode was sufficient to boost young learners’ receptive vocabulary and that the immediate test may have primed older |
|children to acquire target words in extraexperimental contexts. Children’s acquisition was superior to the reasonable estimate of guessing. |
|Also, children remembered more words than they forgot words. (after investigating the influence of remembering, forgetting, and reminiscence on|
|their receptive vocabulary development) On the other hand, although the children failed to produce the target words, after the reading, they |
|were able to produce appropriate synonyms for the target words. Moreover, they produced few inappropriate labels and produced few failures to |
|respond. |
|Multiple exposure of book reading is a must! |
|Senechal, M. (1997). < active participation 02> | |
|The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers’ acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabulary.|002 |
|Cambridge University Press, 24, 123-138. | |
|Abstract |
|The present study was conducted to assess the effect of didactic techniques used during storybook reading on young children’s acquisition of |
|new vocabulary introduced in storybooks. 30 three-year-old and 30 four-year-old children are included in the experiment. One storybook was |
|utilized and three reading conditions were set up for the participants: single reading, repeated reading and questioning. In both the repeated |
|reading and questioning conditions, the storybook was read three times. Results indicated that listening to multiple readings of a storybook |
|facilitated children’s acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabulary, whereas answering questions during the multiple readings was more |
|helpful to the acquisition of expressive than receptive vocabulary. (L1) |
|Design: 1 storybook (the same with one that used in Senechal & Cornell, 1993) |
|Testing: Pretest of receptive vocabulary, Posttests of receptive & expressive vocabulary |
|Reading conditions: (a) single-reading (b) repeated-reading (c) questioning condition. |
|Discussion |
|Increased exposure of book reading enhanced children’s receptive and expressive vocabulary similarly whereas active responding during repeated |
|book reading events enhanced children’ expressive vocabulary more than their receptive vocabulary. Also, adults’ reading behaviors may have |
|different effects on children’s receptive and expressive vocabulary. |
|Ewers. C. A., & Brownson, S. M. (1999). < active participation 03> |003 |
|Kindergarteners’ vocabulary acquisition as a function of active vs. passive storybook reading, prior vocabulary, | |
|and working memory. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20, 11-20. | |
|Abstract |
|The purpose of the current study is to investigate the effect of active versus passive storybook reading conditions on the vocabulary |
|acquisition of kindergarteners who differed in level of prior vocabulary and phonological working memory. Results revealed that children with |
|higher vocabulary knowledge acquired significantly more words than lower vocabulary peers; active participants acquired significantly more |
|words than passive participants; and children with high versus low working memory did not differ in word acquisition. (L1) |
|Design: 1 storybook |
|Testing:(a) the Senechal Vocabulary Test-Adapted (b) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-R), and (c)the Children’s Test of Nonword Repetition|
|(CNRep) ( to get the current proficiency |
|(d) pretest (e) posttest of target words |
|Reading conditions: (a) active storybook reading (b) passive storybook reading. |
|Discussion |
|Kindergarteners could acquire a significant number of new vocabulary words as a result of listening to a single storybook reading. Active |
|participation would facilitates the learning of voca. |
| |
|Justice, L. M. (2002). Word exposure conditions and preschoolers’ novel word learning during shared storybook |004 |
|reading. Reading Psychology, 23, 87-106. < active participation 04> | |
|Abstract |
|The researcher designed an experiment in which 23 preschoolers participated in 2 adult-child shared storybook reading sessions over 1-week |
|period. The purposes of the present study are, firstly, to characterize the influence of various conditions. Secondly, to investigate the |
|effects of the two contrasting conditions. Results indicated that adults’ labeling of novel words facilitated children’s receptive word |
|learning but not for expressive word learning. Also, results suggested that no differences in receptive or expressive word learning in terms of|
|conceptual versus perceptual questions. ( L1) |
|Design: |
|Testing: (a) Novel Receptive Vocabulary, and (b) Novel Expressive Vocabulary |
|Reading conditions: (a) questioning versus labeling of novel words, and (b) conceptual versus perceptual questions about novel words |
|Discussion |
|Adults’ labeling of novel words resulted in significantly greater gains in preschool children’s receptive learning of novel words. Also, both |
|questioning and labeling did not exert positive effects regarding to the young children’s expressive learning of novel words. Last, nor did |
|various types of adult questions exert differential effects on novel word learning by preschool children |
|Senechal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. A. (1997) | |
|Individual differences in 4-year-old children’s acquisition of vocabulary during storybook reading. |005 |
|Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (2), 218-229. | |
|Abstract |
|Two experiments were conducted to assess how children who differ in vocabulary knowledge learn new vocabulary from listening to storybooks. |
|Participants were pretested for their prior word knowledge and classified as high or low word knowledge based on their Peabody Picture |
|Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) standard scores. In experiment 1, children either listened passively or labeled pictures using novel words. |
|Results shown that children with larger vocabularies produced more novel words than did children with smaller vocabularies, and children who |
|answered questions during the book readings comprehended and produced more words than did children who passively listened to the story. In |
|Experiment 2, participants either listened to readings of a book, pointed to pictures during the readings, or labeled pictures during the |
|readings. Results indicated that children with larger vocabularies comprehended more novel words than did children with smaller vocabularies. |
|Also, children who actively participated by labeling or pointing learned more words than did children who listened passively to book readings. |
|Therefore, the results highlighted the importance of active participation during the readings, whether verbal or nonverbal responding, namely, |
|labeling or pointing. (L1) |
|Design: 2 storybooks, 2 exposures of book reading, delayed/ post-test of comprehension & production, 32 & 48 sub. |
|Low & high word knowledge groups |
|Discussion: an example of the Matthew Effects; active participation facilitates word learning (pointing or labeling); home reading experience |
|is a key role in children’s vocabulary base |
|Ehri, L. C, & Robbins, C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergarteners helps them learn new |006 |
|vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (1), 54-64. | |
|Abstract |
|33 five-year-old kindergarteners comprised the body of the subjects in this study. Two storybooks were used and were read twice to the participants. |
|After the reading, the participants completed a posttest measuring their knowledge of the meanings if 22 unfamiliar words. Results indicated that |
|children recognized the meanings of significantly more words from the story than words not in the story. Namely, storybook reading facilitated |
|children’s learning of vocabulary words. The study results were another example of the Matthew Effect, which supported the phenomenon that the rich |
|get richer and the poor get poorer. Moreover, four exposures to words appeared to be necessary but not sufficient for higher rates of word learning. |
|(L1) |
|.Design: |
|Testing: 2 storybooks; multiple-choice posttest (22 words, 11 heard, 11 not-heard) |
|3 groups: low, middle, & high word knowledge |
| |
|Discussion: |
|1. an example of the Matthew Effects |
|2. multiple exposures of book reading is a must (in this study, 4 exposures are necessary but still |
|not sufficient for learning all new words in a story, at least 2 exposures for enhancing word learning) |
|Senechal, M., LeFevre, J. A., Hudson, E., & Lawson, E. P. (1996). Knowledge of storybooks as a |007 |
|predictor of young children’s vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (3), 520-536. | |
| | |
|Abstract |
|In the present study, the researchers examined variables accounted for the children’s vocabulary acquisition such as frequency of storybook reading |
|at home, frequency of reading requests during a typical week and so on. Additionally, parents’ education background, socioeconomic status, occupation|
|and other potential influencing factors were also being taken into consideration in the research. In Experiment 1, parents’ knowledge of storybooks |
|explained unique variance in children’s receptive vocabulary scores. In Experiment 2, children’s knowledge of storybook explained unique variance in |
|their receptive and expressive vocabulary scores. The findings obtained in the present study indicate that storybook experiences during the preschool|
|years may play a key role in children’s vocabulary development. Furthermore, a book-exposure checklist would be an alternative to self-reports of |
|reading frequency. (L1) |
|.Design: |
|Ex.1: 119 children & parents Ex.2: 47 children & 50 parents |
|Checklists: CTC (Children’s Title Checklist), CAC (Children’s Author Checklist), & AAC (Adults’ Author Ckl.) |
|Discussion: |
|1. Book exposure plays a key role in enhancing young children’s vocabulary development. |
|2. Reading exposure checklists are relatively more reliable than parents’ self-report of children’s reading experiences. (without social |
|desirability) |
|3. After controlling for other influencing factors (environmental & cognitive), storybook exposure (environmental variables)( explains unique |
|variance in children’s vocabulary knowledge |
|Snow, C. A., & Goldfield, B. A. (1983) Turn the page please: situation-specific language |008 |
|acquisition. J. Child Lang., 10, 551-569. | |
| | |
|Abstract |
|The study investigated the effects of storybook reading on children’s language development via mother-infant dyads. The research results showed that |
|specific lexical items and constructions used to talk about a picture frequently recurred in subsequent discussions, and that the child learned many |
|of these same items and constructions. Also, the child was most likely to acquire what he had heard his mother say about a picture if he had repeated|
|it in an earlier discussion. (L1) syntactic structures! |
|.Design: one mother-child pair over a period of 11 months Age: 2.5 years old (to 3.4 years old) |
|Discussion: |
|1. The recurrences of storybook reading and discussion did facilitate the child's language development. |
|2. In 37.7% of the discussions, the child initiated the conversation, indicating that he acquired the lexical items he needed through the reading |
|experiences. (the capacity and willingness to initiate the discussion) |
|3. In this particular interactive context, the child utilized the strategy of saying what he had heard others say in precisely the same situation. |
| |
|* Book reading is a frequent and powerful source of language learning. |
|* Book reading is an ideal and highly routinized activity. |
|* Routinization of situations and predictability of adult utterances from situation( crucial variables determining |
|optimal usability of the linguistic environment. |
|Ninio, A. (1983) Joint book reading as a multiple vocabulary acquisition device. Developmental |009-1 |
|Psychology, 19, 445-451. | |
| | |
|Abstract |
|The study investigated the effects of joint picture-book reading by 20 mother-infant dyads. Several labeling formats have been found from the |
|content analysis, among them simple labeling by the mother or the infant, elicitation of labeling by “what-questions, “ elicitation of pointing by |
|“where-questions,” and elicited and spontaneous imitation by the infant. The results imply that imitation, comprehension, and productive responses to|
|words by vocabulary- learning infants do no represent different levels of word knowledge, and also that the respective vocabularies are overlapping |
|at a given point in time. (EFL) |
| |
|Design: The study investigates vocabulary-teaching formats occurring in the context of joint picture-book reading by mother-infant dyads. It focuses|
|on repeated discussions of the same words occurring within a single book-reading session of 15-min duration. 3 picture books are used in the study. |
| |
|Discussion: |
|At the stage, correct responses appear intermixed with errors, implying that labeling games concentrate on words in the process of being acquired |
|rather than with fully mastered vocabulary items. |
|Comprehension and production of labels represent the same level of word knowledge—about 70% correct. Imitation occurs at a slightly lower level of |
|knowledge—about 43% success rate. |
|Words that are imitated are slightly less well-known by the child than others. That is, imitation occurs literally on the threshold of acquisition. |
|Following imitation, the success rate in producing and comprehending the same items approaches the 70% level. |
|Production, comprehension, and imitation represent alternative forms of rehearsal, with imitation more likely |
|Ninio, A. (1983) Joint book reading as a multiple vocabulary acquisition device. Developmental |009-2 |
|Psychology, 19, 445-451. | |
| | |
|to occur for less well-learned, but already comprehended, items. |
| |
|5. Labeling statements were preceded by a significantly lower proportion of correct responses than either what-questions or where-questions. (20.8% |
|for labeling statements, 67.4% for what-questions, 51% for where-questions) |
| |
|6. Mother exhibited a high degree of sensitivity to signals of word knowledge or lack of it in their children and chose their subsequent move |
|accordingly. Mothers seemed to be motivated to impart labeling information only if the children appeared not to know the word; otherwise, they |
|attempted to elicit production or recognition of the word from the children. |
|Snow, C.A., & Ninio, A. (1986) The contracts of literacy: What children learn from listening to read|010 |
|books. In W. H. Teale, & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and Reading (pp.116-138). | |
|Norwood, NJ: Ablex. | |
|Abstract |
|With complementary lines of research, Snow & Ninio turned their attention completely to the contributions of book reading to the child’s literacy |
|development and discuss how children learn the “contracts of literacy,” the basic rules related to the use of books and the meaning of texts. (L1) |
| |
|Design: mother-child dyads |
|infant at their initial stage of language learning (one: at his early language acquisition and the other was 8 months old) |
| |
|Discussion: |
|*The 7 contracts: |
|1) Books are for reading, not for manipulating; (2) In book reading, the book is in control and the readeros led; (3) Pictures are not things but |
|representatives of things; (4) Pictures are for naming; (5) Pictures can represent events; (6) Book events occur outside real time; (7) Books |
|constitute an autonomous fictional world |
|Whitehurst, G. J. et al. (1988). Accelerating Language Development Through Picture Book Reading. |011 |
|Developmental Psychology, 24, 552-559. | |
|Abstract : The study assessed the effects of joint book reading between mothers and infants. Mothers of the experimental group, after receiving a |
|less than 1 hour reading training, followed the instructions in their reading yet mothers in the control read in their customary fashion. Results |
|showed that the experimental outperformed their counterparts on standardized posttests of expressive language ability. Also, the experimental had a |
|higher MLU (mean length of utterance), frequency of phrases, and a lower frequency of single words. Follow-up 9 months showed differences between the|
|two groups. (L1) |
| |
|Design: mother-child dyads / 1 month duration |
|The average age: 1.75~2.91 years old |
|Discussion: |
|Variations in reading to young children can have appreciable effects on language development. Results from posttests and follow-up on PPVT, EOWPVT, |
|and ITPA indicated that children in the experimental group had a more positive results than ones in the control after being read to by their mothers |
|under the requirements of using open-ended questions, function/attribute questions, and expansions; to respond appropriately to children’s attempts |
|to answer these questions; and to decrease their frequency of straight reading and questions that could be answered by pointing. Moreover, the |
|experimental showed higher MLU, frequency of phrases, and a lower frequency of single words. |
|PPVT: Peaboby Picture Vocabulary Test |
|EOWPT: Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test |
|ITPA: Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities |
|Arnold, D. H. et al. (1994). Accelerating Language Development Through Picture Book Reading: |012 |
|Replication and Extension to a Videotape Training Format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, | |
|235-243. | |
|Abstract: As a replication of Whitehurst et al (1988)’s study, the present study assessed the effects of joint book reading between mothers and |
|infants using a videotape training program. The intervention program, called dialogic reading, produced substantial effects on preschool children’s |
|language development. Concerning the costs of the reading training program, the authors developed and evaluated an inexpensive videotape training |
|package for teaching dialogic reading techniques. Results supported the conclusions of Whitehurst et al.: Dialogic reading had powerful effects on |
|children’s language skills and indicated that videotape training provide a cost-effective, standardized means of implementing the program. (L1) |
| |
|Design: mother-child dyads / 5 weeks duration/ 64 children, 27 in the control, 23 the direct, 14 in the video |
|The average age: 2~2. 83 years old |
| |
|Discussion: |
|As a replication of Whitehurst, G. J. et al. (1988), the results also found that variations in reading to young children can have appreciable effects|
|on language development. Besides, with the cost-effective concern of the application, the researchers utilized a videotape training program to |
|provide parents with principles of reading storybook aloud. As expectation, the research results confirmed the effects of reading stories to young |
|children did facilitate their vocabulary acquisition. Moreover, with the emphasis of eliciting production from children, the storytelling evokes |
|children’s productive vocabulary than their receptive vocabulary. In other word, the series of dialogic reading studies demonstrates that large |
|effects on children’s language can obtained by a storytime intervention that encourages children to talk about picture books and provides appropriate|
|language feedback and models. |
|Akhtar, N., Jipson, J., & Callanen, M. A. (2001). Learning words from overhearing. Child |013 |
|Development, 72, 416-430. | |
|Abstract : Three studies examined 2 year-olds’ ability to learn novel words when overhearing these words used by others. The results found that |
|children aged 2.6 were equally good at learning novel words, both object labels and action verbs when they were overhearers as when they were |
|directly addressed. But for younger 2 year-olds, this was true for object labels than for action verbs. The research highlighted the active role |
|played by toddlers in vocabulary acquisition. (L1) |
| |
|Design: 3 studies (1A/1B(2.6 year-olds, 2A/2B( young 2 year-olds, 3( younger 2 year-olds with a modified procedure (provided chances of knowing the |
|action prop first, experiences with the action verbs) |
|2 groups: 1overhearing, 1 addressed |
|The average age: 2.4~2.8 years old |
| |
|Discussion: The research results indicated that by age 2.6, children are capable of learning novel words through overhearing. (both nouns and verbs) |
|Moreover, younger 2 year-olds show the ability of acquiring novel labels but not action verbs through overhearing. For obvious reasons, younger 2 |
|year-olds seemed not to learn action verbs through overhearing. |
| |
|Reflection: Context plays a critical role in children’s language acquisition. Only in meaningful social interaction could children absorb language |
|naturally and substantially. Also, the research findings reveal the fact that toddlers can acquire words through meaningful literacy event even as an|
|overhearer and this, to me, may provide an explanation why children would absorb new words through storytelling. |
|Smith, H, & Higgins, S. (2006). Opening classroom interaction: the importance of feedback. |014 |
|Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 485-502. | |
|Abstract : This article uses evidence gathered from a large-scale research project examining classroom interactions during literacy and |
|numeracy lessons, and the researchers’ critical reflections upon this process, to examine conceptions of interactive pedagogy. In order to |
|“open” classroom interaction, emphasis should be on the manner with which teachers’ react to pupils’ responses to questions. Episodes of |
|classroom interaction from video recorded literacy and numeracy lessons taken as part of the study are used to support this argument. |
|Findings: It is not whether a question is factual, closed or open or even the degree of openness and authenticity with which it is phrased, the|
|act of asking questions itself, or the types of questions teachers ask, which determines classroom interactivity. Rather it is how a teacher |
|reacts to pupils’ responses in terms of their feedback and the historical precedence of the perception of teacher intent this engenders. Types |
|of feedback moves which appear to facilitate pupils’ subsequent use of talk for thinking and learning. (1) quality feedback moves: to encourage|
|a more conversational and symmetrical interaction, (2) encouraging peer-peer feedback: by asking pupils to review one another’s work, |
|rephrasing the pupils’ ideas etc., which may enhance self-evaluation, (3) reciprocal engagement: to signal an authentic interest in what the |
|pupils were saying and an implicit cue prompting their continuance, (4) following pupils’ ideas: by taking pupils seriously, acknowledging and|
|building on what they said, which encouraged pupils to have ownership not only of the solution of the problems, but also the flow of the |
|lesson. |
|Notes: |
|the feedback move: I-R-F( initiation-response-feedback |
|reason for using a video camera:: paralinguistic and non-linguistic features of talk and the use of the board as a pedagogical tool were |
|captured. The recordings were used to identify not just the function of teacher and pupil discourse, and “broad patterns in the distribution of|
|talk,” but also the content of what was actually said and the manner in which it was spoken.--> the whole picture! |
|Cornell, E. H., Senechal, M., & Broda, L. S. (1988). Recall of picture books by 3 year-old |015 |
|children: Testing and repetition in joint reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology,| |
|80, 537-542. | |
|Abstract : The study probed the effects of rereading and testing for recall on children’s knowledge of content of the given texts. An |
|additional between-subject variable was whether the researcher or the child pointed to items to be remembered; the different books served as a |
|within-subject variable. The dependent variable measure was memories of book items when the child was asked to anticipate events from page to |
|page. There was little evidence that these memories were strengthened by the child’s pointing during reading, but testing for recall and |
|rereading the book were found to be effective for teaching the content. (L1) (72 three-year-old children, duration: N/A) |
|Findings: The results indicated that rereading and testing boosted children’s knowledge of content of picture-books. More importantly, once the|
|book items were recalled and confirmed, children rarely forgot them. However, pointing was not as effective for boosting recall of book items |
|as hypothesized in this current study. Namely, recall of pic. books was boosted by a single rereading of the books, by testing for memories of |
|book items, and by probing with different reminders. |
|Discussions: |
|testing effects seen in the study: testing serves to (1) retrieve new items and (2) correct items that are recalled in the wrong context. |
|(2) lack of an effect of pointing: investigations involving different ages, book formats, and dependent measures should be considered. |
|Moreover, pointing may be instrumental for other aspects of language learning such as vocabulary acquisition.(Ninio, 1983) |
|certain pic. books facilitate certain aspects of book learning. The researchers urged that the literature seldom acknowledge that the child’s |
|competence and the parents’ techniques may be shaped by the book in hand.(Effie: the importance of book selection) |
|(4) children’s intrusion reflect knowledge of content. The book that yielded more recall yielded less incorrect guessing, less failure to |
|respond to initial probes but more intrusions. Children are willing to name items that they knew appeared somewhere in the book. ( the |
|importance to identify the memorable characteristics of favorite books (Robinson & Sulzby, 1984). |
|Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994) |016-1 |
|A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. | |
|Developmental Psychology, 30, 679-689. | |
|Abstract : The study investigated the effect of an interactive book reading program with children from low-income families who attended |
|subsidized day-care center in New York. Children were pretested and assigned randomly within classrooms to 1 of conditions: (a) a school plus |
|home condition in which the children were read to by their teachers and their parents, (b) a school condition in which children were read to |
|only by teachers, and (c) a control condition in which children engaged in play activities under the supervision of their teachers. The |
|intervention lasted for 6 weeks, at which point children were posttested on several standardized measures of language ability that had been |
|used as pretests. These assessments were repeated at a 6-month follow-up. Statistically and educationally significant effects of the reading |
|intervention were obtained at posttests and follow-up on measures of expressive vocabulary. (n= 73 three year-old L1 children) |
| |
|Findings: Children in the reading conditions gained approximately double the number of words between pretests and posttests than the |
|counterparts in the control. Interestingly, from the correlational findings, number of books in the home and the child’s enjoyment of shared |
|reading contributed to children’ s performance on the language assessment. The research results showed that book reading can be a practical |
|intervention for preschoolers from low-income backgrounds.(with readers are day care center teachers or parents other than highly educated |
|adults) |
| |
|Discussion: (1) The principles underlying dialogic reading suggest that children benefit from active responding to pic.books in a setting in |
|which an adult gently pushes the child, through questions, expansions, and sensitivity to the child’s interests and abilities. |
|Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994) A|016-2 |
|picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. | |
|Developmental Psychology, 30, 679-689. | |
|Discussion: (2) The model that underlies the research is that dialogic reading and related activities during the preschool period enhance |
|language and preliteracy skills, which in turn help children in learning to read and other academic tasks when they begin school. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Note: In day care, teachers read to a small group of nor more than 5 children at a time. |
|Oeizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. (2001). Lexical Input as Related to Children’s Vocabulary Acquisition: |017 |
|Effects of Sophisticated Exposure and Support for Meaning, 37, 265-279. | |
|Abstract : The study aims to investigate the relationship between early lexical input and vocabulary acquisition among in low-income children. With |
|53 children recruited in the study, totally 263 mother-child conversations in 5 settings were studied. Children’s vocabulary performance in |
|kindergarten and later in 2nd grade related more to the occurrence of sophisticated lexical items than to quantity of lexical input overall. Density |
|of sophisticated words heard and the density with which such words were embedded in helpful or instructive interactions, at age 5 at home, |
|independently predicted over a third of the variance in children’s voca. performance in both kindergarten and 2nd grade. |
| |
|Design: 5 settings: toy-play, mealtime, magnet play, information book reading, storybook reading |
|The average age: 53 low-income mother & child, 5 years old, L1 (mother-child dyads) |
| |
|Findings: Study results were two folded. Firstly, there’re profound quantitative and qualitative differences in early voca. exposure among low-income|
|preschoolers. Secondly, a powerful linkage b/w early exposure to sophisticated words during mealtime and playtime conversations and later voca. |
|performance was found. |
|Study results indicated that age 5 PPVT-R score absorbs most of the variance in the age 7 PPVT-R score. This suggests that the relationships carried |
|over into the early school years. |
|Discussion: The present research indicated the importance of the occurrence of sophisticated low-frequency words at a child’s early literacy |
|development. More importantly, it is particularly imperative for children in low-income family. Also, the importance of providing interactive |
|contexts that support the utility of sophisticated language input was highlighted. Accordingly, the researchers suggest that descriptions of |
|vocabulary input must involve 3 fundamental elements: lexical quantity, lexical sophistication, and conversational support, in which instructive or |
|helpful interactions would be seen. |
|Lomax, C. L. (1977) Interest in books and stories at nursery school. Educational Research, 19, |018-1 |
|100-112. | |
|Abstract : The study aims to investigate children’s interest in books and stories at nursery school. 28 preschool children were compared by means of |
|observations, tests, interviews with parent about activities at home, and questionnaires for staff about activities at school. |
|Design: The subjects were divided into 2 groups: high-interest group & low-interest group. At the first stage, the children were observed for two |
|non-consecutive days to decide who has high interests in books and vice versa. At the second stage, both Story Group (averagely spent 22.5 min in the|
|books areas) and Control Group (spent only 4 mins) was observed continuously for a period of 100 minutes. |
|The average age: 3 and 4 years old, L1 |
|Findings: Significances were found in the study. Firstly, results from the first stage showed that story telling and looking at books, taken |
|together, were among the most commonly observed activities in the nursery school. (there’s a dearth of research studies in giving information about |
|children’s activities in nursery schools.) Secondly, the girls tended to be using the book corner for longer periods than the boys. Thirdly, there’s |
|big difference in time spent between the two groups. CG spent more time on ‘nonspecific activity’ and SG stayed focus on ‘any’ activity for a much |
|longer time than their counterpart. Moreover, SG spent contrastively long time on listening to a story (12.72 min) from an adult and CG only a very |
|short period of time (4.43 mins). Next, parents of SG reported that their children had a story from an adult at home significantly more often than |
|parents of CG. Besides, parents of SG reported that their children painted more often than peers of CG, while children of CG were reported to pretend|
|to be an ‘action figure’ more often than the Story children. Furthermore, children of SG listened to a story from an adult were more frequent their |
|peers at the nursery school. Also, the frequency of using construction toys of SG was higher than CG at the nursery school. |
|Lomax, C. L. (1977) Interest in books and stories at nursery school. Educational Research, 19, |018-2 |
|100-112. | |
|Findings: On the other hand, all children in the SG were reported as having a story form an adult at home at least once a week, and in most cases |
|every day. Eight of the 12 CG children also had stories from an adult for at least once a week, though one mother commented that her child received |
|reading aloud no more than once a week. The other four Comparison children had stories from adults at home less often than this, in two cases less |
|often than once a month. When it comes to the liking or disliking of playing alone, CG children disliked to play alone compared the Story children |
|most of whom were seen as liking to this or even liking it very much. By contrast the CG children were mostly reported as liking to play with other |
|young children very much compared with the Story children who merely liked this situation of in many cases disliked it. Interestingly enough, the |
|association between age and apparent interests in books and stories for boys was also found in a longitudinal study undertaken at another nursery |
|school as part of the same project (Lomax, unpublished research). Nursery nurses kept records of children’s interests in various play activities over |
|a two-year period. Most of the boys in the study were reported as showing interests in books corner at age five but not at age three; most of the |
|girls, on the other hand, were reported as already showing interests by the age of three. Last, CG children engaged in most nursery school activities |
|more often than the SG but generally attended to these activities for shorted periods and spent a significantly greater proportion of their time doing|
|nothing in particular. |
|Lomax, C. L. (1977) Interest in books and stories at nursery school. Educational Research, 19, |018-3 |
|100-112. | |
|Discussion: The findings of the research were very critical and highly influencing. As in expectation, the researcher indicated that many instances |
|in the investigation showed that the children has a strong liking for repetition, which was again supported the common belief that young children |
|love repetition of hearing the same books again and again once they love that given story. Moreover, the introduction of the ‘jukebox’ system which |
|the children could operate themselves would not only be interesting form a research point of view but might help to satisfy the children’s evident |
|desire for stories to be repeated several times. Also, the small number of children present at any one time for a story suggests that there would be |
|plenty of opportunity for individual attention and child-adult interaction in this situation. |
|Speaker, K. M., Taylor, D., & Kamen, R. (2004). Storytelling: Enhancing language acquisition in |019 |
|young children. Education, 125, 3-14. | |
|Abstract: The research aims to investigate the effects of listening to stories on preschoolers’ language acquisition. In details, it is to assess the|
|qualitative changes in verbal fluency in four aspects: vocabulary, grammatics, MLU, and sentence formation. 5 subjects were enrolled in the study. |
|The subjects received pretests and posttests on Brown’s Stages of Language Development to probe the acquisition of syntax (MLU) and Templin’s Type of|
|Token Ratio to study the word knowledge (semantic content). Data collection was also from the language samples to analyze the four aspects of |
|language. The questions used were open-ended, thought provoking and intentionally written at eh higher stages of Bloom’s taxonomy. Each child’s |
|language development was analyzed through unstructured (free play) and structured activities (narratives) using sequential picture cards and themed |
|pictures before and after the storytelling program. |
|Design: a qualitative research, 4 weeks & 10 books |
|The average age: 3, 4, and 5years old, L1 |
|Findings: The study results showed that each of the five preschool children displayed improvement of language skills after engaging in the rigorous |
|storytelling program. While the level of overall progress varied in vocabulary, grammatics and sentence formation, significant gains in MLU can be |
|noted. The increased use of elaboration and the use of complex sentences can also be seen in the post intervention stage in the participants. These |
|findings reiterated that increased exposure to storytelling would foster emergence of more advanced stages of different aspects, here, with |
|grammatics, vocabulary, length of utterance, and sentence formation, of language development in preschoolers. |
|Discussion: The MLU corresponds roughly to the child’s chronological age, in which case an MLU of 3.94 would roughly correspond to a 4 year-old |
|child. The flaws of the study: the way of storytelling was deficient. (N/A) and the study duration seemed too short (with only 4 weeks). |
|Wood, E., Pressley, M., Turnure, J., & Walton, R. (1987). Enriching children’s recall of |020 |
|picture-dictionary definitions with interrogation and elaborated pictures. ECTJ, 35, 43-52. | |
|Abstract: The hypothesis of this study was that preschoolers’ learning of vocabulary-meaning associations could be improved by interventions that |
|increased the likelihood of extensive, elaborated processing during the study of vocabulary words and their definitions. Subjects were randomly put |
|into 4 conditions: questioned & elaborated/ nonquestioned & elaborated/ questioned& nonelaborated, and nonquestioned & nonelaborated. |
| |
|Design: 4 conditions (questioned((1) showed the pictures (2) read by the experimenter the short definitional paragraph (3) ask questions & |
|nonquestioned((1) showed the pictures (2) read by the experimenter the short definitional paragraph (3) declarative sentences) |
|The average age: eighty 41 months ~ 69 months preschoolers |
| |
|Findings: The study results showed that firstly questioned subjects performed better in total recall that was paraphrased than nonquestioned |
|counterparts but were less likely to recall the exact word wording of the text, consists with the hypothesis that questioning would produce more |
|extensive processing of the definitions. Secondly, the presentation of elaborated pictures resulted in more congruent recall than the presentation of|
|the less complex pictures. That is, the elaborated pictures might also produce deeper processing than did the nonelaborated illustrations, for |
|subjects who viewed elaborated pictures were more likely to recall congruent information at testing. Finally, this present study made it clear that |
|preschool children’s memory of a definition can be made richer, with pictorial and interrogative variables making unique contributions to recall. The|
|study emphasized the importance of pictures and questions in reading (and reading aloud) to children in terms of their language development. |
|Linse, C. (2006). Predictable books in the children’s EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 61, 46-54. |021 |
|Abstract: The article explores the use of predictable books in EFL to help develop both their oral language and literacy development. Furthermore, it|
|explores the range of language found in predictable books and discusses the suitability of this material for young children learning in EFL. |
| |
|Discussion: (1) repetition is important of the learning. Many folktales are embedded with this feature such as Goldilocks, Little Red Hen, and Three |
|Little Pigs. Also, folktales were originally told orally in a social context. The social environment of the story can assist in providing scaffolding|
|as is the case when adults engage in telling stories to children that use repetitive and predictable language. Last, repetition would provide |
|linguistic support as a young child developed concepts of language and narration. (2) One of the most precious moments that teachers share with their|
|very young students is story time when they crowd around to see the pictures and listen to a tale read or told for the first or twentieth time. (3) |
|Predictable story is a popular type of storybooks that often used by native English teachers. Predictable books contain illustrations that help to |
|clarify or support the word, sentence, or pattern that is repeated in the text. Also, predictable books are considered to be an educationally sound |
|way of easing emergent readers into reading authentic literature. (“These predictable features give emergent readers the sensation of reading and |
|help them make associations between spoken and written words (Popp, 1996)). Predictable book like Brown Bear, Brown Bear, what do you see? (4) the |
|advantages of reading predictable books: illustrate specific aspects of grammar, provide content (using controlled patterns). For example, Polar |
|Bear, Polar Bear, what do you hear? (repetitive structures and features factual content). Next, it can teach children pronunciation, help them |
|develop writing skills (it is important to use books that children are familiar with and are at or slightly above children’s level of language |
|acquisition.) |
|Linse, C. (2006). Predictable books in the children’s EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 61, 46-54. |021-1 |
| |
|Discussion: When search for a predictable book for reading aloud to young EFL learners, it is important to find tales that are of interests and are |
|linguistically accessible to beginning language learners. To decide whether a book is suitable, some rules might help. For example, the structures in|
|a specific book may be familiar to the learners, although the vocabulary may be new. The repetition of text, combined with illustrations, is ideal |
|for use in the young EFL learners. |
| |
|Note: the definition of predictable books: a core structure is repeated over and over again. |
|Lonigan, C. J.,& Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a |022-1 |
|shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood | |
|Research Quarterly, 13, 263-290. | |
|Abstract: The effects of shared-reading intervention were evaluated with 3 to 4 years old children from low-income families. The children were |
|pretested and assigned to 1 of 4 conditions: no treatment, school condition, home condition, school plus home condition. The intervention was |
|conducted for 6 weeks, after the experiment, the children were posttested on standardized measures of oral language and language samples were |
|obtained during a shared-reading assessment. Also, the children received follow-up 6 months. (L1, 91 children) |
| |
|Design:4 (conditions)x 2 (centers: high & low compliance) ANCOVA/ shared-reading sessions were scheduled to occur daily for approximately 10 minutes |
|per reading group/ 6 books/ Assessments: PPVT/EOWPVT(names for pic.)/ ITPA-VE (verbal fluency)/ verbal production(answer open-ended questions( to see|
|children’s spontaneous speech growth) |
|Discussion: The results obtained under a more naturalistic measure of language. |
|Findings: The ANCOVA on the EOWPVT at posttest revealed a significant effect of intervention group and the group by center compliance interaction. In|
|the high compliance centers, the combined intervention groups scored significantly higher than the control group, and none of the intervention groups|
|differ from each other. The school plus home group scored higher than the control group, and there was a trend for the school group to score higher |
|than the control group. |
|Lonigan, C. J.,& Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a |022-2 |
|shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood | |
|Research Quarterly, 13, 263-290. | |
|Findings: The ANCOVA on the ITPA-VE at posttest revealed a significant effect of intervention group. The combination of all three intervention groups|
|scored higher than the control group. Scores in the home group were higher than scores in either the school group or the school plus home group. |
|School for the home group were higher than scores in the control group. The ANCOVA on the PPVT-R at posttest revealed no significant effects. Only 66|
|of the 91 children who were available for the semi-structured reading intervention assessment to gain verbal production data. Concerning the high and|
|low compliance centers, significant effects of group were found for children’s MLU, the total number of words produced, the number of different words|
|produced, the number of different nouns produced, and the number of different adjective/ modifiers produced. Planned comparisons revealed that the |
|combined intervention groups produced longer utterances, produced more words overall, produced a higher diversity of words, and produced more |
|adjectives/ modifiers than the control group. And there were minimum differences between the intervention groups. In the low compliance centers, |
|there was a significant effect of group for the number of different words produced; however, neither the combined intervention groups nor any |
|individual intervention group differed from the control group. Children’s verbal production assessment showed that in the high compliance centers, |
|significant effects of group were found for the total number of words produced, the number of different words produced, and the number of different |
|verbs produced. Planned comparisons indicated that the combined intervention groups produced more words overall, produced a higher diversity of |
|words, and produced |
|Lonigan, C. J.,& Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a |022-3 |
|shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood | |
|Research Quarterly, 13, 263-290. | |
|more verbs than the control group. Children in high compliance centers scored higher on all of these variables, and the effects were due to |
|differences between centers in the school plus home and home groups. (Reading frequency!) |
|Discussion: The results obtained under a more naturalistic measure of language. Both the teachers and parents can produce significant positive |
|changes in the development of low-income children using a relatively brief dialogic reading intervention. The effects were apparent on two |
|standardized tests of expressive language (EOWPVT & ITPA-VE). These results add important data to the theoretical and empirical controversy |
|concerning the role of shared-reading activities in the development of oral language and other emergent literacy skills. Also, the effects on |
|structural aspects of spontaneous speech were relatively large. Within high compliance centers, children who were exposed to dialogic reading at both|
|home and school appeared to be benefit more than those exposed just at home or just at school. The two school groups resulted in the largest gains in|
|expressive vocabulary suggests that teachers may focus on teaching specific age appropriate vocabulary. In contrast to the results of vocabulary |
|development, parents appear to be more influential in increasing their children’s descriptive use of language. Results for the ITPA-VE were stronger |
|in the home group than in either the school or the school plus home group. (reading frequency! The nature of school versus home reading( one on one |
|reading & small group reading) The relationship between dialogic reading and Vygotsky’s (1978) ZPD was discussed. Impressively, the researchers found|
|that after the study, several parents reported that because of the experience, both they & their children enjoyed shared-reading and may ask whether |
|they could get more books. Note: high compliance center: conduct the intervention with a high frequency and vice versa. |
|Horner, S. L. (2004). Observational learning during shared book reading: The effects on |023-1 |
|preschoolers’ attention to print and letter knowledge. Reading Psychology, 25, 167-188. | |
|Abstract: The study aimed to investigate the effects of observational learning one preschoolers’ use of a questioning technique, attention to print, |
|and knowledge of the alphabet. The hypotheses were, children who observe a model will ask questions ask more questions. Also, children who observe a |
|model ask print-related questions will make more print-related response. Last, children who make print-related responses will learn more target |
|letter names. |
|Design: 62 preschoolers, 28 three-year-old; 28 four-year-old; 6 five-year-old/ 4 treatments: print questions videotape, picture questions videotapes,|
|no questions videotape, no videotape control/ pretests (to decide who could participate in the study) and posttest/ 2 book readings (alphabet book) |
|*12% of the children enrolled in the program do not speak English while 88% speak English |
| |
|Findings: Firstly, both the print questions and picture questions groups asked significantly more questions than did the no questions and no |
|videotape control groups. Specifically, children who observed a model asked 15 times more questions during BR1 and 30 times more questions during BR2|
|than children who did nor observe a model. Also, it has found that the print questions videotape group focused on the individual letter more often |
|than the children in any other group. That is, children in the print questions condition commented on the letters approximately 8 times more than the|
|children in the other conditions. However, results failed to support the hypothesis that preschoolers who made letter-focused responses would learn |
|more target letters names than children who did not make letter-focused responses within shared book-reading sessions. The number of letter-focused |
|responses was positively correlated with pretest letter-name knowledge for all 26 letters. |
|Horner, S. L. (2004). Observational learning during shared book reading: The effects on |023-2 |
|preschoolers’ attention to print and letter knowledge. Reading Psychology, 25, 167-188. | |
|Namely, those children who knew more letters at the beginning of this study imitated the model’s focus on the individual letter more than children |
|who knew fewer letters. Twice as many children who knew most letters commented on the print than children who knew few letters. Also, the two |
|children who knew most letters (25 &26) read most of the pages before the researcher did. |
| |
|Discussion: The possible reasons that observational learning did not support children’ letter-name knowledge might be “that letters are graphically |
|abstract and highly confusable, learning the names of letters is not an easy task.” (Adams, 1990; Ehri, 1983) For further discussion, see the paper.|
| |
|The influence of home reading or preschool reading plays a key role in young children’s letter-name knowledge. Children who are frequently read to at|
|home or at preschool may learn behavioral patterns more readily within a book-reading episode than children who are read to less frequently. |
|Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C., Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. |024-1 |
|(1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational | |
|Psychology, 86, 542-555. | |
|Abstract: The research aims to investigate the effects of an emergent literacy intervention to further explore the relations between the intervention|
|and its outcomes. The participants were pretested and posttested on standardized tests of language, writing, linguistic awareness, and print concepts|
|and were randomly assigned to 2 conditions: intervention, involving an add-on emergent literacy curriculum, or a control, involving the regular Head |
|Start curriculum. (Intervention: interactive book reading at home & school plus a classroom-based sound and letter awareness program) The hypothesis |
|was that the combination of dialogic reading and sound foundations would enhance language, linguistic awareness, and print knowledge when introduced |
|into intervention classrooms and compared with the performance of children in control classroom. |
|Design: 167 four-year-old children, 2 conditions, pretests: the PPVT-M, the Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test, ITPA (a test of verbal |
|fluency), and DSC (the Developing Skills Checklist but it’s not a checklist); posttests: the same measurements in alternative forms if it’s |
|available/ duration: 30 weeks with 30 books; 4 emergent literacy skills have been scrutinized: language, writing, linguistic awareness, print |
|concept. |
|Findings: The MANCOVA analysis resulted in significant main effects for intervention versus control. That is, children in the intervention group |
|performed a significantly higher level than did children in the control condition on the Writing factor and the Language factor. The effect sizes of |
|.516 for the Writing factor and .624 for the Print Concepts factor fall into Cohen’s medium effect size category, indicating educationally meaningful|
|effects (e.g. Lee, Brooks-Gunn, Schnur, & Liaw, 1990). In particular, there’s a significant effect of the intervention on the Identify Sounds and |
|Letters subtest although there’s no overall effect on the Linguistic Awareness factor on which this subtest loads most highly. |
|Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C., Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. |024-2 |
|(1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational | |
|Psychology, 86, 542-555. | |
|Also, the only significant effect for sex was that girls performed at a higher level than did boys on the Writing factor. And boys performed better |
|than girls in Language factor. More importantly, the researchers indicated that effects on language were limited to children whose parents were |
|actively involved in the at-home reading program, which stressed the critical influence of home reading experience in children regarding to their |
|language growth. Other research also drew such conclusions (e.g. Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998). Accordingly, the Whitehurst et al. maintained that |
|children from low-income families need frequent one-on-one language -interactions with an adult to enhance their language skills. Group-based |
|interactions may not be sufficient in the late preschool years, even if the groups are small and the forms of interaction are optimized. Still, |
|frequency of exposure may be the most straightforward explanation of why the home is a more powerful venue fro language growth than school. (home |
|environment is critical! On the other hand, teachers, to achieve the goal of increasing children’s language development, have to increase the |
|frequency of reading.) |
|Note: CROWD: Completion prompts, Recall prompts, Open-ended prompts, Wh-prompts, Distancing promts (e.g. Did you ever play in the snow like Peter |
|did?) It was found that open-ended prompts and distancing prompts were the least question type teachers in both experiment & control groups |
|utilized. (adult readers should use the five types of questions in the reading) |
|PEER: prompt the child to respond to the book, evaluate the child’s response, expand the child’s response by repeating or adding information to it, |
|and encourage the child to repeat the expanded utterance (remind the adult reader to use CROWD in the reading) |
|Thoreson, C. C., & Dale, P. S. (1992). Do early talkers become early readers? Linguistic precocity, |025-1 |
|preschool language, and emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 28, 421-429. | |
|Abstract: The aim of the longitudinal study is to examine whether verbal precocious children are also precocious in reading. 25 children at 20 months|
|of age were recruited in the study. The study was to relate linguistically precocious children’s early verbal skills, parent-child interaction |
|patterns, and instructional experiences to their later language and literacy skills. |
|Design: 3 classes of predictor variables: measures of cognitive and language ability administered at age 24 months; a measure of child engagement |
|during story reading at age 24 months; and parental reports of child exposure to literacy collected when children were 24 months and 4 1/2 years. Two|
|classes of outcome variables: language and cognitive measures at ages 2 1/2 and 4 1/2 and literacy measures at age 4 1/2. |
|Findings: Conclusion that verbally precocious children are not likely to be early readers is correlational evidence that language and literacy are |
|separable abilities at 4 1/2 years in this group of children. Moreover, children engagement in the story-reading episode showed greater predictive |
|validity than either proportion or frequency of specific parental utterance functions (e.g. questions, responses, simplifications) or that of child |
|utterance functions. No effects of type of questions were found in the study. (e.g. Justice (2002) also reached the same conclusion) Story-reading |
|engagement is moderately related to frequency of story reading at home. |
|Exposure to instruction in letter names and sounds was a significant predictor of children’s knowledge of print conventions, invented spelling, and a|
|nearly significant predictor of decoding skill but not of phonological awareness, which is predicted by MLU at 24 months. Three of the four literacy |
|outcomes were predicted significantly or nearly significantly by at least one of the two measures of story reading. The two story-reading |
|variables predicted different aspects of literacy, suggesting that these predictors capture different aspects of |
|Thoreson, C. C., & Dale, P. S. (1992). Do early talkers become early readers? Linguistic precocity, |025-2 |
|preschool language, and emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 28, 421-429. | |
|Exposure to literate activity. Engagement in the story-reading explained a significant portion of the variance in the Concepts of Print outcome |
|measure. Frequency of story reading in the home explained significant portions of the variance in both PIAT (a measure of reading ability) and the |
|phonological awareness outcome measure. Story-reading frequency or story-reading engagement (but not both simultaneously) significantly predicts |
|syntactic comprehension at 2 1/2 years (PPVT-R). When the children grew older, it was found that either, but not both, of the variables significantly|
|predicts performance on the test of real-world knowledge, and the story engagement is also a significant predictor of the test of analytic ability. |
|Besides, the results indicated that there’s stability of individual differences within the sample: 24-month PPVT-R scores are correlated with 4 |
|1/2-year PPVT-R scores. Moreover, as the results showed, the verbal precocious children did not show substantial evidence in reading precocity, which|
|was against the hypothesis. Also, the researcher indicated that, in terms of individual differences, early language measures were not significant |
|predictors of literacy outcomes. More importantly, story reading with parents was found to be a role in literacy and language development beyond that|
|played by reading instruction and early language ability. Namely, story reading is an important way in which parents prepare their children to become|
|readers (e.g. Wells, 1985b). It is striking to find such a storing relationship between story-reading variables and language outcomes even within a |
|group selected for linguistic precocity. This relationship is borne out with measures of vocabulary development, syntactic development, and the |
|development of real-world knowledge. These results also provided further evidence for the hypothesis that what is learned from books changes with |
|development. At 2 1/2 years, the child’s focus is vocabulary and syntax acquisition; therefore, story-reading exposure predicts vocabulary and |
|Thoreson, C. C., & Dale, P. S. (1992). Do early talkers become early readers? Linguistic precocity, |025-3 |
|preschool language, and emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 28, 421-429. | |
|Syntactic knowledge 6months later. At age 4 1/2, these highly capable children were no longer learning labels from books; rather, they were focusing |
|on more complex linguistic and cognitive constructs. (the developmental framework, p. 428) The story reading with parents is fueling the growth of |
|knowledge at the “leading edge” of the child’s development. Still, the researchers claimed that measures of child engagement proved superior at |
|capturing the quality of the interaction over measures of parental behavior. Last, the story-engagement variable was nor correlated with concurrent |
|child ability measures but was predictive of language, cognitive, and literacy |
|outcomes. |
| |
|The data suggest that children who have more opportunities to read stories with parents and who take advantage of such opportunities through |
|engagement learn something from story reading about both language and literacy. This conclusion is consistent with experimental work showing that |
|story reading can directly influence the growth of language skills (Whitehurst et al., 1988). |
| |
|Furthermore, frequency of story reading in the home and child engagement in a story reading episode at age 24 months were significant predictors of |
|children’s language ability at 2 1/2 and 4 1/2 and knowledge of print conventions at age 4 1/2. It is concluded that story reading with parents as |
|well as literacy instruction contributes to the development of emergent literacy in verbally precocious children. |
|Nagy & Herman (1987) Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational|026-1 |
|Research Journal, 24, 237-270. | |
|Abstract: The study investigated incidental learning of vocabulary from context during normal reading. The researchers hypothesized that learning |
|form context typically takes place in small increments, so that any one encounter with a word usually results in only a small gain in knowledge of |
|that word. |
|Design: Three hundred and fifty-two students in third, fifth, and seventh grades. Narrative or expository passages. Totally 418 children; with 157 in|
|third grade, 100 in fifth grade, and 161 in seventh grade. Checklist( reading( multiple choice test (1 week later) |
|Findings: Children at all three grade levels gained substantial knowledge about an unknown word form a single exposure. Most of the target words |
|occurred only once in a text and the target words were not highlighted in any way. The students ranged widely in age and reading ability. Results |
|indicated that significant effect of learning from context has been found. Multiple-choice test scores were higher for easy texts than difficult |
|ones, higher for narratives than expositions, and higher for words children mentioned that they knew on the Checklist already. More importantly, |
|there’s a very high correlation between children’s prior knowledge of that target words as measured on the checklist task and their performance on |
|the multiple-choice test. Furthermore, there was no learning from context for words at the highest level of conceptual difficulty. As for text |
|properties, results indicted that the more difficult the text, the fewer unknown words were learned; the longer the sentences and words, the less was|
|learned form context; and fewer words were learned form context in texts that had a higher proportion of conceptually difficult words. Also, the |
|longer the average length of a target word in a text, the less likely any target word is to be learned from context. In this regard, texts with more |
|conceptually difficult words tend to have more long words, and vice versa. |
|Nagy & Herman (1987) Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational|026-2 |
|Research Journal, 24, 237-270. | |
|Note: (1)Nagy at el. (1985) argued that even a small probability of learning a word from context can result in large-scale vocabulary growth, if |
|there is a sufficient volume of wide reading. (2) How much vocabulary a child actually gains from written context depends on three factors: the |
|volume of a child’s exposure to written language, the quality of the text, and the child’s ability to infer and remember the meanings of new words |
|encountered during reading. In sum, Nagy and Herman claim the importance of prior knowledge in young children’s learning of vocabulary through |
|reading. Most important, the researchers maintain that comprehension is dependent on the reader’s ability to integrate information in text with |
|existing knowledge structures, which explained clearly why teachers should provide students with input which is slightly above their current level to|
|help them acquire new knowledge. Besides, Nagy and Herman highlighted the importance of contextual support of a text to enhance learners’ |
|comprehension. Last, the researchers argued that multiple encounters with a word in a variety of meaningful contexts is necessary to produce the |
|depth of word knowledge. And they further indicated that, from this and their earlier studies, “wide, regular reading must be seen as the major |
|avenue of large-scale, long-term vocabulary growth. Next, Nagy and Herman pointed out that “incidental learning from written context represents about|
|a third of a child’s annual vocabulary growth, an increase in absolute vocabulary size that has not even been approached by any program of direct |
|vocabulary instruction. Accordingly, the results showed that normal reading, with a wide range of difficulty & familiarity, there’s sth there for |
|everyone to learn. And id children are given texts they can comprehend, they will eventually gain the meaning of the unknown words. |
|Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and |027 |
|explanations of target words. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 415-422. | |
|Abstract: The study aimed to examine the effects of 3 conditions on elementary school children’s vocabulary acquisition: listening to stories with a |
|brief explanation of the unfamiliar target words, listening to stories with nor explanation of the words, and having not exposure to the stories or |
|vocabulary (the control condition). Students who listened to 2 stories along with a brief explanation of target words learned significantly more new |
|words and still remembered them 6 weeks after the intervention than the children in the other two groups. |
| |
|Design: pre-and post-test, delayed posttest (6 weeks later), 20 items (10 per story) 2 stories, 5 days per story, one hundred and seventy- five 10 |
|years old children (4th graders), L1 |
| |
|Findings: Statistical analysis (3 group x 2 book x 3 time ANOVA & post hoc)showed that pretest scores for the story-with explanation group were lower|
|than the scores for the other two groups, and the posttest and delayed posttest scores of the story-with-explanation group were significantly higher |
|than the scores of the other two groups. More impressively, the experimental group not only outperformed the other two groups but also remembered the|
|words 6 weeks later. The results support the hypothesis that 4th graders can acquire new words from listening to stories if there’s a brief |
|explanation of the new words. |
|Note: In reading aloud, comprehension and enjoyment are optimal. To maximize the benefit of explaining words as they are encountered in the story, it|
|would be helpful to discover which components of the explanation of the unfamiliar words are critical. |
|Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American |028-1 |
|Educational Research Journal, 21, 767-787. | |
|Abstract: The study examined the effect of reading on young learners’ vocabulary growth. The researcher hypothesized that new vocabulary can be |
|acquired via incidental learning of word meanings from context. Also, Jenkins et al. intended to find out the definite frequency of context exposure |
|to boost learners’ vocabulary. Last, the influence of prior exposure of the target words was also investigated. |
|Design: 120 fifth graders (age ranging from 9 to 11), measures: four posttests: 3 vocabulary tests & 1 reading comprehension, statistical analysis: |
|2 (preexposure: present or absent) x 2 (ability: more or less able readers) x 3 (context presentations: 2, 6, or 10) x 3 (word set) factorial design |
|Findings: Firstly, results of vocabulary measures showed that higher ability students outperformed their less skilled peers. Also, prior exposure did|
|exert its positive influence on learners’ vocabulary test. The more exposures of the target words, the better the learners’ word learning (2 of the 3|
|measures showed the differences). Secondly, results of reading comprehension indicated that only 10 context presentations yielded a significant |
|difference on the measure. In sum, the study results are noteworthy in that fifth graders did acquire some new vocabularies from context without |
|explicit instructions. However, context representations did not show its power over the learners’ reading ability in the study. Yet the factor |
|affected the learners’ vocabulary changes. In other words, the better readers were more likely to acquire word meanings, given some experience with |
|the unfamiliar words in context. As Jenkins et al. hypothesized, incidental vocabulary learning during reading may account for a major portion of |
|vocabulary growth during the elementary grades. The study confirmed the hypothesis with positive results in both vocabulary test and reading |
|comprehension measure. |
|Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American |028-2 |
|Educational Research Journal, 21, 767-787. | |
|To assure the positive outcome, the researchers argued that increased context presentations should be provided. That is, more than 2 context |
|exposures were needed to affect vocabulary acquisition. Jenkins et al. claim conservatively that it was most possible that 10 exposures might boost |
|young learners’ vocabulary growth. With the assertion, the researchers admitted that although they had found that children learned new words |
|incidentally through reading, “this learning apparently does not come easily or in large quantities.” Also Jenkins et al. indicated the important |
|role of reading in a child’s vocabulary base by quoting Nagy & Anderson’s (1982) words that although some vocabulary learning occur through |
|listening, learning new words form context would have to assign an important role to reading in accounting for vocabulary growth. |
|s |
|Word meanings were learned from context, and more frequent presentation in context increased learning. Also, better readers profited more from |
|context and prior exposure informal teaching) resulted in greater learning. Vocabulary effects were also observed on a measure of reading |
|comprehension. |
| |
|Gay, C. (1976) Reading aloud and learning to write. The Elementary |029-1 |
|School Journal,??, 87-93. | |
| Abstract: Gay explained the relationship between reading aloud and its contributions on children’s language development. The researcher claims that |
|if people want to help young learners how to write, they have to “stifle the questions and postpone the discussions and simply read aloud.” According|
|to Gat, reading aloud facilitated a child’s vocabulary, sentence structure, sense of structure and organization. More importantly, via reading aloud,|
|the child may gain a motive for writing. Also, Gay pointed out that averagely the lack of writing fluency in learners may be compensated for by |
|reading aloud literary works to the child. Through reading aloud good books, learners would absorb the constructions of written language and thus |
|develop the ability of writing. In other words, learners should be provided with opportunities to assimilate the patterns and the rhythms of writing|
|before they are able to write. Mostly, Gay mentioned that children who read much more than textbooks are children who usually read well and write |
|well, which stressed the importance of reading in a child’s language ability. Furthermore, Gay asserted that language is primarily oral. Namely, we |
|hear language even when it is written of when we are writing it. Accordingly, children are able to write only those patterns they are used to hearing|
|before. To ensure rich qualitative writing, the first step may be to read aloud storybooks to young children. Gay put it that a better reading |
|program should aware of the importance of reading aloud, ant they should try to make provision for it. On the other hand, Gay critically revealed the|
|reasons of a failure of a reading program. Firstly, it is handicapped because it is a program. In detail, such programs usually follow an organized |
|step-by-step way so that children can learn what they need to learn and can learn at the appropriate level and can be tested on to make sure whether |
|they have succeeded. All these go against the nature of reading and reading aloud, which is fun and should be experienced without questions, without |
|artificial stimulants, but |
|Gay, C. (1976) Reading aloud and learning to write. The Elementary |029-2 |
|School Journal,??, 87-93. | |
| just reading. With what Gay asserted, one could easily infer why a reading program would lead to negative outcome or even lead to children’s fear or|
|hatred toward reading per se. (with endless questions to check their language ability or even label the child accord to her/ his performance on the |
|one-shot test) “They think of questions, failure; and reading becomes associated with an unpleasant experience. Secondly, the failure of a reading |
|program, even a good one, is because that they are limited to books on or neat the child’s own reading level. The solution to it is the child has to |
|be exposed to the input that is slightly beyond his or her current level to make sure that acquisition would take place. |
|In terms of the contributions of reading aloud, Gay further pointed out that usually the child who is having no difficulty with language, who is |
|reading well and has little difficulty with exercises because the child’s vocabulary already takes in those words. Gay argued that the exercises were|
|not really teaching the child anything but were simply testing what s/he already knew. (it is the input per se teaches a child rather than the |
|output) As for less able children, Gay mentioned that teachers should read interesting book aloud to them often and regularly so that they will hear |
|the words and comprehend them in a natural, effortless way. By so doing, Gay believed that would eventually motivate the less skilled children in |
|learning the language for the words were introduced to in interesting, irresistible contexts. After all, according to Gay, “one can’t read what one |
|hasn’t heard; one can’t write what one hasn’t head.” The second benefit of reading aloud is the ability to distinguish between shades of meaning, |
|which is, as Gay maintained, the ability to use language discriminately and which is critical to good writing. “There are subtle differences in word |
|meaning, subtle differences that increase out power to communicate, but casual speech is not the place a child can become aware of them (p. 91). |
|Gay, C. (1976) Reading aloud and learning to write. The Elementary |029-3 |
|School Journal,77, 87-93. | |
|“We can describe the concrete simply by naming, but to talk about a feeling, an idea—to communicate that unseen inner world that is central to our |
|existence。We must have a command of metaphor and analogy. How does a child get such a command? Not by learning a definition, but by hearing |
|sentences like those in Julia Cunningham’s Dorp Dead (p. 92).” Next, through reading aloud, children would have the chance of listening to language |
|which has structure and organization and that is important for them to be able to write like that one day. |
|Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labeling. Journal of Child |030-1 |
|Language, 5, 1-15. | |
|Abstract: Ninio and Bruner investigated the influence of labeling during storytelling in a mother-infant dyad. Results of the longitudinal study |
|confirmed the positive influence of labeling in an infant’s language development. Analysis of joint picture-book reading revealed that this activity |
|had very early on the structure of a dialogue. In this study, the researchers have used book-reading as a principal source of data—the mother and the|
|child looking at pictures in a book. |
|Design: mother-infant looking at storybook; the child was 8 months (observation was from the child was 8 months to 1 year and 6 month years old; a |
|longitudinal study (10 months); video-recorded observation, 12 filming session were analyzed |
|Findings: Results indicated that reading dialogue cycles were highly constant on a number of structural characteristics. Also, stable increase of |
|turns per cycle and the mean duration per cycle were seen in the observation—all these released the fact that these constancies in the dialogue were |
|remarkable for the child’s linguistic performance undergoes profound changes, including the appearance of standard lexical words in his communicative|
|repertoire. And with the language-teaching function, the book-reading situation is more central on a standard action format like simple and recurrent|
|joint action patterns in other formats. Active participation, vocalization and lexical utterances all increase steadily, and all these showed that |
|storybook reading elicited a child’s language development. Also, after being read to for 6 months, the appearance of vocalizations that were |
|recognizable approximations to lexical labels in the child convinced the mother to believe that the child possessed a hypothesis about a relation |
|between sound and meaning; that coming from listening to stories read aloud. Moreover, proportion of reading cycles in which the child emitted an |
|active response, proportion of active turns of the child’s containing a vocalization, and proportion of vocalizations which were lexical labels |
|exhibited |
|Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labeling. Journal of Child |030-2 |
|Language, 5, 1-15. | |
|greatly that the child progressed steadily through the book-reading experience. Accordingly, Ninio and Bruner concluded that storybook reading was a |
|format well suited to the teaching of labeling for it has few elements and strict ordering rules between them. Also, it is flexible in the sense of |
|accepting a great variety of responses by the child. Last, it is highly repetitive, both in the elements like Look, What’s that? and the labels |
|themselves. Last, as the researchers concluded, a central element in the achievement of labeling by the child is his mastery of the reciprocal rules |
|that govern the exchanges between him and his mother into which labeling is inserted. |
| |
|Note: Labeling was defined as the stressed element in a demonstrative utterance, e.g. “It is an X.” The most striking characteristic of labeling |
|activity is that it takes place in a structural interactional sequence that has the texture of a dialogue. |
|It is greater if the cycle is initiated by the child or by the mother uttering a What’s that? questions than if it is initiated by the mother saying |
|look of offering a label for the question “What’s that” usually elicits a label from the child. |
|Imitation seemed not so effective as labeling. (for by asking what- questions or letting the child initiate would be more likely that the child will |
|label on his own) |
|Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, |031-1 |
|24(2), 174-187. | |
|Abstract: Hold the belief of positive influence of reading aloud, the researcher conducted the research to examine the effects of reading aloud on |
|elementary children’s vocabulary acquisition. Two experiments were set up to study the impact of teachers’ explanation in students’ word learning. |
|Pre-and-post tests and follow-up tests were administered. Results showed that story reading was a significant source of children’s vocabulary |
|acquisition regardless of whether explanations of the unknown words were provided by the teacher. Further, Elley found that frequency of the unknown |
|word appeared in the storybook constituted the key element of the learning of that word. |
|Design: 2 experiments, one without teachers’ explanation, the other with teachers’ explanation. The 1st experiment: one hundred sixty- eight 7 |
|year-old children; the 2nd: one hundred twenty-seven 8 year-old children; In Ex.1: one book; in Ex. 2: two books were used; Procedure: Ex.1: |
|pretest((7 days after) reading (3 times in a week)((2 days later) posttest; Ex.2: L1 |
|Findings: Results from EX.1 indicated that children scored higher on most target words on the posttest than on the posttest, for a mean increase of |
|15 percent overall. Three of the 6 word-related variables showed significant positive correlations with the children’s mean gain for each word, and |
|the correlations for all 6 were positive. Namely, the words that were most readily learned in the story were those for which the surrounding context |
|was helpful, those that occurred more than once in the story, and those that were illustrated in at least one picture. Most encouragingly, it has |
|been found that the low group showed the most gain, which was odds with the rich-get-richer syndrome. In other words, through reading aloud, the less|
|able learners had the chance to compete with their more able peers. Also, Elley found that, as research on silent reading, repeated exposure and |
|helpful context of an unknown word were the perquisites of the learning of those new words. |
|Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, |032-2 |
|24(2), 174-187. | |
|In order to adjust the limitations of the first experiment, Elley conducted the second experiment using different books, under different teaching |
|conditions, different children, with a more elaborate design. The difference between the two experiments was that the second one employed teachers’ |
|explanations of the unknown words. Results in Ex.2 showed that children in the explanation group benefited most in reading aloud; with more than |
|double gains compared with the without-explanation group. The findings confirmed the power of providing explanations either by giving synonyms, |
|role-playing, or point to the corresponding picture in the storybook with children for learning new items. As Ex.1, Elley found that the same 3 most |
|correlated variables with word learning were strength of meaning cues, number of occurrences, and number of times illustrated. Further, post hoc |
|analysis found that nouns were the easiest form of words for learning than adjectives or verbs. The reversal phenomenon of the Matthew effect was |
|also found in Ex.2. In other words, the lowest group improved more than the other three groups, and the highest group improved the least (concerning |
|regression effect and ceiling effect). The delayed posttest showed only negligible decline of 2-3 percent indicated that the effects of reading aloud|
|on young children’s vocabulary acquisition were permanent. In general, the two experiments supported the assumption that young children can learn new|
|vocabulary from listening to stories read aloud. With teachers’ additional explanations of unknown words can even double vocabulary gains. Moreover, |
|less proficient learners gain at least as much from the readings as the other more proficient ones and the learning is relatively permanent. |
|Frequency of occurrence of the word in the story, the helpfulness of the context, and the frequency of occurrence of the word in pictorial |
|representation are the three most critical elements influencing children’s word learning. |
|Elley, W., & Mangubhai, E. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading |033-1 |
|Research Quarterly, 19, 53-67. | |
|Abstract: The researchers hypothesized that reading program could eliminate the five critical differences between the first and the second language |
|learning. The five differences are strength of motivation, emphasis on meaning versus form, amount of exposure to language, type of exposure to |
|language, and the quality of models. Thus, Elley and Mangubhai suggest that when children read interesting storybooks, the five differences |
|diminished. |
|Design: 380 class 4 and class 5 children (9 to 11 years old); 3 groups: the Shared Book group, Sustained Silent Reading group, and the control group;|
|contrast 1: the book reading groups vs. the control(Book Flood hypothesis: exposure to large numbers of storybooks will have an effect on general |
|language competence; contrast 2: the Shared Book group vs. Sustained Silent Reading group( hypothesis: exposure to new language in the Shared Book |
|method is more persistent and concentrated, and that children would become more actively involved in the learning experience than in the Silent |
|Reading group. Last, it would be expected that effects on receptive language is more significant than expressive language skills. Pre-and-posttest |
|and follow-up 12 months were administered. (L2) |
|Findings: Class 4 Results indicated that the Book Flood groups outperformed the control group dramatically in reading comprehension (the groups |
|produced 15 months reading growth in 8 months; the control: 6.5 months growth only, which indicated that the reading groups were improving their |
|general reading comprehension skill at over twice the normal rate!) However, there’s no significant effect of the Shared Book group over the |
|Sustained Silent Reading group in that measure. On the Word Recognition test, the reading groups also had higher means than the control yet didn’t |
|reach the level of significance. And there’s small difference between the two reading groups. And the oral sentences tests favored the Shared Book |
|group than the other two groups. |
|Elley, W., & Mangubhai, E. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading |033-2 |
|Research Quarterly, 19, 53-67. | |
|Findings: Class 5 results showed that in all measures, the Book Flood groups outperformed the control group. In Reading Comprehension, the Shared |
|Book group significantly ahead of the Silent Reading group. In detail, the Shared Book group produced 15 months reading growth in 8 months, comparing|
|to Silent Reading group’s 9 months and the control group’s 2.5 months. The same patterns were also seen in Listening Comprehension. In general, the |
|comparisons between Shared Book and Silent Reading methods showed significantly greater benefits for the former in Class 5, but not in Class 4. The |
|observed differences were greater in children’s receptive skills than in expressive skills. Follow-up 12 months showed that both reading groups made |
|greater progress in their language growth on all tests. But in no case, however, did the Shared Book group significantly surpass the Silent Reading |
|group. Namely, the sharp contrasts between the reading groups and the control group were, according to the researchers, repeated exposure to print, |
|pictures, and story lines. Last, it is worth noting that teachers in the Silent Reading method provided no follow-up activities to support the |
|reading done, whereas those in the Shared Reading method did. The lack of difference between the two methods indicated that those follow-up |
|activities were not as effective as their advocates believed. |
|Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend |034-1 |
|their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, XXIII, 285-303. | |
|Abstract: The study investigated how much time elementary school children spent on reading outside of school and further examined the relationship |
|between the time spent and their reading proficiency. Still, the researchers were interested in answering the question whether out-of –school |
|activities are in the causal nexus that produce reading growth. Among all the ways children spent their time, reading books was the best predictor of|
|several measures of reading achievement. However, the study also found that on most days most children did little or no book reading. |
|Design: 155 fifth-grade students; the use of activity forms (filled in by the children, asking them to write down either the title or the author’s |
|name of both( more valid indicator of actual reading); 3 reading tests: reading comprehension test, a checklist vocabulary measure, and measure of |
|reading speed |
|Findings: Although most children do little reading, successive groups of children read for increasingly long periods of time and cover increasingly |
|large numbers of words. Notably, results found that teachers have a significant influence on the amount of book reading children do out of school. |
|Results showed that the class that did the most reading in class read 3.6 times as much on the average as the class that did the least reading. In |
|other words, the more the teacher read aloud to students or provide them time for reading during the school day, the more time children spent on |
|reading after school. This findings were so encouraging when consider promoting reading, reading aloud and providing time for reading during the |
|school day were the two ways teachers did in class. Also, children who were good readers in the second grade did more reading in the fifth grade. In |
|regard of sex difference, girls read more than boys. Moreover, reading books was the out-of school activity that proved to have the strongest |
|association with reading proficiency in children. Time spent reading |
|Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend |034-2 |
|their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, XXIII, 285-303. | |
|books was fairly strongly correlated with the measures of a child’s status as a reader in the fifth grade. Most importantly, time spent reading books|
|was the best predictor of a child’s growth as a reader from the second to the fifth grade. The findings may infer the fact that reading aloud not |
|only increases a child’s language growth but also enhances the possibility of encouraging the child to do more out-of-school reading and that gives |
|big returns in more advanced language outcomes to the child. According to Anderson et al., “there is a moderately storing association between out-of |
|school reading and reading achievement, a relationship of about the same magnitude as the strongest relationships reported with in-school use of time|
|(Barr & Dreeben, 1983; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1984).” The researchers also found that a typical child in the middle grades reads less than 25 minutes |
|a day out of school. Again, from the results, one can easily find that book reading is a significant predictor of reading growth. In terms of |
|reckoning the influence of book reading in a child’s reading achievement, 6.6 % of the variance in fifth-grade reading comprehension is uniquely |
|explained in terms of reading books. Last, the researchers concluded that the amount of time a child spends reading books is strongly related to the |
|child’s reading level in the fifth grade and growth in reading proficiency from the second to the fifth grade. The findings of the present research |
|indicated that, according to the researchers, reading books is a cause, not merely a reflection, of reading proficiency. And home reading experience |
|has influencing effect on fifth graders’ reading comprehension ability after second grade comprehension ability was partialed out. |
|Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through |035-1 |
|fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447. | |
|Abstract: The study focused on elementary school children’s literacy development, investigated the relationship between reading and writing. The |
|probability that a child would remain a poor reader at the end of fourth grade if the child was a poor reader at the end of first grade was .88. But |
|early writing skill did not predict later writing skill. Good readers read considerably more than the poor readers both in and out of school, which |
|appeared to contribute to the good readers’ growth in some reading and writing skills. Poor readers tended to become poor writers. Juel argued that |
|children who have experienced decontextualized language by having been read to, by hearing language used for purely conceptual discussions, or in |
|other abstract contexts are better prepared for the language used in classroom. And such children are likely to be familiar with story structures and|
|complex syntax and have richer vocabularies and developed concepts that will foster reading, as well as writing, comprehension of books. |
|Design: 54 children(from first through fourth grade), several measure on language aspects, including phonemic awareness, decoding, word recognition, |
|listening comprehension, reading comprehension, spelling, and writing were administered. Also children’s IQ have been tested. And children’s ideas of|
|story have also been investigated. Last, interviews about children’s home reading, and attitude toward reading have been probed. |
|Findings: The findings were provided to answer the following questions. Do the same children remain poor readers year after year? Do the same |
|children remain poor writers year after year? What skills do the poor readers lack? What skills do the poor writers lack? What factors seem to keep |
|poor readers from improving? And What factors seem to keep poor writers fro, improving? Results indicated that a child wound remain a poor reader at |
|the end of fourth grade, if the child was a poor reader at the end of first grade was .88; the probability |
|Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through |035-2 |
|fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447. | |
|that a child would become a poor reader in fourth grade if he or she had at least average reading skills in first grade was .12. The probability that|
|a child would remain an average reader in fourth grade if the child had average reading ability in first grade was .87; the probability that a child |
|would become an average reader in fourth grade if he or she was a poor reader in first grade was only .13. The explanation for these correlations was|
|that the poor first-grade reader almost invariably remains a poor reader by the end of fourth grade. However, results failed to report that early |
|writing skill was a predictor of later writing skill as well as early reading ability predicted later reading ability. Moreover, Juel found that poor|
|reader entered first grade with little phonemic awareness and their knowledge of spelling-sound correspondence was initially low comparing to their |
|more able peers. What’s worse, poor readers never reached the level of the average and good readers. Poor writers seemed to lack the ability of |
|generate a real story. Namely, they were still writing descriptions rather than stories at he end of fourth grade. In the research, it has also found|
|that those poor writers who also had poor spelling and poor ideas. As for the ability that poorer readers lack, the results indicated that it was |
|their poor decoding skill that prevented them from reading and thus impeded them from improving. Juel showed that by the end of first grade, the good|
|readers has seen, on average, 18,681 words in running text in their basal readers. In contrast, the poor readers had seen, on average, 9975 words, |
|about half as many. Later in school years, the good readers, on average, had read about 178000 words in running text in their basal readers by the |
|end of fourth grade, whereas the poor reader had read less than half of that—about 80000 words. The bid contrast explained why the difference of |
|reading ability between a good and a poor reader was so wide and so hard to make up for years of lost experiences with words and concepts embedded in|
|print. |
|Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through |035-3 |
|fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447. | |
|When probing the children’s reading at home, children, neither group of readers, uncovered the fact that they read Much after school; but in third |
|and fourth grade after school reading became quite frequent for the good readers. And good readers were able to release information about the titles,|
|authors or even the plots of the book they read. However, few poor readers could supply such information. Also, the more frequent reading |
|experiences, both in and out of school, of the children who learned to read well early in school likely contributed to the steadily widening gulf in |
|listening comprehension (i.e. knowledge of vocabulary, concepts, text structures, syntax, and pragmatics) between good and poor readers. Juel |
|inferred that poor readers read little voluntarily, partly because reading was so difficult for them, and reading experiences in school must have |
|been rather aversive. When asking whether they like reading or not 26 of the 29 good reader responded yes, whereas only 5 of the 25 poor readers |
|responded yes. Mostly poor readers perceived reading as a boring activity. Poor reader appear to become poor writers. The correlation between reading|
|and writing at each grade were all reached the level of significance. More clearly, by fourth grade 17 of the 25 poor readers were poor writers, |
|whereas only 4 of the 29 good readers were poor writers. Through the years good readers’ proficiency in producing ideas steadily grew, whereas poor |
|readers made no apparent progress in their ability to tell an oral story from first to fourth grade. Most poor readers were still telling and writing|
|descriptions rather than stories in the fourth grade. On the other hand, by at least fourth grade most good readers were writing stories that |
|included some elements of story grammar (i.e., setting, elaborated description of characters, and at least one episode). The findings led Juel to |
|conclude that the more frequent reading experiences of the good readers probably let to better story ideas, knowledge of story structures and |
|vocabulary with which to express those ideas. In sum, the research revealed |
|Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through |035-4 |
|fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447. | |
|that the poor first-grade reader was almost invariably still poor readers by the end of fourth grade. And the first-grade good readers almost |
|invariably remained good readers at the end of fourth grade. Last, the researcher maintains that early success with reading is critical and argues |
|that extensive reading or listening to a lot of stories is important to acquiring ideas with which to write one’s own stories for good readers |
|apparently read more and over time have experienced more ideas and vocabulary that can be incorporated into their writing. |
|Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K.E. (1992). Predicting growth in reading ability from children’s |036 |
|exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 74-89. | |
|Abstract: The longitudinal study employed two indicators aimed to examine the relationship between growth of reading ability and print exposure. A |
|checklist-with-foils logic was utilized. |
|Design: 98 participants (54 fourth graders & 44 fifth graders); Print exposure measures: TRT (Title Recognition Test) & ART (Author Recognition |
|Test); standardized measures of reading ability: the Reading Comprehension subtest, the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, the Reading Comprehension,|
|Reading Rate, and Phonetic Analysis subtest; 2-year study |
|Findings: Both print exposure measures displayed significant correlations with every measure of reading comprehension ability although the |
|correlations of the ART with measures of reading comprehension was lower than those involving TRT. These results indicated that the two print |
|exposure measures predicted individual differences in third- to fifth- grade growth in reading ability. Results showed that individual differences in|
|reading comprehension growth were reliably linked to differences in print exposure. Therefore, the researchers assumed that print exposure appears to|
|be both a consequence of developed reading ability and a contributor to further growth in that ability. Thus, the results strengthened the importance|
|of reading exposure in terms of reading growth and even general cognitive development. In conclusion, the researchers indicated that the two |
|indicators of print exposure were reliable. Last, according to Stanovich (1986, cited Cipielewski & Stanovich, 1992), a more causal model sees |
|individual differences in basic cognitive processes and knowledge bases as at least in part resulting from the experience of reading itself. |
|Carol, Chomsky .(1972) Stages in Language Development and Reading Exposure. Harvard Educational |037-1 |
|Review, 42 (1), 1-33. | |
|Abstract: The paper contains two main parts: firstly, it investigates language acquisition in children between the ages of six and ten, probing their|
|linguistic competence with respect to complex aspects of English syntax. Moreover, of particular interest is the regular order of acquisition of |
|structures, accompanied by wide variation in rate of acquisition in different children. Secondly, the author examines the relationship between the |
|children’s exposure to the written language and the rate of linguistic development. The results show a strong correlation between a number of the |
|reading exposure measures and language development. |
|Design: Part II: reading( questionnaires to both children and parents; daily records kept at home of all reading (and listening to books read aloud);|
|36 children |
|Findings: As mentioned above, both the amount read and the complexity of the material were taken into consideration. Among the pre-readers, listening|
|to books read aloud is positively related to linguistic stage. In this study, Chomsky uncovers the fact that those pre-readers in higher linguistic |
|stages are read to by more people and hear more books per week, at higher complexity levels than children at lower linguistic stages. |
|Chomsky(1972) Stages in Language Development and Reading Exposure. Harvard Educational Review, 42 |037-2 |
|(1), 1-33. | |
|The overall picture of the study shows that at each age, reading or hearing books read is a strong factor, with many different individual measures of|
|reading exposure contributing to this trend. The third item makes sense once its implications are considered. The mother who recalls certain books |
|with pleasure from her own childhood may well transmit this enjoyment to her child very early on when she reads to him. The author then may speculate|
|that this child learns to assign a special role to reading, for what his mother enjoys doing with him, he quite naturally comes to enjoy and |
|recognize as a valued activity. This is what Effie intends to do! To show the great pleasure and enjoyment of reading. |
|The study has implications with regard to language programs in the elementary schools, and the philosophy underlying curriculum design and selection |
|of materials. The author mentions that we know very little about the actual processes by which children learn language, but there has been an |
|increasing awareness over the past few years of just how much the child brings to the task by way of his own internal organization and innate human |
|characteristics. He certainly not “taught” language in any formal sense, but acquire it naturally, in the course of maturing and developing in an |
|environment where he is adequately exposed to it. The research results indicate that the child enters the classroom equipped to learn language and |
|able to do so by methods of his own. This suggests that perhaps the best thing that we might do for him in terms of encouraging this learning would |
|be to make more of it possible, by exposing him to a rich variety of language inputs in interesting, stimulating situations. The question is how. |
|Carol, Chomsky .(1972) Stages in Language Development and Reading Exposure. Harvard Educational |037-3 |
|Review, 42 (1), 1-33. | |
|The reading results show that exposure to the more complex language available from reading dose seem to go hand in hand with increased knowledge of |
|the language. That is to say, the child could be read to, stimulated to read on his own, not restricted to material deemed “at his level” but |
|permitted access to books well “above his level” to get out of them whatever he may. Accord to i+1 |
| |
|In general it may be that the effort should be towards providing more and richer language exposure, rather than limiting the child with restrictive |
|and carefully programmed materials. This approach would seem to be more closely in accord with the nature of language acquisition as we are coming to|
|understand it. |
| |
|The purpose of the results is to emphasize that the potential relevance of work of this sort to language curricula will lie in its suggestiveness for|
|effective use of classroom time, rather than in its relation to the specifics of grammar teaching. (the main concern here is to provide the students |
|with lots of meaningful input which is interesting and stimulating enough to encourage the learning. Hearing stories read aloud caters to the need! |
|Effie’s remarks!) |
|Terblanche, L. (2002). Read-Alouds: Do they enhance students’ ability to read? (EDRS: ED 456 192). |038 |
|Abstract: To gain information about teachers’ belief of reading aloud on children’s language development, the researcher conducted the study in which|
|a survey of 22 teachers was done and the results confirmed the findings in the literature. What interested the researcher was whether the time spent |
|reading aloud to students is worth its weight in gold as it is the school’s goal to have all students reading at grade level at or before third |
|grade. (the researcher was a second grade teacher) |
|Design: survey of elementary school teachers |
|Findings: When asked whether students enjoyed being read to, 80% of the respondents gave positive response. Moreover, the teachers mentioned that |
|their students, when being read to, became more attentive and practiced active listening. Also, the teachers claim that almost the students were |
|engaged during the read-aloud, which was likely to elicit comprehension of the story or, what’s better, enhance the language development in the |
|children. By these positive responses from the teachers, the researcher concluded that teachers need to be committed to the continuation and |
|implementation of reading aloud and make it daily routines. Last, although discussions are appropriate, the researcher maintains that children should|
|not be forced into discussions. |
| |
|Note: “Reading aloud can provide a wonderful model to children as to how good readers read with intonation and fluency. Additionally, children are |
|exposed to a more descriptive flow of language than that of their everyday language and dialogue, their vocabulary grows larger with each story |
|(p.6)”. The reading materials fro reading aloud should represent the interests of the children and age appropriate. Pictures are an important tool |
|for children who are ESL learners in vocabulary development. |
|Kies, D. A., Rodriguez, I., & Granato, F. V. (1993). Oral language development through storytelling:|039 |
|An approach to emergent literacy. Reading Improvement, 30, 43-48. | |
|Abstract: The purpose of the study emphasized the relevance of storytelling as an informal technique that gets children hooked to reading and |
|writing. The technique is highly regarded as providing children with a wide range of conceptual experiences that prepares them for the literacy |
|development. |
|Discussion: the researcher claims that the storytelling must began during in infancy and continue in the home. At school, the teacher continues the |
|development of these skills by providing many opportunities to supplement, enhance and support these readiness skills. The age and grade appropriate |
|stories provide children with language, concepts, and experiences that help to develop and reinforce oral and written language skills. Children learn|
|language in social contexts while interacting with other children and adults by actually constructing or reconstructing language as they learn. Also,|
|the more frequently children experience language use the more successful they will be in producing appropriate texts for that particular context. To |
|help children in their pattern connection it is essential to provide them with many opportunities to hear diverse patterns of language. And these |
|patterns of language are acquired through the variety and number of stories children are read. According to Peck (1989, cited Kies et a., 1993), with|
|repeated storytelling the children began to develop story sense and assimilate the language and the structure of the story. Also, Pucket (1988, cited|
|Kies et al., 1993) pointed out that children who hear many stories develop a strong motivation for reading, they learn that reading is an enjoyable |
|act and that reading ad writing are activities that make sense and have a purpose. Moreover, children also acquire a desire to read on their own |
|after hearing a story. With large numbers of parents unable to read to their children due to time constraints, storytelling in the classroom is an |
|opportunity to share the gift of time from an adult who is caring. Parents are children’s first and ongoing teachers. Early childhood teachers must |
|take the role of supporters and partners to parents in the young children’s emergent literacy development. |
|Ulanoff, S. H.,& Pucci, S. L. (1999). Learning words from books: The effects of read aloud on second|040-1 |
|language vocabulary acquisition. Bilingual Research Journal, 23, 1-13. | |
|Abstract: The study compared the gains made in second language vocabulary of 2 different methodologies: concurrent translation and preview-review in |
|a group of 60 ESL learners. |
|Design: 3 groups: the control, concurrent translation, and preview (to build background knowledge in the primary language)-review (also in the first|
|language to reinforce important points) groups/ pre- and post-test and one week delayed post of vocabulary; the book was chosen for its repetitious |
|and pictorial representation of the target words, as well as predictability to facilitate the use of contextual clues (L2) |
|Findings: Students in the preview-review group score significantly higher than the control and concurrent translation group scored the lowest of all |
|three groups and improved slightly one week after treatment. The results supported the use of strategies which build background knowledge as a means |
|of teaching second language vocabulary to English learners. From the results, it is clear that children learn and retain more vocabulary from |
|listening to stories within a schematic framework in which the primary language in a scaffolding type activity is used. Moreover, the gains of the |
|preview and review group (57%) surpass even Elley’s (1989) findings of a growth of 33% with 3 repetitions of a story and brief explanations. In the |
|study, the story was read aloud only once, therefore, it is the preview-review technique that provides enough context to activate the schemata and |
|assist the children to acquire the target vocabulary. Without multiple exposures, the type of mediation offered served the function of providing |
|repeated exposure to target words. However, the findings support previous research confirming that listening to stories read aloud facilitates |
|vocabulary acquisition. |
|Ulanoff, S. H.,& Pucci, S. L. (1999). Learning words from books: The effects of read aloud on second|040-2 |
|language vocabulary acquisition. Bilingual Research Journal, 23, 1-13. | |
| |
|Note: the content is previewed to build background knowledge in the primary language, the lesson then taught in the target language |
|The study emphasized the importance of schematic framework in language learners. As the researchers mentioned, it is important to contextualize |
|language within a schematic framework such as in the form of an interesting and predictable story. According to the researchers, it is more important|
|for second language learners to activate schemata to make connections b/w new vocabulary and background knowledge. And the new words are easier to |
|absorb within a contextualized framework (Andersson & Barnits 1984, cited Ulanoff, S. H.,& Pucci, S. L. (1999)). |
|鄒文莉 (民92)。說故事英語教學與國小英語學習。師大學報。第48卷，頁53-67。 (Tsou) |041-1 |
|Abstract: The purpose of the study is to investigate the relationship between storytelling and language development. In detail, the research intended|
|to understand how storytelling shape a teacher’s talk during the reading, how storytelling influence students’ oral language development and their |
|participation in the reading, last, how storytelling exert its impact on classroom atmosphere. |
|Design: qualitative research; 2 fifth-grade classes; a semester study (13 classes); observation, video taping and audio recording, interview with the|
|teacher, the teacher’s reflection |
|Findings: Teachers in the storytelling group used more open-ended questions than their colleagues in the control. More impressing, teachers in the |
|storytelling group put much less attention on classroom management, with 1.27% comparing to 14.79%, which reflected the more attention and |
|participation in the storytelling group. Furthermore, children in the storytelling group showed much higher frequency of active participation |
|compared to their peers in the control, with 34.54 time/day to only 8.38 time/day. The big contrast further indicated the positive influence the |
|storytelling exerted in young EFL children’s language development. Last, the research found that teachers in the storytelling group reflected in the |
|interview that during storytelling, they put less efforts in managing the class. However, in traditional teaching, they would have to take a more |
|proportion of the class time on classroom management. Also, through the observation of classroom atmosphere, classroom order, and students’ |
|participation, the teachers pointed out that storytelling indeed had more positive effects than traditional teaching. With follow-up activities, the |
|teachers assured the fact that students were very likely to absorb new vocabulary in the story. The observers also released the similar findings with|
|the classroom teachers. In addition, the observers added that children in the storytelling group asked more questions and were more willing to share |
|their ideas with their teacher and peers. |
|田耐青、沈宜屏 (民92)。國小級任導師運用英語童書輔助學生英文學習之行動研究。Selected Papers from the |042-1 |
|Twelfth international Symposium on English Teaching and Learning.，559-569. | |
|Abstract: the purpose of the research is to probe the influence of storytelling on EFL elementary school children’s language development. After a |
|pilot study, the researcher developed 3P3R reading strategy to help young EFL learners acquired the target language. |
|Design: 12 fifth-grade children in ABCD group (divide based on their conversation class performance); a qualitative and quantitative study; data |
|collected by the teacher’s teaching journal, observers’ observation, the students’ learning diary, students’ reflection, and interview with the |
|students |
|Findings: The researcher found that upper grade elementary children liked to participate in interactive context. Also, the boys showed a preference |
|of making prediction during storytelling. On the other hand, the girls liked to ask questions to further understand the story. Moreover, the |
|researcher pointed out that, via storytelling, children showed higher confidence and preference toward English learning. What’s more, according to |
|the researcher’s observation, the children, after being read to, would go get books from the bookshelf in the classroom, for reading on their own. |
|Some parents even told the researcher that they found their children loved reading and would read aloud storybooks, which were borrowed from the |
|classroom library, to their younger siblings at home. When asking whether they would like the storytelling program continued, 100% of the |
|participants gave the positive response, which indicated the growth of love for English learning after the storytelling. In addition, the researcher |
|pointed out that, after the action research, she would like to change the way she teaches young learners. Other than traditional teaching, she would |
|like to try other teaching approach, such as storytelling because of the positive results gained from the study. Also, the researcher pointed out |
|that teachers would become more confident after the trial of choosing storybooks, which indicated that teachers would be more experienced in the |
|selection of storybooks. |
S
|田耐青、沈宜屏 (民92)。國小級任導師運用英語童書輔助學生英文學習之行動研究。Selected Papers from the |042-2 |
|Twelfth international Symposium on English Teaching and Learning. 559-569. | |
|The researcher also confirmed that fact that storytelling would broaden the students’ background knowledge and enrich their life by learning |
|different cultures through the storybooks. Still, as for the follow-up activities, the researchers found that more able students liked self-reading, |
|on the other hand, less able students preferred the teacher read aloud for them. Last, the research suggested that when doting storytelling, teachers|
|might interact with the students through prediction—having students predict the following page or event, or questioning—asking the students some |
|relevant questions. When it comes to choose an appropriate storybook, the researchers mentioned that first, predictable books might be considered. |
|Second, the storyline should be able to link to the students’ background. Third, language level of the storybook should also be taken into |
|consideration. For example, a storybook with complex language might decrease less proficient learners’ interests, yet an interesting book with easy |
|language level would fail to attract those more able students. For lower achievers, repetitious pattern in a storybook may be suitable for them. (陳 |
|秋蘭，民92) cited 田耐青、沈宜屏 (民92)。 |
|王怡雯 (民93)。從閱讀英語文圖畫書看幼兒讀寫萌發現象。Selected Papers from the Thirteenth |043-1 |
|International Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching. 198-209. | |
|Abstract: The purpose of the study is to investigate the relationship between reading aloud storybooks and an infant’s emergent literacy. The |
|researcher intended to answer the following 2 questions: (1) during the parent-child reading aloud, what would the infant respond to the reading |
|behavior? (2)What were the meanings of the topic, plot, and the illustrations to the infant? |
|Design: a case / qualitative study; instruments: participant observation and in-depth interview; audio recording; 3 books; a three year and nine |
|month boy |
|Findings: after mother-infant reading aloud, the researcher found that the infant would like to pick the storybook which his mother read to him by |
|flicking through the pages. Also, when choosing the storybook, the infant would choose a book which could reflect his mood at that moment. |
|Furthermore, the infant would share the story with his grandparents by telling them what the story was. Although confined by limited expressive |
|ability, the infant, after reading a storybook, shared the book with others by role playing, puppets or drawing. Also, the research found that, |
|during the storybook reading, the infant either passively listened to the story, answered the questions posed by his mother, or imitated his mother |
|voice in the reading. Still, the infant showed logic thinking when being asked relevant questions about the story. What’s more, the infant linked the|
|story plot to his personal experience, for example, “David was like me. We both liked to climbed, played toys in the bathtub, or played while eating |
|meals.” The infant showed his curiosity about the story by asking questions like “Are these animals running out of the zoo?” Observation also |
|indicated that illustrations raised the infant’s curiosity for he asked some questions about the given pictures. |
|王怡雯 (民93)。從閱讀英語文圖畫書看幼兒讀寫萌發現象。Selected Papers from the Thirteenth |043-2 |
|International Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching. 198-209. | |
|The researcher concluded that to help the child develop emergent literacy, parents or nursery teachers should read aloud with the child. Also, |
|through interactive context between the adult and the child, s/he would benefit from the reading aloud. |
| |
| |
|Note: factor influenced a child’s emergent literacy, after reviewing literature, Wang pointed out that book access and reading frequency were |
|critical. Additionally, more library visits were found in early readers, and the frequency of library visiting was positively correlated with reading|
|comprehension. Also, the more parents read aloud to their children, the better their reading achievement would be. The more active the interaction |
|between the child and his/her parents, the better reading ability would be found. And, the more the child read, the higher his/her interests are; the|
|higher the interests, the better reading ability would be seen. The more the mother read with the infant, the more possible the infant would read and|
|the frequency would be higher. Yang( 民84, cited Wang,????) |
|Tsou, W., Wang, W., & Tzeng, Y. (2006). Applying a multimedia storytelling website in foreign |044-1 |
|language learning. Computers & Education, 47, 17-28. | |
|Abstract: The researchers developed a multimedia Storytelling Website to study how web-based technology can assist young EFL learners learning |
|English. The website contains an accounts administration module, multimedia story composing module, and story re-playing module. The purpose of the |
|study was to investigate how web-based technology can assist EFL teaching and learning process through storytelling and story recall. |
|Design: 2 classes of fifth-graders(35 students each); 10 weeks; the control group( used big books and flash cards, the experimental group( the |
|teacher recreated the story with the Story Website to accompany the teacher’s storytelling; questionnaire (for students) and interview (with the |
|instructor); pretest of language proficiency, story comprehension, and sentence complexity |
|Findings: Students in the Story Website group did better in their sentence complexity and post language proficiency test but not significant |
|surpassed the control group in story comprehension. The results indicated that |
|storytelling was appealing to students, with or without the assistance of the storytelling multimedia web, students could easily comprehend the story|
|and recall the story structure. Second, with the multimedia computer-assisted process, students retained more words, phrases and sentences. Students |
|received extra visual and audio stimuli through still pictures, animation, music, and/or sound effects. According to the researchers, these stimuli |
|not only provided easier access for story recalls but also facilitated students’ creativity in recreating stories. Students in the Storytelling |
|Website group tended to include more details in recalls. Furthermore, many details that the students included in their recalls were related to |
|materials coming from their own creations, such as physical descriptions of the characters, their locations, and sound effects. |
|Tsou, W., Wang, W., & Tzeng, Y. (2006). Applying a multimedia storytelling website in foreign |044-2 |
|language learning. Computers & Education, 47, 17-28. | |
|Results from the student questionnaire revealed that students of both groups expressed interest in having storytelling as a regular part of the |
|class. When asked about their improvement on English learning, students in the experimental group tended to be more confident than students in the |
|control group, and this result was also confirmed by the post language proficiency test. In addition, students in the experimental group expressed |
|enjoyment of the story recalling. On the other hand, the instructor indicated that greater anxiety when presenting stories in the control group and |
|she felt less confident. The instructor pointed out that students in the experimental group seemed to be more engaged in the storytelling process |
|because of colorful, animated multimedia format of the presentation. Also, the teacher concluded that storytelling was effective on language |
|teaching, but without the Website she would not embrace the storytelling herself. The Website also allows teachers’ stories be played again and again|
|for reviewing purpose, and individual students’ story recalls to be stored into a personal digital portfolio which teachers can access students’ |
|learning progress or to conduct peer comparisons. |
\
|Lickteig, M. J., & Russell, J. F. (1993) Elementary teachers’ read-aloud practices. Reading |045-1 |
|Improvement, 30, 202-208. | |
|Abstract: The researchers conducted a survey asking 183 elementary school teachers about their read-aloud practice in the classrooms. |
|Findings: The data revealed that reading aloud is a pervasive practice. A majority of teachers read aloud every day at least 20 minutes (71%). The |
|frequency of times per week decreased and the length of the read aloud sessions increased as the grades got higher. And the findings showed that |
|children listened quietly (73% across all grades). The teachers revealed the major reason for reading aloud were enjoyment and with an attempt to |
|foster the love of reading and literature. Still, to exposure students to more reading was another reason for doing reading aloud. In reading aloud, |
|both fantasy and realism are presented. When it comes to educational value of reading aloud, the researchers emphasized that one way of stressing its|
|importance is to expect students’ full attention during literature time. To achieve this goal, the researchers argued that reading aloud should be |
|included into regular curriculum rather than a supplementary activity. To be an experienced read- aloud teacher, the researcher suggested that the |
|more literature the teacher knows the better. Book chosen should be ones the teacher genuinely enjoys and is eager to share with her/ his students. |
|To help students be more attentive to the practice, the teacher may, suggested by Funk & Funk (1989, cited Lickteig & Russell (1993), provide a |
|purpose, set the stage and involve them with follow-up activities. For example, the teacher may provide background of the story before the reading |
|and allow some time for a short discussion after the reading. Moreover, the researchers pointed out that with young learners, allowing participation |
|is a good way to ensure listening. That is, they may participate with discussions of illustrations, ask questions about the story events, or even |
|predict texts. |
|Lickteig, M. J., & Russell, J. F. (1993) Elementary teachers’ read-aloud practices. Reading |045-2 |
|Improvement, 30, 202-208. | |
|Mendoza (1988, cited Lickteig & Russell (1993) suggested that regard to beginning learners, teachers may start with short picture books and working |
|up to short novels and trying various time/content level combinations until finding one that works well. The quality of reading is another factor to |
|be considered. In sum, the teacher should keep in mind that the goal to communicate a story. Last, the researchers claimed that teachers use reading |
|aloud to cultivate a love of reading, to encourage thinking about important issues that might otherwise not be included in the curriculum, and for |
|enjoyment and relaxation. |
|簡郁娟、黃月貴 (民89)。Starting with predictable stories: EFL children’s oral and literacy |046-1 |
|development. Selected Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching and | |
|Learning, 264-273. (Chien & Huang, 2000) | |
|Abstract: The study investigated the effect of predictable storybooks on kindergartners’ oral and emergent literacy development. Research questions |
|were: (1) What changes occur in EFL children’s oral language use after reading a variety of predictable reading materials? (2) How do predictable |
|reading texts influence EFL children’s emergent reading behaviors before formal reading instruction? And (3) what are the relationships between |
|parents’ involvement and children’s development of second language reading? |
|Design: one school year study; five 5 to 6 years old children; ethnographic research, data collected from observation, parental interview, teaching |
|logs, students’ portfolios, and miscue analysis |
|Findings: Data from field notes and the transcription of videotapes reveal that the patterns in predictable stories were easily absorbed by the |
|children and thus the children produced them into their daily conversation without hesitation or difficulty. Also, the patterns of vocabulary were |
|presented in a meaningful context, and this enables the children transferred what they learned from the storybook reading to their real-life |
|situations. Using The Emergent Reading Behavior Inventory, which included the categories for reading behaviors of book awareness, directionality, |
|print awareness, reading-like behavior, and the use of cueing systems, to investigate what the children did during the storytelling, the researchers |
|found that students made obvious progress in concepts about print (e.g. book awareness, print direction, and print awareness). The results supported |
|the hypothesis that young children construct print awareness through literacy activities before formal reading instruction. Also, through predictable|
|storybooks, young EFL children showed reading-like behaviors, and developed the concepts about print at the emergent literacy level. |
|簡郁娟、黃月貴 (民89)。Starting with predictable stories: EFL children’s oral and literacy |046-2 |
|development. Selected Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching and | |
|Learning, 264-273. | |
|Furthermore, Miscue Analysis was employed to identify the students’ reading strategies in the final evaluation. By doing so, the researchers |
|attempted to learn whether the children could use their graph-phonemic connection to read unknown words without formal phonics instruction. Results |
|indicated that, except for one child, the other 4 children confidently read a whole story even though they sometimes stopped in one or two sentences,|
|and then continued their reading by employing their syntactic, semantic, and graph-phonemic knowledge to make sense of the text or by the prompts of |
|the teacher’s clues or direct language help. Some of the children might have read by resorting to memory and pictorial clues, but some of the |
|children showed that they were making use of other reading strategies such as the sound-letter relationship or graphic identification when reading |
|the story. This finding` further verified that young EFL learners were also able to develop their ability of recognizing letters, words, or even |
|sentences without formal phonemic awareness or phonics training under the meaningful venue of storytelling. Findings of the interview with the |
|parents about their children’s family literacy environment showed that parents’ concepts about children’s literacy development strongly influenced |
|what they did to support their children’s literacy development and how they offered literacy activities to assist their children always received |
|positive feedback from their children. Interestingly to note, parents of the most and the second most advanced children among the five young EFL |
|learners revealed the information that they started the literate activities very early at home to foster their children’s literacy development by |
|reading stories or environmental print like newspaper or TV ads. On the other hand, with the assistance of the parents, these two children, among the|
|5 participants, showed early finger-point and prediction during the storybook reading. Moreover, book access |
|簡郁娟、黃月貴 (民89)。Starting with predictable stories: EFL children’s oral and literacy |046-3 |
|development. Selected Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching and | |
|Learning, 264-273. | |
|was a critical element influencing the child’s literacy development. In general, children whose parents value the importance of literacy development |
|have positive attitudes toward their children’s emergent literacy and thus encourage their reading-like behaviors. The results of the research |
|revealed that EFL children can establish reading readiness and construct meaning through reading predictable storybooks even if they have limited |
|English proficiency. With exposure to written language meaningfully and purposefully, most of the children developed book concepts, direction |
|concepts and print awareness and, more impressively, they were able to use the graph-phonemic connection to make sense of the text without formal |
|phonemic awareness or phonics training. In addition, parental awareness and involvement of home literacy were positively correlated to the child’s |
|literacy development. |
|Hsieh, L. T. (2000). Reading aloud vs. silent reading in EFL reading. Studies in English Language |047 |
|and Literature, 8, 13-21. | |
|Abstract: The study investigated the effects of teacher reading aloud, self-reading aloud and silent reading on college students’ reading |
|comprehension. Findings indicated that the teacher reading aloud group and self-reading aloud group had higher scores than the silent reading group |
|in reading comprehension tests. Also, the intermediate-low proficiency readers preferred reading aloud while intermediate-high proficiency readers |
|preferred silent reading on their own. |
|Design: 44 first-year college students (intermediate-low proficiency learners), their average age was 15.5. & 44 second-year students |
|(intermediate-high proficiency learners) with average age 16.6 years old; 3 reading passages and an after-reading questionnaire; students from the 2 |
|grades were randomly divided into 3 groups( self read aloud, read silently, or the teacher read aloud (the teacher read the passages for 2 times) |
|Findings: Results showed that college students benefited more from teacher’ reading aloud and self-reading aloud on their reading comprehension tests|
|than silent reading. Interestingly, the researcher noted that less skilled readers seemed more relied on the reading aloud approach; on the other |
|hand, more skilled readers preferred to read silently, which was coincided with previous findings. The results verified the positive influence of |
|reading aloud on even older EFL learners’ language acquisition. |
| |
| |
|Note that in teacher’s reading aloud group, the teacher read the passages aloud twice to provide more exposure of the reading, which may provide |
|possible definite explanation of the better performance of the group than other groups. |
|Dhaif, H. (1990). Reading aloud for comprehension: a neglected teaching aid. Reading in a Foreign |048-1 |
|Language, 7, 457-464. | |
|Abstract: The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of reading aloud on EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Results showed that students |
|in the teacher’s reading aloud group gained significantly higher scores than their peers in silent reading situation, which indicated that reading |
|aloud had a positive effect on EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Moreover, the questionnaire revealed that 77% of the participants reported that |
|they were in favor of the teacher reading aloud to them. |
|Design: EFL; two methods: students’ silent reading & teacher’s reading aloud(reading comprehension; 140 first-year crossed disciplinary university |
|students enrolled; 6 passages were used |
|Findings: The reading comprehension tests revealed that students in the teacher reading aloud group had significantly higher scores than their |
|counterparts in the silent reading group. Coincidently with Elley (1989), the less skilled students made the most progress through reading aloud. |
|Dramatically, these students improved by about 74% in the second test. The results showed that poor readers could benefit from a more “supportive” |
|reading condition whereby they were helped with the more knowledgeable readers. On the other hand, 77% of the subjects indicated a preference for the|
|teacher’s reading aloud for them. Among them, 47% mentioned that the reason was that it helps them better understand the overall meaning of the |
|text. |
|According to the researcher, learners with basic level of English proficiency had a better understanding of what they were reading in a teacher |
|reading aloud situation than in a silent reading situation. Furthermore, Dhaif claims that teachers should set aside lesson time for reading aloud to|
|their students, particularly to those poor readers who were unable to read fluently and hence always had reading comprehension difficulties. It is |
|hoped that reading aloud would help those less skilled learners to improve their level of reading comprehension and |
|consequently encourage them to read to break the vicious circle: poor readers do not enjoy reading because they |
|Dhaif, H. (1990). Reading aloud for comprehension: a neglected teaching aid. Reading in a Foreign |048-2 |
|Language, 7, 457-464. | |
|do not understand, and because they do not understand, they do not read. |
| |
|Note: This research provided evidence of the effect of reading aloud on EFL learners with basic proficiency level of English. Dhaif argued that a |
|non-native speaker goes through similar learning process as those experienced by a child learning to read in its first language. With the findings, |
|the researcher further pointed out that EFL learners, despite their limited reading proficiency, were able to comprehend the given text when the help|
|from a more advanced reader was available. Specifically, Dhaif revealed the fact that in those beginning readers, confined by their English reading |
|ability, tend to break the sentences into small parts while they read. As a result the sentences lose their integrity and consequently become |
|meaningless. Reading aloud to these learners at eh early sage would therefore restore that integrity and present larger semantic units which lead to |
|better understanding. Thus, with sufficient practice and active participation in the reading aloud, the readers would be encouraged to follow a more |
|holistic approach to reading which would be triggered off by their realization that a higher level of comprehension can only be achieved by reading |
|larger chunks of texts and not by attempting to understand individual words or bits of sentences. |
| |
|Wang, P. L. (2007). The effectiveness and difficulties of implementing children’s literature in EFL |049-1 |
|writing. Proceedings of the 24th Conference on English Teaching and Learning, 329-341. | |
|Abstract: The purpose of the study is to determine whether children’s literature can be an effective instructional aid in enhancing the writing |
|competence in vocational college English majors, The participants were provides with opportunities to listen to stories, read stories and write their|
|own stories. Results revealed the progress of the participants’ writing skills and their attitude towards reading storybooks and implementing |
|storybooks into regular curriculum. |
|Design: 1 semester study; 91 college students (39 first graders of the two-year college program and 52 fourth graders of the five-year program |
|majoring in Applied Foreign Language), 35 storybook were utilized; writing analysis and questionnaires analyzed; 3 writings produced by the |
|participants; T-unit: to examine the participants’ syntactic maturity |
|Findings: Results indicated that almost every five-year and two-year college students liked and accepted storybooks as English learning materials |
|According to the positive responses, storybook are lovely and interesting were the most common reasons. Also, storybooks were easy to understand and |
|they helped increase curiosity were all the priorities making by the students. Surprisingly, half (44%) of the English majors of the five-year |
|college had not read storybooks before the intervention. Astonishingly, 85% of the English-majored students in the two-year college had not have the |
|experience of reading a single storybook before. After the reading aloud by the instructor in class, 54% of the students in five-year college have |
|read at least 1 to 5 books, 15% students have read 6 to 10 storybooks and one student have even read more than 10 storybooks. That implied the fact |
|that the implementing of children’s literature motivate approximately 70% of the students to make extra efforts for their English learning. Also, 75%|
|of the participants believed that story-writing tasks |
|helped them enhance their writing competence and 85% of them believed that kind of task enhanced both |
|Wang, P. L. (2007). The effectiveness and difficulties of implementing children’s literature in EFL |049-2 |
|writing. Proceedings of the 24th Conference on English Teaching and Learning, 329-341. | |
|their writing ability and creativity. On the other hand, after being read to by the teacher, 56% of the students in tw0-year college have read 1 to 5|
|storybooks, 15% of them have read 6 to 10 storybooks and only one student has read more than 10 storybooks during the study. The findings implied |
|that implementing children’s literature motivated nearly 75% of the students to read on their own. 79% of the students believed that their writing |
|competence could be improved by continuing to read and write. And nearly 70% of them thought that story-writing tasks not only help boost their |
|writing ability but also increase their creativity. Descriptive statistics showed that, after being read to, the students made significant progress |
|in their writings. Both the groups, the students in five-year and two-year college, performed much better in their second writing than the first one.|
|However, there’s no significant progress comparing the second and the third writing. The findings showed that teacher’s reading aloud storybooks to |
|college students did increase their writing skills. On the other hand, the researcher failed to find the contribution of reading aloud children’s |
|literature in achieving vocational college students’ correctness in grammatical use. Namely, the researcher concluded that the intervention did not |
|help the students developed the ability of correcting grammatical errors in their writing, which should be reconsidered thoroughly in that errors |
|should be regarded common and acceptable in second or foreign learners and should not be intentionally be removed just after a designed intervention.|
|Error correction, after all, has been empirically found not so effective or even harmful in language learners. In addition, Wang proposed that one of|
|the major difficulties teachers would encounter when involving such literature-based program is that it is not easy to find one appropriate storybook|
|that satisfied every student in the classroom. Still, some of the student |
|may perceive reading aloud storybooks as a form of entertainment like watching movies and thus pay less |
|Wang, P. L. (2007). The effectiveness and difficulties of implementing children’s literature in EFL |049-3 |
|writing. Proceedings of the 24th Conference on English Teaching and Learning, 329-341. | |
|attention to the teacher’s reading aloud. This, to me, might be explained in the following ways. First, before the program, the teacher should give |
|her students a pre-orientation in which some relative second language theories should be emphasized. Or at least, the contribution of reading aloud |
|in language acquisition should be released to those learners, which provides the opportunity of learning more about language acquisition theory and |
|also have the learners be aware of the self-responsibility of learning English. Next, if the students perceived the activity interesting and |
|low-stress, the outcome of language learning would be expectantly positive. Last, Wang summarized that the reading aloud children’s storybooks to |
|vocational college students boosted their writing competence and instilled positive attitude toward children’s literature, which is worthy note |
|because the study further confirmed the interlinked relationships between reading and writing. Most importantly, the researcher demonstrated that |
|reading aloud, a common literate activity for young children, can even be utilized in older learners and what’s more, in EFL language situation. |
|Lee, S.Y. (民94). 晨光繪本閱讀活動與字彙習得 |050-1 |
|Abstract: The purpose of the study is to investigate the effect of reading storybooks aloud in early morning on EFL elementary children’s vocabulary |
|acquisition. |
|Design: 20-week design; 117 third-grade participants in Taipei county; without control group; vocabulary test (30% of the items are from the |
|textbook used in the school and the other 70% of the items are from the storybooks and the frequency of the items are three to four times appeared in|
|the storybooks) and questionnaire; 13 storybooks with interesting illustrations, storyline, and rhythmic patterns; pretest to select |
|highly-interesting storybooks |
|Findings: After being read to by university students for 20 weeks, information from the questionnaires revealed that 86.3% of the students hoped that|
|the storytelling activity could continue; 72.6% of the participants thought that English learning became more interesting and 65% of the 117 children|
|perceived that the English course in school became easier after the experience. These findings reflected that reading aloud storybooks indeed |
|stimulated young EFL learners’ learning interests in English and reading as well. Also, such reading program facilitated students’ language |
|development. According to the readers (the university students), some observations discussed here. Firstly, in terms of vocabulary learning, the |
|readers found that blackboard use might enhance the vocabulary learning during the reading aloud. Also, the readers may use the story to link to |
|children’s personal life experience, which would help the reader to better understand the perception of the students. Next, L1 might be used to |
|explain unknown words encountered in the storybooks to enhance the comprehension and children’s interests in listening to the story. Besides, as for |
|the design of the activities used during the reading, the readers found that if possible, the second reading would better arouse students’ interest |
|in reading. Reasons for this might be first, after the first reading, the second reading would be easier to comprehend and the second reading |
|reinforce the newly-acquired words. Also, the second reading may elicit discussions between the reader and the |
|Lee, S.Y. (民94). 晨光繪本閱讀活動與字彙習得 |050-2 |
|Children and that enhance the learning subconsciously. As for the discussion, the readers would not force the learners to produce English for |
|response but encourage them to use some simple English or just respond in their mother language. The readers confirmed that discussions were a very |
|important activity after the reading. Though not as expectant, TPR still played an important role in children’s learning English. That is, through |
|the imitation, the children had better interaction with the reader. As for the difficulties, the readers mentioned that the interaction between the |
|reader and the children plays a critical role in reading aloud. Namely, the better the interaction, the better the effect of the reading aloud. |
|Furthermore, the interruption by some irrelevant questions posed by the children during the reading aloud made the reading not fluent and sometimes |
|that would influence the classroom order, which need extra efforts to deal with. Last, due to the not-appropriate seat arrangement, enot every child |
|would have a clear vision of the storybook, which might decrease the interests in listening to the story. To solve the problem, the reader had to |
|move around to make sure that every student had a better vision of the pictures in the storybook. On the other hand, the descriptive statistics |
|showed that all the four classes made significant progress in total vocabulary, school vocabulary and storybook vocabulary. Interesting enough, the |
|researcher found that there’s no significant difference in the vocabulary performance between those go to English cram school or not. Therefore, |
|whether more instruction time would elicit better language outcome need further examination. Also, the results revealed that comprehension and |
|reading per se are intercorrelated to vocabulary acquisition rather than the hours of the class or the activities in class. Students released the |
|information about their preference of classroom activities. The first priority was singing, the second, storytelling, and the third, drams. However, |
|storytelling was also the second least liking activity to those children. One possible explanation for the contrast might be the level of |
|comprehension that made such paradoxical responses to storytelling in learners, which indicated the importance of comprehension in storytelling. |
|Lee, S.Y. (民94). 晨光繪本閱讀活動與字彙習得 |050-3 |
|As for the preference of activities done in outside school English class, as in school, the first priority was singing, the second, drama, and the |
|third, storytelling. Additionally, the most disliking activity was writing, the second, grammar instruction, and the third, vocabulary exercise. From|
|these results, the researcher urged that reading aloud should be included into regular curriculum. |
|Li, S. C. (2003). A study of the effects of reading fairy tales aloud on junior high school |051-1 |
|students. | |
|Abstract: The purpose of the thesis were first to explore the application of fairy tales on EFL junior high students’ reading comprehension. Second, |
|to examine whether reading aloud literature successfully enhanced the students’ learning interests. |
|Design: reading comprehension pretest; 78 third-grade junior high students, 2 groups: the Experimental( were read to before reading the texts by |
|themselves, the Control( reading by themselves; 5 fairy tales; immediate reading response report; post-test questionnaire; a take-a-book-home |
|activity (to instigate whether reading aloud encouraged voluntary reading after the intervention) |
|Findings: After one-semester research, the students conceived that they enjoyed experiences with the stories and became familiar with the language of|
|literature. Overall, students possessed positive attitude toward reading literature. Illustrations, unlike young children, failed to enhance reading |
|comprehension. According to the researcher, pictorial clues served the entertainment role in reading with little facilitating impact for ninth EFL |
|graders. As for the genres the students preferred, jokes and comic ranked the top twp. Generally, they revealed that they tend to prefer interesting,|
|relevant to themes, or stimulating reading materials. To the experimental group, reading aloud was reported as effective in increasing reading |
|comprehension and fostering a love for reading. 74 % of the experimental group showed their appreciation to reading aloud in English reading classes.|
|Moreover, as stated by the participants, reading aloud helped them developed a greater insight into the characters’ feelings and thoughts and thus |
|they could visualize the plot development as the teacher read aloud the story to them. |
|李淑純 |051-2 |
|Abstract: The purpose of the thesis were first to explore the application of fairy tales on EFL junior high students’ reading comprehension. Second, |
|to examine whether reading aloud literature successfully enhanced the students’ learning interests. |
|Design: reading comprehension pretest; 78 third-grade junior high students, 2 groups: the Experimental( were read to before reading the texts by |
|themselves, the Control( reading by themselves; 5 fairy tales; immediate reading response report; post-test questionnaire; a take-a-book-home |
|activity (to instigate whether reading aloud encouraged voluntary reading after the intervention) |
|Findings: After one-semester research, the students conceived that they enjoyed experiences with the stories and became familiar with the language of|
|literature. Overall, students possessed positive attitude toward reading literature. Illustrations, unlike young children, failed to enhance reading |
|comprehension. According to the researcher, pictorial clues served the entertainment role in reading with little facilitating impact for ninth EFL |
|graders. As for the genres the students preferred, jokes and comic ranked the top twp. Generally, they revealed that they tend to prefer interesting,|
|relevant to themes, or stimulating reading materials. To the experimental group, reading aloud was reported as effective in increasing reading |
|comprehension and fostering a love for reading. 74 % of the experimental group showed their appreciation to reading aloud in English reading classes.|
|Moreover, as stated by the participants, reading aloud helped them developed a greater insight into the characters’ feelings and thoughts and thus |
|they could visualize the plot development as the teacher read aloud the story to them. Statistical analysis revealed that reading aloud facilitated |
|the participants’ reading comprehension. That is, regard the comprehension test, the experimental group outperformed the control group in linger |
|texts. results of the study further confirmed the hypothesis. The experimental group demonstrated more favorable attitudes toward readings than the |
|control group and, outperformed on the longer and more difficult readings |
|李淑純 |051-3 |
|texts. This may result from the fact that students were more able to comprehend given reading texts while the written language was delivered orally |
|and simultaneously. Also, the more positive attitude toward reading and the better performance of the experimental group in reading comprehension |
|verified the hypothesis that the positive relationship between reading interests and reading performance. Unexpectedly, the take-a-book-home activity|
|seemed not so stimulating to encourage more outside reading after the program. Reasons might be that for these ninth-grade junior high students, the |
|Basic Competence Exam is approaching, and this caused the students lot of pressure and therefore failed to do extra reading outside of class. |
|Besides, the students’ proficiency level might be another impediment to the infrequency of outside-class reading. And this indicated the important |
|role of the teacher in young EFL learners’ language development. To encourage more outside reading, Lee proposed that teachers should convince |
|students of the value of outside reading and prepare a plan for maintaining their interests in reading. In a word, the teacher should also be a |
|counselor, an observer, and a partner in such literate activity to achieve reciprocal relationship and promising language outcome. |
|Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1992). Accelerating language development through |052-1 |
|picture book reading: A systematic extension to Mexican day care. Developmental Psychology, 28, | |
|1106-1114. | |
|Abstract: The study introduced dialogic reading in 20 Mexican 2-year-olds from low-income backgrounds. Children in the intervention group were read |
|to individually by a teacher using dialogic reading techniques. The control group children were given individual arts and crafts instruction by the |
|same teacher. Effects of the intervention were assessed through standardized language tests and by comparing the children’s spontaneous language |
|while they shared a picture book with an adult who was unaware of their group assignment. Differences favoring the intervention group were found on |
|all posttests and one some measures of languge production. |
|Design: twenty 2-year-old Mexican children;2 groups: the Expe.--> one-on-one reading with an adult; pretests(PPVT-R & EOWPVT; posttest: PPVT-R, |
|EOWPVT & ITPA (expressive test); 5 storybooks with rich illustrations and short, descriptive text; 6- to- 7 week intervention duration; children’s |
|spontaneous verbalization (the children interacted with an unfamiliar adult who asked specific or open-ended questions to elicit the children’s |
|language production); ESL |
|Findings: Outcome from the standardized tests revealed a significant group effect, indicating a higher performance by children in the experimental |
|group than by children in the control group. These positive language outcome in the intervention group showed that the picture book reading produced |
|large effects on performance. Moreover, verbal production data showed that children in the experimental group produced a significant greater number |
|of utterances than children in the control group. Also, the intervention group produced longer and more complex sentences (i.e. number of compound |
|sentences, reflecting a higher level of syntactic complexity of their speech. |
|Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1992). Accelerating language development through |052-2 |
|picture book reading: A systematic extension to Mexican day care. Developmental Psychology, 28, | |
|1106-1114. | |
|Furthermore, the intervention group produced more diverse word categories and greater various nouns and verbs. |
|Next, children in the experimental group were more able in answering questions posed by the responsible adult and continuing topic-related |
|discussions. That is, the children in the experimental group produced higher rates of these types of verbalizations than control children. The |
|results of the research extended those of Whitehurst et al. (1988) by demonstrating that a shared picture book reading can work for Mexican children|
|of low-income parents with below-normal language abilities and with a day-care teacher rather than a parent in the adult role. These two studies |
|demonstrated that large and enduring effects on children’s language can be obtained from an intervention that encouraged the child to talk about the |
|pictures in shared picture books and provided the child with appropriate models and feedback for progressively more sophisticated language use. With |
|the success of language outcomes appeared in the experimental group in the MLU, the diversity of verbs and nouns, and the children’s efforts to |
|initiate and continue conversation, the researchers concluded that picture book reading as a critical component of preschoolers’ language development|
|by demonstrating that active participation in picture book reading produced language gains for children of low-income families. More importantly, |
|Valdez-Menchaca and Whitehurst believed that continuous exposure to picture book activities would produce larger and more lasting effects than a |
|6-week intervention. |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.