W ‘ ”

1H!

1
1

 

 

 

2
:30: :3
LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

PROMISE AND POSSIBILITIES OF INFUSING PARENT-CHILD
READ ALOUDS WITH COMPREHENSION STRATEGY
INSTRUCTION: AN INTERVENTION STUDY

presented by

KATHRYN L. ROBERTS '

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Curriculum, Teaching, &
Educational Policy

 

 

li/pééajogtesmwr’sggnéfi'
7%; //,. XQ/ Q

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

-.—.-.-.-.-.-.-og.---c-.-.--—-.-—.-o--

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:lProj/Acc&Pres/CIRC/DateDuo.indd

 

 

PROMISE AND POSSIBILITIES OF INFUSING PARENT-CHILD READ ALOUDS
WITH COMPREHENSION STRATEGY INSTRUCTION: AN INTERVENTION
STUDY
By

Kathryn L. Roberts

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy

2010

ABSTRACT
PROMISE AND POSSIBILITIES OF INFUSING PARENT-CHILD READ ALOUDS
WITH COMPREHENSION STRATEGY INSTRUCTION: AN INTERVENTION
STUDY
By
Kathryn L. Roberts
This dissertation is comprised of two manuscripts that resulted fi'om a single study

that tested the efficacy of teaching parents how to infuse comprehension strategy
instruction into read alouds with their preschool-aged children. Twenty dyads, each
composed Of an incoming kindergartener and one of his or her parents, participated in
this study. This study employed an experimental design: children were matched based on
initial scores on a standardized comprehension measure, and then randomly assigned to
condition within pairs. Parents assigned to the experimental group attended workshops at
two-week intervals during which they were taught to infuse their read alouds with their
children with comprehension strategy instruction, and sent follow-up packages with
strategy reminders and a book to practice with in between sessions. Parents in the control
group were provided with one initial session during which they were instructed on the
benefits of reading at home with their child. They were also mailed follow-up packages
on the same schedule as the experimental group that contained reminders about the
importance of reading and a book. Pre- and post-intervention scores on measures of
parental implementation and child comprehension were then compared. Results indicate
that, for parents in the experimental condition, interactions with their children during read
aloud sessions changed to include statistically significantly more instances than control

group peers of talking about text (specifically, more turns and uptake of initiated topics

by both parents and children), retelling, and story structure. Results approached

significance for instances of initiation of discussion about text by children and instances
of activation and use of prior knowledge. In addition, children in the experimental group

showed higher gains than children in the control group on composite comprehension
.

‘

scores.

The first manuscript focuses on the two central research questions of the study:
(1) To what extent are parents able to implement comprehension strategy-based
instructional practices (Specifically retelling, attention to story structure, activation and
use of prior knowledge, and talking about text) into lap reading with their children in
response to workshops on the topics? and (2) What are the effects on children’s
comprehension of parents’ attempts to infuse comprehension strategy instruction
(specifically retelling, attention to story structure, activation and use Of prior knowledge,
and talking about text) into lap reading of fictional narrative texts with their children?
This manuscript is written for researchers, and outlines the study and addresses these
questions in the standard research article format.

The second manuscript is written for the practitioner audience. While it, too,
includes some discussion of the literature, methodology, and results, the primary focus of
this article is on the discussion and implications of the research for the teaching
community, particular attention is paid to the information necessary to successfully
implement the intervention.

The results Of this study contribute to the small, but growing body of literature on
family literacy interventions focused on comprehension. In addition, this study provides a

framework for practitioners interested in harnessing the power of families as they strive

to help all children become proficient readers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Completing this dissertation, both the study itself and the writing, has been one of
the most challenging and rewarding adventures that I have experienced, and I owe a great
debt of gratitude to those who supported me as I navigated the ups and downs. First, I.
would like to thank my advisor and dissertation director, Dr. Nell Duke. I owe much of
what I know about research to her guidance, and am deeply grateful both for the times
that she provided me with invaluable advice and for the times that she pushed me toward
independence, at times having more confidence in me than I had in myself. On a similar
note, I would like to thank Rebecca Norman, Meagan Shedd, Meghan Block, Laura
J imenez, Nicole Martin, and Lauren Fingeret for their feedback at all stages Of this study,
help with data collection, reading of endless drafts, and general sanity preservation. I am
particularly grateful to Meghan Block, who was extremely generous with her time and
support during the data collection stage of the study.

I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Patricia Edwards, Dr. Kim
Maier, and Dr. Donna Scanlon for their support. Their thoughtfiil suggestions and
feedback at all stages were insightful and greatly strengthened the study.

Finally, I would like to thank my family for being my biggest fans and supporters.
In particular, I would like to thank my husband for talking me down fi'om the ledge
during the rough patches and trying to be interested as I talked endlessly about the study,
and my brilliant daughter Lola for acting as a sounding board on everything from

statistical analyses to implications.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
Overview of Dissertation ..................................................................... 2
References .................................................................................... 7

MANUSCRIPT 1: COMPREHENSION STRATEGY INSTRUCTION
DURING PARENT-CHILD LAP READING: AN INTERVENTION

STUDY ......................................................................................... 9
Introduction ........................................................................... 10
Family Literacy ................................................................. 13
Research on Book Reading Interventions .............................. 15
Research on Successful Family Literacy and Tutoring Interventions 18
Comprehension and Young Children ........................................... 19
Comprehension Strategy Instruction ....................................... 21
Retelling and Story Structure in the Classroom ............... 23

Activation and Use Of Prior Knowledge in the Classroom... 25

Talking About Text in the Classroom ........................... 26

Methods .............................................................................. 28
Design ........................................................................... 28
Participants ....................................................................... 29
Data Collection Measure and Procedures .................................... 30
Implementation Measures ...................................................... 30
Child Measures ................................................................... 31
The Early Literacy Skills Assessment ........................... 31

Retelling Measure ................................................ 33

Conditions and Procedures ...................................................... 35
Experimental Treatment ........................................................ 35
Control ............................................................................ 36
Analysis ........................................................................... 37
Implementation ..................................................................... 37
Comprehension ..................................................................... 38
Results ................................................................................... 39
Parent Implementation .......................................................... 39
Frequency of Strategy Use ....................................... 39

Turns, Initiation, and Uptake .................................... 39

Effects of Implementation of Comprehension ................ 40

Child Comprehension ................................................................ 40
The Early Literacy Skills Assessment ............................ 4O

Retelling Measure .................................................. 4O
Comprehension in Relation to Implementation ............... 41

Discussion ...........................................................................
The Potential of Parent-Child Read Alouds .................................
Young Children Learning to Comprehend ....................................
Promise of this Intervention ...................................................
Limitations

Conclusions. , .........................................................................

References .............................................................................

MANUSCRIPT 2: TEACHING PARENTS TO INFUSE COMPREHENSION
INSTRUCTION INTO PARENT-CHILD READ ALOUDS: A LOW-COST,
HIGH-IMPACT

APPROACH .....................................................................................
Introduction .............................................................................
Comprehension ...................................................................
Literacy in the Home ............................................................
The Present Study ....................................................................
Setting and Participants .............................................................
Parent Workshops ....................................................................
Materials ..........................................................................
Strategy Handouts ..........................................................
Video Examples ............................................................
Follow-up Packets ..........................................................
Control Condition ................................................................
Did the Workshops Make a Difference? ........................................................
Parents’ Implementation .........................................................
Transcript Analyses .......................................................
Demographic Variables ...................................................
Children’s Comprehension .......................................................
The Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA) .........................
The Retelling Measure .....................................................
Concluding Comments .................................................................
References ...............................................................................
Literature Cited ........................................................................

APPENDICES
Manuscript 1:

A Example of a Retelling Scoring Protocol ..............................
B Example of a Strategy Handout .......................................
C Example of a Strategy Bookmark ....................................

Full Dissertation:
D Negative Binomial Statistics for Effects of Gender and
Socioeconomic Status on Post-Intervention Comprehension
Measures ............................................................

REFERENCES
Introduction .........................................................................

vi

41
43
44
45
46
48
49

67
68
68
70
72
72
73
74
74
74
75
75
76
76
76
78
79
79
79
81
85
88

57
59
62

98

Manuscript 1 ........................................................................
Manuscript 2 ........................................................................

vii

49
85

LIST OF TABLES

Manuscript 1:
Table 1 Participant Demographic Information ........................................ 64
Table 2 Post-Intervention Means and Effect Sizes Based on Strategy Use
from Analyses of Parent-Child Read Alouds ................................ 65
Table3 Post-Intervention Means and Effect Sizes Based on Turns,
Initiation, and Uptake Analyses of Parent-Child Read Alouds ........... 66
Table 4 Pre- and Post-Intervention Means and Effect Sizes Based on
Experimental Group Comprehension Scores ............................... 67
Manuscript 2:
Table 5 Descriptions of Individual Story Comprehension Strategies ............. 90
Table 6 Mean Pre- and Post-Intervention Comprehension Scores ................. 92

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Manuscript 2:
Figure 1 Outline of a Typical Workshop Teaching Parents about

Infusing Comprehension into Parent-Child Lap Reading ............... 93
Figure 2 Tirneline for Workshops and F Ollow-Up Mailings ....................... 94
Figure 3 Example of a Strategy Handout ............................................. 95
Figure 4 Example of a Strategy Bookmark ........................................... 97
Figure 5 Sample Retelling Scoring Protocol for Sylvester and the

Magic Pebble .................................................................. 98

ix

Introduction

Reading, by definition, is about “extracting and constructing meaning through
interaction and involvement with written language" (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002,
p. xiii). In 2000, the National Reading Panel published its report, naming five essential
components of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension. If reading is, as stated above, about meaning making, then the first four
components are in service of the last: comprehension. Yet, there is much more empirical
research on phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and vocabulary learning than
comprehension in the primary grades. Perhaps, the research and practice communities are
looking to have these first four components in place before addressing comprehension. In
some ways, this is logical. For example, a child would never be able to independently
comprehend a complex text if he or she couldn’t decode the words in that text. However,
children who are not yet independently reading can learn both decoding and
comprehension skills simultaneously. Indeed, the learning of each is likely to support the
learning of the other. Comprehension (which is closely related to the semantic and
pragmatic cuing systems) can be used in coordination with decoding (which is closely
related to the graphophonemic cuing system) in order to facilitate the construction of
meaning from connected text (Adams, 1990; Goodman & Goodman, 2006).

The literacy skills of young children have been the focus of my research for the
last four years. I have looked at the writing skills Of children in primary grades (Roberts
& Wibbens, in press), comprehension instruction in the primary grades (Roberts, in
preparation; Roberts & Duke, 2009), young children’s comprehension of graphics in text

(Duke et al., 2009), and young children’s comprehension of informational text (Billman,

et al., 2008; Hilden, et al., 2008). In each of these areas of research, I looked at literacy
from a classroom-centered perspective. For my dissertation work, I wanted to address
issues of literacy learning from a digger: perspective, so I turned to the study Of the
roles that families play in their children’s comprehension. Interactions around text in the
home during early childhood have a tremendous influence on children’s literacy skills
and attitudes (e. g., Bus, van Ijzendoom, & Pellegrini, 1995; Cunningham & Stanovich,
1997; DeBaryshe, 1993; Hood, Conlon, & Andrews, 2008; Justice & Ezell, 2000;
Neuman, 1996; Sénéchal, 2006; Stanovich, 1986; Weigel, Martin, & Bennett, 2006), and
my own experiences as a teacher made it quite clear that there were many parents who
were motivated to help, but were unsure of what to do. Therefore, tapping these resources
in order to maximize their potential seems to be a worthwhile endeavor. In particular, I
wanted to examine the efficacy of moving comprehension strategy instruction, which has
a record of success in the classroom, into the home.
Overview of the Dissertation

Because this intervention study has implications for both researchers and
practitioners, I decided to write it using an alternative format (Duke & Beck, 1999),
which includes one manuscript written in a manner consistent with publication standards
for the research community, and a second appropriate for publication in a practitioner
journal. In addition, the manuscript includes this introduction, linking the two articles and
Situating them in the broader context of the study.
Overview of the Study

When I originally conceptualized this study, I was pondering whether

comprehension strategy instruction could “work” if it took place in the home as parents

read to their children. However, it quickly became apparent that the answer would

depend largely on my definition of “work”. After some thought, I decided that, for the
intervention to work, it would have to both change parents’ read aloud practices
immediately and Show the potential to change children’s comprehension. Due to the . . -
necessarily short duration Of the study and the lOng-term nature of comprehension
development (e. g., Sénéchal & LeFerve, 2002), large effects for comprehension were not
expected to be immediately apparent. Therefore, the success Of the intervention was

gauged to a greater extent by parent implementation, and to a lesser extent by children’s
comprehension.

Both manuscripts address the same two central questions: 1) To what extent are
parents able to implement comprehension strategy-based instructional practices
(specifically retelling, attention to story structure, activation and use of prior knowledge,
and talking about text) into lap reading with their children in response to workshops on
the topics? and 2) What are the eflects on children 's comprehension of parents ’ attempts
to infuse comprehension strategy instruction (specifically retelling, attention to story
structure, activation and use of prior knowledge, and talking about text) into lap reading
of fictional narrative texts with their children? The first manuscript, written for
researchers, takes readers through the study in the traditional format of a research report,
highlighting contributions to the bodies of literature on both comprehension and family
literacy, as well as providing implications for future research. The second manuscript also
discusses the rationale, design of the study, and findings, but focuses much more heavily

on practical issues related to teaching parents to incorporate comprehension strategy

instruction into their at-home reading sessions.

The final sample for this study included twenty dyads, each composed Of one
incoming kindergartener and one parent, from a range of socio-economic and ethnic
backgrounds. The children were paired within site (Head Start, Suburban
preschool/developmental pre-kindergarten, tuition-based childcare) based on their scores
on a standardized measure of comprehension (the Early Literdcy Skills Assessment,
DeBruin-Parecki, 2005), and then one child from each pair was randomly assigned to
each condition (control or experimental). Parents of the children in the experimental
group received training via four, 45- to 60-minute workshops on strategy instruction at
two-week intervals, while parents in the control condition were advised as to the benefits
of reading with their children frequently during the intervention period, and Offered the
intervention workshops afier the completion of the study. Both groups received follow-up
mailings between scheduled sessions. These packages contained a reminder about the
next session, a bookmark with suggestions for implementing the strategy that they had
learned in the previous session (or regarding information from the initial session, in the
case Of the control group), and a fictional narrative book with which to practice.

In order to determine the effectiveness Of the intervention, measures of both
implementation and comprehension were employed. First, before both the first and last
sessions, audio recordings were made of each parent-child dyad as they engaged in a read
aloud Of a fictional narrative picture book. These recordings were then transcribed and
analyzed for instances of target strategy use, number of different strategies used, total
number of conversational turns related to text taken by both the parent and child, and

number of topic initiations and amount of uptake made by both the parent and the child.

Also, child comprehension was measured both before and afier the intervention period

through the administration of the Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA, DeBruin-
Parecki, 2005) and a researcher-designed retelling protocol. The scores from these
measures were then analyzed using t tests; negative binomial regressions were also run to
determine the relationships between SES within condition and final ELSA scores, and
between gender within condition and final ELSA scores.

Results indicated that parents were quite capable of implementing strategy
instruction during their one-on-one read alouds with their children. Parents in the
experimental condition were more likely to infuse their read alouds with strategy use and
instruction, use a wider range of strategies, and engage with their children around text, in
general, post-intervention than they were pre-intervention. Furthermore, post-
intervention, parents and children in the intervention group were also more likely to
engage in actual conversations about text as opposed to cross-talk. In other words,
parents and children were both more likely to build on topics initiated by the other (as
opposed to ignoring the initiation and introducing a new topic) post-intervention than pre-
intervention. These changes were not evidenced in the control group.

In terms of comprehension, children in the experimental group experienced
statistically significant growth from pre- to post-intervention on their total ELSA scores,
while there were no significant differences between time points for the control group. On
the retelling measure, the experimental group also experienced more growth, but not at a
level of statistical significance.

The findings of this study carry implications for both researchers and
practitioners. For researchers, this study contributes to the research base supporting the

efficacy and importance of comprehension strategy instruction for young children. In

addition, it contributes tO the knowledge base of effective ways in which parents can be
taught to engage with their children around literacy. For practitioners, this study can
serve as a template for the design of family literacy initiatives, both in content and in

format.

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). The three-cueing system. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds), Literacy
for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 73-99). New York: Guilford.

Billman, A. K., Duke, N. K., Hilden, K., Zhang, S., Roberts, K., Halladay, J. L., et. al.
(2008). Concepts of Comprehension Assessment (COCA). East Lansing: Trustees
of Michigan State University.

Bus, A., van Ijzendoom, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for
success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of
literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-21.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation
to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33,
934-945.

DeBaryshe, B. D. (1993). Joint picture-book reading correlates of early language skill.
Journal of Child Language, 20, 455-461.

DeBruin—Parecki, A. (2005). Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA): Hi gh/ Scope Press.

Duke, N. K., & Beck, S. W. (1999). Education should consider alternative formats for the
dissertation. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 31-36.

Duke, N. K., Norman, R. R., Roberts, K. L., Martin, N., Knight, J. A., Morsink, P., et a1.
(2009). Visual literacy development in young children: An investigation with
informational text. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research
Association.

Goodman, Y. M., & Goodman, K. S. (2006). To err is human: Learning about language
processes by analyzing miscues. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds. ),
Theoretical models and processes of reading (fifih ed. ,.pp 620- 639). Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.

Hilden, K. R., Duke, N. K., Billman, A. K., Zhang, S., Halladay, J. L., Schaal, A. M.,
Roberts, K., & Martin, N. M. (2008). Informational Strategic Cloze Assessment
(ISCA). East Lansing: Trustees of Michigan State University.

Hood, M., Conlon, E., & Andrews, G. (2008). Preschool home literacy practices and
children's literacy development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 252-271.

Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2000). Enhancing children's print and word awareness
through home-based parent intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 9, 257-269.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Child Health and Development.

Neuman, S. B. (1996). Children engaging in storybook reading: The influence of access
to print resources, opportunity, and parental interaction. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 11, 495-513.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D
program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Roberts, K. L. (in preparation). Measuring comprehension with a fictional narrative
retelling protocol.

Roberts, K. L., & Duke, N. K. (2009). Comprehension in the primary grades: A review of
the research. In K. Ganske & D. Fisher (Eds), A Comprehensive Look at
Comprehension. Guildford: New York.

Roberts, K. L., & Wibbens, E. N. (in press). Writing first: What research says about
writing instruction in the primary years. In G. A. Troia (Ed.), Writing Research in

Classroom Practice: Applications for Teacher Professional Development. New
York: Guilford.

Sénéchal, M. (2006). Testing the home literacy model: Parent involvement in
kindergarten is differentially related to grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency,
spelling, and reading for pleasure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 59-87.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21 , 360-
407.

Weigel, D. J ., Martin, S. S., & Bennett, K. K. (2006). Contributions of the home literacy
environment to preschool-aged children's emerging literacy and language skills.
Early Childhood Development and Care, 176, 357-378.

MANUSCRIPT ONE: COMPREHENSION STRATEGY IN STRCUTION DURING
PARENT-CHILD LAP READING: AN INTERVENTION STUDY
Abstract
In this experimental study, I examined the effectiveness of a series of workshops
and between workshop at-home activities designed to teach parents to integrate
comprehension strategy instruction into one-on-one read alouds with their pre-
kindergarten aged children. Parent-Child dyads were randomly assigned to either a
control or experimental (workshop) condition. Results revealed Significant changes in
interaction patterns between parents and children in the experimental group, reflecting the
strategies taught in the workshops. There were also significant effects for children’s
comprehension, with moderate effects on children’s total comprehension scores on a
commercially-available assessment and small effects on their abilities to retell. Findings
support the idea that children are capable of strategically comprehending text well before
they are reading connected text independently and that a low-intensity intervention with

parents can facilitate the process.

Comprehension Strategy Instruction during Parent-Child Lap Reading: An Intervention
Study

The American educational system has taken on the challenge of making every
child a reader (National Reading Panel, 2000), an admirable undertaking. But, how do we
go about ensuring that every child rises to the challenge, and with whom does the
responsibility lie? The most obvious answer is that teachers and schools bear the bulk of
the responsibility--that is, at least in part, why such occupations and institutions exist.
However, realistically, schools alone are not enough for all children, especially those who
are already at a statistically greater risk for literacy failure (Committee on the Prevention
of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, 1998). There is a large research base that
supports the assertion that it takes a village to raise a reader--that is, that schools,
families, and the community at large must unite if we are to have the best chance to
improve literacy outcomes for all children (e.g., Goldenberg, 2006; Purcell-Gates, 1998,
2000; Sénéchal, 2006; Sénéchal & Young, 2008). Home literacy practices, in particular,
have been shown to have a strong influence on literacy outcomes for children (e. g.,
National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Purcell-Gates, 2000), however there is considerable
variation in the quality, types, and frequency of these interactions across families (e. g.,
Goldenberg, 2006; Li, 2006; Sénéchal, 2006). Therefore, interventions and educational
initiatives designed to improve the quality of these interactions are imperative.

While the research base on what schools can do and actually do to grow readers is
relatively large and rapidly increasing, the research base on the types of roles that the
family might play in improving literacy outcomes is considerably smaller. The result of

this uneven attention is that families, which are for the most part made up of people who

10

lack formal teacher education training, are receiving the least amount of support to hold
up their end of the bargain. In addition, families receive even less support in the years
leading up to formal schooling (when parent-teacher conferences, family literacy nights,
etc., typically begin), years during which they bear a disproportionately large amount of
the responsibility. This study investigates one way families might be taught to help their
children grow as readers, particularly in the area of comprehension.

The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of comprehension
strategy instruction embedded within parent-child read aloud sessions on the
comprehension ability of children between the ages of four and six who had not yet
begun schooling, controlling for children’s initial comprehension ability. Because, as
stated above, the interactions of parents and children around literacy have a profound
impact on later literacy outcomes, maximizing the effectiveness of parent-child read
alouds during the early childhood years has the potential to be a powerful early
intervention. Specifically, the study was designed to inform two questions:

1. To what extent are parents able to implement comprehension strategy-based
instructional practices (specifically retelling, attention to story structure,
activation and use of prior knowledge, and talking about text) into lap reading
with their children in response to workshops on the topics?

2. What are the effects on children’s comprehension of parents’ attempts to infuse
comprehension strategy instruction (specifically retelling, attention to story
structure, activation and use of prior knowledge, and talking about text) into lap

reading of fictional narrative texts with their children?

11

This study was conceptualized based on a social constructivist perspective, which
holds that knowledge is socially constructed through interaction (Rogoff, 1990;
Vygotsky, 1978). Specifically, this study was based on the assumption that “Children’s
cognitive development is an argrenticeshipuit occurs through guided participation in
social activity with companions who support and stretch children’s understanding”
(Rogoff, 1990, p. vi.). Comprehension, generally speaking, is a covert activity (Pressley
et al., 1992). That is to say, the work of comprehending happens inside our heads, and is
thus invisible to novice readers. Making these processes overt through strategy
instruction during parent-child read alouds holds the potential to give young children a
window into the mind of a more skilled reader and learn through apprenticeship. It is
through this early modeling and scaffolding provided by more knowledgeable others that
children become “emergent comprehenders” (Dooley, Matthews, Matthews, &
Champion, 2009)--before children are reading conventionally, they engage (if given the
opportunity) in meaningful experiences that stimulate comprehension strategy use. These
experiences, in turn, have the potential to positively affect later reading comprehension.

While some children become strong, strategic comprehenders with or without
scaffolding and support, many others do not learn to use effective comprehension
strategies while reading independently (e. g., Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001).
However, research has shown that students who do not naturally engage in strategy use
can be taught to do so (Duke, Pressley, & Hilden, 2004; RAND Reading Study Group,
2002), which in turn is highly likely to improve both understanding of and memory for

text (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991; Duke & Pearson, 2002; Guthrie et al., 2004;

National Reading Panel, 2000; Sporer, Brunstein, & Kieschke, 2009). Furthermore, even

12

very young children are capable of engaging in strategic comprehension of text (see, for
example, A. E. Gregory & Cahill, 2010). In combination, these findings make a strong
argument for the potential utility of early comprehension strategy instruction.

This study bridges two bodies of literature: family literacy and young children’s
comprehension. As can be seen in the following sections, both Offer a great deal of
research upon which studies of their intersection can be built. However, to date, very
little research has been conducted at their intersection.

Family Literacy

Although the term “family literacy” has multiple connotations, most frequently it
is used to describe the literacy of all members of the family (e. g., Edwards, 1994;
Shanahan, Mulhem, & Rodriguez-Brown, 1995) or the effects of home literacy
environments and interactions on children (e. g., Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000; Saint-
Laurent & Giasson, 2005). In this study, family literacy is operationalized according to
the second conceptualization, with a specific focus on improving the quality of parents’
interactions with their children around literacy, not on the parents’ own literacy skills.

Both research and common sense tell us that children’s classroom teachers are not
their only, and probably not even their most influential, teachers. There is a long history
of research in family literacy that tells us that the home environment and quality and
types of interactions with adults in the home matter (e. g., Durkin, 1966; Hewison &
Tizard, 1980; Leseman & de Jong, 1998; Purcell-Gates, 2000; Sénéchal, 2006; Weigel,
Martin, & Bennett, 2006). Home literacy practices have the potential to positively affect
children’s motivation to read or be read to (Sénéchal, 2006; Wei gel et al., 2006), interest

in books (DeBaryshe, 1993), acquisition of concepts and skills (Bus, van Ijzendoom, &

l3

Pellegrini, 1995; Justice & Ezell, 2000; Neuman, 1996), and behaviors related to literacy
learning (Goldenberg, 2006; Purcell-Gates, 2000). In a similar vein, we know that there is
a strong correlation between children’s early and continued exposure to, and presumably
engagement with, literature and their later reading abilities (Cunningham & Stanovich,
1997; Hood, Conlon, & Andrews, 2008; Sénéchal, 2006; Stanovich, 1986). However,
despite the abundance of research implicating parental involvement in later literacy
success, there has been relatively little focus on helping parents develop the skills and
knowledge necessary to facilitate the types of interactions recommended.

Currently, nearly all professional development in literacy is geared toward
classroom teachers with the implicit assumption that they have the greatest ability to
impact the academic skills of their students. Reading First and Early Reading First
initiatives, for example, have funded a great deal of professional development for
teachers on effective classroom practices. Although there are and have been several
successful family literacy initiatives (see, for example, Chow & McBride-Chang, 2003;
L. P. Gregory & Morrison, 1998; Jordan et al., 2000; Saint-Laurent & Giasson, 2005;
Shanahan et al., 1995), in comparison to the amount of research on school literacy
practices available to teachers, there is less research on effective home literacy practices
available to parents and other primary caregivers. If we know that it is important for
children to engage in literacy activities at home early and often, and that the quality of
that engagement matters, a next logical step seems to be researching ways in which to
maximize the learning potential of home literacy interactions between young children and

their caregivers.

14

hiterventions around family literacy generally take two basic forms: (1) increasing
. the literacy and/or literacy interaction Skills of parents with the hope of indirectly
affecting children’s literacy; or (2) simultaneous intervention with parents and children
(for reviews, see Purcell-Gates, 2000; Sénéchal & Young, 2008). Although these
approaches differ fiom each other in both philosophies and aims, positive results, as well
as some null results, have been garnered by each. In general, research has shown that
interventions designed to improve and increase family literacy practices can positively
impact motivation, concepts, skills, and behaviors related to literacy acquisition, as well
as increase student achievement at the start of formal schooling (Bus, van Ijzendoom, &
Pellegrini, 1995; Lonigan, Shanahan, Cunningham, & The National Early Literacy Panel,
2008; Purcell-Gates, 2000; Sénéchal & Young, 2008).

Research on Book Reading Interventions. The model of family literacy utilized
in this study was two-tiered: the researcher intervened with parents and parents with
children. The intent is that increasing the literacy interaction skills of parents would in
turn affect their children’s literacy skills, specifically those related to comprehension.
Perhaps because parent-Child interventions have been found to be most beneficial before
children are reading conventionally (Bus & Van Ijzendoom, 1995), there are a large
number of studies of j oint reading that focus on preschool children and their parents.
Interestingly, few studies have examined the impact of interventions designed to
encourage or improve these interactions, despite substantial evidence that frequency and
quality of parent-child read alouds are related to later reading comprehension (Bus et al.,
1995; Lonigan et al., 2008; Sénéchal, 2006). In fact, in their meta-analysis of family

literacy interventions, Sénéchal and Young (2008) found that there were only three

15

studies that met their inclusion criteria (published, peer-reviewed, experimental or quasi-
experimental) that used parent-child read alouds as the intervention.

The base of research shrinks further when looking exclusively for studies that
utilize asseSsments of comprehension as outcome measures. For example, of the three
studies on parent-child read alouds that Sénéchal and Young (2008) included in their
meta-analysis, only one (i.e., Project EASE, Jordan et al., 2000) used a comprehension
measure as a dependent variable. In Project EASE, as compared to a control group that
received no intervention and a group in which parents read books to their children with
no direction, children whose parents were taught to engage in dialogic reading with them
performed significantly better on measures of story comprehension.

There is a similar lack of studies utilizing comprehension assessments as outcome
measures in the National Early Literacy Panel’s review of shared-reading interventions
with preschool students (Lonigan etal., 2008). Their review lists language skills as the
number one outcome measure utilized (16 studies); followed by print knowledge (4
studies), phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge (2 studies each); and general
cognitive ability, reading readiness and writing (1 study each). They note that there were
no interventions that met their criteria (experimental or quasi-experimental in design,
outcome measures of conventional literacy skills or predictors of later literacy skills,
peer-reviewed, inclusion of effect sizes or information to calculate effect sizes, and
inclusion of preschool-aged children) that examined impacts on memory, rapid automatic
naming, reading, spelling, or visual processes, but make no mention at all of the
conspicuous lack of studies utilizing comprehension as a primary outcome measure

(although five studies did use composite scores from language measures that included

16

listening comprehension as a component). This is particularly interesting given the
established link between early joint reading experiences and children’s later
comprehension ability (Sénéchal, 2006).

While few studies have examined the impact of parent-child read aloud
interventions on comprehension, studies do indicate positive impacts on other aspects of
literacy. Two such studies with children in the primary grades are reviewed in Sénéchal
and Young’s (2008) meta-analysis: one that used word reading and receptive vocabulary
as outcome measures (i.e., Chow & McBride-Chang, 2003) and a second that used
assessments of print concepts, letter identification, and written vocabulary (Foster &
Bitner, 1998). While both studies indicate that joint book reading positively impacts
literacy outcomes, neither speaks to the issue of whether or not parent-child read alouds
can contribute to comprehension grth in young children.

Other studies with parents and preschool children have also garnered positive
results. In one such study, Neurnan (1996), working with 41 Head Start children and their
parents, found that children’s receptive language and concepts of print improved
significantly over the course of a 12-week intervention in which parents were provided
with materials and support for reading with their preschool-aged children. In a similar,
four—week study with preschool children, Justice and Ezell (2000) found increases in
print and word awareness when parents were taught to read dialogically with their four-
year-old children. Gregory and Morrison's (1998) intervention case study of three at-risk
four-year-olds and their families showed that children’s positive attitudes toward books
and reading, perseverance, asking of higher level questions (which could be seen as a

measure of comprehension), literacy-specific knowledge, and vocabulary increased in the

17

context of instruction in lap-reading techniques (e. g., methods of questioning, use of
context cues, oral cloze). While these studies and others like them (e. g., Edwards, 1994;
Pellegrini, Perlmutter, Galda, & Brody, 1990), as well as studies on shared book reading
with emergent readers that have been conducted in classroom environments (e. g., Justice
& Ezell, 2000; Wasik & Bond, 2001), and in both the home and school environments
simultaneously (e. g., Whitehurst et al., 1994; Whitehurst et al., 1999) focus on joint book
reading, they do not focus explicitly on comprehension, leaving a gap in the literature.

Research on successful family literacy and tutoring interventions. The
literature on tutoring and family literacy interventions in general gives us some ideas
about features of an intervention that are likely to improve the chances of a positive
outcome. Generally speaking, effects of interventions are stronger when parents or tutors
are taught to intervene in specific ways (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Sénéchal &
Young, 2008) and when tutors have access to frequent feedback and opportunities to ask
questions (Wasik, 1998). There also seems to be some indication that interventions do not
need to span large amounts of time in order to be effective. In their meta-analysis, Cohen
and colleagues (1982) found that interventions lasting 0—4 weeks were significantly more
effective than those lasting longer. However, it should be noted that, of the studies
reviewed for that meta-analysis, the majority of the most effective interventions were
focused on lower level literacy skills (e.g., letter naming, word recognition, etc.) and
mathematics. Because of this confounding of time and content, it is possible, and even
likely, that an intervention concerned with the higher-level skills involved in

comprehension might necessitate more time.

18

Working with families adds another layer of logistical concerns to research and
intervention design. While teachers may attend professional development sessions under
contract time and tutors during times that they have set aside specifically for the
endeavor, finding a way to make workshops available to all parents, especially those of
our most at-risk students, can be quite difficult. Family stressors such as the need to take
care of other children, prepare meals for the rest of the family, and find transportation all
contribute to parents’ abilities and motivation to attend workshops (Hoover-Dempsey et
al., 2005). For this reason, it would seem logical that interventions aimed at families tend
to have higher rates of participation when they are sensitive to these concerns by doing
things such as providing childcare, including meals if they are scheduled around a regular
meal time, and providing transportation or being held in close proximity to family
residences.

In review, parents and other primary caregivers play a crucial role in the literacy
development of young children. While there have been several studies that have looked at
other literacy skills, there are very few studies of the impact of parent-child reading on
comprehension, nor parental interventions designed specifically to improve young
children’s comprehension of connected text. This study seeks to fill that gap in the
research by combining the findings from school-based comprehension studies, family
literacy studies, and the small amount of research that looks at both comprehension and
family literacy.

Comprehension and Young Children
Reading, for the purposes of this study, is defined as “an active and complex

process that involves understanding written text, developing and interpreting meaning,

l9

 

 

 

and using meaning as appropriate to type of text, purpose and situation” (National
Assessment Governing Board, 2008, p. iv). Despite the emphasis on comprehension as it
is defined here, the emphasis of reading instruction in the early grades has traditionally
tended toward more isolated and lower-level skills. Until relatively recent years, many in
the field of literacy education believed that students should first learn to “read”,
operationalized as decode, and then gradually shift their attention to cOmprehension skills
as decoding became more automatic (Chall, 1967). In other words, it was widely
accepted that learning to read (decode) was the primary emphasis of instruction in the
younger grades, with comprehension as a secondary emphasis, and that the two should
gradually eclipse each other as children moved into the intermediate years. However,
studies regarding the potential of young children to learn to comprehend (e. g., Baumann
& Bergeron, 1993; J. Hansen, 1981) and effective teachers (e. g., Morrow, Tracey, Woo,
& Pressley, 1999), in combination with alarmingly low rates of proficiency on
standardized assessments of comprehension in the middle elementary years (Institute of
Educational Sciences, 2007), have highlighted both the appropriateness and necessity of
teaching comprehension and decoding skills concurrently to our even our youngest
learners. Comprehension instruction in the early grades has also been called for by the
National Reading Panel (2002) and the National Research Council’s Committee on the
Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children (1998).

Reading, as it is defined above, entails comprehension, or “...the process of
simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement
with written language" (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002, p. xiii). It is not simply a

matter of identifying and understanding the meanings of individual words as we read or

20

listen to them; but rather involves a complex process of melding the author’s intended
message and the reader’s purpose for reading, prior knowledge and experience, and world
view. That is to say, meaning does not reside in the text itself, but is a product of the
interaction. As readers mature, it is our goal that they learn and become increasingly able
to flexibly use the wide range of strategies and skills necessary to facilitate that
interaction and thoroughly comprehend text.

To this end, comprehension strategies such as prediction, use of prior knowledge,
questioning, retelling, and talking about text, once used primarily in the upper elementary
grades, have gradually worked their way down to the primary grades to be taught by
teachers, studied by researchers, and learned by students. So far, the results are
encouraging. The teaching of these research-based practices in our K-3 classrooms has
had a positive impact on students’ comprehension (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker,
2001; Morrow et al., 1999; Pearson & Duke, 2002; Roberts & Duke, 2009; Stahl, 2004).
We now know that children in kindergarten through third grade are capable of learning to
strategically comprehend text, and we have a reasonable idea of some of the ways in
which this can be accomplished.

Comprehension strategy instruction. Beyond the asking and answering of
questions, perhaps the most widely used instructional practice cited in the literature on
comprehension instruction and used in classrooms is strategy instruction. Strategies,
according to Pressley et a1. (1992, p. 525), are “the techniques readers use to process the
text.” They are, according to Afflerbach, Pearson, and Paris (2008) “deliberate, goal-
directed attempts to control and modify the reader’s efforts to decode text, understand

words, and construct meanings of text” (p. 368). The primary goal of strategy instruction

21

is to develop good readers who are able to purposely and flexibly use a variety of
strategies in a variety of reading situations and in conjunction with prior knowledge
(Pressley et al., 1994). Research on skilled readers indicate that these children and adults
select and use a variety of comprehension strategies intentionally and flexibly (e. g.,
National Reading Panel, 2002; Pressley, 2000; Smolkin & Donovan, 2002). One of the
primary goals of strategy instruction is to teach struggling and novice readers to do the
same. As opposed to skills, which proficient readers use unconsciously, strategies are
used intentionally and are under the control of the reader (Afflerbach et al., 2008; Dole et
al., 1991). Research has shown that using a gradual release of control model to teach less
proficient readers to engage in a small number of strategies while reading can be an
effective way to promote reading comprehension (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983; Pressley,
2000; Roehler & Duffy, 1984).

There are many comprehension strategies that seem to be effective and can be
taught to young children (K-3). Some of the most commonly taught strategies in
intervention studies and studies of classrooms in which students show relatively strong
comprehension growth include retelling with a focus on text structure (e.g., Morrow,
1985), predicting (e. g., J. Hansen, 1981), activating prior knowledge (e. g., Hansen,
1981), visualizing (e.g., Center, Freeman, Robertson, & Outhred, 1999), drawing
conclusions (e. g., Morrow etal., 1999), using structural analysis/story grammar (e.g.,
Baumann & Bergeron, 1993; Garner & Bochna, 2004), responding to the text orally/text
talk (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2001), summarizing (e. g., Boulware-Gooden, Carreker,
Thomhill, & Joshi, 2007), using knowledge of the author or illustrator (e.g., Morrow et

al., 1999), and posing literal and inferential questions (e. g., Tharp, 1982), among others.

22

'-

 

This list may seem overwhelming, but is remarkably reflective of the range of strategies
good readers employ. Good, experienced readers are extraordinarily adept at adopting
and flexibly using a multitude of strategies (Dole et al., 1991; Pressley & Afflerbach,
1995)

This study, in light of its relatively short duration (5 sessions over 10 weeks) and
the literature that indicates that instruction needs to be iterative in order to be effective
(e.g., Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996; Pressley et al., 1994), only focused
on four of the commonly taught strategies that have been shown to have a positive impact
on young children’s comprehension: retelling, attention to story structure, activation and
use of prior knowledge, and talking about text (a scaffold for productive independent
thought about text).

Retelling and story structure in the classroom. In comparison to answering
questions provided by someone else after reading or listening to a text, it is believed that
retelling may be more effective for stimulating deep processing of information because it
requires readers to integrate information and reconstruct the text independently, as
opposed to teacher/caregiver—initiated questions, which often inadvertently give clues that
direct thinking (C. L. Hansen, 1978). As Hansen writes,

When retelling a story a person relies on his/her memory for factual details and

relates these in some organized manner. In addition, gaps in remembered details

are supplemented by means of suitable inferences about the passage. Thus, all the

skills necessary for reading comprehension must be synthesized and integrated

when a story is retold. (p. 62)

23

While retelling, like most other comprehension strategies, has been more widely
studied in older grades, it does have some history of being implemented successfully in
the primary grades, as early as kindergarten and first grade (Baumann & Bergeron, 1993;
Chow & McBride-Chang, 2003; Morrow, 1985; Morrow et al., 1999). For example,
Morrow (1985) found that kindergarten students who gave prompted retellings of stories
that they had been read outperformed peers who drew pictures about what they had been
read on experimenter-designed comprehension assessments that included questions about
story structure elements, literal questions, and inferential questions.

In Morrow’s study (1985), as well as others, the teaching of retelling was
accompanied by instruction in text structure. Retellings, like the stories they are meant to
convey, are typically chronological and include the characters, setting (time and place),
episodes, problem, and resolution--the elements of story structure. Thus, instruction on
story structure, even with young children, is a logical accompaniment to teaching
retelling. Studies of text structure instruction show that it seems to improve
comprehension, as measured by both retelling and more traditional question/answer
assessments. While most research on the impact of teaching the text structure of stories
comes from the older grades, Baumann and Bergeron’s (1993) study of first-grade
students stands out as an exception. In that study, four classes of first graders were read to
by teachers and then independently retold the same books, but two classes were taught to
use story structure elements to create story maps, while the other two were not. The
researchers found that the children in classrooms that received the explicit instruction on
story structure gave better retellings in terms of length, coherence, and sequential

organization. They also outperformed counterparts in the control condition on measures

24

I

that tapped their ability to identify important parts of the story and select good
summaries.

Instruction on text structure, alone, has also been demonstrated to promote gains
in comprehension. In their study of first grade students, Garner and Bochna (2004) found
that, compared to peers in control conditions, students who received instruction in story
structure via direct explanation and guided practice in identifying main characters,
settings, problems, episodes, and resolutions gave more details for character, setting,
problem, and resolution in prompted retellings of stories read to them by a teacher.
Notably, these advantages also transferred to books they read independently.

Activation and use of prior knowledge in the classroom. Although rarely
examined in isolation, activation and use of prior knowledge has figured prominently in a
number of interventions that employ multiple strategies (e. g., Brown etal., 1996; Guthrie
etal., 2004; J. Hansen, 1981). For example, Hansen’s study provides compelling data
supporting its use. In the study, 24 second grade students were assigned to one of three
groups before instruction on 10 passages from a basal reader: using prior knowledge
during pre-reading to make predictions, answering questions using a combination of
inference and prior knowledge, and a control (instruction following the teacher’s
manual). Results indicated that children in both experimental groups outperformed the
control group on standardized and experimenter-designed comprehension measures.
While not conclusive, the fact that the common denominator was activation and use of
prior knowledge does indicate its utility.

All readers use their prior knowledge to bring meaning to texts (Anderson &

Pearson, 1984). Therefore, it stands to reason that the more relevant prior knowledge a

25

reader has, and the greater his or her ability to access and use that knowledge, the greater
the likelihood of successful comprehension. Not surprisingly in light of the strong role
background knowledge plays in comprehension, its use in combination with other
strategies has been shown to be effective in increasing readers abilities to comprehend
both narrative and expository texts (Gersten et al., 2001), and presumably plays a role in
understanding what to expect within certain genres’ text structures (Meyer, Brandt, &
Bluth, 1980), drawing inferences (Duke et al., 2004; J. Hansen, 1981), and making
accurate predictions (McIntyre, 2007). In short, children’s use of their prior knowledge
related to a text determines, at least in part, how they read and the strategic decisions they
make (Pressley et al., 1994).

Talking about text in the classroom. “Language mediates experiences and
transforms mental functions” (Mariage, 1995, p. 216), and is therefore essential to the
construction of meaning. Because so many comprehension strategies involve talking
about text with peers or other adults in an effort to better understand it, talking about text
is one strategy that is inextricably intertwined with others. Nonetheless, the fact that it
facilitates other strategies does not warrant the assumption that children will learn to
interact with others around text in meaningful ways without explicit attention being paid
to talking about text as a strategy in its own right.

Talking about text also has a strong base in the research (Murphy, Wilkinson,
Soter, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009; Nystrand, 2006; Stahl, 2004). Encouraging
children to use the strategy of talking about the text and their understandings of it with
Others before, during, and/or after the reading of text can foster comprehension as the

accountability for saying something necessitates on-topic thought. According to

26

Vygotsky, growth is “more likely when one is required to explain, elaborate, or defend
one’s positions to others as well as to oneself; striving for an explanation often makes the
learner integrate and elaborate knowledge in new ways” (1978, p. 158), and talking
through a text or topic can be an essential strategy for building understanding for many
readers.

Talking about text, among other benefits, can help children gain access to book
text, which is often decontextualized (Beck & McKeown, 2001). Engaging in this type of
talk, while intellectually challenging for young children, is possible for children as young
as preschoolers (Dickinson & Smith, 1994) and kindergarteners (Beck & McKeown,
2001; Blank & Sheldon, 1971), especially with adequate scaffolding from adults. For
example, Dickinson and Smith (1994) found that children in preschool classrooms
characterized by a high amount of teacher and student interaction and student talk during
reading showed significant gains in vocabulary, a known contributor to comprehension
(Baumann, 2008; National Reading Panel, 2000), as well as modest gains in story
comprehension as compared to students in classrooms characterized by less or no
discussion during reading.

Additional support for student interaction with more knowledgeable others around
the meaning of text comes fi'om studies that have found that this type of interaction
facilitated the creation of meaning by children in kindergarten through third grades
(Bergman, 1992; Brown et al., 1996; Pressley etal., 1994; Tharp, 1982). However for
students to truly make progress toward comprehension, at some point they have to take
charge of the talk themselves (Bergman & Schuder, 1992; Brown et al., 1996; McIntyre,

2007; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pressley et al., 1994), using socially constructed

27

knowledge to support the development of inner dialog, or self talk, which in turn
coordinates independent thinking (Vygotsky, 1978; Walker, 2005). Thus, by supporting
children as they think out loud about text, we also endeavor to support them as they form
the habits of mind to engage in similar thinking as they read silently and independently.

In summary, this study sought to help parents integrate strategy instruction,
specifically the strategies of retelling, addressing story structure, activation and use of
prior knowledge, and talking about text, into their parent-child read alouds. Research
supports both the potential of parents to positively influence their children’s literacy
growth and the use of comprehension strategy instruction with young children who are
not yet reading independently.

Methods

Design

This study utilized an experimental design in order to address the research
questions. Parent-child dyads were placed in matched pairs on the basis of child
comprehension (i.e., one parent-child dyad matched to another parent-child dyad in
which the child scored similarly on an assessment of comprehension), and then randomly
assigned to the experimental or control condition. Parents assigned to the experimental
condition attended sessions during which they learned to integrate strategy instruction
(i.e., retelling, attention to story structure, activation and use of prior knowledge, and
talking about text) into their one-on-one read alouds with their children. Parents assigned
to the control condition attended sessions during which they were given information on
the importance of book reading in general and encouraged to engage in significant

amounts of book reading at home. Quantitatively, the independent variables were

28

condition, parents’ implementation (within the experimental condition), gender, and SES.
The dependent variable was children’s comprehension, as measured by a commercially-
available test of comprehension and by a retelling measure, both of which are described
in the materials section of this article. Patterns of interaction during parent-child read
alouds for both control and experimental dyads (i.e., turn taking, conversational initiation,
length of utterances, and proportional use of strategies) were also examined as dependent
variables in relation to the same independent variables described above.
Participants

To ensure diversity of the sample, parents or other primary caretakers and
children (hereafter referred to as parent-child dyads) were recruited from three types of
settings -- urban Head Start, suburban preschool and developmental kindergarten
classrooms, and tuition-based childcare. In order to be eligible for the workshops, the
children had to be enrolled in their final year of preschool or childcare before entering
kindergarten. While all parent-child dyads completing the consent form and
accompanying survey were invited to attend the workshops, children who did not speak
English as their first language or who were receiving special education services were not
included in the data analysis as it was thought that there might be Si gnificant differences
between these populations and native English speakers not receiving special services, and
including these groups would not render enough participants in any one group to draw
conclusions as to the efficacy of the intervention for that group.

Twenty child-parent pairs (10 control, 10 experimental) attended the workshops
and completed all stages of data collection (a total of 49 parents signed up for the

workshops, but 29 either never attended or did not attend with enough regularity to be

29

included in the final analyses). Students were assigned to matched-pairs based on initial
comprehension scores, however, group composition changed due to attrition. While there
were still no significant differences in group means on the ELSA pre-test, demographic
information across groups varied somewhat. In both groups, children’s ages were fairly
evenly distributed between four and six years of age and there were equal numbers of
boys and girls across conditions The parent-reported demographic breakdown for the
child participants’ socioeconomic statuses and ethnicity can be found in Table 1.
Data Collection Measures and Procedures

During the course of this study, data were collected on both parents’
implementation (Research Question 1) and children’s comprehension (Research Question
2). Data on experimental group parents’ implementation was obtained by audio recording
parent-child read alouds pre- and post-intervention. (Implementation was also measured
by collecting logs from parents recording frequency of parent-child read alouds, number
and titles of books read, and strategies used, however, uneven rates of return and the
strong possibility of selection bias in regards to which participants returned the logs
compromised the integrity of this measure and precluded its use in the final analyses.)
Comprehension was measured by a commercially available measure of comprehension,
the Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA, DeBruin-Parecki, 2005) and researcher-
designed retelling protocols (Roberts, in progress). For all child participants, the ELSA
and retelling measures were administered pre- and post-intervention.

Implementation measures. The conclusions we can draw based on the results of
this study depend heavily on its implementation. If there were changes in comprehension,

it is important to have some idea of which strategies parents did and did not implement to

30

bring about those changes. Recordings of parent-child read alouds were collected at the
pre- and post-intervention workshops and subsequently analyzed for evidence of target
strategy use.

All parent-child dyads read one of two comparable books (Henkes, 1993; Pilkey,
2004) at the beginning of the pre— and post-intervention sessions (described later in this
session). The order in which these books were read was randomly assigned by matched
pair (due to varied patterns of attrition, 6 dyads in each condition read one book at each
time point and four read the other). Parents were instructed to read with their child as
they would at home, using provided audio recorders to record their reading and
interactions. The recordings were then analyzed to come up with implementation scores,
as described in the data analysis section.

Child measures.

Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA, DeBruin-Parecki, 2005). The ELSA, an
assessment for preschool- and kindergarten-aged children in which a storybook is read
aloud to a child with questions asked of the child periodically during the reading, was
administered both pre- and post-intervention to all study participants. The assessment
taps three constructs of comprehension (prediction, retelling, connection to life), which
are scored in terms of number of correct, chronological responses to open-ended
questions. The ELSA also measures phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, and
concepts about print; however, they were not analyzed in the present study.

Extensive evaluation of this assessment as a global measure of early literacy has
shown it to have high concurrent validity with the Woodcock Johnson (Woodcock,

McGrew, & Mather, 2001) and Pre-CTOPP (Lonigan, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte,

31

2002) assessments for children in pre-school and kindergarten. Unfortunately, there is no
measure of concurrent validity for the comprehension construct alone, as there was not an
acceptable comparison test available at the time of publication. Using an item response
theory (IRT) model, the reliability for the comprehension section of the ELSA was
calculated based on a diverse sample of 1040 children drawn from head start and center-
based childcare programs. The sample was fairly evenly distributed by gender and ranged
in age from 50.9 to 58.4 months. In these respects, the sample used to calculate reliability
and the sample for this study were fairly similar. However, the reliability sample did
include more low-SES children (60—65% were enrolled in subsidized programs) than the
sample for this study (30% were classified as low SES based on maternal education). In
addition, the reliability sample included children with special needs (5% of the sample),
whereas students identified as having special needs were excluded in the present study.
Reliability for the original sample was adequate at .89 (Cheadle, 2007). It is unclear
whether the difference in demographic variables between groups affected the reliability
of the measure for this group, however, it seems unlikely that the effects, if any, would be
significant, as the groups were more similar than different.

Although the comprehension questions asked in this assessment are open-ended,
with many relying on individual experiences and personal connections, the responses are
recorded and analyzed quantitatively, with scores based on the number of relevant and
chronologically accurate responses given per question. The ELSA assessment scoring
protocol advises administrators to convert raw scores to one of three developmental

levels. However, based on the pilot work for this study, the three levels were judged to

32

provide insufficient variation to facilitate the formation of matched pairs and to examine
the effects of the intervention, so raw score were used.

The ELSA has two forms, Dante Grows Up and Violet ’3 Adventure. The forms
are approximately equal in length and ask identical questions at parallel points in the
book; the recording sheets are identical. Although the administration guide calls for the
same form of the assessment to be administered at each time point in order to gauge
student progress, alternate forms were administered pre- and post-intervention because it
seemed probable that children’ memory of the text might interfere with the accuracy of
both the prediction and retelling segments of the assessment.

All research assistants who administered the ELSA were trained per the
publisher’s recommendations, using the publisher-provided video cases. Subsequently,
research assistants were also given the opportunity to ask questions of the lead
investigator. Interrater reliability was calculated with the uncorrected score sheets based
on the video cases at 0.98.

Retelling measure. Retelling has been used in multiple studies as a strategy for or
indicator of comprehension (e. g., Garnbrell & J awitz, 1993; C. L. Hansen, 1978; Morrow,
1985; Morrow et al., 1999; Pearson & Duke, 2002). The major strength of retelling as a
comprehension measure, as compared to answering comprehension questions, is that
retelling requires that the participant reconstruct the story based on his or her own
understanding, whereas comprehension questions often give clues about the expected
responses (C. L. Hansen, 1978). Each child in both conditions gave audio-recorded
retellings of a story read to them by an RA both pre- and post-intervention. After

listening to a story read by one research assistant, each child was prompted by a second

33

research assistant to “start at the very beginning and tell me as much as you can
remember of the story”. When children appeared to be finished, they were given the
prompt “Anything else?” until they responded by indicating that there was not. The
second research assistant was not present during the reading of the story, setting an
authentic purpose for the retelling: telling a story to entertain or inform someone who has
not already heard it (Romero, 2005).

The receded retellings were scored using protocols (see Appendix A for an
example), the format of which was piloted and refined during the pilot study for this
research. Each protocol was designed as a checklist of items organized by weighted
categories based on story elements (i.e., characters, setting, problem, resolution, and
episodes). So as to hold constant the number of possible points across books and
protocols, each category is given a maximum number of possible points: two points for
character names, two for setting, four for the problem, three for the resolution, and five
for the episodes of the story. Maximum point allowances for each category were
determined based on the relative importance of each category to comprehensible
retellings of stories, in general (e. g., referring to the characters by name is not allotted as
many points as explaining the problem of the story because the gist of the story could be
conveyed without character names, but not without the problem). This format also made
it possible for participants to earn partial credit in a section. If, for example, a child retold
one problem in the story but not the second, he or she could have earned one or two of
four possible points (depending on the weight assigned to the problem based on its
importance to the overall story). In addition, it helped to mitigate the differences in length

and complexity across stories and makes it possible to make comparisons across stories.

34

Without creating artificial texts, it would be impossible to ensure that all books were the
same length and contained the same number of story elements.

Fifty percent of all retellings (20 protocols) were independently scored by the
researcher and another expert in the field. Interrater reliability was 0.95.
Conditions and Procedures

Participants in this study were paired within site based on their raw overall ELSA
comprehension scores, with most pairs within 0-2 points of each other (scores ranged
fiom 1 to 13), and then one member of each pair wasqrandomly assigned to each
condition (control and experimental). Although attrition occurred unevenly across
groups, there were no statistically significant differences in pre-intervention group means
for the final sample of children on comprehension or implementation measures.

Experimental Treatment. Parents of children assigned to the experimental group
attended four informational sessions at two-week intervals (spanning six weeks), which
lasted forty minutes to an hour each, during which they were taught ways in which to
effectively integrate strategy instruction into their one-on-one read alouds with their
children. Additionally, they attended a final session in which the workshop series was
debriefed and children were administered final assessments. The first four sessions
involved (a) a description of the focal strategy for that week, (b) instruction on how to
integrate the strategy into read alouds, (c) a video model of a parent implementing
instruction using the target strategy during a read aloud, ((1) time for discussion and
questions, and (e) time for parents to preview a book and practice reading it with their

child, using the strategies, and receive guidance about it on an as-needed basis from the

researcher. However, very few parents took advantage of this final component. Finally,

35‘

beginning with the second session, parents had the opportunity at the beginning of each
session to share their experiences with the previously learned strategy or strategies and
ask questions prior to learning a new strategy.

Written materials were also distributed at and in between sessions. At each of the
first four sessions, parents received a tip sheet on the focal strategy to take home with
them (see appendix C for an example). In addition, a bookmark containing reminders
about the focal strategy (see Appendix D for an example) and a fictional narrative book
to be used for practice were mailed to participants between sessions, for a total of four
mailings. Books selected to be used for practice met the following criteria: fictional
narrative genre, included all common story structure elements (characters, setting,
problem, episodes, solution), age appropriate in both length and content, included story
structure elements, and highly engaging (based on pilot work).

Control. Participants in the control condition attended an initial session that
closely mirrored the structure of the session attended by their counterparts in the
experimental condition, with the exception that they did not receive any information on
strategy instruction. Instead, they received information on the importance of reading with
their children in general and basic information about how to facilitate lap reading. This
was designed intentionally to reflect advice commonly given to parents (i.e., to read more
often), without specific information as to how to improve the quality of the reading. Data
(identical to the data described above for the experimental groups) was collected from the
control groups during their first and second/last sessions, which corresponded

chronologically to the first and fifth sessions for experimental participants.

36

Participants in the control group were also given a handout (on lap reading) at
their first session (similar in format to the one found in Appendix C, but differing in
content) and were mailed the same books on the same schedule as the experimental
group. They met for one initial session the same week as the experimental grouprduring
which they received information about the importance of reading with their children, then
did not meet again until the post-intervention data collection session. Mailed books
included bookmarks that included reminders only of the importance of lap reading and its
facilitation.

Analyses

Implementation. Discourse analyses were performed in order to determine (a)
the frequency with which parents engaged in each strategy and all strategies, combined
(engagement was defined as modeling the use of the strategy, encouraging the child to
engage in the strategy, or talking explicitly about the strategy), (b) the range of strategies
used (i.e., did they use one, two, three, or all four strategies during the read aloud), (c)
initiation of text-related comments and conversations (initiating an exchange about the
text, e.g., “He lives alone?”), and (d) uptake (responding to the other person’s comment
related to the text, e.g., child: “He lives alone?”, parent: “No, the doggy has a family,
remember?”) on initiated topics. Analyses were conducted by transferring transcripts of
parent-child read alouds to a spread sheet with columns to code parent and child turns
(utterances bounded by reading of the printed text, utterances by the other party, or a
combination), parent and child initiation and uptake, and strategy use (with all talk
relevant to the text that was not clearly use of another strategy coded as “talking about

text”). Prior to final scoring, to obtain interrater reliability on the coding of the parent-

37

child read aloud sessions, six randomly selected transcripts were scored using a codebook
created by the primary researcher in order to refine the codebook and resolve coding
disagreements. Interrater reliability was then estimated at 0.95 by having two researchers
independently code twenty-five percent of the transcripts and comparing across raters.
After coding the remaining transcripts, t tests were run to determine whether there were
significant differences between group means at either the pre- or post-intervention time
point and to determine whether there were significant changes in scores from pre- to post-
intervention between time points.

Comprehension. Several t tests were used in order to determine differences
between means both pre- and post-intervention and between and across conditions on
both the ELSA and retelling measures. In addition, negative binomial regressions were
run using the ELSA and retelling scores (separately) as dependent variables and
condition, gender and socioeconomic status and pre-intervention scores as independent
variables. Finally, negative binomial regressions were run in order to determine whether
there was a relationship between implementation and post-intervention comprehension
scores for the experimental group. For these analyses, post-intervention ELSA
comprehension scores and retelling scores were used as the dependent variables (in
separate analyses) and frequency and range of strategy use were used as independent
variables.

Assumptions for negative binomial regression were met. All observations were
independent and the pilot study for this research indicated that final scores changed

linearly with exposure to the intervention.

38

Results

Parent Implementation

Frequency and range of strategy use. Prior to the intervention, t tests revealed
that there were no statistically significant differences between the experimental (E) and
control (C) grdups in the number of instances of strategy use, either for individual
strategies (i.e., retelling, attention to story structure, activation of prior knowledge,
talking about text) or total number of instances of strategy use during parent-child
reading. Post-intervention, the participants in the experimental group included, at a level
of statistical significance, more retelling than the control group (p = .026), more attention
to story structure (p = .035), and more talking about text (p = .013). They also had more
instances of activation and use of prior knowledge, although not quite at a p < .05 level of
statistical significance (p = .076). Dyads in the experimental condition also were also
coded for statistically significantly more instances of strategy use (p = .002) and used a
statistically significantly wider range of strategies (p = .017) during read aloud sessions.
The effect sizes for all of these differences were large, ranging from d = 0.87 to d = 1.64.
Further statistical information for each outcome measure can be found in Table 2.

Turns, initiation, and uptake. There were no statistically significant differences
between group means for either parents or children pre-intervention in terms of the total
number of turns taken or instances of initiation or uptake. Post-intervention, however,
there were statistically significant differences between group means with large effect
sizes (ranging from d = 0.87 to d = 1.717) for all of these counts except initiations for

both parents (which was not statistically significant at p = .421) and children (which

approached statistical significance at p = .087). Post intervention, parents and children in

39

the experimental condition talked more about the text as they read (p = .002 for parent
turns; p = .005 for child turns) and were more likely to respond to topics raised by one
another than to switch topics or ignore the initiation of a topic (p = .007 for parent uptake;
p = .003 for child uptake). Further statistical information for each of these measures can
be found in Table 3.

Effects of implementation on comprehension. Negative binomial models
revealed that the relationship of the number of instances of strategy use to comprehension
approached significance (p = .109) for the retelling measure. There were no significant
relationships for instances of strategy use on comprehension as measured by the ELSA or
on either comprehension measure for the range of strategies used.

Child Comprehension

Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA). There were no statistically

significant differences at p < .05 between total ELSA scores pre- and post- for the control

group. There were, however, statistically Significant differences in means within the

experimental group pre- and post-intervention (p = .027, i prgintervennon = 5.30, i post-

intervention : 9.00) and a large effect size. Even though growth for the experimental

group in ELSA was statistically significant, and the growth for the control group was not,
there were no statistically significant differences between control and experimental
groups at time point one or two. Post-intervention statistical information for the
experimental group can be found in Table 4.

Retelling Measure. There were no statistically significant differences within
condition between time points for either group on retelling scores. In raw terms, the mean

scores for the control group were 3.10 pre-intervention and 3.78 post-intervention (d =

40

.19); while the mean scores for the experimental group were 4.80 pre-intervention and
4.55 post-intervention (d = -.O8). There were also no significant differences between the
control and experimental groups on children’s total scores post-intervention. Further
statistical information for this measure can be found in Table 4.

Comprehension in relation to implementation. Level of implementation was
determined by considering the total number of turns taken during read alouds, as well as
the number of instances of strategy use and the number of target strategies used (ranging
from using one to four of the target strategies). A negative binomial regression using
ELSA post-intervention total scores as the dependent variable and total number of turns,
number of strategy use instances, and number of strategies used as independent variables
showed effects approaching statistical significance at p =.05 for all three independent
variables (p = 0.075, 0.086, and 0.186, respectively), indicating that level of
implementation likely influenced comprehension scores.

Negative binomial regressions were also run to determine the influence of
socioeconomic status and gender on comprehension, as measured by the ELSA. Analyses
of the interaction of gender and socioeconomic status within condition showed no
statistically significant differences for either variable, which is encouraging in terms of
generalizability. However, given the small cell sizes, these results should be interpreted
with caution.

Discussion

The guiding questions for this study were “To what extent are parents able to

implement comprehension strategy-based instructional practices (specifically retelling,

attention to story structure, activation and use of prior knowledge, and talking about text)

41

into lap reading with their children in response to workshops on the topics?” and “What
are the effects on children’s comprehension of parents’ attempts to infuse comprehension
strategy instruction (specifically retelling, attention to story structure, activation and use
of prior knowledge, and talking about text) into lap reading of fictional narrative texts
with their children?” Results suggest that parents are able to implement comprehension
strategy instruction and that is does have a positive influence on children’s
comprehension.

The results of this investigation indicate that a relatively low-intensity series of
workshops and between workshop activities can have a significant influence on parents’
interactions with their children as they read, as evidenced by increased interaction and
attention to strategies over time. For example, in this study, eight out of ten parent-child
dyads in the experimental condition broadened the range of strategies that they used, as
compared to only two parent-child dyads in the control condition. Parents in the
experimental condition also increased the frequency with which they engaged their
children in strategy use, which parents in the control group did not. Finally, post-
intervention, parents in the experimental group were more likely to use strategies that
were seldom used by either group pre-intervention. Retelling is an excellent example of
this phenomenon: initially, only three dyads in each condition engaged in any type of
retelling during their shared reading. Post-intervention, seven of the ten dyads in the
experimental condition engaged in some form of retelling, as compared to one dyad in
the control condition.

Results also suggest that these changes in parent-child reading patterns were

beginning to have some effect on children’s reading comprehension. After eight weeks, at

42

a p < .05 level of statistical significance, children in the experimental group showed
statistically significant increases at p < .05 on ELSA total scores ( d = 1.04). In contrast,
children in the control group showed no statistically significant increases.
The Potential of Parent-Child Read Alouds

Children who are not reading on grade level by third grade are unlikely to catch
up (National Reading Panel, 2002). Depending upon whether children attend
kindergarten, schools have three to four years to teach all children to read. Undoubtedly,
formal schooling is essential for most children to learn to read. However, lackluster test
scores (e. g., on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, United States
Department of Education, 2009) indicate that schooling alone is not enough for many of
our children. Schools work under constraints of limited time, high student-to-teacher
ratios, and curricula that cannot be tailored to all children at all times, among others.
Families, on the other hand, while perhaps lacking the teaching expertise, are much more
likely to be in a position to spend time with children one-on-one. In addition to
reinforcing the common recommendation to read with their children, this intervention
highlights one way of building some level of expertise in caregivers in order to make the
time they spend reading with their children as effective as possible. Four workshops, in
combination with mailed reminders and small number of inexpensive materials, were
enough to affect change in the ways in which parents engaged with their children around
narrative texts. They interacted more often, were more likely to respond to topics initiated
by their children, and more likely to model strategy use and scaffold use of strategies for
their children. More importantly, after only eight weeks, the beginnings of change were

apparent in children’s comprehension, an effect that may continue to grow over time.

43

Young Children Learning to Comprehend

The results of this study lend further support to the argument that young children
can benefit from comprehension instruction before they are independently reading.
Although post-intervention differences between groups fell short of significance, this
low-intensity intervention produced measurable gains on ELSA total comprehension
scores with a large effect size. In addition, analyses revealed that children assigned to the
experimental condition were significantly more likely to verbally interact with the text
and their caregivers in ways that supported active meaning making. The mean total
number of text-related turns per story (both parents and children) for dyads in the
experimental group at the end of the intervention was 85.7 (with a range of 27 to 146 and
median of 91), as compared to a mean of 33.3 turns for the control group (with a range of
14 to 54 and a median of 31.5). In the case of the experimental group, it should also be
noted that parents and children were statistically significantly more likely to build off of
one another’s comments as opposed to cross talking (as evidenced by relatively high
counts of initiation with very few instances of uptake at time point one, and the reverse at
time point two), which stood in stark contrast to both groups at time point one and the
control group at the final time point. Socio—cognitive theory (e.g., Rogoff, 1990;
Vygotsky, 1978) holds that this joint meaning making process is imperative to children’s
later abilities to make meaning on their own.

It is important to note that the time frame of the study may have affected the
results. It is possible that, given more time between the last instructional session and post-
assessment, the children’s score might have improved more due to parents implementing

the intervention for a longer period of time. As opposed to rote skills (e.g., names of

44

letters), measureable comprehension grth often requires a much longer time period
(Sénéchal & Leferve, 2002). It is also possible that results would diminish over time in
the event that parents reverted back to their previous reading styles over time. More
research is needed in order to determine maintenance effects.
Promise of this Intervention

Budgetary factors are always a concern when considering any intervention. In the
current economic climate, interventions must be budget friendly if they are even going to
merit consideration. The cost of this intervention is extremely low in terms of material
and human resources. In terms of supplies, the workshops require only paper copies of a
limited number of materials, 4-6 books (which can be library books at no cost or low-cost
paperbacks), demonstrations of strategy use (easily and inexpensively video recorded or
live), and snacks to encourage attendance. The only human resources needed are the time
of one project leader (about 1.5 hours per session, including preparation time) and staff or
volunteers to provide childcare during the sessions. The cost effectiveness of this
intervention also increases capacity; schools would be able to serve large numbers of
families without substantial budgetary increases. This last point is especially important
given the push to help all children read at or above grade level by the end of third grade.

Anecdotally, many parents in the experimental condition reported a sense of
confidence in their implementation of the intervention. One parent, for example, said that
she never knew how to help her daughter understand books because she had never been a
good reader and often did not fully understand them herself. She went on to state that she
feels good about reading with her kids now because she knows how to help them

understand the books. On several occasions, other parents noted that they had never

45

considered that their children might not fully understand the books that they read
together; the workshops had made them more cognizant of and better able to monitor for
and address misconceptions. The sense of efficacy that these parents demonstrated is
important because research tells us that parents are much more likely to participate in
their children’s educations if they feel that they know what to do and that they are able to
do it (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).

Finally, it is encouraging that variation in gender and SES were not predictive of
post-intervention comprehension scores. In fact, there was an imbalance between groups
in terms of socioeconomic status favoring the control group (2 middle and 5 high) over
the experimental group (6 middle and 1 high), yet the children in the experimental group
still managed to make significant gains from pre- to post-intervention on the ELSA, while
their counterparts in the control group did not.

Limitations

As with all fields of research, research into the home literacy practices of parents
and their young children is not without limitations. One such limitation that carries with it
particularly important implications is the fact that the nature of this research lends itself
to self-selected participants. Researchers are not in a position to force unwilling parents
to be studied or to modify their interactions with their children, and it was disheartening
how few parents agreed to participate in such a low-intensity activity. In addition to
limiting the reach of the intervention, this recruitment and participation difficulty is also
likely to lead to severe selection bias in many, if not all, studies of home literacy
practices. The work of several researchers indicates that parents who are resistant to

participation likely share one or more common characteristics such as low self-efficacy

46

(Drummond & Stipek, 2004; Lareau, 1987; Li, 2006; McKay, 1993), inflexible
obligations to care for other children in the home (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005), little
perceived time and energy to dedicate to the effort (Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, &
Sandler, 2007), and a perception that they and their contributions are not valued and
welcomed by the school (Green et al., 2007). These commonalities make it possible, and
even likely, that the parents who are not represented in the research are more different
fiom those parents who choose to participate than they are alike. In this study, this was
certainly the case as attrition was very uneven -- there was a much higher rate of attrition
among low-SES participants than occurred in their middle- and hi gher-SES peers, the
former may have been more likely to have lower self-efficacy due to lower levels of
schooling themselves, as well as to face more environmental stressors related living in
poverty.

Of course, this is not to say that all of the parents who are choosing not to become
engaged in their children’s academic pursuits in a public way are making similar choices
in the privacy of their home. In fact, there is evidence that this is not at all the case in
some families (Green et al., 2007). It does, however, make it seem likely that many of the
parents who could most benefit from programs designed to increase or maximize the
potential of their involvement in their children’s educations, such as this one, are the very
parents who are least likely to willingly avail themselves to the learning opportunities
provided by schools or researchers.

On a related note, a limitation of this study specifically was the small number of
participants. Of the approximately 300 eligible families, 49 parent-children dyads

consented to enrollment in the study. Of those 49, 29 were lost to attrition, many before

47

attending the first session. This pattern was particularly apparent in the Head Start
population. A few parents gave reasons such as new job schedules, but the vast majority
did not respond to contact attempts made by the researcher. The power of this study was
undoubtedly affected by the relatively small amount of data generated for analyses.
However, the effect Sizes found mitigate this somewhat, allowing us to conclude that it is
likely that at least a portion of the effects are attributable to the intervention. More
research with a larger number of participants is certainly needed.
Conclusions

Home literacy practices influence later literacy achievement; this is well
established. However, especially in comparison to the amount of support given to
practicing teachers, there is very little attention given to preparing parents to take on this
role. Providing parents with the support they need to maximize their contributions to their
children’s learning is one way in which we can help ensure that all of our children
become readers. This intervention, in which parents were taught to model their own use
of comprehension strategies and support their children to use those same strategies,
proved to be an effective way of influencing parent-child interactions, increasing parent
efficacy, and improving children’s comprehension of fictional narrative text. As a
relatively low cost intervention (both in terms of time and resources), the series of
workshops described in this article are a practical way in which schools might support
families to become more involved with their children’s literacy learning. In addition, this
study contributes to the bodies of research on both family literacy and comprehension
strategy instruction in the early childhood years, providing a framework upon which

firture interventions in this critical area can be built.

48

References

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between
reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364-373.

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in
reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds),
Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-292). New York: Longrnan.

Baumann, J. F. (2008). Vocabulary and reading comprehension: The nexus of meaning.
In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds), Handbook of research on reading
comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baumann, J. F., & Bergeron, B. S. (1993). Story map instruction using children's
literature: Effects on first graders' comprehension of central narrative elements.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 407-43 7.

Beck, 1., & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud
experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10-20.

Bergman, J. L., & Schuder, T. (1992). Teaching at-risk students to read strategically.
Educational Leadership, 50(4), 19.

Blank, M., & Sheldon, F. (1971). Story recall in kindergarten children: Effects of method
of presentation on psycholinguistic performance. Child Development, 42, 299-
3 12.

Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thomhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of
metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary
achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61, 70-77.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental
validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade
readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-3 7.

Bus, A., & van Ijzendoom, M. H. (1995). Mothers reading to their three-year-olds: The
role of mother-child attachment security in becoming literate. Reading Research
Quarterly, 40, 998-1015.

Bus, A., van Ijzendoom, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for
success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of
literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65 , 1-21.

Center, Y., Freeman, L., Robertson, G., & Outhred, L. (1999). The effect of visual
imagery training on the reading and listening comprehension of low listening
comprehenders in year 2. Journal of Research in Reading, 22, 241-256.

49

Cheadle, J. E. (2007). The Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA) psychometric report
for both English and Spanish versions. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from
http://www.highscope.org/file/Assessment/ELSAJacobs.pdf.

Chow, B. W., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Promoting language and literacy
development through parent-child reading in Hong Kong preschoolers. Early
Education and Development, 14, 233-248.

Clay, M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A
meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 23 7-248.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation
to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33,
934-945.

DeBaryshe, B. D. (1993). Joint picture-book reading correlates of early oral language
skill. Journal of Child Language, 20, 455-461.

DeBruin-Parecki, A. (2005). Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA). Ypsilanti, MI:
High/Scope Press.

Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers' book
readings on low income children's vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading
Research Quarterly, 29, 104-122.

Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old
to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of
Educational Research, 61, 239-264.

Dooley, C. M., Matthews, M. W., Matthews, L., & Champion, R. N. (2009). Emergent
comprehension: The role of intentions during early print experiences. In K. M.
Leander, D. W. Rowe, D. K. Dickinson, M. K. Hundley, R. T. Jimenez 8; V. J.
Risko (Eds), 58th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 261-276).
Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference, Inc.

Drummond, K. V., & Stipek, D. (2004). Low-income parents' beliefs about their role in
children's academic learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 197-213.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds), What research has to
say about reading instruction (3rd ed) (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.

Duke, N. K., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Difficulties with reading comprehension.
In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren & K. Apel (Eds), Handbook of

50

language and literacy development and disorders (pp. 501-520). New York:
Guilford.

Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teachers College Press.

Edwards, P. (1994). Responses of teachers and African-American mothers to a book-
reading intervention program. In D. Dickinson (Ed), Bridges of literacy:
Children, families, and schools (pp. 175-208). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, Inc.

Entwisle, D. R., & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring
youth's race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65 , 1521-
1540.

Gambrell, L. B., & Jawitz, P. B. (1993). Mental imagery, text illustrations, and children's
story comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 264-276.

Garner, J. K., & Bochna, C. R. (2004). Transfer of a listening comprehension strategy to
independent reading in first-grade students. Early Childhood Education Journal,
32, 69-74.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading
comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of the
research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320.

Goldenberg, C. (2006). Literacy for all children in the increasingly diverse schools of the
United States. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds), Theoretical models and
processes of reading (pp. 1636-1666). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

Green, C., L., Walker, I. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007).
Parents' motivations for involvement in children's education: an empirical test of a

theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99, 532-544.

Gregory, A. El, & Cahill, M. A. (2010). Kindergarteners can do it, too! Comprehension
strategies for early readers. Reading Teacher, 63, 515-520.

Gregory, L. P., & Morrison, T. G. (1998). Lap reading for young at-risk children:
Introducing families to books. Early Childhood Education Journal, 26, 67-77.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M.,
Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96,
403-423.

Hansen, C. L. (1978). Story retelling used with average and learning disabled readers as a
measure of reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1(3), 62-69.

51

Hansen, J. (1981). The effects of inference training and practice on young children's
reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 391-417.

Henkes, K. (1993). Owen. New York: Troll Associates.

Hewison, J., & Tizard, J. (1980). Parental involvement and reading attainment. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 209-215.

Hood, M., Conlon, E., & Andrews, G. (2008). Preschool home literacy practices and
children's literacy development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 252-271.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in
their children's education? Review of Educational Research, 99(1), 3-42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C., L.,
Wilkins, A., Clossen, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research
findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-131.

Institute of Educational Sciences. (2007). The nation's report card: Reading 200 7:
National assessment of educational progress at grades 4 and 8. Washington, DC:
US. Department of Education.

Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family
literacy project on kindergarten students' early literacy skills. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35, 524-546.

Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2000). Enhancing children's print and word awareness
through home-based parent intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 9, 257-269.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The
importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.

Leseman, P. P. M., & de Jong, P. F. (1998). Home literacy: Opportunity, instruction,
cooperation and social-emotional quality predicting early reading achievement.
Reading Research Quarterly, 33 , 294-316.

Li, G. (2006). Culturally contested pedagogy: Battles of literacy and schooling between
mainstream teachers and Asian immigrant parents. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.

London, J. (2003). Froggy Eats Out. New York: Scholastic.
London, J. (2005). Froggy's Sleepover. New York: Scholastic.

Lonigan, C. J ., Shanahan, T., Cunningham, A. E., & The National Early Literacy Panel.
(2008). Impact of shared-reading interventions on young children's early literacy

52

skills. In Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel
(pp. 153-172). Louisville, KY: National Center for Family Literacy.

Lonigan, C. J., Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, C. (2002). Preschool
Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-C T OPP).
Tallahassee, FL: Department of Psychology, Florida State University.

Mariage, T. (1995). Why students learn: The nature of teacher talk during reading.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 214-234.

McIntyre, E. (2007). Story discussion in the primary grades: Balancing authenticity and
explicit teaching. The Reading Teacher, 60, 610-620.

McKay, S. L. (1993). Family agendas for second language literacy. In Agendas for
second language literacy (pp. 75-97). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.

Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text:
Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research
Quarterly, 1 6, 72-103.

Morrow, L. M. (1985). Retelling stories: A strategy for improving young children's
comprehension, concept of story structure, and oral language complexity.
Elementary School Journal, 85, 647-651.

Morrow, L. M., Tracey, D. H., Woo, D. G., & Pressley, M. (1999). Characteristics of
exemplary first-grade literacy instruction. Reading Teacher, 52, 462-476.

Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, 1. A. G., Soter, A. 0., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F.
(2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students' high-level
comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101,

740-764.

National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Reading framework for the 2009
National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Child Health and Development.

National Reading Panel. (2002). Report of the National Reading Panel. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.

Neuman, S. B. (1996). Children engaging in storybook reading: The influence of access
to print resources, opportunity, and parental interaction. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 11, 495-513.

53

Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading
comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 392-411.

Oakhill, J ., & Cain, K. (2007). Introduction to comprehension development. In J. Oakhill
& K. Cain (Eds), Children ’s comprehension problems in oral and written
language: A cognitive perspective (pp. 3-40). New York: Guilford.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering
and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.

Pearson, P. D., & Duke, N. K. (2002). Comprehension instruction in the primary grades.
In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds), Comprehension instruction: Research-based
best practices (pp. 247-258). New York: Guilford Publications.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.

Pellegrini, A. D., Perlmutter, J. C., Galda, L., & Brody, G. H. (1990). Joint reading
between black Head Start children and their mothers. Child Development, 61,
443-453.

Pilkey, D. (2004). Dog Breath. New York: Scholastic.

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.
L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 111, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., Almasi, J ., Schuder, T., Bergman, J ., Hite, S., El-Dinary, P. B., et a1.
(1994). Transactional instruction of comprehension strategies: The Montgomery
County, Maryland, SAIL program. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming
Learning Difficulties, 10, 5-19.

Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I. W., Schuder, T., Bergman, J ., Almasi, J ., et a1.
(1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading
comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 513-555.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1998). Growing successful readers: Homes, communities, and schools.
In F. Lehr & J. Osborn (Eds), Literacy for all: Issues for teaching and learning
(pp. 51-72). New York: Guilford Publications.

Purcell-Gates, V. (2000). Family literacy. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson
& R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. III, pp. 853-870).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

54

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D
program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Roberts, K. L. (in progress). Retelling: A measure of primary students ’fictional narrative
comprehension.

Roberts, K. L., & Duke, N. K. (2009). Comprehension in the primary grades: A review of
the research. In K. Ganske & D. Fisher (Eds), A Comprehensive Look at
Comprehension (pp. 23-45. Guilford: New York.

Roehler, L. R., & Duffy, G. G. (1984). Direct explanation of comprehension processes. In
G. G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler & J. Mason (Eds), Comprehension instruction:
Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 265-280). New York: Longrnan.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

Saint-Laurent, L., & Giasson, J. (2005). Effects of a family literacy program adapting
parental intervention to first graders' evolution of reading and writing abilities.
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5, 253-278.

Sénéchal, M. (2006). Testing the home literacy model: Parent involvement in
kindergarten is differentially related to grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency,
spelling, and reading for pleasure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 59-87.

Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of
children's reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73,
445-460.

Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy initiatives on children's
acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review.
Review of Educational Research, 78, 880-907.

Shanahan, T., Mulhem, M., & Rodriguez-Brown, F. (1995). Project FLAME: Lessons
learned fi'om a family literacy program for linguistic minority families. The
Reading Teacher, 48, 586-593.

Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2002). "Oh excellent, excellent questionl":
Developmental differences in comprehension acquisition. In C. C. Block & M.

Pressley (Eds), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp.
140-157). New York: Guilford Press.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sporer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students' reading
comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching.
Learning and Instruction, 19, 272-286.

55

Stahl, K. A. D. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction
the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 5 7, 598-610.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-
407.

Tharp, R. (1982). The effective instruction of comprehension: Results and description of
the Kamehameha Early Education Program. Reading Research Quarterly, 1 7,
503-527.

United States Department of Education. (2009). The Nation's Report Card: Reading
2009. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Sciences.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberrnan, Eds).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walker, J. M. T., Wilkins, A., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V.
(2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development.
Elementary School Journal, 106, 84-103.

Wasik, B. (1998). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research
Quarterly, 33, 266-292.

Wasik, B., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading
and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93, 243-250.

Weigel, D. J ., Martin, S. S., & Bennett, K. K. (2006). Contributions of the home literacy
environment to preschool-aged children's emerging literacy and language skills.
Early Childhood Development and Care, 176, 357-378.

Whitehurst, G. J ., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C., Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J.
E. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 542-555.

Whitehurst, G. J ., Zevenbergen, A. A., Crone, D. A., Schultz, M. D., Velting, O. N., &
Fischel, J. E. (1999). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention from Head
Start through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 261-272.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of
Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

56

Time Point:

Characters:

Setting:

Problem:

Episodes:

Appendix A

Example of a Retelling Scoring Protocol

Book: Froggy’s Sleepover (London, 2005)
ID Number

Date

Pre
Post

1- Froggy
.5-Froggy’s mom
.25- Froggy’s dad
1- Max

Total (max 2)

l- Froggy’s House

1- Max’s House OR his friend’s house
.5- Outside

.25- at night

Total (max 2)

1- Max told scary stories and Froggy was scared

1- Max had a tummy ache and wanted to go home

2- They kept changing their minds about where to stay (OR Froggy was
scared, Max wanted his pillow, Froggy wanted lemonade) and going
back and forth

Total (max 4)

1- Froggy got ready for his first sleepover/he packed

1- Froggy kept forgetting things and going back to get them (or
specifically mentions forgetting either the toothbrush or Huggy/doll- .5
pt. for each one mentioned)

1- Froggy got all ready for bed, but it was too early (or mentions any of
the following in place of “got all ready for bed”: set up his sleeping bag,
brushed his teeth, got called a baby by Max)

1- After dinner/then, they went to bed

.5- Froggy knocked over the lamp and/or fish bowl

1- Froggy’s mom made them popcorn

1- They went back to bed

1- Froggy and Max had a pillow fight

57

Total: (5 max)
Resolution:
1- Froggy and Max went to Froggy’s house
1- Froggy and Max went to Max’s house
2- Finally, it was morning and they fell asleep at Max’s house
Total: (max of 3)
TOTAL RETELLING POINTS: /16

58

Appendix B

Example of a Strategy Handout

 

 

"_  Prior Knowledge '

 

 

 

 

 

Summer
What is it and why should I do R‘°d'"9
Workshops
What is it? Why should I do it?
You and your child have Connecting to prior Tips:
had lots 01‘ experiences knowledge lets kids © Read in a

and have a lot of
information stored

in your brains. You
can use that infor-
mation to help you un-

W

“.1“

derstand what you read.

build on what they
already know, which
can make stories

easier to understand.

 

 

How do I do it before reading?

 

 

Talk about what you
think the book will be
about. Help your child
think of things they

dinosaur like he 25' a
dog. You have walked
the dog before. Do
you think it would be
as easy to walk a di-

comfortable
place with few
distractions.

© Try to bring
the story to
life by reading
with expres-
sion.

© Keep the atti-
tude positive-
this should be
a treat, not a
chore.

know that relate to the nosaur? Why or why @063" YOU are
topic. For example: ”07’? Would a dino- finished, '31
. , sour make a good your- Chlld
Danny and the Dina- not? much you en-
saur. Look at the pic- joyed your

. What do you know

r ,- h ’ /k' t -
0" e e 5 W a ”’9 he about dlflOSde‘S?

time together.

 

59

 

How do I do it during reading?

 

Continue to relate the events good time sliding down the
of the story to things that your dinosaurs back. What do you
child already knows or has ex- think?

perienced. Point out places in . 173- sfarfing f0 gef late.

the b°°k where you 0" YOU" What do you have to do when

child can make a con-

you are playing outside
nection. For example:

and it starts to get late?
00 you think Danny will
have to do that, too?

. Have you ever...

. Now hes using the
dinosaur as a slide!
Wouldn’t that be
fun? I la ve the slides
at the park, so I bet
Danny is having a

. Do you remember
when...

 

 

How do I do it after reading?

 

. Try to help your child relate new?
the story to other stories or to
his or her life. For example:

. In this story , Frank/in got lost.

. There was a wolf in this
story just like in Little Red

Have you ever been lost? How Rid/h Hood. How were they

did you fee/.7 How do you think
Frank/in felt when he was lost?

the same?

. That book re-

. You knew a lot about going to minded me Of"-

the zoo before we read this

 

book. Did you learn anything

 

"gr
l Remember! When you help your child activate prior knowledge, be
sure to relate what he or she already knows to the new things in

 

60

 

 

What kinds of prior knowledge might you

and your child have?

 

Stories in General

. You and your child know
about story structure.
You expect to read about
characters, setting, at
least one problem, events,
and at least one solution.

Personal Experience:

. You might have been in a
similar situation that can
help you understand how
the characters feel (for
example, if the character
is afraid of the dark and
has to find a way to be

Other Books:
. You may

brave).

You might have tried to
do the same thing that
the characters are doing
and know how it worked
out for you (for example,
if the character breaks
the rules in school).

have read
books with
similar sto-
ries or
problems

 

 

 

 

 

Dates to Remember:

 

 

 

 

Appendix C

Example of a Strategy Bookmark

 

 

Prior Knowledge:
What do you
already know

about...

f The
characters?

/ The book
series?

\/ The kinds of
things that
happened in
the book?

/ How the
characters
might feel?

 

 

 

: I
| |
| |
| |
| |
I |
I |
I |
I l

l
l I
I |
I |
I |
l f The topic? :
: I
I |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I |
I l
I |
I |
I I
I |

62

Table 1

Child Participant Demographic Information

 

 

Condition Control n (%) Experimental 11 (%)
Gender Male 6 (60) 6 (60)
Female 4 (40) 4 (40)
Ethnicity Caucasian 6 (60) 7 (70)
Chicano/Mexican- 2 (20) 0 (0)
American
Hispanic 1 (10) l (10)
Asian-American O (0) 1 (10)
Afi'ican-American O (0) 1 (10)
Other 1 (10) 0 (0)
Socioeconomic Low 3 (30) 3 (30)
Status" Middle 1 (10) 5 (50)
High 6 (60) 2 (20)

 

Note: For the purposes of sample description, mother’s highest level of education was used as a proxy for

socio-economic status (Entwisle & Astone, 1994): low SES was defined as the mother having at 12th grade

education or less, middle SES as mother having completed a two- or four-year college degree, and high as

having completed a masters or doctoral degree.

63

Table 2
Post-Intervention Implementation Means and Effect Sizes Based on Strategy Use from

Analyses of Parent-Child Read Alouds

 

 

Condition n Mean SD ‘10 df
Retelling control 10 0.10 0.32 1.18** 9.32
experimental 10 2. 1 0 2.3 8
Story structure control 10 0.90 0.88 1 .02** 18.00
experimental 10 2.00 1 .25
Activation and use of control 10 1.60 1.43 0.84* 10.82
Prior knowledge experimental 10 4.40 4.48
Talking about text control ‘ 10 8.30 2.58 1.23** 18.00
experimental 10 13.00 4.76
Total strategy use control 10 10.80 3 .08 1 .647‘ 1 1 .22
instances experimental 10 21.50 8.72
Total number of different control 10 2.40 0.84 1.18** 18.00
strategies used experimental 10 3.30 0.68

 

**p< .01, *p< .05, 7"p< .10
a
Cohen's d = M1 - M2 / Spooled
Note: Only scores for the post-intervention time point are included as there were no statistically significant

differences pre-intervention.

64

Table 3
Post-Intervention Implementation Means and Eflect Sizes Based on Turns, Initiation, and

Uptake Analyses of Parent-Child Read Alouds

 

 

Condition It Mean SD ‘10 df
Number of parent Control 10 19.10 5.63 1.857‘ 10.34
ruins experimental 10 47.00 20.57
Number of child Control 10 14.20 5.87 1.597‘ 10.40
turns experimental 1 0 3 8.70 20.96
Number of parent Control 10 8.80 3.99 1.68 18.00
initiations Experimental 10 16.70 5.31
Number of child Control 10 3.80 2.49 0.87* 18.00
initiations Experimental 10 7.10 4.73
Number of parent Control 10 10.30 4.1 1 1.507‘ 9.90
Uptakes Experimental 10 30.30 18.40
Number of child Control 10 10.40 4.33 1.727’ 10.17
nptakes Experimental 10 3 1 .60 16.92

 

*p<.01,7p <.10

a Cohen's d = M1 - M2 / Spooled

Note: Only scores for the post-intervention time point are included as there were no statistically significant

differences pro-intervention.

65

Table 4

Pre- and Post-Intervention Means and Eflect Sizes Based on Group Comprehension

 

 

 

Scores
N Mean SD Mean SD d“ df
(pre) (pre) (post) (post)
Total ELSA
Experimental 10 5.30 2.67 9.00 4.24 1.04** 9
Control 10 5.20 3.74 6.80 4.34 0.39 9
Total (retelling)
Experimental 10 4.80 2.53 4.55 3.25 -0.09 9
Control 10 3.10 3.77 3.78 3.31 0.19 9
** p < .05

a

66

 

MANUSCRIPT TWO: TEACHING PARENTS TO INFUSE COMPREHENSION
INSTCTION INTO PARENT-CHILD READ ALOUDS: A LOW-COST, HIGH-

IMPACT APPROACH

Abstract
Although parents are often encouraged to read to their children, they typically do not
receive much information as to how to make the most of those reading sessions. The
instructional sessions described in this article can be an effective way to help parents

make the most of the time they spend reading with their children.

67

Last spring, as five-year-old Nora and I walked down the hall to read a story
together, she said to me “I like reading books with you. My mom tries to read books with
me, but then she stops because it makes her mad.” I racked my brain, as I often do when
trying to infer missing information in my conversations with young children. What could
she mean by that? Did her mother feel passionately that the Big Bad Wolf hadn’t gotten a
fair shake or that Curious George should be held accountable for his actions? So I asked
her, and she replied, “My mom gets mad because I interrupt, and that’s not what you’re
supposed to do when you read books.”

Many parents do not seem to understand the value of talking about text before,
during, and after reading with their children. In my own work with children,
comprehension gains have hinged upon our habit of thinking aloud and our conversations
about text. However, the anecdotal evidence I had collected along the way left no
uncertainty that this style of interactive reading with children was far from ubiquitous in
the home. Thus, teaching children alone to engage in these strategies would likely never
be enough; the change would have to come from both the reader and the listener. In this
paper, I describe a series of parent workshops designed to teach parents how to infuse
comprehension strategy instruction into their at-home read alouds with their children.
Comprehension

Although young children often lack independent reading skills and the abilities to
accurately express their understanding, they are capable of higher level thinking (Pearson
& Duke, 2002). Regarding comprehension, in particular, emergent and beginning readers

are capable of comprehending texts that are much more complex than those that they can

68

independently read (New Standards Primary Literacy Committee, 1999) and their
listening comprehension later transfers to independent reading comprehension (Garner &
Bochna, 2004). Furthermore, shared reading for meaning (as opposed to teaching letter
names or sounds, for example) in the home is linked to higher receptive vocabulary and,
subsequently, later reading comprehension (Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002). Thus, it stands
to reason that providing our youngest learners with comprehension instruction even
before they are reading conventionally is just as important as working on other literacy
skills, such as letter recognition or name writing, to their literacy growth.

Good readers/comprehenders are strategic (e. g., Duke & Pearson, 2002). That is,
they are conscious of when they are and are not understanding a text, and use meaning-
making strategies accordingly. How can we teach emergent readers to be strategic? One
theory is that this type of knowledge can be constructed is socially, through interaction
with more knowledgeable others (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978). In the case of listening
comprehension, this translates to children learning to strategically comprehend by
observing more proficient readers comprehend, interacting with them to jointly make
meaning of text, and eventually making meaning on their own. The first of these steps
can easily be done within the walls classrooms; teachers simply make the typically
invisible act of comprehension visible by explaining their thinking during read alouds,
and explicitly teaching and modeling comprehension strategy use. This type of strategy
instruction has proven effective in the primary grades (e. g., Baumann& Bergeron, 1993;
Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996), and has the potential to work with
younger children, as well. The last step, independent meaning making, can take place

under just about any circumstances, as long as the child is reading independently or is

69

provided with aural text through some means. The middle step, joint meaning making, is
a bit trickier. The level of interaction needed in this stage of learning is quite high, often
requiring one-on-one, or at least small group, settings. Class sizes make it quite difficult
for teachers to spend a great deal of time working small groups and individuals, and
curricular mandates can limit the amount of time available for comprehension instruction.
This is not to say that teachers can’t interact with their students during group read alouds,
in fact, it appears to be beneficial if they do (e. g., Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan,
1997; Santoro, Chard, Howard, & Baker, 2008). However, because adult-to-child ratios
in homes are much smaller and the demands of the curriculum are nonexistent, the
conditions are ideal for engaging in joint meaning making experiences during read
alouds.
Literacy in the Home

Numerous studies have confirmed that interaction around literacy in the home is
related to children’s literacy skills and attitudes (e.g., Bus, van Ijzendoom, & Pellegrini,
1995; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; DeBaryshe, 1993; Hood, Conlon, & Andrews,
2008; Justice & Ezell, 2000; Neuman, 1996; Sénéchal, 2006; Stanovich, 1986; Weigel,
Martin, & Bennett, 2006). Building on this literature, interventions have been
implemented and studied, focusing on increasing and improving these interactions (for an
overview of such studies, see the meta-analytic reviews of Bus et al., 1995; and, Sénéchal
& Young, 2008). Curiously, despite their foci on techniques such as talking about the text
and giving evaluative feedback on children’s responses to text, the outcome measures of
many of these studies involve word reading (e. g., Chow & McBride-Chang, 2003; Kraft,

Findlay, Major, Gilberts, & Hofrneister, 2001) or early literacy skills other than

70

comprehension (e. g., Foster & Bitner, 1998). In addition, while there are many studies
that employ frequency of reading as a variable (e. g., DeBaryshe, 1993; Scarbororough,
Dobrich, & Hager, 1991), very few look at qualitative differences across parent-child
pairs in joint book reading.

So, what do we know about successful family literacy interventions?

0 Although the exact reasons why are debated, we know that parent-child
interventions are most beneficial before children are reading conventionally (for a
discussion of this, see Bus et al., 1995).

0 Book reading events in which parents and children interact with each other and
the text can increase children’s comprehension (Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000).

o Interventions are most effective if the adults intervening are taught to do so in
specific ways (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Sénéchal & Young, 2008) and have
access to feedback and opportunities to ask questions (Wasik, 1998).

0 Given the current state of the economy and the constant competing demands for
parents’ time, it is important to note that interventions with parents do not need to
span large amounts of time in order to have effects on their children (Cohen et al.,
1982)

What don’t we know? We do not know whether workshops designed to improve
the quality of parent-child interactions around text actually change the nature of their
read aloud experiences. We also don’t know, if changes occur, if they subsequently

influence children’s comprehension.

71

The Present Study
With the above insights in mind I developed a series of parent workshops and
designed a study to test both parents’ abilities to implement the strategies taught in the
sessions and subsequent changes in children’s comprehension. The study addressed the
following questions:

1. To what extent are parents able to implement comprehension strategy-based
instructional practices (specifically explaining and modeling the use of retelling,
attention to story structure, activation and use of prior knowledge, and talking
about text) into lap reading with their children in response to workshops on the
topics?

2. What are the effects on children’s comprehension of parents’ attempts to infirse
this comprehension strategy instruction into lap reading of fictional narrative texts

with their children?

The results of this study provide information as to whether educators, given a relatively
small amount of time with parents, can influence the ways in which parents read with
their children, and whether the time invested in the endeavor pays off in terms of
increased student comprehension skills for emergent readers.
Setting and Participants

Parents (or other primary caretakers) and children from three types of settings
(urban Head Start, suburban preschool and developmental kindergarten classrooms, and
tuition-based childcare) were invited to participate in the study. In order to be eligible for
the workshops, the children had to be enrolled in their final year of preschool or childcare

before entering kindergarten. Although all children whose parents expressed interest were

72

invited to attend the workshops, data was only analyzed for children who spoke English
as their first language and were not receiving special education services.

Twenty child-parent pairs (10 control, 10 experimental) attended the workshops
and completed all stages of data collection (significantly more parents signed up and did
not attend or did not attend with enough regularity to be included in the final analyses).
Students were matched based on initial comprehension scores on the Early Literacy Skills
Assessment (ELSA, DeBruin-Parecki, 2005) and then randomly assigned to condition;
therefore demographic information across groups varied, somewhat. The final sample
included a range of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups.

Parent Workshops

Parents and children who were randomly assigned to the experimental condition
were invited to participate in a series of four workshops, each lasting 45-60 minutes, at
two-week intervals. During these workshops, parents received instruction on engaging
their children in strategy use (retelling, use of story structure, activating and using prior
knowledge, and talking about text; see Table 5 for further description of each strategy) in
the context of “lap reading”, or parent-child read alouds, and then practiced implementing
strategy instruction. The second through fourth meetings also included time at the
beginning to discuss how strategy instruction was going at home and to address any
questions or concerns that may have arisen between sessions. An outline of a typical

session can be found in figure 1; a timeline of sessions can be found in figure 2.

73

Materials

Strategy handouts. At the beginning of the instructional portion of each
workshop, parents were given a handout describing the target strategy (see figure 3 for an
example). Each handout included the following sections:

0 What is it and why should I do it?

o How do I do it before reading?

0 How do I do it during reading?

0 How do I do it after reading?
In addition, each handout had a section related to a particular aspect of the target strategy.
For example, the handout on retelling included a section with suggestions for an authentic
audience, while the handout on story structure included definitions of each of the story
structure elements.

Video examples. After going over the handout and discussing any questions and
concerns, parents were shown a short (approximately five-minute) video of a parent and
child using the strategy in an authentic read aloud situation (these videos could easily be
replaced by a live or recorded read aloud of by parent or other non-professional educator
who has been trained on the strategy in advance). The parents in the video used in the
study were not educators of young children by profession and had been given only the
same information as the parents attending the workshop. The read alouds were
unrehearsed. The decision to showcase imperfect examples was made for two related
reasons: (1) the videos were authentic to how parents’ first attempts at using the strategies
would likely transpire, which would hopefully set realistic expectations for their first

attempts with their own children; and, (2) examples of a professional educator and a child

74

skilled at the strategy would likely be intimidating for parents and/or lead them to believe
that the success of the strategy was contingent upon existing skills and knowledge of the
parent or child. To compensate for imperfect implementation of the strategy, the videos
were paused several times to discuss both exemplary strategy use and missed
opportunities or ways in which the strategy use could be improved. For example, in the
video on story structure, the parent modeled the attention to all five story structure
elements (characters, setting, problem, episodes, and solution) beautifully, but did not
give enough attention to any single element to support the child in beginning to look for
the elements, himself. At several points in the video, I paused to point out her excellent
introduction of an element or modeling of attending to it, but I also advised that they only
focus on one element at a time.

Follow-up packets. Because workshops were scheduled at two-week intervals,
follow-up packets were sent to help parents maintain momentum between sessions.
Packets included a reminder to try out the strategies, a fictional narrative children’s book
to practice with, and a bookmark summarizing information pertinent to the strategy (see
figure 4 for an example).

Control Condition

Parents and children in the control condition attended an initial session the same
week as the experimental group and received follow-up packets on the same schedule.
The content of the session and packets, however, focused on the importance of reading
often with children as opposed to how to make that time more beneficial for the child;

this was done in order to mirror the typical “read more” advice that parents often get

75

(Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkerson, 1985). Upon completion of the study, all
participants in the control condition were offered the workshops.

Did the Workshops Make a Difference?
Parents’ Implementation

Transcript analyses. Each parent-child pair was recorded pre- and post-
intervention as they engaged in a read aloud. Transcripts of these read alouds revealed
that there were no statistically significant differences between the experimental and
control groups in terms of strategy use before the intervention began. However, after the
intervention, parents and children in the experimental condition were statistically
significantly more likely to engage in retelling, discussion of story structure, and talk
about text. Results also approached statistical significance for talking about prior
knowledge. Participants in the experimental condition also used a significantly wider
range of strategies.

Conversations like the one with Nora recounted in the beginning of this article
also led me to be concerned with the amount of talk during read alouds and who was
doing it (the parent or the child). For this reason, it seemed important to analyze who was
talking (number of turns), who was initiating conversations (number of initiations), and
whether or not the parents and children built on each other’s comments (instances of
uptake) or tended to change the subject or ignore each other. Before the intervention,
there were no significant differences between groups on any of these measures. After the
workshops, parents and children in the experimental group scored significantly higher on
all measures. In other words, while initial counts for both groups were nearly identical,

there was a significant increase in the amount of strategy use and interaction, in general,

76

for the experimental group between time points. This is important not only because talk is
a necessary vehicle for strategy use, but also because children’s talk can help parents
identify when there is a comprehension breakdown that might be able to be resolved
through a think aloud of their own strategy use and thinking about text. For example,
after the first two workshops (retelling and-story structure), this conversation took place
between a parent and child while reading Cliflord and the Big Storm (Bridwell, 1995):

P: Where ’s Cliflord?

C: He ’s in that big pile of sand-

Text: Surprise!

C: So are the trees and the puppies.

P: Why do you think he was under the sand?

C: So he could sleep.

P: So he could sleep! You think so? What was...

C: So he could surprise, I think.

P: Let 's see. Let ’s go back here and see what it said. (reading) “He piled the trees

in the back of grandma 's house and covered them with sand. The sand pile would

block the waves. " So why do you think he was under the sand, now?

C: Because he didn 't want grandma ’5 house to blow away.

P: What does it say here? (reading) “T he sand pile would block the waves. "

C: The sand pile would block the waves so Cliflord guard grandma ’s house.

P: So, wasn ’t- do you think the trees were enough under the sand to, like, block

the waves?

C: Um, yeah.

77

P: You think? If it was, then he wouldn’t be under the sand.

Text: Surprise! Clifford was covered with sand, but Grandma was so happy she

gave him a hug anyway. We were all glad to be together again. Thank you,

Clifford!

P: The end. I think he was under the sand to make it higher. That way the waves

can ’t-

C: Mm-

P: Go over the sand pile-

C: MmHm. Yeah.
In this instance, the parent noticed that the child didn’t realize that Clifford was under the
sand in order to act as a barricade, protecting grandma’s house. Once she became aware
of the misconception, she then proceeded to model how she, as a skilled reader, used the
text to come to that conclusion. This was a perfect teachable moment which, based on my
analysis of parents’ read aloud before the workshops, likely would have gone unnoticed
had the parent not engaged in strategy instruction (in this case, talking about text).

Demographic variables. As with any intervention, not all people (children or
adults) will respond in the same way. In this study, girls tended to talk more and build on
topics initiated by their parents more often. The parents of the girls in study also tended
to talk more about the text than the parents of boys. Parents and children of high
socioeconomic status (SES) made more attempts to use the strategies than their lower and
middle SES peers. However, low SES pairs engaged in retelling significantly more often

than the other two groups. While the intervention did differ in some ways along the lines

78

of SES and gender, it is important to note that whether or not they attended the
workshops always had a stronger influence.
Children’s Comprehension

Once it had been established that parent-child interactions for participants
attending the strategy workshops had indeed changed to reflect the content of those
sessions, the next question was, did it make a difference in children’s comprehension? In
order to answer this question, children’s comprehension of read alouds was gauged using
two measures both pre- and post—intervention: the Early Literacy Skills Assessment
(ELSA, DeBruin-Parecki, 2005) and a researcher-designed retelling assessment (Roberts,
in preparation).

The Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA). The ELSA is an assessment for
preschool- and kindergarten-aged children in which a storybook is read aloud to a child
with questions asked of the child periodically during the reading. The assessment taps
three constructs of comprehension (prediction, retelling, connection to life), which are
scored in terms of number of correct, chronological responses to open-ended questions.
Pre-intervention scores for the two groups were not significantly different. Post tests,
however, revealed that the children in the experimental group experienced significant
increases, while those in the control group did not.

The retelling measure. Retelling has been used in multiple studies as a strategy
for or indicator of comprehension (e. g. Gambrell & Jawitz, 1993; C. L. Hansen, 1978;
Morrow, 1985; Morrow et al., 1999; Pearson & Duke, 2002). The major strength of
retelling as a comprehension measure, as opposed to answering comprehension questions,

is that retelling requires that the participant reconstruct the story based on his or her own

79

understanding, whereas comprehension questions often give clues about the expected
responses (C. L. Hansen, 1978). Triangulating this data with that provided by the ELSA
provides a much richer data set.

At the first and last sessions, each child was read a story by one research assistant
and then prompted to retell the story to a research assistant who was not present during
the reading of the story, setting an authentic purpose for the retelling (telling a story to
entertain or inform someone who has not already heard it). The recoded retellings were
then scored using protocols designed as checklists of items organized by weighted
categories based on story elements (i.e., characters, setting, problem, resolution, and
episodes). Each category was given a maximum number of possible points which was
held constant across books and protocols: two points for character names, two for setting,
four for the problem, three for the resolution, and five for the episodes of the story.
Maximum point allowances were determined based on the relative importance of each
category to a comprehendible retelling of the story (e. g., referring to the characters by
name was not allotted as many points as explaining the problem of the story because the
gist of the story could be conveyed without character names, but not without the
problem). This format also makes it possible for participants to earn partial credit in a
section. If, for example, they retell one problem in the story but not the second, they
might earn two of four possible points.

Each protocol had a maximum point value of 16, regardless of the number of
characters, settings, problems, episodes, and resolutions. This helped to lessen the effects
of differences in length and complexity across stories and made it possible to make

comparisons across stories. In some instances participants were able to earn full credit for

80

a category without retelling everything listed on the protocol. For example, a protocol
might have listed seven or eight episodes, each worth one point. If a student correctly
retold five episodes, he or she would have received the maximum of five points for the
category. If a student retold seven episodes, he or she would have also received the
maximum of five points (for an example protocol, see figure 5).

Surprisingly, there were no significant differences within or between groups for
any of the story structure elements or total scores pre— or post-intervention—essentially,
group means remained stagnant for both groups. The reason for the differences between
the retelling and ELSA measures of comprehension is not clear. Perhaps the retelling
measure puts too great of a demand on oral expression resources for children at this age.
Alternatively, retelling may be a skill that requires some level of practice before it can be
accurately used as an assessment tool. This is certainly a point that merits more
investigation. A summary of the results of both assessments can be found in table 6.

Concluding Cements

Working together, families and educators have the potential to have a far greater
impact on children’s learning than either could hope to have alone. As educators, we are
trained and, in most cases, receive a great deal of support when it comes to best practices
to help our students become strong literacy learners. Families, who almost unilaterally
have less training when it comes to literacy learning, also receive very little support.
Research tells us that interventions implemented by non-professional educators tend to be
more successful when parents (or tutors) are taught to intervene in specific ways (Cohen
et al., 1982; Sénéchal & Young, 2008) and are given frequent opportunities for feedback

and to ask questions (Wasik, 1998). We also know that competing priorities make it

81

difficult for parents and teachers alike to commit to time-intensive interventions outside
of school hours. The intervention format described here, a series of four, l-hour
workshops, meets all of these needs.

The effects of this intervention were not overwhelming, but were indicative of a
positive change in both parent-child interactions during reading and children’s
comprehension. In spite of its relatively short duration (approximately nine weeks
between assessment points), this study showed that workshops are an effective way to
influence parents’ interactions with their children around text and that doing so can
increase their children’s comprehension strategy use and comprehension, in general.
However, if parents continue to use the strategies after the conclusion of the workshops,
it is possible that the effects will continue to compound. This is an area that is certainly
ripe for research.

Working with parents has its share of challenges, though many of them can be
ameliorated with careful planning. First, unlike teachers who are obligated to attend
professional development sessions, parents do not have built in time reserved for such
endeavors. For most parents, attending workshops comes at an opportunity cost in terms
of time spent with family, shuttling children to extracurricular activities, or work. In
addition, workshops need to be planned in ways that are sensitive to families needs for
childcare during the workshops, feeding themselves and their children if the sessions are
planned near meal times, and ability to physically get to the workshop site. In this study, I
found that the parents with the highest rates of attendance were those who had an
additional reason, such as picking up the child, to be at the workshop location at the

correct time. Parents also reported that missed sessions were easiest to make up if they

82

were tagged onto the following session. Finally, workshop leaders need to be sensitive to
families’ access to materials. In this study, parents were offered help filling out library
card applications, given directions to the nearest local library, and mailed low-cost books
with which to practice the strategies at home.

Although planning and implementing family workshops is without a doubt an
effortful endeavor, the rewards merit the time spent. While effects on comprehension are
certainly worth celebrating, there were also less quantifiable benefits to this intervention.
One parent summed up what she gained from the workshops as follows: “I struggled with
reading myself as a child and even now, perhaps because I didn’t know how to make
meaning of it. It feels good to be doing this with both of my girls. They used to only
listen for a few minutes and then run off to do something else, now they listen to the
whole story and seem interested.” Another parent commented that the workshops
prompted him to start reading more often with his boys and to extend their reading
sessions to other parts of the day beyond bedtime. He also reported that the concrete
suggestions for how to use the strategies helped him to interact with his children around
books in ways beyond behavior management and engage them in “real conversations”.

Along these same lines, the question and answer portion of the sessions allowed
parents to ask many questions that were key to their continuing the intervention (e. g., one
parent was concerned because using the strategies seemed to make it more difficult for
her child to sit through a whole story, to which I replied that perhaps there was too much
focus on the strategies and the child was losing track of the story line). If this intervention
had only offered support in the form of notes home or suggestions in newsletters, these

opportunities would have been lost and some parents may have given up.

83

Parents and children alike seemed to both benefit from and enjoy these family
reading workshops. With a little bit of time, patience, planning, and flexibility, these
workshops around comprehension strategy use can be a feasible, low-cost way to harness
the power of families to guide their young children on their journeys to become readers in

your school, as well.

84

References

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkerson, I. A. (1985). Becoming a
nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Education.

Baumann, J. F ., & Bergeron, B. S. (1993). Story map instruction using children's
literature: Effects on first graders' comprehension of central narrative elements.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 25 , 407-43 7.

Beck, I., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the
author: An approach to enhancing studnet engagement with text. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental
validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade
readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.

Bus, A., van Ijzendoom, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for
success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of
literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-21.

Chow, B. W.-Y., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Promoting language and literacy
development through parent-child reading in Hong Kong preschoolers. Early
Education and Development, 14, 233-248.

Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A
meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 23 7-248.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation
to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33,
934-945.

DeBaryshe, B. D. (1993). Joint picture-book reading correlates of early language skill.
Journal of Child Language, 20, 455-461 .

DeBruin-Parecki, A. (2005). Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA). Ypsilanti, MI:
High/Scope Press.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samue1s(Eds.), What research has to
say about reading instruction (3 ed., pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.

Foster, S. M., & Bitner, T. R. (1998). A read-aloud project for at-risk kindergarten
children and their parents. The Indiana Reading Journal, 30, 50-55.

85

Gamer, J. K., & Bochna, C. R. (2004). Transfer of a listening comprehension strategy to
independent reading in first-grade students. Early Childhood Education Journal,
32, 69-74.

Hood, M., Conlon, E., & Andrews, G. (2008). Preschool home literacy practices and
children's literacy development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 252-271.

Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family
literacy project on kindergarten students' early literacy skills. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35, 524-546.

Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2000). Enhancing children's print and word awareness
through home-based parent intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 9, 257-269.

Kraft, B. L., Findlay, P., Major, J ., Gilberts, G., & Hofrneister, A. (2001). The association

between a home reading program and young children's early reading skill.
Journal of Direct Instruction, 1, 1 17-136.

Neuman, S. B. (1996). Children engaging in storybook reading: The influence of access
to print resources, opportunity, and parental interaction. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 11, 495-513.

New Standards Primary Literacy Committee. (1999). Reading and writing grade by
grade: Primary literacy standards for kindergarten through third grade.
Pittsburgh: National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of
Pittsburgh.

Pearson, P. D., & Duke, N. K. (2002). Comprehension instruction in the primary grades.
In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds), Comprehension instruction: Research-based
best practices (pp. 247-258). New York: Guilford Publications.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

Santoro, L. E., Chard, D. J ., Howard, L., & Baker, S. K. (2008). Making the very most of
classroom read-alouds to promote comprehension and vocabulary. Reading
Teacher, 61 , 396-408.

Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of
children's reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73,
445-460.

Sénéchal, M. (2006). Testing the home literacy model: Parent involvement in
kindergarten is differentially related to grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency,
spelling, and reading for pleasure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 59-87.

86

Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy initiatives on children's
acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review.
Review of Educational Research, 78, 880-907.

Silverstein, S. (1964). The Giving Tree. New York: Harper Collins.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-
407.

Sulzby, E. (1985). Children's emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental
study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458-481.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberrnan, Eds.).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wasik, B. (1998). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research
Quarterly, 33, 266-292.

Weigel, D. J ., Martin, S. S., & Bennett, K. K. (2006). Contributions of the home literacy
environment to preschool-aged children's emerging literacy and language skills.
Early Childhood Development and Care, 1 76, 357-378.

87

Literature Cited
Bridwell, N. (1995). Clifford and the big storm. New York: Scholastic.

Steig, W. (1987). Sylvester and the Magic Pebble. New York: Aladdin Books.

88

Table 5

Descriptions of Individual Story Comprehension Strategies

 

 

 

 

Strategy Definition Examples of questions or comments
involving the strategy
Retelling Chronologically Can you tell me what has happened so
recounting a story after far in the story?
having read or listened Now it’s your turn. Can you use the
to it using enough pictures to tell me the story?
detail to support
coherence
Attending to Paying conscious Hm, after reading this page, I think I
Story attention to characters, know what the problem will be in this
Structure setting (time and story.
place), episodes, Who did Little Red Riding Hood meet
problem, and resolution in the woods?
Activation Using what you already Franklin is lost. Have you ever been
and Use of know or have lost? How did you feel? How do you
Prior experienced to make think Franklin feels?
Knowledge sense of new Owen has a blanket just like yours.

information

Would you let the blanket fairy take
your blanket? Why or why not? That

makes me think Owen isn’t going to let

her take his.

89

 

Talking Interacting around text Oh, I can see the wolf hiding behind the
about Text with others in tree. I bet he’s going to try to get Little
meaningful ways. Red Riding Hood.

Why do you think Minerva did that?

 

90

Table 6

Mean Pre- and Post-Intervention Comprehension Scores

 

 

Number of Mean Score Mean Score
Children (pre) (post)
Total ELSA

Experimental 10 5.30 9.00
Control 10 5.20 6.80

Total (retelling)
Experimental 10 4.80 4. 55
Control 10 3.10 3.78

 

91

5-10 Minutes- Each parent “lap reads” a story with his or her
child (recorded for data collection purposes)

10-15 Minutes- Children leave to engage in arts and crafts or
outdoor play with helpers. Parents talk about previous target
strategies, sharing success stories and addressing concerns and
questions (in sessions two through four, only).

15-20 Minutes- Parents are introduced to a new strategy via
discussion, a handout, and a video of the strategy in action.
There is also time to ask questions.

15-20 Minutes- Parents are invited to choose a book, preview it,
and read it with their children using the new strategy. The

workshop facilitator is available to answer questions and give

support as needed during this time.

Figure 1. Outline of a typical workshop teaching parents about infusing comprehension

strategies into parent-child lap reading.

92

 

 

Pre-Intervention Assessment of children and collection of demographic information
Week One Wgrkshop on retelling

Week Two Follow:up packet on retelling mailed

Week Three Workshop on story structure

Week Four Follow-up packet on story structure mailed

Week Five Workshop on activation and use of prior knowledge

Week Six F ollow-up packet on activation and use of prior knowledge mailed
Week Seven Workshop on talking about text

Week Eight F ollow-up packet on talking about text mailed

Week Nine Workshop wrap-up and celebration, Assessment of children

 

Figure 2. Timeline for workshops and follow-up mailings.

93

Figure 3. Example of a strategy handout.

Retelling

 

What is it and why should I do it?

I

What is it? Why should I do it?
With your help, kids

learn to focus on the

Stopping during the
story to review what has

happened so far; most important things

helping kids in a story, which in turn
tell the helps them to remem-
whole story 7‘ ber them and under—
after read- ‘ stand the story better.
ing

 

 

[How do I do it before reading?

 

Give your child a reason book to a brother or sis—
to practice retelling. ter later on. You can also
For example, maybe she take turns “reading" with
will tell the story to a your child. You read the
relative or friend who book first, then your
child can use the pictures
to “read" (retell) the

will use the pictures to book to you.

help them "read" the

hasn't heard it later in

the day or maybe she

94

 

. Summer Reading
Workshops

Tips:

69 Read in a com-
fortable place
with few dis-
tractions.

© Try to bring the
story to life by
reading with ex-
pression.

© Keep the atti—
tude positive-
this should be a
treat, not a
chore.

©After you are
finished, let
your child know
how much you
enjoyed your
time together.

 

 

 

How do I do it during reading?

 

Stop once or twice and ask
your child to tell you the
story to that point. If your
child leaves out something
important, you can give a re-
minder. Some reminders you
might give:

. How did the story start?

. Where were they?

What happened next?
And then...

Why did they do that?
And then what happened?
. Who did that?

You only need to stop once or

twice or when your child seems
to be confused to review what
has happened so far in the story.

 

 

 

How do I do it a Fter reading?

 

If you stop more often, your
child may lose interest in the
story.

If your child is not going to
retell the story to someone
else until later on, have him
practice retelling it to you
right after reading. Be sure,
then, to follow up and give

him a chance to tell it to some—
one else.

If you are taking turns reading,
hand the book over and let your
child “read" it to you. If your
child is getting antsy, take a
break and do the second

“reading" later on.

 

c

 

Remember! Retelling stories or parts of stories yourself will give
your child a good model of what a retelling should sound like.

 

Figure 3 (continued). Example of a strategy handout.

95

 

 

 

lHow do I find an authentic audience?
I

You might have your child What if there is no one close
retell a story to: by?

. Younger siblings, rela- You might:

tives, or nei hbors
g . Arrange to call someone on the

. Grandparents phone.

. Aunts and Uncles . Have your child tell the story

to ou as ou write it in a letter
. Parents Y y

to mail to someone special.

- Baby sitters

Just be sure that the person
your child retells the story to
was not there when you read the
story together: this gives your

child a real reason to give a

 

good retelling.

 

 

IDates to Remember:

 

 

 

Figure 3 (continued). Example of a strategy handout.

96

 

What are the parts of story structure?
1. Characters- Who?
2. Setting- Where and When?
3. Problem(s)- What went wrong?
4. Solution(s)- How did they fix it?
5. Events- What else happened?

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Example of a strategy bookmark.

97

 

 

Book: Sylvester and the Magic Pebble

Name:

 

Date:

 

Strategy:

 

Add point values to determine total scores for categories and overall retell
Characters:

_1- Sylvester

_.5- parents

_.5- lion

_.5- police

_.5- children (baby animals)

_.5- all the dogs

_.5 a wolf

Total: _ (maximum of two points possible)

Setting:

_.5- the field where the rock was

_.5- home

_.5- the police station

__.5- any naming of seasons

Total: __ (maximum of two points possible)

Episodes:

_ 1- Sylvester found a magic pebble that made wishes come true
_1- He saw a lion and wished to turn into a rock

_1- His parents didn’t know where he was and went looking for him
__1- Sylvester stayed a rock for a long time

_1- His parents went on a picnic by the rock

_1- Sylvester tried to talk to them, but he couldn’t

Total: __ (maximum of five points possible)

Resolution:

_1- his parents saw the pebble

_2- they wished Sylvester was there and it came true

_1- They put the pebble away

Total: _ (maximum of three points possible)

TOTAL RETELLING POINTS:—

 

 

Figure 5. Sample retelling scoring protocol for Sylvester and the Magic Pebble (Steig,
1987).

98

Appendix A (Full Dissertation)
The following are materials requested by the dissertation committee to fulfill the

requirements of the dissertation, but that are not explicitly referred to in the articles.

Negative Binomial Statistics for Effects of Gender and Socioeconomic Status on Post-

Intervention Comprehension Measures

Negative Binomial Statistics for the Effects of Implementation on Comprehension as

Measured by the Retelling Measure

 

 

B Standard Error Significance
(Intercept) .399 1.892 .528
Instances of Strategy 2.566 .060 .109
Use
Variation in Strategy .772 .738 .379
Use
Pre-Intervention 1 .535 .074 .2 1 5
Retelling Score
(doubled)*

 

*Pre- and post-intervention retelling scores are doubled to allow for modeling with whole numbers

99

Goodness of F it Statistics for Negative Binomial Model of the Eflects of Implementation

on Post-Intervention Retelling Scores

 

 

Value Df Value/df
Deviance 1.358 6 .226
Scaled Deviance 1.358 6
Pearson Chi-Square 1.435 6 .239
Log Likelihood 1.455 6

 

Note: Pre- and post-intervention retelling scores are doubled to allow for modeling with whole numbers.

100

Negative Binomial Statistics for the Efiects of Implementation on Comprehension as

Measured by the Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA)

 

 

B Standard Error Significance
(Intercept) .870 2.465 .724
Instances of Strategy Use .573 .896 .522
Variation in Strategy Use -.056 .070 .426
Pre-Intervention ELSA Score .112 .163 .491

 

101

 

Goodness of F it Statistics for Negative Binomial Model of the Efi‘ects of Implementation

on Post-Intervention Scores on the Early Literacy Skills Assessment

 

 

Value Df Value/df
Deviance l .290 6 .2 15
Sealed Deviance 1.290 6
Pearson Chi-Square 1.016 6 .169
Log Likelihood 1.016 ' 6

 

102

   

mlllllllllllllllllll[IllllllllllIlllllllllllllllEs

3 6058