Uncovering interactive book reading processes in first and second grade : a closer look into children’s input and interaction patterns

Being proficiently literate is essential to participate successfully in today’s information society. Interactive book reading (IBR) has been proven to be one of the most enduring and effective methods to foster children’s language and literacy development. Both the frequency and the quality of children’s contributions during IBR-activities are expected to be strongly related to language and literacy development (e.g. Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). Nevertheless, analysis of the available empirical literature on IBR reveals that the microstructure of this stimulating literacy activity was almost exclusively studied from the perspective of the adult’s input (e.g. Gonzales et al., 2014). Children’s input and adult/child interaction patterns during IBR remain underexplored. Therefore, this study aims at disclosing both adult/child and peer interactions during IBR for first and second graders. 600 minutes of video-taped IBR-activity were divided in utterances as unit of analyses and coded using a theory-driven integrated coding-scheme focusing on the core components of IBR (e.g. Mol et al., 2009; van Kleeck et al., 1997): (a) asking questions, (b) hinting, (c) expounding vocabulary, (d) explaining content, (e) illustrating images, (f) linking experiences, (g) indicating book conventions, and (h) clarifying print knowledge. 20% of the utterances were double coded by two independent trained coders resulting in a good overall agreement (κ=.84, p <.00). The presentation will report on analyses regarding the core components of IBR, whereby interaction patterns between adults and children and between children reciprocally are uncovered. Implications for teaching practice and further research optimizing IBR will be discussed

Unfolding interaction during reading with at-risk and not at-risk first and second graders

Interactive book reading is an effective method to foster children's language development. Both the frequency and the quality of children's contributions during reading are important attributes to add to the quality of an interactive reading session and thus increase literacy and vocabulary acquisition. Previous studies pointed out that children's chance of being at risk for language and literacy impairments due to their socioeconomic , ethnic or minority background or home language, is an important child characteristic defining the effects of the reading activity. Therefore, this research aimed at providing an integrated view on input and interaction patterns during reading with two different groups of 1 st and 2 nd graders: a group of children with an at-risk background and a group of mainly not-at-risk children. Videos of small group reading sessions (n=30) were transcribed verbatim (i.e. 16h, 53m 23s of interactive book reading), divided in 18 995 single units of language and coded with a good interrater agreement (κ=.84, p <.00). A literature-based comprehensive coding scheme was used for this coding. Notwithstanding the similar general interaction patterns in both groups, descriptive and chi square analyses showed significantly less child input in the at-risk group, indicating less qualitative reading activity. The use of evocative techniques to engage children in the story, just as questions and reinforcement, is significantly smaller in this group as well. This is striking, since interactive book reading with at-risk children could be a starting point to counter Matthew effects in reading acquisition and its associated effects on general language skills

Vocabulary acquisition through interactive book reading : an ever-growing gap?

Interactive book reading (IBR) has been proven to be an effective approach to foster children’s language development in general and vocabulary development in particular (e.g. Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). Children and their environment affect each other reciprocally (Sameroff & Friese, 2000). Therefore, children’s input during reading is of great importance to shape the interactive reading activity (e.g. Whitehurst et al., 1988; Zevenbergen & Whitehurst, 2003) and is associated to effects on literacy and vocabulary development. In this respect, it is expected that initial vocabulary levels of children influence what they do and do not learn from vocabulary instruction trough IBR. Therefore, this research aimed at studying the differential effects of IBR for children with different initial levels of vocabulary. We set up an IBR intervention with n=240 first-grade primary school children. They were read to by their own teachers for 5 weeks, hearing 5 different stories, each 2 times per week. Teachers were involved in a preceding IBR teacher professionalization. From every story, 8 target words were tested, differing in tiers of vocabulary (Beck &McKeown, 2007) and age of acquisition (AoA) (Brysbaert & Biemiller, 2016). First results indicate that children with moderate or high initial vocabulary levels benefit more from IBR than children with low initial vocabulary levels. The presentation will further deepen these first findings, zooming in on differences regarding (a) tested words (e.g. tiers of vocabulary and AoA), (b) the stories the target words were embedded in, and (c) participants’ background characteristics

Dynamic assessment of vocabulary development through interactive book reading in lower elementary school grades

Interactive book reading (IBR) is an effective way to stimulate vocabulary development through explicit instruction (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). When doing so, an instrument measuring gains on vocabulary level is necessary. Since IBR can be performed with a variation of books, there is the need for a method of vocabulary testing, adaptable to different books, for different age groups and aligning with dynamic assessment (DA) principles (i.e. combining instruction or feedback with assessment or testing within a single activity) (van der Veen et al., 2016). DA can be seen as taking into account the results of an intervention (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002). It helps teachers to gain insight in the effects of their reading and provides them with information to adapt the reading to the childrens' needs (van der Veen et al., 2016). This way, DA serves as an innovative curriculum that promotes the development of children through meaningful interactions within classroom activities, such as IBR (van Oers, et al., 2003). Focusing on vocabulary development through IBR, there is no formula that indicates what the most functional and meaningful words to teach are. Therefore, the combination of two evidence-based theories was proposed for careful selection of instruction words; tiers of vocabulary (Beck et al., 2013) and age of acquisition (AoA) (Brysbaert & Biemiller, 2016).Beck and McKeown (1985) developed a tiered system of vocabulary instruction that has been used widely as a tool to select vocabulary. Tier one includes basic words that barely need instruction. These are least interesting to focus on. Tier two words are high utility words. They are the most productive of instructional effort because of the role they play in the general verbal repertoire (Beck et al., 2013). Tier three are academic content words that are of low frequency of use. They are interesting to explicit when focusing on mostly domain specific knowledge (Beck et al., 2013). The age of acquisition from words is a psycholinguistic variable referring to the age at which a word is typically learned, this based on estimations of (young) adults, indicating at what age they think they learned a certain word (Brysbaert & Biemiller, 2016). By setting the AoA of the tested words per story slightly higher than the mean age of the children participating in the intervention, children learn new words that are feasible but challenging. As an example for vocabulary testing linked to IBR in line with DA, our own research will be discussed. Here a test-intervention-test design (also called sandwich format, e.g. van der Veen, 2016) is being used as DA approach. Our vocabulary test development showed that the developed method of test composition was fitted for vocabulary testing in line with DA principles. It provides teachers that integrate IBR in their class practices the necessary basis for monitoring students' progress on vocabulary development

Input en interactie tijdens voorlezen

- Input en interactie tijdens voorlezen - Inleiding, onderzoeksdoel en context De waarde van interactief voorlezen als stimulerende activiteit voor algemene geletterdheid en woordenschat staat buiten kijf (Bus et al., 1995; Mol et al., 2008). Analyse van de bestaande literatuur toont echter aan dat interactief voorlezen voornamelijk bestudeerd wordt vanuit het perspectief van de input van de volwassene tijdens het lezen (e.g., Gonzales et al., 2014; van Kleeck et al., 1997). De input van kinderen tijdens het voorlezen en de interactiepatronen tussen kinderen en volwassenen werden slechts in beperkte mate onderzocht. Aangezien interactie multidimensioneel is en leren vorm krijgt doormiddel van wederkerige interactie (Sameroff & Friese, 2000), is het echter van belang dat niet enkel die ééndimensionele input wordt geanalyseerd. Onderzoeksvraag en methode Omdat effectief interactief voorlezen inzicht in de onderliggende interactieprocessen vraagt, presenteert dit onderzoek een geïntegreerd beeld van de input van en interactie tussen alle actoren tijdens het voorlezen. Getrainde onderzoeksassistenten werden gefilmd tijdens interactieve voorleessessies in kleine groepen van 3 tot 5 kinderen. In totaal werd 16u 41m en 51s interactieve voorleesactiviteit geanalyseerd bij 120 kinderen uit het eerste en tweede leerjaar van het basisonderwijs (groep 3 en 4). Zij hadden een gemiddelde leeftijd van 7,08 (SD=0,77) jaar op het moment van de dataverzameling. 42,5% van hen waren jongens en 57,5% meisjes. De voorleessessies werden verbatim getranscribeerd, verdeeld in 18 969 individuele taaluitingen aan de hand van de CHILDES methode (MacWhinney, 2000) en vervolgens gecodeerd met een goede interrater beoordelaarsbetrouwbaarheid (κ=.84, p<.00). Theoretisch kader Het coderen gebeurde aan de hand van een geïntegreerd codeerschema gebaseerd op de onderzoeksliteratuur dat zowel de input van volwassenen en kinderen als de interactie tussen de actoren tijdens het voorlezen meeneemt. Het instrument omvat de categorieën vorm (vraag, antwoord, opmerking, onwetendheid, cue, bekrachtiging), focus (woordenschat, inhoud, afbeeldingen, print knowledge, boekconventies persoonlijke input) en abstractieniveau (gecontextualiseerd, gedecontextualiseerd) van de taaluiting (e.g. Van Kleeck et al., 1997). Resultaten en conclusie Descriptieve analyses en ANOVA bieden een geïntegreerd beeld van de interactieve voorleesactiviteit. Zo is er een significant verschil in input tijdens het lezen tussen volwassenen en kinderen t(58)= -12,208 p= 0,000. De volwassenen zorgen voor 63,99% van de input, de kinderen voor 36,01%. De input door volwassenen is met 67,74% nog significant groter bij het voorlezen aan kinderen met een verhoogd risico op taalachterstand t(28)= 2,514 p=0,018. De focus van de taaluitingen ligt 21,42% van de tijd op inhoudelijke zaken, 11,31% op afbeeldingen en 7,02% op woordenschat. Tijdens het lezen wordt ook 6,23% van de tijd besteed aan de link leggen met persoonlijke zaken. Daarnaast blijkt dat in de risicogroep voor taalachterstand met 58,45% van de tijd meer contextualiseerde taal wordt gebruikt dan in de niet-risicogroep (slechts 51,89%). De resultaten voor elke codeercategorie worden tijdens het symposium in detail toegelicht. Wetenschappelijke en praktische betekenis De basis voor het vormgeven van een kwaliteitsvolle voorleesactiviteit bevindt zich in het inzicht in de structuur ervan, rekening houdend met alle actoren tijdens het lezen. De bevindingen uit dit onderzoek kunnen dan ook als input fungeren voor verder wetenschappelijk onderzoek en voor het nastreven van taalgerelateerde onderwijsdoelen. Aansluiting bij congresthema/divisie Aangezien interactief voorlezen een instructiemethode is die vertrekt vanuit interactie en de taalvaardigheid in de ruime zin stimuleert, sluiten de drie presentaties binnen dit symposium aan bij het thema leren & instructie. Interactie Interactie zal worden bewerkstelligd door stellingen te voorzien voor het publiek die doorheen de presentatie worden beantwoord. Referenties Bus, G. A., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint Book Reading Makes for Success in Learning to Read: A Meta-Analysis on Intergenerational Transmission of Literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65(1), 1-21. Gonzales, J. E., Pollard-Durodola, S., Simmons, D. C., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., Fogaty, M., & Simmons, L. (2014). Enhancing preschool children’s vocabulary: Effects of teacher talk before, during and after shared reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 214-226. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk, volume II: The database (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

What's the difference? Interaction during shared reading with at-risk and not-at-risk 1st and 2nd graders

Shared book reading has been proven to be one of the most enduring and effective methods to foster children’s overall language development. Both the frequency and the quality of children’s contributions during reading activities are strongly related to broader literacy and more specific vocabulary acquisition (e.g. Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Mol et al., 2008). Previous studies pointed at different gains from shared reading for children at risk for language and literacy impairments due to their socio-economic, ethnic or minority background or due to their home language (Barnes et al., 2017; Mol et al., 2009). Therefore, this research aimed at providing an integrated view on input and interaction patterns during shared reading with two different groups of 1st and 2nd graders: a group of children with an at-risk background and a group of mainly not-at-risk children. Trained research assistants were videotaped during small group reading sessions (n=30) (i.e. 16h, 41m 51s of shared reading). Videos were transcribed verbatim, divided in 18 969 single units of language and coded with a good interrater agreement (κ=.84, p <.00). A literature-based comprehensive coding scheme including child input and peer interaction was used. The instrument focuses on form (i.e. question, answer, remark, ignorance, cue or reinforcement), focus (i.e. vocabulary, content, images, print knowledge, book conventions, or personal input) and abstraction level (i.e. contextualized or decontextualized) of the utterance (e.g. Van Kleeck et al., 1997). ANOVA analyses showed significant differences in child input during reading comparing the at-risk and the not-at-risk group and remarkable differences in form, focus and abstraction level of the language utterances. Results and implications will be discussed in detail