INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photo graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from a computer printer.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
I Accessing the World'sUMI Information since 1938 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA Order Number 8824614
Nurturing early literacy: A literature based program for at-risk first graders
Strong, Elizabeth Lee, Ph.D.
The Ohio State University, 1988
Copyright ©1988 by Strong, Elizabeth Lee. All rights reserved.
UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 NURTURING EARLY LITERACY:
A LITERATURE BASED PROGRAM
FOR AT-RISK FIRST GRADERS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Elizabeth Lee Strong, B.A. (Ed.), M.Ed.
*****
The Ohio State University
1988
Dissertation Committee: Approved by:
Dr. Charlotte S. Huck
Dr. Janet G. Hickman ______Adviser Dr. Diane E. DeFord College of Education Copyright by
Elizabeth Lee Strong
1988 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my appreciation to a number of individuals who helped to make this study possible.
I gratefully acknowledge the generous co-operation and assistance received from Mrs. G. and the five children who willingly participated in this study. Their thought fulness and understanding were unending. I owe them a great debt.
To the members of my committee, Dr. Janet Hickman and
Dr. Diane DeFord, I owe gratitude for their constructive suggestions and support. To Dr. Charlotte Huck, the committee chair, I am greatly indebted. Her constant and wise guidance, invaluable assistance and unfailing patience as well as her valued counsel intermingled with encouraging words and reassuring anecdotes are appreciated beyond words. She is truly a teacher and mentor of the highest respect and a tremendous source of inspiration.
I am deeply appreciative of my family for their con tinuous support, encouragement and understanding through out this challenging venture. VITA
1967 B.A. (Ed.)i Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John's Newf oundland
1967-1968 Teacher, Assiniboine School Oromocto, New Brunswick
1968-1979 Teacher, Vanier Elementary St. John's, Newfoundland
1978 M.Ed., Memorial llniversity of Newfoundland St. John's, Newfoundland
1978-1981 Teacher & Vice Principal Vanier Elementary St. John's, Newfoundland
1981-1985 Primary Education Coordinator The Avalon Consolidated School Board St. John’s, Newfoundland
1980-1982 Lecturer, Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John’s, Newfoundland
1985-1988 Staff, The WEB, published by Department of Educational Theory and Practice College of Education The Ohio State University
1985-1988 Teaching Associate The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio
i i i FIELLJ OF STUDY
Studies in Professor Charlotte S. Huck Children’s Literature
Studies in Professor Frank Zidonis Adolescent Literature
Studies in Associate Professor Early Literacy Diane E. DeFord TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii
VITA ...... iii
LIST OF TABLES ...... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ...... x
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM ...... 1
Background of the Study...... 1 Early Literacy Development .... 5 Early Literacy Interventional Programs ...... 11 Statement of the Problem ...... 17 The Purpose of the Study ...... 19 Scope and Limitations of the Study . 21 Summary ...... 23
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 25
Introduction ...... 25 Theoretical Perspectives ...... 26 The Importance of Narrative and Story ...... 26 The Influence of Story on Literacy Development ...... 28 Research Perspectives ...... 40 The Value of Reading Aloud ...... 40 The Value of Re-Reading ...... 56 Children’s Literature and Writing 62 Summary ...... 66
v III. METHODOLOGY ...... 70
Introduction ...... 70 Setting and Population of theStudy . 71 Time Frame of the Study ...... 76 Roles of the Researcher ...... 78 Data Collection ...... 82 Fieldnotes ...... 83 Audio Tapes ...... 84 Video Tapes ...... 1 85 Photos ...... 86 Teacher's Journal ...... 86 Informal Interviews ...... 87 Collection of Children's Work .. 88 Formal Measure ...... 89 Data Analysis and Interpretation ... 89 Summary ...... 92
IV. THE TEACHER, THE CHILDREN, THE CLASSROOM, THE PROGRAM ...... 94
Introduction ...... 94 The Early Literacy Research Project Seminars ...... 95 Purposes of the Seminars ...... 95 Composition of Group and Seminar Times ...... 96 Format of Seminars ...... 97 The Teacher ...... 99 Educational and Professional Backgrounds ...... 100 Literacy Philosophy ...... 102 The Children ...... 106 Selection of Children ...... 106 Profile of the Children ...... Ill The Classroom Setting ...... 114 The Physical Arrangement ...... 114 Literacy Learning Resources .... 121 Arrangement of Time ...... 132 The Elements of a Lesson ...... 135 Re-Reading Familiar Books ...... 136 Read Aloud ...... 154 Shared Reading ...... 162 Shared Writing ...... 170 Independent Writing ...... 176
vi Extensions ...... 186 Running Record ...... 195 A Typical Literacy Lesson ...... 197 Teaching Literacy Strategies ...... 207 Developing Thematic Literature Units. 215 Summary ...... 223
V. ANALYSIS OF THE CHILDREN’S LITERACY DEVELOPMENT AND THE LITERACY INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ...... 225
Introduction ...... 225 The Children’s Literacy Growth .... 226 Formal Assessment ...... 226 Informal Assessment ...... 230 The Children’s Literary Growth .... 242 Story Structure ...... 243 Story Meaning ...... 252 The Literacy Instructional Program .. 262 Re-Reading Familiar Books ...... 262 Read Aloud ...... 268 Shared Reading And Shared Writing ...... 275 Independent Writing ...... 277 Extensions ..... 279 Running Record ...... 283 Children Nurturing Their Own Literacy Development ...... 286 Forming Partnerships ...... 286 Providing Unsolicited Support .. 291 Recognizing Literacy Abilities . 293 Modeling Techniques ...... 294 Identifying Helpful Sources .... 296 Summary ...... 299
VI. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS ...... 303
The Problem of the Study ...... 303 Procedures ...... 304 Findings ...... 305 The Teacher ...... 305 The Literacy Instructional Program ...... 306 The Literacy Learning Resources . 307
vii The Elements of a Lesson ...... 308 The Children’s Literacy and Literary Growths...... 312 Ways Children Supported Literacy Development ...... 313 Implications for Literacy Instructional Program...... 315 Implications for Teacher Education . 319 Directions for FurtherResearch .... 323
APPENDICES
A. FORMAT OF WEEKLY PLAN ...... 326
B. RE-READING FAMILIAR BOOKS:CHECK-LIST ... 328
C. THEMATIC LITERATURE UNIT: THE THREE LITTLE PIGS ...... 330
D. BOOKS VISITED BY ONE CHILD DURING RE-READING FAMILIAR BOOK TIME ...... 334
E. READ ALOUD BOOKS ...... 339
F. RE-READING FAMILIAR BOOKS...... 343
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 352
viii . LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Diagnostic Survey Pre-Test Results ...... 110
2. Comparison Chart of Available Familiar Books ...... 125
3. Distribution of Children's Literature By Genre ...... 130
4. Comparison of Texts' Word Count ...... 139
5. Read Aloud Books Read By Children ...... 146
6. One Child's Book Selection for Independent Reading ...... 148
7. Stevie's Revisits To The Great Big Enormous Turnip ...... 188
8. Results of Pre-Test and Post-Test Diagnostic Survey ...... 226
9. Comparison of Text Reading Levels And Ginn Series ...... 229
10. Varied Text Reading Levels ...... 269
11. Number of Books and Titles The Children Read ...... 269 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Classroom Floor Plan...... 116
2. Shared Writing/Shared Reading Process .... 276
3. Independent Writing/Independent Reading Process ...... 277 CHAPTER I
THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
Background of the Study
Becoming literate in an age of high technology and mass media may seem to many an easy accomplishment. In reality, however, this does not appear to be so. There is a core of our society that still remains illiterate, that still has not learned the basic skills of reading and writing. '
Jonathan Kozol (1985) writes in his book, Illiterate
America. that the adult illiteracy figure numbers 60 million, nearly 40 percent of the adult population. A more recent study by the United States Federal Department of Education has estimated that in 1988 there will be more than 27 million Americans over seventeen years of age who will be unable to read or write well enough to perform basic requirements of every day life. The Department further states there will be another 45 million who will be considered barely competent in basic skills. Combining these figures, it means one out of every three Americans will lack adequate literacy skills needed for employment
(Gladstone, 1988, p. 1).
1 If we accept Margaret Meek's (1982) distinction between a literate and an illiterate, the illiteracy figure would be much greater. She claims that a literate person is one who "knows what he needn’t read. Oood readers are secure in the knowledge that no one reads everything." The illiterate, if he could read, would fear he would have to read all he sees (p.19).
These overwhelming and haunting statistics continual ly plague educators, making the subject of illiteracy/ literacy one of the most challenging issues confronting them. Much time and effort are given to the topic, especially in the areas of teaching and research related to Language Arts, Reading and Writing.
The value of reading has long been recognized by educators as an important ingredient in becoming a literate person. A recent national report entitled,
Becoming a Nati6n of Readers emphasizes the importance:
Reading is a basic life skill. It is a cornerstone for a child’s success in school and, indeed, throughout life. Without the ability to read well, opportunities for personal fulfillment and job success inevitably will be lost. (Anderson et a l ., 1985, p. 1)
The role of writing in literacy development has also received recognition. As Walshe (1986) asserts, "Writ ing... is increasingly perceived to be central to the school learning process, significant in the Bocial and personal life of the individual, and indispensable in many ways to modern society" (p. 7).
Furthermore, the understanding of the interrelated ness and the interdependence of reading and writing have been cited by educators as highly influential in develop ing literacy skills. Research (Graves, 1978; Bissex,
1980; Clay, 1982; Smith, 1988) has shown that to under stand reading, writing must be understood. The two processes are interrelated, they develop in coordination with each other. In this respect, Teale and Sulzby (1986) state that "reading is integrally involved in becoming a writer.... There exists a dynamic relation between writing and reading, because each influences the other in the course of development" (p.XIX).
Although literacy is pertinent to personal fulfill ment, we cannot deny the fact that it has a much broader influence on the welfare of our society. Our economic status and social well-being are but two aspects of society that are greatly enhanced by our ability to communicate and to problem-solve. Moreover, the level of literacy is important to our future societal demands. As the world moves rapidly toward a technological-information age, full participation in education, business, industry and science requires us to increase our levels of
literacy. The levels of literacy that were acceptable
twenty years ago will probably be marginal by the turn of
the century (Resnick & Resnick, 1977). In fact, a study published in June, 1987, by the Federal Department of
Labor entitled, "Workforce 2000", estimated that by the beginning of the twenty-first century, a majority of new
jobs will require post-secondary education. This will be
the first time in United States’ history that such a
requirement will be demanded (Gladstone, 1988, p.l).
In our endeavors to decrease illiteracy and heighten
literacy, studies (Durkin, 1966; Cohen, 1968; Clay, 1972;
Meek, 1982; Heath, 1983; Goodman, 1984; Teale & Sulzby,
1986; Wells, 1986; Smith, 1988) have revealed that if we are to make gains, efforts must be directed toward the young. It is during this time that the crucial foun dations of literacy are laid and upon which all later learning depends. As Psacharopoulas (1981) maintains, we must concentrate on the children’s early schooling years to combat illiteracy, if we want to earn the greatest returns from our investments. It is for this reason that this investigation, to examine the effects of children’s literature on the literacy development of at-risk First
Graders, was undertaken. In the following two sections, I will give an overview of the literature related to how literacy emerges within young children. Studies are then presented regarding the literacy instructional programs often provided primary children who have a gap in their literacy learning when they enter school. This brief background will furnish the reasoning for this study. It becomes evident from the research that many of these children who are referred to as at-risk of failing their first year of schooling receive early literacy instructional programs that defy recent findings regarding how children learn and how literacy emerges. The result of their participation in these literacy programs often increases their literacy gaps rather than closing them.
Early Literacy Development:
During the last decade, interest in research related to early literacy and its emergence has grown tremendous ly. The results of the work have uncovered a number of valuable insights related to "legitimate, conceptual, developmental literacy learning" (Teale & Sulzby, 1986, p.
XX). Through these studies, we have come to recognize that literacy emerges from the earliest years, long before formal literacy instruction begins in school (Ferreiro, 1978; Hiebert, 1981; Teale, 1986; Hall, 1987). For some young learners, however, their literacy knowledge is somewhat limited because they have been exposed mostly to contextualized language, with minimal interaction with decontextualized language. Other learners have been inundated with both forms of language and have had the opportunity to learn some of the essential characteristics of written language, as well as being helped "to cope with the reflective, disembedded thinking so necessary for success in school" (Teale, 1986, p. 198). ThiB difference in language exposure creates a gap in literacy knowledge between the two groups of learners (Donaldson, 1978). In fact, the gap widens unless the former group of children are provided the language enriched environments that the latter group have already had in their homes (Chapman,
1987) .
Furthermore, we have learned from early literacy research that the two major elements of literacy, i.e., reading and writing, are natural language processes
(Goodman, & Goodman, 1977; Chapman, 1987; Rhodes &
Dudley-Marling, 1988; Smith, 1988) which involve the children’s "linguistic, cognitive and social strategies in order to process print directly for meaning" (Hall, p. 5,
1987). This means that the children are continually searching for and constructing meaning while they are actively involved with learning to read and write. They are perpetually learning how to mean (Halliday, 1975).
The construction of this meaning requires the co ordination of a number of interrelated sources of information, such as the children's "background knowledge
...; knowledge of grammatical structure; knowledge of literary styles and rhythms of writing; knowledge of the information encoded in writing; and prerequisite under standings about the nature of reading and the conventions of writing and print" (Bussis et al , 1985, p. 70).
Since reading and writing are meaning getting,
"message-gaining, problem-solving activities" (Clay, 1979, p. 6) and they incorporate many interacting sources of information, then they must be viewed as "single ap titudes". They cannot be broken down into subskills.
They must be considered as "global acts" (Lunzer 4
Gardner, 1979). The fragmentation of the processes into many subskills and the isolation of words from their context does not nurture literacy development, but rather, impedes it (Smith, 1975; Graves, 1978; Allington, 1977,
1980a, 1980b). Literacy development is a holistic act.
A significant influence on the emergence of literacy is the social environment that surrounds the literacy learner (Heath, 1983; Taylor, 1983; Teale, 1984; Bloome,
1985). Studies of home and school literacy events (Ninio
& Bruner, 1978; Snow, 1983; Bloome, 1985) suggest that literacy experiences are intrinsically social in nature and "involve complex linguistic interaction between participants" (Altwerger et al., 1985, p. 476). In regard to reading, Bloome (1985) states that this interaction occurs "among teachers and students, among students, among parents and children, and among authors and readers" (p. 134). Smith (1988) agrees with Bloome, but adds that social interactions are of utmost importance to writing development.
Further, Bloome and Smith assert that there are three dimensions to this social process. The first one involves a social context wherein social interactions surround and influence interaction with the written text.
The second points up the cultural dimension which gives reading and writing social uses which are an extension of people’s day-to-day cultural doings. While the third is a socio-cognitive process in which both the act of learning to read and write as well as the content of reading and writing help children learn culturally appropriate information, activities, values, and ways of thinking and problem-solving. When young children view literacy events and are
involved with others in ways of using reading and writing, e.g. reading books, writing messages, they quickly learn
to value such uses and endeavor to employ them purposeful ly for themselves. Smith (1988) states that:
Children not only become familiar with the ways in which they see written language being used, they learn about its form.... Children learn when they are enrolled in the activities of people who use written language.... People around them, including other children help them to read what they are trying to read and to write what they want to write.... (p. 66)
Children not only learn literacy skills through these social interactions but they learn what reading and writing can do for them as members of a literacy com munity. As Bloome asserts, cited in Taylor and Dorsey-
Gaines (1988), they learn that:
Reading is used to demonstrate group membership, acquire status or position, control others, control oneself, gain access to social rewards and privileges, to socialize and transmit cultural knowledge, and to engage in a broad spectrum of social reactions, (p. 123)
Smith (1982) extends the same social functions to writing. Hence, a social context that supports, facili tates inquiry, respects performance and provides oppor tunities for engagement in real literacy actB is impera 10 tive in the nurturing of early literacy development
(Hall, 1987, p. 10).
Early literacy emerges therefore as a response to contextualized and decontextualized language, as a consequence of the need to make sense of oral and written language, and as a result of the social environmental stimulation experienced by the children. This emergence gradually takes place from within the children even though others may provide information about the many aspects of literacy. The children are the meaning makers (Wells,
1986). They take responsibility for making sense of all the different forms of language that engulf them. As they seek to comprehend oral and written language, their literacy knowledge grows, through the process of assimila tion and accommodation.
The beginning of the children’s literacy development, however, has no definite time, but rather they are contin ually "in the process of becoming literate.... (Develop ment) results from the use of reading and writing in every day contexts of home and school" (Teale & Sulzby, 1986, p.
XX) . 11
Early Literacy Interventional Programs:
Research (Clay, 1975; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982:
Graves, 1983; Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984; Taylor,
1983; Teale & Sulzby, 1986; Smith, 1988) related to early literacy development shows that the foundations for becoming proficient readers and writers are laid at an early age. During the children’s early school years these literacy structures are strengthened and expanded as the children experience more exposure to meaningful reading and writing tasks. However, the extent to which these foundations are formed when children enter school varies.
The problem facing educators is, "How do we develop and implement literacy programs that will meet the needs of all children?"
Many of the literacy programs, e.g., remediation and special education, offered in today’s schools do not adequately accommodate the varying literacy levels of young children. One reason for this lack of accommodation is that the authors of the literacy learning resources used in these literacy programs generally assume that all children have experienced contextualized as well as decontextualized language. In addition:
The developers and promoters of such programs entertain the awesome belief that literacy can be taught to a child one predetermined skill at a time and 12
that a child who masters every exercise to a criterion level will eventually become a reader and a writer. (Smith, 1988, p. 13)
This is the antithesis of present literacy learning theories. The use of such literacy materials therefore broadens the gap or deficit in some children’s literacy development rather than closing it and leads them to early school failure and eventually to illiterate status in our society.
Another reason why a number of early literacy interventional programsdo not provide the kind of help children need to 'catchup ’ is the theoretical framework on which they are developed (Pinnell et al ., 1987, p. 1).
Graves (1978) found that the philosophy behind most writing programs states that children learn to write by learning isolated units of language. In a year long study to investigate the status of writing in elementary schools, he revealed, regardless of class or program, that little real writing took place. Rather, writing was taught through workbook exercises: vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar and penmanship drills.
Smith (1971, 1988) agrees with Graves but he also found a similar philosophy cited in the reading programs.
He claims that most remedial programs are based on 13 theories that are contrary to the theories underlying children's cognition and their language and literacy learning# He states that these programs:
Rarely engage children in meaningful reading and writing activities.... The language of their exercises is purposeless - fragmented, decontext- ualized, and trivial. If anything, they teach that written language is artificial. (1988, p. 13)
Researchers, such as, Ferreiro (1978), Hiebert
(1981), and Teale (1986) have identified another weakness of many reading programs designed for poor readers. They ignore the children's knowledge of print and emphasize letters and words. This discourages children from using the generalizations they have already developed about how written language works.
Studies conducted by Allington (1977, 1980a, 1980b) related to literacy programs for poor readers and writers in first and second grades indicate that these children are given far less time and opportunities to actually read and write than good readers and writers. Most of their time is spent on workbook activities, skills and drills, which Smith (1983) refers to as systematic deprivation experience. He claims there is no evidence that these drills, mainly phonics, help enhance children's reading ability. If anything, it appears that reading seems to 14 make phonics work, rather that phonics making reading possible. Anderson et al. (1985) estimate that young children spend 7056 of their reading instruction time doing this skill-oriented work and most of the remaining time involved with teacher-directed instruction.' Little
time is allocated to ’real' reading.
Furthermore, Allington found that these children are more frequently interrupted than good readers while they are involved with reading and their errors are treated out of the context in which they occur. He noted that when poor readers are interrupted their attention is directed to the graphic and phonic characteristics of the misread word, while the good readers' attention is directed to the syntactic or semantic information. Allington's final conclusion based on his findings is that poor readers and writers are taught differently and in more fragmented ways than successful readers and writers. This fragmentation and over-simplification make reading and writing more difficult, by not allowing the children to use a varying combination of strategies, by eliminating context clues and by destroying meaning.
Goodlad (1984) and Oakes (1985) in their studies of the effect of ability grouping on young children's development of literacy noted similar findings to Al- 15 lington. Their results showed that the lower ability groups which were composed mostly of at-risk children, received the least varied teaching methods, limited texts as well as less time to process materials or correct themselves. They were interrupted by their teacher two to five times more frequently than the top group and were taught skills in isolation.
In a more recent study related to literacy programs,
Allington et a l . (1986) found that the at-risk children experience two different literacy curricula - one in their homeroom classroom and the other in their literacy interventional program. Because of the dissimilarity, the children have less instructional time to master either program when compared with the good readers and writers.
Similar studies by Haynes and Jenkins (1986) and Rowan et al. (1987) resulted in the same findings. They concluded that if at-risk children are going to experience any amount of literacy success, than the curricula must be congruent. Different curricula often lead to cognitive confusion. Allington and Broikou (1988) recommend, therefore, that the remedial and special education programs include wide exposure to reading in connected text, explicit explanations of effective reading strateg ies and congruence between these programs and the 16 classroom reading program (p. 806).
Another deficiency of early literacy intervention programs, according to Smith (1971) and Meek (1982), is the insufficient time provided children to hear stories.
Recognizing that an important aspect of the reading process is the ability to predict what will happen next in a story, they found that poor readers did not possess this literacy skill. The reason for this void is that the children have not heard many stories. Hence, they have never learned how the rules of the story are transferred to the print on the page. Smith and Meek claim that children who have not had a rich exposure to literature are not likely to have an understanding of story structure.
It is apparent that many children who enter school with a deficiency in literacy development and are provided literacy interventional programs do not receive appropri ate literacy experiences to eliminate their deficit. If the seeds of literacy which are planted at a very early age are to wither and perish, early literacy intervention al programs must be developed that are grounded in our present theories underlying how children learn and how literacy emerges. These programs need to provide literacy experiences that will help at-risk children with reading 17
and writing gaps to bridge them in constructive, meaning
ful ways. As Donaldson (1978) maintains, if the gap is
not closed early, it will widen and become more difficult
to close as time progresses.
Statement of the Problem
The foundation of literacy learning starts at an
early age. If appropriate literacy supports are erected,
the foundation becomes so solid that its structure can hang many literacy doors through which children can freely
venture to gain access to knowledge and understanding of
their world and the world at large. Unfortunately, some children’s literacy structures have not received suffi
cient footings during their crucial building stages.
Hence, they are weak and require additional supports.
It is apparent however that the additional literacy supports provided in schools for these children are not meetings their needs. Educators need to take a closer look at the literacy instructional programs. We need to examine the instructional theory of the early literacy interventional programs. We recognize that "the instruc tional program has enormous impact on children’s develop ing concepts of what reading (and writing are) all about.
(Moreover, we know that) literacy instruction in sohool 18 plays an especially powerful role in the lives of children who have had relatively few literacy experiences prior to starting school" (Pinnell et a l , 1987, p. 7).
Even though there are successful early literacy interventional programs, such as, Reading Recovery (Clay,
1972), designed to meet the needs of the most serious at- risk children on a one-to-one basis, few if any effective programs have been developed for small groups of at-risk children who do not qualify or are wait-listed for such programs. The programs which are provided these children, e.g., the phonics approach, the basal approach, are generally linked to meaningless drills on small segments of language. They usually do not provide the appropriate literacy experiences that the at-risk children need.
Many of them show these children that:
Reading ’for real’ means reading texts which are not familiar, not chosen by the child, and which draw not on chil dren’s existing oral end literate back grounds, but on a mechanical, hierarch ical set of drills written by people who are neither storytellers nor authors. (Fox, 1985, p. 383)
Furthermore, the interventional programs generally present writing as a separate entity from reading (Smith, 1971) and that one becomes proficient in it by learning isolated skills.
The at-risk children need more than what the present 19
literacy interventional programs provide. They require
reading and writing experiences that will guide them into developing an understanding of the range of information,
e.g., meaning, language structure, features of print, visual information and connections with their own experiences, which must be used and orchestrated when operating on text (Pinnell et al, 1987, p. 7). The children need to enter literacy programs filled with
"meaningful and useful reading and writing activities... and where collaboration is always available" (Smith, pp.
11-12, 1988).
The Purpose of The Study
The study was to develop and measure the effective ness of a literature based program on the literacy development of five at-risk First Graders. The elements of the program included daily reading aloud of stories and poems, re-reading familiar books from different genres, studying indepth thematic literature units, responding to books in various ways, and using literature as a springbo ard into writing (Huck, 1977; Huck, Hepler, & Hickman,
1987). The uniqueness of the investigation lay in its theoretical framework as well as its practical implica tions. Moreover, no research has shown the effects of 20 such an instructional program on a group of at-risk First
Graders.
The question framed, therefore, for gathering and analyzing data was:
What effect does a literature based program have on developing literacy skills of at-risk First Graders?
The categories and sub-questions that provided more specific guidance in the collection of data are stated below.
1. Components of a Literature Based Program:
a. What effect does reading aloud chil dren's literature have on the literacy development of at-risk First Graders?
b. What effect does re-reading children's literature have on the literacy devel opment of at-risk First Graders?
c. What effect does shared reading have on the literacy development of at- risk First Graders?
d. What effect does shared writing have on the literacy development of at- risk First Graders?
2. Instructional f^ramework:
a. What components of a literature based program can be purposefully and mean ingfully conducted in a forty minute lesson that are pertinent to the lit eracy development of at-risk First Graders? 21
b. How can the components of a literature based program be integrated in purpose ful ways to effect the literacy devel opment of at-risk First Graders?
c. Are there specific types of children’s literature that are more appropriate than others to teach literacy skills, e.g., sense of story, concepts of print, writing to at-risk First Graders?
Scope and Limitations of the Study
One apparent limitation of this study because of its ethnographic nature is the generalizability of the findings and conclusions to other small group instruction al settings and classrooms. ThiB study was intended to explore the development of a literacy interventional program in a particular setting, involving children who were at-risk of failing First Grade and a classroom teacher with Elementary teacher training as well as
Reading Recovery training. Although the context would be similar to other settings of this nature, differences no doubt would exist simply because each context is unique.
A particularly distinctive element in this aetting was the involvement of a trained Reading Recovery teacher from a school that professes a literature based philosophy and five at-risk children waiting to receive Reading
Recovery instruction. Certain Reading Recovery teaching techniques and the instructional program influenced the 22 way in which the teacher and children approached reading and writing tasks. It is the intent of the investigator, therefore, to attempt to present as much detail as possible, in Chapters 4 and 5, in an effort to provide sufficient information about the context. This informa tion is presented so that anyone interested in generaliza- bility will have a base of information appropriate to made the necessary Judgements. It is anticipated that the
"thick description" provided will specify all necessary details that a reader will need to know in order to understand the findings.
Another limitation that was considered is the investigator’s dependency on observational data. It is obvious that distortions in observations may exist because of anxieties and personal affinities for specific types of data, as well as the investigator’s theories about literacy learning. Distortion may have also been caused by the physical impossibility of the investigator to see and hear all that occurred in the setting. To reduce this limitation, the investigator observed the classroom context three times per week, and occasionally five times, over a twelve week period in multiple ways.
The data was cross-checked through triangulation with the teacher and her daily journal writings about the project. 23
In Bome instances, the data was cross-checked with the children, members of The Early Literacy Research Project and peers.
A third limitation was the investigator's presence as a participant observer. My presence, no doubt, influenced the context, the children and the teacher. However, I was initially an observer, but as time progressed I became a resource person and hopefully was seen as part of the context. This limitation was minimized by my knowing the teacher before the study began. We became colleagues from the seminars conducted for The Early Literacy
Research Project. I had also knovfn the children from my visitations to their classroom for purposes related to the
Project.
Summary
The investigation was designed to study the effects of a literature based program on the literacy development of children at-risk of failing First Grade. The focus of the study was on one First Grade teacher and five children on the wait-list to receive Reading Recovery instruction.
Using an ethnographic, participant observer approach, the study was carried out over a twelve week period during the school year. 24
A discussion of the related theories and research will be found in Chapter II and details of the methods and procedures by which the investigation was conducted is provided in Chapter III of this report. Chapter IV describes the teacher's organization of the classroom context as well as the design and instructional elements of the literature based program. An analysis of the literature based program and its effects on the growth of the children's literacy development is presented in
Chapter V. Chapter VI summarizes the findings and suggests their implications for small group literacy interventional programs for young children. Directions for further research also are proposed. CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
Interest in using children's literature to nurture
early literacy development has risen immensely. Major theoretical statements and empirical evidence have been presented that support the use of literature in the development of proficient readers and writers. A discussion follows which focuses on the nature of the relationship between literature and literacy development.
Psychological and literary views are presented from which a theoretical framework is formed. Qualitative and quantitative research findings are discussed justifying the use of literature in promoting literacy and literary knowledge. However, few studies were located that examined the influence of literature on the literacy development of at-risk children.
In this chapter, the related literature regarding the theoretical perspective is presented first. This view provides the basis for using literature to nurture literacy and literary developments. A discussion of the research findings which supports the importance of literature in the lives of the young literacy learners
25 26
follows. In particular, selected studies are presented
which provide insights into the values of reading aloud
and re-reading stories as well as the influence of
literature on children's writing.
Theoretical Perspectives
The Importance of Narrative and Story;
Barbara Hardy (1977), a literary theorist, states
that narrative is "a primary act of mind"(p. 12). In
fact, she claims that throughout life we are constantly
creating our own inner story, our own autobiography.
Psychologists, R.L. Gregory (1977) and Jerome Bruner
(1986) as well as literary theorist, James Britton (1977)
reiterate Hardy's theory. They postulate that we are
continually telling ourselves stories about the world and
our place in it. It is through narrative that structure
is imposed on the sequence of events in our lives.
We dream in narrative, daydream in narrative, remember, anticipate, hope, despair, believe, doubt, plan, revise, criticize, construct, gossip, learn, hate, and love by narrative. In order really to live, we make up stories about ourselves and others, about the personal as well as the social past and future. (Hardy, 1977, p. 13)
This way of thinking is more applicable to children than to adults. As Moffett (1983) states narrative must 27 do for all children's thoughts for a long time. They use it to theorize and generalize. Whatever they say, they
"utter almost entirely through stories - real or invented
- and they apprehend what others say through story" (p.
49) .
Gregory (1977) believes there is a deep biological reason for the importance of story in our lives. He deems that:
Fiction states and considers alterna- ative possible realities.... (It) is is a tool, necessary for thought and intelligence, and for considering and planning possibilities. Fiction is vitally important - indeed we may live more by fiction than by fact. It is living by fiction which makes the higher organism special, (p. 394)
Bruner (1984, 1988) supports this claim and adds that story (fiction) heightens and more self-consciously reflects on life’s narratives. Further, story "isolates and analyses the narrative motions of human conscious ness.... We go to (stories) to find out about narrative"
(Hardy, 1977, p. 12). For children, story also serves as
"a stimulus for and validation of their own story"
(Spencer, 1976, p.19).
It is evident from this discussion that narrative plays an important role in our lives and in particular, in children’s lives. It is also apparent that story plays a 28
vital part in fuelling narrative. This provides credence
for this study, specifically in regard to using children’s
literature in helping at-risk children become literate.
The Influence of Story on Literacy Development:
Influence of Story on Reading Development: Stories
are credited with being the most essential link between
learning to talk and learning to read "because they are a
special kind of play with language that separates it from
speech." How children really come to know how print works
is "by being read a story" (Meek, 1982, p. 37). Meek maintains that stories are at the heart of learning to read. Teale (1984) endorses this claim, stating that stories are the "most felicitous gateways through which young children enter the world of reading" (p. 119). What initially attracts children to stories and makes them want to read is the opportunity the "text provides for penetrating possible worlds, worlds beyond the mundanities of here and now" (Bruner, 1984, p. 196; 1986).
Through stories children familiarize themselves with their literary heritage, and gain insights and form expectations about their world (Teale, 1984; Huck, Hepler,
& Hickman, 1987). They learn about: 29
Its vocabulary and syntax as well as its people and places ... though they will eventually learn that some of this world is only fiction, it is specific characters and specific events which will be rejected; the recurrent patterns of values, the stable expect ations about the roles and relationship which are part of their culture, will remain. (Applebee, 1978, p. 52)
Moreover, children learn to understand themselves and
others as they begin to think about what it feels like to
be in another time, place or situation (Vandergrift, 1986;
Huck, Hepler, & Hickman, 1987). Knowledge of this nature
gives the children insight into human experiences and aids
them in comprehending the complexities of human life and
the myriad of emotions that go along with being human.
Stories, therefore, help to shape children's lives.
Literature reflects life.... By its very organizing properties literature has the power to shape and give coher ence to human experience. It may focus on one period of time in an individual's life and so enable a reader to see and understand relationships that he had never considered. (Huck, Hepler & Hickman, 1987, p. 9)
Becoming acquainted with and gaining understanding of book characters is one of the first ways children have of making sense of what it is to be human (Vandergrift,
1986). Snow and Ninio (1986) believe that this awareness is one of the first steps toward entering into full control of literacy, which involves the ability to create 30
and to comprehend realities that depend for their
existence entirely on language.
The inward experience of story, perhaps even more than most outward activities, helps a child to gain what we all strive for as human beings - a sense of person al identity, a sense of control over one's own existence and a sense of con nection with others in the world. (Vandergrift, 1986, p. 1)
Northrop Frye (1964) suggests that literature is a
primary means of developing an educated imagination. He
maintains that literature is important in the lives of all
people, regardless of what profession or work they may do.
Without such an imagination individuals cannot visualize
new relationships and stimulate new developments in any
field of endeavour. "Literature helps to sharpen our
observations and perceptions of the world, develop our
emotional sensitivity and extend our acquaintance with
life" (p. 4). Huck, Hepler and Hickman (1987) reiterate
the powerful influence literature has on stretching the
imagination of the readers, as they state, "Literature
develops children's imagination and helps them to consider
nature, people, experiences, or ideas in new ways" (p. 8).
An educated imagination is, therefore, an essential to the
fully-lived life of a trained intellect, of a literate member of any society (Frye, 1964, p. 4). 31
An important literacy skill to be nurtured in young literacy learners is that of developing a sense of story.
Hearing and interacting with stories provides children the opportunities to internalize story structure, to familiar ize themselves with the motifs of specific genres (Mandler
&. Johnson, 1977; Stein fit Glenn, 1979; Bruner, 1986) and to learn that different genres require different reading behaviors (Spencer, 1987). This knowledge of structure opens avenues for the children to successfully anticipate events and predict outcomes, to learn the valuable literacy strategies in making sense of story and how to mean.
Knowing that authors and illustrators have rules for telling stories, the children learn that these rules can be broken if necessary, e.g., a joke. Young children discover "how things work", how story is constructed
(Applebee, 1978; Spencer, 1987). Along with learning implicitly the concept of story, they find out that stories lean on stories (Yolen, 1981), that every story is a kind of retelling only comprehensible in the light of other stories or bits of them (Rosen, 1986), that is, they discover that every story is a "mirror of citations"
(Barthes, 1975). In addition they become aware that stories are layered, that they have embedded meaning. 32
Through familiarization with the literary conventions
of stories, children detect how to follow them, they come
to know how language works on a page and how stories have
a beginning, an ending and a formula to go with each event
(Meek, 1982, p. 40). Meek further maintains that they
learn reading-like behaviors. The behaviors become
evident to children as they participate in listening,
interacting and enjoying stories. Many of these behaviors
are learned implicitly. In fact, Snow and Ninio (1986)
assert that there are very few rules of literacy that are
explicit or can be taught explicitly.
Reading and comprehending texts depend on many tacit 'contracts’ and ’metacon tracts* between literate persons con cerning the use of books and the mean ing of texts - contracts which have very little to do with the ability to decipher a written word. (p. 121)
Because children become so involved with what they
hear and read, they give themselves "private lessons" in
literacy learning (Spencer, 1987; Smith, 1988). They not
only learn how books work, how story goes, but they learn how and when to turn pages and how illustrations can be most helpful to their making sense of the text. In this
respect, they teach themselves the role illustrations play in telling a story, how the objects in the pictures help them to anticipate and predict something of what the 33
story might be about and what the characters might do.
The children actually teach themselves "to learn how text
and pictures interrelate, to look for cause and effect in
stories, to make inferences, and to bring (their) own life
experience to interpreting the text" (McKenize, 1986, p.
39) .
Moreover, the children learn implicitly that the
illustrations are symbolic representations that represent
real things. These representations depict action, events,
sequences, relations, motives and consequences. The young
literacy learners teach themselves to "relate several
pictorial components to each other in order to see the
emergent whole" (Snow &. Ninio, 1986, p. 132) They come to
know that a book, in particular, a picture book:
is an icon to be contemplated, narrated, explicated by the viewer. It holds the story until there is a telling. In the beginning the words are few but the story is in the pictures which are the polysemic text which the words gradually become as the reader learns how to handle them. (p. 8)
Textual concern for cohesion develops as children
listen and "read more books with satisfaction and (listen
and) read books with more satisfaction" (Britton, 1977, p.
110). This is a lesson the young literacy learners learn without teaching (Chapman, 1987; Spencer, 1987). 34
Stories teach children other literary conventions, such as, publishing, authorship and audience which are part of the "ontogenesis of literacy competencies". They become aware that reading a book is:
distinct from simply recognizing words on the page, a young reader has to be come both the teller (picking up the author's view and voice) and the told (the recipient of the story, the inter preter). This symbolic interaction is learned early - it is rarely, if ever, taught.... (Spencer, 1987, p. 6)
Increasingly as children are exposed to the joys of hearing stories, their literary landscape expands and their response to literature grows. How they respond to story depends on their "literary expectation, (their) sense of literary modes, (their) awareness of criteria of sound interpretation or relevance to the text" (Rosen blatt, 1968, p. 128). The development, refinement and complexity of their literary response are cultivated as they increase their sense of literary form.
This means principally a sense of the patterns of events, and this... chil dren certainly feel in the stories that satisfy them.... Progress lies in perceiving gradually more complex patterns of events, in picking up clues more widely separated and more diverse in character, and in finding satisfaction in patterns of events less directly related to their expecta tions and, more particularly, their desires; at the same time, it lies in 35
also perceiving the form of the vary ing relationships between elements in story and reality.... (Britton, 1977, p. 107)
From a very early age, the seeds of interest and love
for books are sown. It is from these seeds that children
develop acritical eye and ear for what satisfies them.
They become literary critics. As Vandergrift (1986)
states:
Long before the child can decode words on paper, he is making choices among various... stories read to him. From the time of his first "Tell me a story", he is exercising a kind of personal judgement that is the first step toward criticism. He is making a choice of literature out of all the other options that may be open to him at the time. Once he has made this original, albeit non-literary, judgement, he can, with a little guidance, move to the kind of choices that are a form of literary criticism appropriate to his stage of development, (p. 12)
Growth in literary criticism occurs over time as children hear and read more books, as they listen attentively and respond appreciatively to literature, as
they become aware of the books that are most meaningful, valuable and enjoyable to them. The ability to make these purposeful judgements helps children to select books that they know are of interest to them, which fosters their desire to pursue reading and perceive it as a valuable lifelong literary event. Becoming literary critics 36
enables children to heighten their understanding,
appreciation and enjoyment of story so that "through
story, they may perceive the world in new ways" (Vanderg
rift, 1986, p. 14).
Maybe one of the most valuable impacts literature has
on the acquisition of literacy, according to Snow and
Ninio (1986) is its source of enchantment and wonder.
Its triggering of delight and enjoyment in children’s
lives entices them to return to the pages of books,
revisiting the story and participating in it with deeper
meaning. It is through this revisiting that children
become familiar with the storyline and the language
patterns, both important factors in inviting children to attempt reading the text and becoming risk-takers (Fox,
1985).
The power of story compels young children to become privately engaged in teaching themselves how to read.
Although they follow a story, often with adult assistance,
it is the author who shows them how the story is actually told in written language (Spencer, 1987; Smith, 1988).
The best kind of help, therefore, to transport children into reading, is reading to them in a way that will invite them to discover what reading is all about. As
Huey stated in 1908, "The secret of it (reading) all lies 37
in... reading aloud to and with the child" (p. 332). This
statement is as relevant today as it was at the turn of
the 20th. century.
Through story children internalize the elements of
language, style and literary discourse structures (Bruner,
1986) and develop a sense of story (Applebee, 1978) which
are extremely important to the acquisition of literacy.
Involvement with literary texts makes "skillful, powerful
readers who come to understand not only the meaning but
also the force of texts" (Spencer, 1987, p. 15).
Influence of Story on Writing Development: Stories
are just as important to writing development as they are
to reading. According to Wilcox (1977), "exposure to
literature is probably the best experience future writers
can have" (p. 549). Participating in personally lived-
through stories and poems fuses "the cognitive and
affective elements of consciousness" (Rosenblatt, 1980, p.
388) which, in turn, is reflected in children’s writing.
In an implicit manner, through "private lessons",
authors of stories teach children how to write what they want to write. They are the children’s collaborators as
they learn to write (Smith, 1988) and show them the
literary conventions of writing. As far as Smith is 38 concerned the authors of the printed page are the best teachers of writing, for they are the most experienced and never tire of being approached and interrogated (p. 10).
He continues:
learners need to find and assimilate a multitude of facts and examples, rang ing from individual spellings to the appropriate organization of complex texts. Where can all these facts and examples be found... not in textbooks and exercises.... They must be found in what other people have written.... To write poetry, read it. (p. 20)
James Moffett (1983) contends that one reason children have difficulties with writing is that they have had limited or no experience with story. It is through literature that they come to know the literary genres and their structures which become the children’s models for composition (Bruner, 1986). They learn "about different kinds of discourse... (which) enables (the) children to absorb the special features of each form, its structure and language use" (McKenize, 1986, p. 17). The internal ization of these specific elements of sound, rhythm, language and form eventually flow unconsciously into their style of written work (Temple et al., 1982, p. 210).
Being exposed to and involved with the works of "trained and gifted writers", is one of the most effective way for 39 children "to understand what it is that makes good stories powerful and compelling" (p. 15).
Becoming an author comes naturally from immersion in literature (Burchby, 1988). DeFord (1986) summarizes the effects of this immersion:
Children begin to understand the nature of writing materials as being different from and yet similar to oral language. They begin to internalize book language, .. . and transfer such patterns to their own writing....
As children encounter fiction and non fiction, they derive larger organiza tional frameworks from text and under stand the use of these materials for varying contexts. Story narratives, content related writings, journals, letters, notes, advertisements and news accounts each employ style, form and organizational structures. These conventions of organization, content, and cohesion play an important role in ... writing strategy development. (pp. 82-83)
In summary, the foundations of literacy development can be well established through children’s hearing and interacting with story. Becoming immersed in literature, children gain knowledge about their world; heighten their imagination; learn how story is constructed and how meaning is negotiated; develop an interest and love for books and increasingly become aware of numerous reading and writing-like behaviors. 40
Research Perspectives
The Value of Reading Aloud:
Reading to young children has long been considered to be beneficial and crucial to their literacy development by the educational community as well as the general population. Many teachers have acknowledged the value of story time and numerous parents have read stories to their children as a bedtime routine. In reviewing the litera ture on the values of reading aloud, the research has been categorized as it relates to two areas of literacy learning: Language Development and Reading.
Language Development: Almost thirty years ago interest in reading aloud and its influence on language growth was begun. In 1960, Otto Irwin studied the effects of reading aloud on infants' phonological produc tion. He selected two groups of twelve month old infants and had their parents read aloud to them over an eighteen month period. While the experimental group listened to stories, they were invited to interact with their parents, i.e., as the infants produced vocalizations the parents extended them by talking about specific objects in the illustrations. However, when the control group heard 41 their stories, the parents were not encouraged to follow any specific directions.
Before the study began, the infants' vocalizations were taped and Irwin found that both groups produced the same number. At seventeen months of age, however, a difference was seen. The experimental group's phonologi cal productions were significantly increased over the control's and continued to do so throughout the study.
Another investigation to identify the effect of reading aloud on young children’s linguistic facility was conducted by Cazden (1965). She selected three groups of infants in their early stage of talking and asked the mothers to try different approaches to extend their children’s language. One group of mothers was asked to take their children’s telegraphic speech, e.g., 'car' and extend it, e.g., "Yes, that’s a car." Another group was asked to do the same but also read to their children, especially books that reflected some of their talk topics.
The third group was given no treatment. Cazden’s analysis revealed that the second treatment, reading books and extending the children’s language, was the most beneficial in stimulating linguistic growth in children. She suggested that there are two reasons why reading aloud promotes development in language: (1) the event occurs in 42 a warm, secure setting and (2) the pictures invite interpolated dialogue.
In 1970, Burroughs examined the effects of reading aloud on the linguistic development of three year olds, from low socio-economic home environments. In this three month study, the experimental group heard daily read alouds, while the control group did not receive any treatment. Burroughs results showed that the experimental group’s receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary and length of sentences usage had increased significantly over that of the control group’s.
Studies related to seeking a greater understanding and identifying the value of the interactive process that occurs during a read aloud event between a reader and a listener have shown positive results regarding literacy development. Snow’s (1977) investigation of a mother/ child dyad is one such examination. She observed a mother reading a predictable ABC book to her thirty-two month old child. The analysis of her observations revealed that three social interactions occurred which were pertinent to language development: (1) semantic contingency, i.e., expansion, elaboration of the vocalizations; (2) scaffold ing; and (3) accountability, i.e., the mother continued talking about a concept until she felt the child under 43 stood what it meant or until the child made reference to the concept in a meaningful way. In addition to these social interactions, Snow found that the predictability of the book allowed the child easier access to meaning.
A study by Ninio and Bruner (1978) supports these cited findings. Their interest in book interactions lead them to examine what happens during the interactive process, between child and parent that helps young children to construct meaning. In particular, they were curious about how the child acquired labeling strategies.
Through participant observations they observed a mother reading to her child over a twelve month period, from eight months of age to twenty months. From their fieldnotes, they noted that the mother was continually building a language framework or scaffold to support the child as she attempted to make meaning and produce
"conventional" language. Once the child used the language with understanding, the scaffold was removed and more challenging frames were built regarding identification of objects (labels). The importance of relating the child’s life experiences to the story content was also revealed.
Ninio and Bruner found that linking these experiences provided the child additional insights into the deeper meaning of the story and its decontextualized print. 44
A more recent study of the interactive process that occurs during book time has been carried out by Cochran-
Smith (1984). Her interest was mainly associated with the social aspect of the interactive process that naturally evolved during "rug time" or story time.
The investigation was conducted over an eighteen month period with fifteen nursery school children, three to five years of age. Her findings uncovered more fully the valuable technique of helping young children to link their life experiences with the story content. The linking made decontextualized print more meaningful. She observed that by connecting the children's literary and lived experiences to the text which she referred to as
’life-to-text interactions’, they were able to grasp a deeper meaning of the text. Hence, linking assisted the children in assimilating new knowledge with their old, enhancing their book knowledge as well as their knowledge of their world.
A study by Altwerger et al. (1985) also examined the interactive process evolved through hearing stories and revealed interesting insights into the strategies the reader uses to facilitate text meaning for the listener.
In their investigation of a mother/child dyad during read- aloud events, they found that the primary goal of this 45
event was the construction of a meaningful, comprehensible
and relevant text for the child, not a precise or
approximate reading of the text. The major focus of this
interaction was on meaning rather than form. What the
mother actually did was to "fine-tune" the written
language to the child's experiential, linguistic and
literary backgrounds (pp. 476-477).
Furthermore, they noted that the fine-tuning
initially took the form of telling the story in a
conversational style, i.e., "conversational text", and
gradually shifted to a text more closely approximating the
print. From this study, they assert that children's
reading of the written word is actually preceded by a
developing competence in meaningful text construction,
which is achieved through the finely-tuned interactions of
read-aloud sessions. These interactions make the
strategies of successful reading natural and overtly
available (p.483).
Language acquisition was intriguing to Carol Chomsky
(1972) as she wondered why some children's linguistic
fluency and knowledge were more advanced than others.
Using the Huck Inventory of Children's Literature.
Chomsky’s results revealed that of the thirty-four, six to ten year old children she studied, those who had the 46 greater language facility had heard and were exposed to books at an early age. She noted too that there was a strong relationship between the quantity of time and quality of books the children were exposed to and the rate and complexity of their language growth.
Dorothy Butler's (1980) concern for the intellectual development of her multi-handicapped granddaughter,
Cushla, led her to investigate the influence of reading aloud on Cushla's overall development. Confronted with a devastating prognosis that Cushla's life would be one of constant physical difficulties, Butler's daughter and son- in-law began reading books to Cushla when she was four months old. At that time her intellectual level was below normal for her age group.
Cushla was re-examined at nine months. The results of her language assessment indicated that she was three weeks below normal for her age group. At forty-four months, Cushla's intellectual development was re-assessed and the findings showed that Cushla*s language skills were in the above average range, that her attention span had increased to an acceptable level and that her ability to visually focus had sharply improved. Butler noted that the more exposure and experience Cushla had with books, the more independent she became with book handling and 47
print concepts. This study not only showed how reading
aloud expanded Cushla*s language development, but also the
importance of illustrations in deepening her understanding
of the storyline.
The findings presented by Gordon Wells (1986) from
his longitudinal study of young children concur with the
results of Chomsky (1972), Butler (1980) and Cochran-Smith
(1984). His study began with thirty-two children from
the production of their first word and continued until
they were seven. A few years after the study was underway
he found that some of the children’s language facility was
developing more rapidly than others, even though they all
followed essentially the same sequence of linguistic development. Noting this difference, he and his team became interested in finding out what accounted for the different rates of language development. Thus, they began observing the activities that occurred in the children’s home and school environments. It was through these observations they identified the key element that was most
influential in the children’s language growth, - hearing stories read aloud.
This work confirmed that children who were read to and interacted with their readers about the stories had a greater ability to make sense of their world and the 48
decontextualized print of books. Wells' study also
provided evidence that listening to stories was far more
beneficial to reading success than just looking at books.
Furthermore, he noted that talking about the illustrations and representing the ideas through drawing and coloring did not have the same impact as listening to stories.
What really made the difference was the children's opportunity to hear book language which helped them become familiar with sentence complexities of different degrees.
Being familiar with these varying language structures extended their understanding of the text, i.e., they were able to grasp deeper meanings from more complex sentence structures than children who had not heard stories. He maintains that knowing book language structures increases immensely the children's literacy skills.
It is of interest to note that a number of Wells' findings concurs with some of the theoretical perspectives put forth by previously cited literary theorists and advocates. For example, he found that reading aloud to children at an early age extends their range of experi ences far beyond the limits of their immediate surround ings. It develops a richer mental model of the world for children and enhances their vocabulary with which to talk 49 about it. This finding supports the views presented by
Vandergrift (1986) and Huck, Hepler, and Hickman (1987).
Moreover, Wells believes that reading aloud provides an excellent starting point for collaborative talk not only with the readers but with other children and adults.
This substantiates Bloome’s (1985) and Harste, Woodward, &
Burke (1984) premise that reading is a social process.
Another finding of Wells gives credence to Bruner's
(1984, 1986) assertion that as the children become more aware of books and their language, they discover the symbolic potential of language and its power to create possible or imaginary worlds through words.
Although much of the research applicable to reading aloud and linguistic growth has been carried out on pres choolers, some has been carried out on primary age children. In 1971, Dorothy Strickland examined the language performance of black kindergarten children from low-economic families. She postulated that if these children were given a literature based oral language program, their knowledge of Standard English would be enhanced. Strickland’s study included an experimental group who were given daily read aloud sessions along with extensions that promoted oral interactions and a control group who participated only in daily read alouds. The 50
results of the investigation revealed that the experimen
tal group did indeed, increase their command of Standard
English without negating their native dialect.
Cullinan, Jaggar and Strickland (1974) conducted a similar study to Strickland's when they examined the effects of reading aloud on minority children's acquisi tion of Standard English. Their investigation included children from Kindergarten to Second Grade. Their find ings showed that all children exhibited growth in Standard
English, but the experimental group’s growth was substan tial compared to the control's. They also noted that the greatest language increase occurred in the Kindergarten experimental group.
It is apparent from these studies that reading aloud to young children is beneficial and essential to their language development as well as to the development of their communicative skills. There is no doubt that reading aloud is a powerful stimulus for generating talk, for extending meaning and for helping young children negotiate and construct new meanings of their world and its surroundings. 51
Reading: Some of the first studies related to
reading aloud centered around its effects on reading
achievement and its relation to school success, i.e., What
effect does reading to young children have on their
success in school? Dolores Durkin’s (1966) study was one
such investigation. She was interested in examining three
questions: Who were the fluent readers?, What signi
ficance did early reading have on later academic pro
gress?, What factors promoted early reading?
The subjects for her study initially included all
First Grade children in Oakland, California. After
administering standardized tests to all the children, she
identified forty-nine students who read fluently. She
followed these children for six years, monitoring their
progress by testing them in September and May of each
year.
Durkin found that in First Grade the fluent readers
were reading almost a year above their norm and in Sixth
Grade they were three years above the norm. She ident
ified a number of factors that promoted their reading.
The most influential factor was hearing and interacting with stories at a young age.
Clark’s (1976) study in Scotland was almost a replica of Durkin’s, and she, too, noted that the most influential 52
factor in school success and reading ability was reading
aloud to children. Walkner and Kuerbitz (1979), Heath
(1983) and Wells (1986) studies support this observation.
Dorothy Cohen’s (1968) year-long investigation of
Second Graders in an inner-city New York school examined
how reading aloud influenced their reading success. Using
an experimental design, the experimental group was given
selected books to be read daily by the teachers and
related extensions to follow after the reading, while the
control group continued their regular classroom reading
program. Cohen’s findings indicated that reading aloud
heightened the children’s word recognition, reading
vocabulary and comprehension skills. In fact, the lowest
children in the experimental group did better in all three
areas than the top children in the control group.
A study by Raftery (1974) also investigated whether
Second Graders’ reading achievement could be improved if
they heard stories three times a week. The results of
the study again indicated that the children in the
experimental group, who heard stories, made significant gains in their reading achievement.
How reading aloud affected children with low reading
readiness scores was studied by Ferguson, in 1979. In her
study, she divided her kindergarten population into three 53 groups: Group 1, heard stories daily; Group 2, heard stories irregularly and participated in other reading related activities; and Group 3, continued the regular
Kindergarten reading program. Measurable gains were cited in the reading readiness scores of the first group.
In Israel, Fietelsen, Kita and Goldstein (1986), studied a similar question, i.e., How does reading aloud affect reading success? Their results showed that their experimental group’s word recognition and comprehension skills were greater than the control’s. In addition, they noted that reading aloud extended the experimental group’s ability to use picture clues to gain meaning from the stories and increased their ability to retell stories.
The influence of reading aloud on children’s comprehension ability has been studied by Robert Thorndike
(1973). His work was carried out in fifteen countries and the results showed that reading aloud to children was the most important factor in increasing comprehension.
Young children’s understanding of how a story is structured can also be enhanced by listening to read alouds. Arthur Applebee’s (1978) analysis of concept of story as shown from his 360 samples of story tellings by children, two to five years of age, has provided evidence that hearing stories helps children gain understanding of 54
their world, its vocabulary and syntax and how narrative
is formed. They learn about beginning and endings of
stories, the repetition of events, the use of three in
folktales and typical behaviors of characters, e.g., witches, kings, queens, foxes. Such knowledge helps
children predict the outcome of a story. In addition, it ultimately helps children learn how stories mean and orchestrate strategies to read the written word. Studies by Mandler and Johnson (1977) and Stein and Glenn (1979) regarding story schema also showed how powerful story listening is on young children’s understanding of how story is constructed.
Besides increasing children’s awareness of story structure, reading aloud also develops concepts of print and book handling. Teale’s (1986) interest in home literacy environments revealed that in his sample of twenty-four low income families from San Diego, Californ ia, two families had exposed their children to read aloud sessions. He found that the children from these families were knowledgeable about the concepts of print and book handling while the other children were not. Both these skills he maintains are crucial to emergent literacy.
Developing a love for reading and promoting it as a worthwhile life-long activity starts at an early age. 55
This was evident from Sostarich’s (1974) search to find
out why some readers at Sixth Grade read a great deal more
than others of equal reading ability, showed that active
readers were read to from the age of three or four. Many
of these readers were still being read to at Sixth Grade
even though they read independently.
Studies of pre-schoolers by Haskett and Lenfesty
(1974) and Walker and Kuerbitz (1979), and a study of
First Graders by Strong (1978) uncovered the same finding
as Sostarich. That is, children who hear stories have
greater interest in spending time with books, thus,
promoting their desire to read them.
Since so many of the studies related to reading aloud and literacy growth have been carried out in the United
States, Feitelson and Goldstein (1986) were interested in
investigating if similar findings would be revealed if comparable studies were conducted in other countries.
Hence, they conducted a study in Israel on thirty-four
Kindergarten children. From their data, they concluded that the positive influence of reading aloud on young children’s literacy development among different social groups is not a local phenomenon. Reading aloud has the same impact on all children’s linguistic growth regardless of their nationality. 56
This cited research has shown the enormous value reading aloud has on developing young children's literacy abilities. From enhancing and enriching their vocabulary knowledge, word recognition and comprehension skills; to growth in their knowledge of book handling and under standing concepts of print; to grasping the underlying structure of story; and to fostering a desire to maintain reading as a life long venture; it is obvious that reading aloud to young children, in itself, is a vital key to nurturing early literacy development.
The Value of Re-Reading:
The value of re-reading children’s books to young children has not been assessed to any great extent to date. However, the available research that has been conducted indicates that it is one of the most important keys for unlocking the door to literacy.
A classroom study by Beaver (1982) to examine how her
First Graders’ responses developed through repeated readings of Say It! by Charlotte Zolotow (Greenwillow,
1980) confirmed her belief that sharing a book more than once had far reaching effects on literacy development.
Beaver found that the more frequent the children heard the story, the greater the/ir insights became of the 57
underlying story, i.e., the deeper meaning and structure
of the story. Each revisit brought new understandings and
familiarity with the story which stimulated more interest
to return to it for independent or partner reading. She
claims as well as Schickedanz (1978, 1981) and Yaden
(1988) that as children hear a story over a number of
occasions they slowly begin to piece together its parts
until they have control over its whole. Comprehending a
text is not an all or nothing matter, but rather ac
complished over many exposures to the same text. As
Bettelheim (1977) states, "Wisdom does not burst forth
fully developed... it is built up, small step by small
step, from most irrational beginnings" (p. 3). Each re
reading, Beaver believes, "encourages children to make connections in their minds and thus fosters their mental development and an appreciation" for the story (p.148).
Yaden's (1988) case study findings support this assertion.
An investigation by Miles (1985) that surveyed a wider population resulted in the same finding as Beaver.
He studied the influence of subsequent readings on First,
Second, Third, and Fifth Grade children. Although this was just a one week examination with one day intervals between repeated readings of selected books, Miles did 58 find that multiple readings and reflection time helped all the children to gain greater meaning of the story.
Studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of repeated readings on children's response. One such investigation was a case study carried out by Martinez
(1983) on a father/daughter dyad. She found that as the re-readings increased so did the complexity and length of
Maria's responses. In fact, her responses changed in nature from literal to inferential, evaluative and experiential. Yocum (1987) and Yaden (1988) found the same in their studies.
Martinez followed up her earlier study with Roser
(1985). This time, however, they selected four pres choolers, ages four and five, and two small groups of four year old nursery school children. Through interviews with the parents, the researchers identified six books that were unfamiliar to the children and read each one three times. In both settings, home and nursery school, the researchers found the same results:
1. That the children talked more when they were familiar with the story. Initially, they just listened.
2. That the children's talk tended to focus on different aspects of story, i.e., talk centering on characters, setting, details, events. No single pattern reflected the changes in the focus of the response. 59
3. That the children's talk changed form when they were familiar with the story. Initially, questions were asked, later comments were given.
4. That the children’s responses had greater depth of understanding as the children heard the story re read. (pp. 783-786)
The researchers also noted that the repeated readings
gave the children opportunities to clarify, to fill in
gaps, to make connections to their lived experiences, as
well as to think of more divergent responses. Morrow's
(1988) investigation supports this latter finding.
His study examined the effect of one-to-one readings
on the number and complexity of comments and questions
made by his subjects. Morrow selected seventy-nine, four
year olds from three urban day-care centers from a low
socio-economic area. He divided them into two experimen
tal groups and one control group. One of the experimental
groups was given a different read aloud book to read at
each of the ten sessions, while the other heard repeated
readings of three different books. The control group
continued to use their traditional reading readiness program. Morrow found: 60
1. That children in both experimental groups increased the number and complexity of their questions and comments through one-to-one read ings .
2. That the experimental group which heard repeated readings produced more interpretive responses and more responses related to print and story structure, (pp. 102-105)
An important insight gained through this study was that young children initially are more interested in the meaning of stories than in issues about story structure or print. As children gain experience with the stories through repeated readings, however, their interest increases in print awareness and story structure. A much earlier case study by White (1954) noted the same finding.
In addition, Morrow found that children of low socio-economic status are quite capable of interpretative responses including those related to prediction, elabora tion and association. As they become more familiar with texts, they become more secure in making such responses.
These children can go beyond the mechanics of reading, if they are only given the chance.
Other values of re-reading have been uncovered by researchers. Brissey (1982) revealed that repeated readings provide a powerful stimulus for language development, comprehension of story structure, identifies- 61
tion with characters, gaining insight into themes of
literature and creative expression related to a story.
Through Snow and Ninio's (1986) analysis of their
studies regarding the interactive process that evolves
during repeated read alouds, they discovered that the
children slowly assume the adult role in reading. That
is, the children ask question, they provide labels,
descriptions and explanations that the adults usually did
when the children were younger.
Snow and Goldfield (1982, 1983) found that re-
readings contributed to young children's understanding of
narrative events and acquisition of particular linguistic
forms. Later, in a study related to repeated readings,
Snow (1986) observed that such re-readings provided the children with opportunities to experience "more complex, more elaborate and more decontextualized language than almost any other kind of interaction". She claims that the ability to understand and to produce decontextualized language may be the most difficult and most crucial prerequisite to literacy (p.119). Snow further states that the more re-readings, the more opportunities the children have to learn the rules for reading that go beyond decoding sounds and recognizing words. Brissey
(1982) would agree with Snow, for she strongly speculates 62
that re-reading is an essential component to literacy ex
perience and learning.
There is no doubt, even with the limited studies
available, that re-reading stories is vitally important to
literacy development. Since reading is a meaning getting
process, the value of revisiting a story on a number of
occasions greatly enhances the children's ability to gain
deeper meaning of text, to reveal the embedded thoughts
and to understand the decontextualized language.
Children's Literature and Writing:
Reading to and by children has proven to be advan
tageous to their writing ability. Mills (1974) in her
study of Fourth Grade children and their writing found
that reading to them as well as allowing them to read
independently and then discussing their books played a
vital role in generating ideas for writing. The results
of her experimental group revealed that they scored
significantly higher in their free writing than the control group who did not experience children's litera
ture .
In a study on how different classroom reading environments effect the development of young children's
literacy strategies, DeFord (1981) found that literature 63
influenced children’s writing in a number of areas. She
selected three First Grade classrooms, each using a
different model of reading, i.e., one used a phonic
approach, another a skills method and the other a whole
language model. In analyzing samples of writings from
each class, her findings showed that the reading materials
used within the classroom influenced what and how the
children wrote.
In the writing samples from the whole language
classroom which used children’s literature as its reading
core, DeFord discovered that the samples represented a
wide variety of literary forms, such as stories, informa
tional prose, and poetry. This was not apparent in the
samples from the other two classes. She also noted that
the whole language class had a consistently higher
percentage of well formed stories written (p. 656).
Similar findings were shown by Eckhoff (1983) when
she explored the possible effects of First Graders’
reading on their writing. She compared the children’s writings generated from two different reading programs.
An analysis of the writings showed the influence reading texts had on the children’s writings. The children who read from more literary forms of texts composed writings that were more literary in style, whereas the other 64 children having read from more basal like texts created writings similar in style to the basals. She also noted that even though children in a basal reading program may indeed read literature periodically, the basal style dominated their writings because they spent so much class time reading from such texts.
The influence of children's literature on children's writings is supported by Hickman's (1979) study on their response to literature. She found that the literature the children read became a resource for them in their writing. They made "deliberate use of the literary models and indirect uses of literature" (p.197).
A more recent investigation by Burton (1985) to examine the connections between the written composition of Third and Fourth Grade children and their literature experiences showed the extent to which their writing reflected their reading. His results revealed that the children borrowed and improvised on the language of literature, i.e., the sounds, rhythm, syntax of words and phrases; the literary format, i.e., typography, illustra tions, dedication page, title page; and the literary ideas.
Findings of the same nature were observed by Strong
(1986) in a Shared Writing project. Through this 65
experience, First Grade children composed a fairytale
which revealed many ideas and language structures borrowed
from re-readings of fairytales and stories. The written
text included such story structures as, the familiar
beginning and ending of most fairytales, ’Once • upon a
time....’, ’They lived happily ever after.’; the introduc
tion of magical objects - a wand; magical actions - a
kiss; fairytale characters - a king, a queen, a dragon;
fairytale theme - good overrides evil; setting - a castle;
character names were derived from other favorite stories-
King Spot from Eric Hill’s, Where’s Spot. Woolsey’s
(1986) study also noted the reflection of language and style of read and heard stories in children’s writing.
Furthermore, case studies have revealed the influence of literature on children’s writing. Glenda Bissex’s
(1980) study of her young son’s literacy development showed how his reading and hearing literature became vital to his writing. As she states, "One thing Paul learned through his reading was ’book language’... the vocabulary and syntactic forms that tend to occur in written language" (p. 164).
Although the quantity of research related to the impact of literature on children’s writings is somewhat limited, the findings that have been presented show the 66 valuable influence literature can have on the development of writing. The more children experience literature, the more ideas, language structures and discourse styles they borrow for their own writing.
Summary
In our endeavors to unlock the mysteries hidden behind literacy development, a key element has surfaced which is extremely influential - STORY. Stories not only awaken and heighten our narrative way of thinking, they are also one of the most essential ingredients in learning how to read and write, i.e., in becoming literate.
As the young literacy learners experience literature, they implicitly learn about their world, the complexities of its people and language. With more stories, their personal, linguistic and cultural knowledge increasingly grows, building a storehouse of valuable information that they use to make sense of their surroundings.
Moreover, from hearing and interacting with stories and poems, children privately teach themselves how to negotiate meaning of the decontextualized language that they experience in various texts. They learn such literacy strategies as how stories are constructed, how they lean on each other to create new ones, how they have 67
embedded meanings, how language works on a page, how text
and illustrations are interwoven to present a whole story,
how to use life experiences to bring greater understanding
to a text and how written language has special structural
features.
Studies related to specific uses of literature have
revealed the immense influence stories and poems have on
nurturing literacy and literary development. The
extensive value of reading aloud to children has been
cited by many researchers. In fact, it could be stated
that reading aloud to children is one of the, if not, the
most essential means of insuring school success. Through
stories children's language facility is vastly enhanced
and enriched as well as their ability to comprehend the meaning of the written word. Their sense of story, its
structure and meaning, is developed which heightens the children's ability to predict and interpret stories and
read words. In addition, their knowledge of the behaviors and functions of reading and writing is increasingly heightened and their love for books is immeasurably nurtured and cultivated.
Although the studies related to reading aloud have been extremely encouraging and have far reaching ramifica tions for the classroom and literacy instruction, few 68
studies have been conducted on at-risk children to reveal
the role reading aloud can play in their early literacy
development.
A more recent focus of research regarding children's
literature and literacy learning has been on the sig
nificance of re-reading stories. Even though the
investigations have been few in number, and often, case
studies, they have revealed promising results and
implications for promoting literacy growth. Achieving a
greater understanding of the deep structure of a story
occurs after a number of revisits which, in turn, broadens
the children's knowledge of the text. Moreover, repeated
readings refine and develop the complexity of children’s
responses to stories providing them more opportunities to
learn how to mean.
In addition, the impact of literature on children’s writing development has begun to surface. It is through
first hearing literature that the children begin to explore many aspects of written language, e.g., structural
features, forms, functions and ideas.
It is evident from this review of literature that children's literature can have a tremendous influence on the development of young learners’ literacy skills. What appears to be a void in this review of research is, however, investigations related to examining the effects of children's literature on the totality of literacy development, especially of at-risk children.
In the following chapter, I describe the research methodology used to carried out this study. CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The research design of this study was of a natural istic nature to examine the ways in which children's literature influenced and advanced the development of five at-risk First Graders* literacy skills. Due to the research method employed, this study took an ethnographic participant-observer approach, thus the data collected was descriptive and reflective in its format. Other con siderations that reflect ethnographic research were also adhered to: the investigation was conducted in a par ticular setting, the researcher was the main source of data collection, the focus was on processes rather than products, and the data was analyzed inductively (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1982).
This chapter presents the rationale that guided the selection of the research setting and population as well as the time frame of the study. The investigator's role is discussed and the methods used for data collection are included. How the data was analyzed is recorded in the final section.
70 71
Setting and Population of the Study:
The setting and population for this investigation
were partially pre-determined because the study was part
of the initial phase of The Early Literacy Research
Project, The Ohio State University. The Project is
currently in its first year of operations with four more
years for completion. One of the major purposes of this
five year Project is:
to work toward an instructional theory of early literacy development with the intention of conceptualizing systematic approaches to helping young children become effective readers and writers. These efforts will be directed toward classroom instruction, reserving Read ing Recovery for the most serious cases. (Pinnell et al, 1987, p.4)
Since this investigation was conducted in accordance
with Study II of the Project, "Utility of an Instructional
Program for Group Work Based on Reading Recovery Prin
ciples", the research site, teacher and children were
selected from those chosen for the initial phase of Study
II. One of the criteria used for this selection for
Study II was the current availability of a Reading
Recovery teacher and program within the school setting as well as a wait-list population for the program.
A research question proposed in Study II that influ enced the framing of this investigation's question was, 72
"Could a literacy program be developed that would
accommodate and be beneficial to Reading Recovery wait
list children?” If this program were developed and the
wait-list children participated in it, then two subsequent
questions were: (1) Was it possible that some of the
children, after participating in the literacy program,
would not require Reading Recovery instruction? and (2) If
some of the children did require Reading Recovery
instruction after participating in the literacy program,
would they enter the program at a higher level, thus
needing less time to attain ’recovery’ status?
The Reading Recovery program, developed by Marie
Clay, a developmental child psychologist, from New
Zealand, is an one-to-one early literacy interventional
program aimed at reducing reading failure of the poorest
readers at First Grade. The purpose of this program is to
bring these children at risk of failing First Grade to the
average reading level of their class.
The children who qualify for the Reading Recovery program are selected from the lowest 20% achievement group in the First Grades. They are identified by their
teachers during the early part of the school year. The teachers base their selection on observational informa tion, estimating the children’s knowledge and skill in 73 reading. From the teachers' lists, the lowest third of their classes are further tested using the Diagnostic
Survey (Clay, 1979) and an appropriate standardized test of reading ability.
From this test information, the children are ranked beginning with the lowest achievers. The lowest enter the
Reading Recovery program, according to availability of space, while the remaining children are placed on a waiting list. Until they enter the Reading Recovery program, the wait-list children do not participate in any literacy interventional program.
Although the Reading Recovery Program has been very successful, it is time consuming since children must have individual attention. One of the purposes of Study II was to see if these same teachers might be able to develop a literacy program which would be successful with groups of at-risk children, thus taking care of the wait-list problem.
The teachers of the Reading Recovery Program participate in a one year teacher training program which qualifies them to teach the program. Through the training, the teachers work with children individually and learn to use the Reading Recovery procedures. 74
The site choice for this study was decided after the
investigator had visited each of the four Study II Reading
Recovery teachers on four occasions in a small group
instructional setting. In addition, the decision was based upon insights gained from The Early Literacy Research
Project seminars where the four Reading Recovery teachers gathered weekly with The Ohio State University leader to discuss planning and organizational issues and strategies related to Study II.
The criteria used by the investigator to select the site were:
1. The school’s philosophy.
2. Major curriculum resources.
3. The teacher’s knowledge of children’s literature.
4. The teacher’s philosophy on teaching and learning.
5. The setting for the study.
After the investigator used these criteria to analyze her notes from the observational sessions of the four sites visited and The Early Literacy Research
Project seminars, the choice revealed the following:
1. The school professed a literature based philosophy.
2. Children’s literature was the core resource for the curriculum. 75
3. The teacher was a lover of children's books, knowledgeable about their content, quality, and appeal to young children. She had completed graduate courses in Children's Literature and had trained as a Reading Recovery teacher.
4. The teacher was knowledgeable about the reading and writing processes. She was extremely sensitive to the needs and interests of the children.
5. The study could be conducted in a classroom setting.
6. The other First Grade teachers were accepting of the study and flexible in their homeroom programs to accommodate it.
The school chosen served approximately 475 children
from Kindergarten to Fifth Grade, in a low to middle
socio-economic area of Columbus, Ohio. Since the site
was an alternative school, many of the students were
enrolled by parental choice. The school was racially
mixed and the study’s group reflected this mix, two black
children and three white children.
The five children, in this study, were chosen by the
teacher from the school’s Reading Recovery wait-list and were the lowest on the list. One child came from the study's teacher’s classroom, two from another First Grade classroom and one each from two other First Grades. Hence, this study was limited to a case study of one classroom/
Reading Recovery teacher and her group of five children. 76
The reason for a case study was based on the nature of the phenomena examined. Such an approach was the most appropriate way to provide the 'thick description’ which was so essential for enabling transferability judgements.
As Lincoln and Cuba (1985) maintain, a case study report
"is the form most responsive to the axioms of the naturalistic paradigm. Multiple realities are difficult to communicate... as are the interactions of the inves tigator and respondents, the values of the investigator and of the contexts, and the many mutual shapings that are seen to occur" (p. 214).
Time Frame of the Study:
Although the actual collection of data for this study was gathered over the course of twelve school weeks, preliminary data collection began four months earlier. At the onset of Study II, the investigator met on a weekly basis with the four Reading Recovery teachers and The Ohio
State University staff to discuss plans and strategies regarding Study II. During this time the investigator visited each of the four Reading Recovery teachers on four different occasions to collect data relevant to the selection of her investigation site. The site selection 77
was made three weeks in advance to the beginning of data
collection.
Two weeks prior to the study, the investigator
observed in the selected setting for familiarization and
acclimatization purposes. This time allowed the children,
teacher and investigator to become accustomed to each
other's presence as well as permitted time for the
investigator to collect contextual data of the small group
and the classroom surroundings. In particular, the
investigator tried to gain insights into the composition
of the group, instructional routines and activities,
literacy events, availability of print and art materials,
teacher-child and child-child interactions. Moreover, the time served as a gestation period for the investigator to think about and clarify the research questions and data collecting procedures. It provided the investigator the opportunity to immerse herself into the classroom activities and to begin to narrow her focus.
Once the preliminary visiting was completed and the study became a reality, the investigator visited the school site three times a week for a forty-five minute session (12:45 P.M. - 1:30 P.M.). However, during two weeks the site was visited every day. After the comple tion of the twelve weeks, the investigator returned on two 78 occasions to share books with the children and participate in a thematic unit culminating activity which brought closure to the study and the school year.
Roles of the Researcher:
An issue discussed with the teacher before the study began was that of the investigator’s role throughout the study. This role was mainly one of a participant obser ver which carried with it a passive tag. Participating or interacting with the teacher or children to any great extent during the instructional session was minimal. In fact, the investigator became known as "the tape lady" or
"the book lady", never seem by the children as a facilita tor and guide to learning. The daily role of the inves tigator was therefore that of a fieldnote-taking observer.
On occasions, after the children discovered the investigator could talk and assist a little during the lesson, requests such as, "Would you read this book to me?" or "What’s this word?" were made while the children were reading and sharing familiar books. These requests were always responded to positively.
As the study progressed and the investigator’s observations became more focal, the role of the par- ticipant-observer did shift, on a limited basis, to one of 79
moderately active participation. Sometimes new books were
shared before the session began or the investigator read
aloud a book, providing the teacher an opportunity to
observe the children during this literacy event. As the
teacher commented:
Fascinating to be the observer .... Kevin has so much information in that little head. Peter watches constantly what*8 going on in the book.... Barney ... first time I've been able to really see him attend to print.... Stevie is quite a predictor....
From this response, it is evident that occasional par
ticipation by the investigator provided the teacher
valua’ble time to learn more about the literacy strategies
the children knew which helped her in planning for their
literacy needs.
Although the investigator’s role did change slightly as the study progressed, the shift was not permanent. A balance was maintained between a passive role and a moderately active role. Every effort was made not to
take on typical teaching roles of instructing, supervising or evaluating. For clarification of literacy events or children’s actions, the investigator did periodically ask questions and make comments with the children to gain greater understanding of their literacy strategies. 80
Another role of the investigator was that of
interviewer. She had hoped to conduct an interview with the teacher after each session to gain insights into such topics as, her philosophy and perspectives on literacy development, and the organization of her literacy sessions as well as her knowledge of the children in her group.
It was quickly learned, however, this was not possible.
After each lesson was completed and the children selected books to take home, the teacher often had to move immediately into her next teaching assignment. If limited time were available, quick responses were made to the day’s activities, individual children’s performance or teaching/lesson suggestions for the next day. To compensate for the lack of immediate follow-up time, evening phone conversations sometimes occurred. During the conversations the investigator shared observations and understandings and the teacher in turn provided important contextual information which lead to more focused observa tions .
In addition, two to three hour weekly informal interviews were conducted with the teacher throughout the study. These interviews, which were held outside the school setting, were tentatively structured by the investigator. They allowed the investigator to gain entry 81
into the teacher’s perspective of the literacy contexts,
her knowledge and values of literacy learning and instruc
tion, and her children. Some of the time was spent dis
cussing and sharing books the investigator thought would
be appropriate for the children. Much time was spent
planning indepth thematic literature units for the study.
The interviews also became a time of sharing and reflect
ing on some of the data collected, thus becoming a forum
for triangulation and member check.
Another valuable aspect of this sharing time was that
of peer debriefing. These weekly get-togethers provided a
space for venting concerns and for garnering reassurance.
It began a time for clearing our minds of emotions and
feelings that periodically clouded our judgements and created anxieties about the emergence of the study and the
route it was traveling.
An unplanned and unscheduled interview role for the
investigator became evident when the other First Grade teachers in the school site wandered in the classroom to chat about the program and voice their delights with the progress of their children in the early literacy program.
The investigator availed of the opportunity to describe some of the literacy activities and suggest that the children share them with their homeroom classmates. It 82
also became a time to suggest ways their children’s
progress could be supported in the homeroom classroom.
The different roles of the investigator, thus allowed
her to observe and gather varying kinds of information as well as share this information as the study evolved.
Furthermore, the various roles provided the investigator a deeper and broader understanding of the meaning of the
literacy events and context created by the children and their teacher.
Data Collection:
The purpose of the investigator was to describe the literacy events that occurred during the literacy lesson, the elements of the literature based program used and how they were integrated, the materials utilized, and the teacher and children’s interactions and responses. In order to describe these events, she observed what the teacher and children did, things they made and used, and listened to what they said.
The investigator used different methods of collecting data and making inferences to gain as much information as possible regarding these activities. Daily fieldnotes were written and audio tapings made; some video tapings were recorded; photos taken; informal interviewing was 83 conducted; children's art and written materials were collected as well as selected tapes of text readings; and a formal measure, the Diagnostic Survey (Clay, 1979) was used. A most informative and valuable source of data collection was the daily journal writings of the teacher who took it upon herself to express her views and concerns of each day's literacy lesson. She openly offered these writings to the investigator which became not only an avenue of additional information about the literacy context, but an invaluable basis for triangulation and member check.
A description of each form of data collection f ollows.
Fieldnotes; The daily fieldnotes were one of the major tools for gathering data. The investigator observed and recorded what she heard, saw, experienced and thought related to the elements of the literacy lesson, the literacy activities, the materials used, teacher and children’s interactions and the physical aspects of the setting. These notes were of two kinds - descriptive and reflective. The descriptive fieldnotes represented the investigator’s efforts to objectively describe the details of what occurred during the literacy lesson. These notes 84
included a description of the literacy elements used and
what transpired during each element, the format of the
literacy lesson and length of time spent on each element,
the literacy activities; an account of the books the
children and teacher read and shared; a reconstruction of
dialogue, e.g., gestures and facial expression that
occurred between teacher and child/children, child and
child; and a description of the physical setting.
The reflective notes included the investigator's more
personal account of the study - speculations, feelings,
problems, ideas, hunches and impressions. Both forms of
fieldnotes served as a basis for creating a forum for
planning the emergent stages of the study and as a source
for preliminary data analysis.
Since the fieldnotes were somewhat incomplete after
each session, the investigator made time immediately after
the session to reflect upon them. In doing so, elabora
tion of specific incidents occurred and additional details were recorded.
Audio Tapes: Another major form of data collection was the daily audio taping of the exact content of child- child, teacher-child/children, and even individual child conversations and interactions during the literacy 85 session. These tapes were transcribed by the investigator after each visit and the information gathered increased the content and verified the investigator’s fieldnotes because they provided an accurate record of the oral interaction surrounding each literacy event. The tapings were also used as a tentative substitute for data collection of the events the investigator was unable to observe while she was attending to other events. The combination of transcriptions of the audio tapes and the participant observer’s fieldnotes provided a more complete record of each literacy session.
Video Tapes; On five consecutive days, the literacy lesson was video taped in its entirety. These tapes offered another dimension to the data collection process, thus permitting greater depth of analysis of the literacy lesson and its events. The tapes allowed the investigator to revisit particular literacy events for specific purposes, e.g., viewing two children reading The Three
Bears (Galdone) after hearing it once showed the strate gies they used to negotiate print. Another incident observed was that of two children partner reading a big book and noting the collaborative techniques they employed. The viewing of these tapes gave the inves 86
tigator the opportunity to discover new meanings that she
did not note through other data collection means.
The information gained from the video tape viewings
was incorporated with observational information recorded
in the investigator's fieldnotes. This greatly enhanced
the parameters of the setting. Of course, the tapes
served as additional form of triangulation as the teacher
was invited to view them with the investigator for
interpretative and discussion purposes.
Photos: Another form of descriptive data was photos.
They were taken of the children while they were involved
with specific activities, e.g., listening to read alouds,
creating a story map. They were also taken of some of the
children’s completed work, e.g., written stories. The
photos helped to refresh the investigator’s memory of
specific events providing additional details to the
recorded fieldnotes.
Teacher’s Journal; Each evening the teacher sat at
her computer, regardless of hour, and relived the day’s
literacy events. In her descriptive and reflective notes,
she reconstructed each literacy element and what occurred during it, listed the books the children were reading, 87 identified what literacy strategies the children were using and what strategies required attention. She freely expounded on her concerns for each child and questioned if she were doing enough for him. She wondered and made decisions about the best teaching strategies to emphasize the next day as she worked with each child. Her notes revealed both her professional and personal views of the day’s events.
Informal Interviews: The informal interviews with the teacher gave the investigator a closer look at the teacher’s inside perspective. This perspective along with the teacher’s outside perspective gained from direct observations and interpretations by the investigator provided a global view of the teacher and her thinking.
Moreover, it was another source of triangulation and member check of the investigator’s interpretations of specific events and actions.
Although short, casual interviews emerged often from daily lessons related to a child’s performance or a specific literacy element, it was the indepth informal interviews that occurred weekly outside of the school that were most informative and involved literacy lesson planning. These interviews became collaborative affairs 88 involving the teacher and the investigator and helped to create a bond and trustworthiness between the two.
Collection of Children’s Work: The collection of the children’s independent writing such as, retelling of
The Three Pigs, invitation to a party; and shared writing, e.g., Wolf Stew recipe, retelling of The Great Big
Enormous Turnip; as well as art creations, e.g., story map of Rabbit Finds A Way. "Lost Ad" for Goldilocks, were also sources of data. Occasional taped text of individual children reading added to the data bank.
The investigator created an individual file for each child in which to place his materials. The file became a reference base for the investigator to view and reflect on while monitoring each child’s progress. It was most useful in helping to determine literacy lesson teaching strategies. Each item was dated and copied immediately in order to return it to the child. A brief description of the literacy event and context was noted. Comments were made in respect to resources the child used to create the products and notes regarding type of assistance provided. 89
Formal Measure: A formal measure, the Diagnostic
Survey (Clay, 1979), was administered by the teacher to each child at the beginning and end of the study. This
Survey measured the children's literacy development in specific areas, e.g., concepts of print, letter knowledge, writing vocabulary indicating their progress related to the operations and strategies they were using in reading and writing.
Moreover, every ten to fourteen days a Running
Record, part of the Survey, was given to each child to allow closer monitoring of his reading progress. This information alongside of the data collected by other means was pertinent to the analysis of the effect of the literature based program on the literacy development of the at-risk children.
Data Analysis and Interpretation:
As the data was gathered, it was dated, numbered and inductively analyzed in order to search for patterns and understanding. The analytic task, interpreting and making sense out of the collected materials, was influenced by the purpose of this study, the nature of its problem and the theoretical perspectives that "inform the research 90
problem and intrigue the researcher" (Goetz & LeCompte,
1981, p. 64).
In the investigator’s search for order, she was
highly cognizant of the study’s posed questions which
were reflected in the coding system that evolved. This
system was flexible throughout the study, but as the study
progressed stability in categorization surfaced. As the
categories started to evolve, the information was
organized and parameters set. A suggestion by Bogdan and
Biklen (1982) that "working with data, organizing it,
breaking it into manageable units, synthesizing it,
searching for patterns, discovering what is important and
what is to be learned, and deciding what you will tell
others" (p. 145) was heeded daily throughout the course of
this analysis. Through this analytic process the data was
reduced allowing the investigator to sharpen, sort, focus,
discard and organize the data in such a way that "final"
conclusions were drawn and verified (Miles & Huberman,
1984, p. 21).
Specific analysis tactics, ways of drawing and verifying conclusions, were employed during the analytic al process to reach the "final" conclusions. Three major tactics were utilized: noting patterns or themes, sorting
into categories, and counting. 91
The meaning getting tactic of noting patterns or themes evolved gradually. Several observational sessions were completed before any definite patterns emerged. For example, one such pattern that surfaced was that of
’collaboration'. As the investigator viewed the children while they were involved in different literacy events, it became apparent that collaborative learning was an essential technique used by the children to negotiate meaning. Another pattern that filtered to the forefront was the relationship between hearing a story read by the teacher and the immediacy of that story being re-read by a chi Id.
Sorting into categories was another valuable tactic used by the investigator to generate meaning from the abundance of data and particularly, in the process of trying to understand a phenomenon. Again, this tactic emerged slowly but increased as the data proliferated.
For instance, as the investigator observed the children selecting books to read, it was obvious that different genres were being selected. By identifying genres and sorting the selected books in their appropriate genre, the investigator noted the type and characteristics of books that appeared most appealing to the children. 92
Categories of literacy elements emerged also, e.g.,
Reading Aloud, Shared Reading, Shared Writing.
The analytical tactic of counting provided credence
to the importance of specific patterns that occurred. For
example, amassing the number of times a child revisited a
particular book supported the value of reading aloud to
children’s literacy development. According to Miles and
Huberman (1984), there are three reasons to resort to
numbers: "to see rapidly what you have in a large slice of
data; to verify a hunch or hypothesis; and to keep your
self analytically honest, protecting against bias" (p.
215) .
What evolved through this method of data analysis
was a systematic organizational scheme that provided
evidence of the influence of children’s literature on the
literacy development of at-risk First Graders and lead to
the conclusions and implications of this study.
Summary
The naturalistic design of this study was used to explore the influence of children’s literature on the literacy development of at-risk First graders. Five children and one classroom/Reading recovery teacher were observed over a twelve week period. 93
The collection of data employed a multiple gathering system. The investigator obtained information from daily fieldnotes and audio tapings; occasional video tapings; photos; the teacher’s journal; weekly teacher/investigator interviews; the collection of children’s art and writing creations as well as taped text readings; and a formal measurement, Clay’s Diagnostic Survey and Running Record.
Initial analysis identified recurring literacy elements of a literature based program important to the literacy development of the at-risk First Graders.
Ongoing data collection focused on these literacy elements and their impact on the development of reading/writing behaviors of these children. Subsequent analysis revealed the interrelatedness of each literacy element and the value of holistic literacy teaching.
Descriptive data of the literacy environment as well as the literacy elements and resources of the literature based program are presented in Chapter IV. In addition, the evolution of the thematic literature units of the literacy program are described. Chapter V gives an analysis of the literacy growth of the at-risk children and the literature based program developed during the course of the study. Finally, a summary, implications and recommendations of this study are reported in Chapter VI. CHAPTER IV
THE TEACHER, THE CHILDREN, THE CLASSROOM, THE PROGRAM
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to develop a literature
based program for five at-risk First GraderB and monitor
its effects on the literacy development of these children.
The development of this program evolved from the ongoing
teacher seminars of Study II, The Early Literacy Research
Project, The Ohio State University and this investigation.
In order to understand and appreciate how the program
development evolved, it is necessary to gain entry into
the proceedings and implications of The Early Literacy
Research Project seminars and to examine this study's
literacy context in its entirety.
In this chapter, therefore, the investigator will give a brief description of the format and proceedings of
The Early Literacy Research Project seminars for the purpose of informing how this investigation was conceived and guided. In addition, descriptive data will be presented relating to the development of the literacy context for the study under the following subtitles: 1) the teacher - her educational and professional backgrounds and her perspectives on children's learning and literacy
94 95
development, 2) the children, 3) the classroom organiza
tion and literacy learning resources, and 4) the format
and elements of the literacy lesson.
In order to guard the privacy of the teacher and
children in the study, they will be referred to by
fictitious names.
The Early Literacy Research Project Seminars
Study II: Utility of an Instructional Program for
Group Work Based on Reading Recovery Principles, of The
Early Literacy Research Project, The Ohio State Univer
sity, has as its purpose "to develop and test a group
instructional program based on Reading Recovery principles
and to test aspects of that program with at-risk groups of
Kindergarten and First Grade children" (Pinnell et al.,
1987, p. 18). It is from Study II’s purpose that the purposes of The Early Literacy Research Project seminars were derived.
Purposes of the Seminars:
1. To develop an early literacy instruc tional program appropriate for a group of at-risk First Graders.
2. To identify the effective elements of the early literacy instructional pro gram . 96
3. To identify purposeful and meaningful literacy learning materials and activ ities appropriate for the early liter acy instructional program.
4. To devise an instructional format for the 30-40 minute literacy lesson of the early literacy instructional program.
5. To monitor the progress of the children's literacy development.
6. To provide discussion time for the Read ing Recovery teachers to share and eval uate their weekly experiences of the early literacy instructional program.
Composition of Group and Seminar Times:
The selection of Reading Recovery teachers was based
on the major purpose proposed in Study II, The Early
Literacy Research Project. Within the purpose, it states
that the instructional program devised for the at-risk
children is to be "based on Reading Recovery principles".
In order to meet this guideline, it was necessary to
select trained Reading Recovery teachers who were
knowledgeable about these principles and were experienced
in carrying them out. Hence, four Reading Recovery
teachers were chosen by the Columbus Public Schools
District Office to participate in Study II. They, along with a staff member from The Ohio State University and the
investigator, met in an office setting of the Reading
Department's complex, Columbus Public Schools. 97
During the course of the school year, one of the
Columbus teachers was unable to continue participating in the Project and a replacement was found. In addition, an interested Reading Recovery teacher from another School
District asked to join the Project and was given permis sion to participate.
The seminars began 10 27 87 and continued on a weekly basis, voiding vacation time and prior commit ments, until 05 18 88. During this period of time, seventeen seminars were held. An eighteenth seminar was conducted on 06 01 88 for debriefing and evaluation purposes. The duration of each seminar was approximately one hour and forty-five minutes (3:45 P.M.- 5:30 P.M.) and was lead by the staff member from The Ohio State Univer sity.
Format of Seminars:
Although the seminar leader had a tentative agenda for each session, many of the topics and discussions evolved from the teachers sharing their week’s activities.
One of the aims of the teachers was to identify the literacy elements most appropriate for at-risk children.
In order to meet the goal, they were asked to try out and evaluate suggested literacy activities with their children 98
and report on them during each seminar.
In particular, the teachers discussed the progress of
their children; the books they read and the reactions to
them; the literacy events that occurred during the week
and the children’s work they brought to the gathering. It
was from this sharing that the elements of the literacy
lesson were identified and developed.
Specific topics such as, the value and purposes of
book introductions, types of books most suitable for the
at-risk children, kinds of writing activities, how to
integrate literacy events, were introduced by the leader
to gain pertinent information about individual elements of
the evolving literacy instructional program. The leader
also provided the teachers with new books to share with
their children for response and to appraise their appro priateness for future use. Examples of such books
included Oppenheim’s You Can’t Catch Me; Hayes' This Is
The Bear; Hawkins’ Old Mother Hubbard; Westcott’s Peanut
Butter and Jelly.
The five teachers were given book lists, such as,
Texts That Teach. Texts That Stretch; Some Books That Make
Good Alternative Texts which they used for selection and literacy activity purposes. As the year progressed, other handouts were compiled from suggestions discussed during 99
the seminars. A format for weekly literacy lesson plans and a form for identifying books children read during
their time for Re-Reading Familiar Book (Appendices A & B) were designed and the teachers were given them to use and evaluate.
From these weekly seminars, the teachers left with specific assignments to follow during the proceeding week and report on them in the subsequent seminar. For instance, they were asked to share particular books, make story maps, retell stories for shared writing/shared reading purposes. These seminars provided the impetus and guidance for this investigation.
The Teacher
The teacher is the facilitator, the problem-solver,
"the choreographer" (Hepler, 1982) of the literacy context. It is her knowledge, beliefs and attitudes toward the literacy learners and the literacy context that affect the instructional decisions and practices in the classroom. Her theoretical perspectives about language, literacy and the learner are reflected in her instruction al practices. Thus, in the following two sections, I present information about Mrs. G.’s educational and professional backgrounds as well as a brief look at her 100
philosophy regarding literacy learning and the learner
which influenced the literacy context she developed.
Educational and Professional Backgrounds:
Inspired by her many years of practical experience
with mentally retarded and handicapped children, Mrs. G.
entered Ohio Northern University, Ada, Ohio with the
intention of completing her undergraduate degree in
Special Education. However, in her junior year of
university she decided to change her major to Elementary
Education, so that she would have a broader range of
teaching opportunities on completion of her program. At
the end of her undergraduate studies, a Bachelor of Arts
Degree in Elementary Education was bestowed on her on
graduation day.
Her first teaching venture brought her to a rural
community school and a class of Fourth Graders. There she
stayed for one year, then moved to a city school to teach
First, Second, and Fifth Graders as well as Reading
Recovery children over the next eight years. This present
year, Mrs. G. is employed with another city school
district and teaches in a K-5 school. First Grade and
Reading Recovery are her teaching assignments. 101
In 1984, Mrs. G. decided to pursue her academic
career and returned to The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio as a part-time graduate student, completing
a Master of Arts in Language Arts, Literature and Reading
eighteen months later. Her interest and concern for the
at-risk child guided her next academic endeavor. Last
year she enrolled in a Reading Recovery teacher training
program offered by the Columbus Public Schools, in
conjunction with The Ohio State University, and became
certified as a Reading Recovery teacher. Her quest for
knowledge and desire to learn, however, has not ceased.
She continues to register for graduate courses related to
her educational interests, to attend the Children's
Literature Conferences sponsored by The Ohio State
University and to play an active role in The Literacy
Connection, a local teachers’ organization interested in promoting Whole Language teaching. As Mrs. G. comments,
"I want to keep current. I'll probably (always) be a professional student."
Her associations with children have not always been with the young nor within the walls of a classroom. In her first year of teaching, she coached High School varsity tennis, then continued her coaching life in the 102 city schools, as she trained Junior High and High School gymnasts and cheerleaders.
Mrs. G.’s involvement with curriculum committees has given her deeper insights into the educational programs offered children. She has served on Writing,
Gifted and Talented, .Mathematics and Social Studies
Curriculum Committees which have been responsible for selecting textbooks and developing courses of study.
Furthermore, developing her own literature based curriculum for her First, Second and Fifth Graders has increased Mrs. G.'s understanding of curriculum design and instruction.
Literacy Philosophy:
As Mrs. G. began to share her philosophical perspec tives on children and literacy learning with me, she dug back in time to where she strongly felt the seeds were sown and cultivated. She recalled:
Probably the greatest or earliest in fluence, I ’m certain must have been my dad.... Both he and Mom read stories... from early on, but what I remember most are the Sunday night story times. My brothers and I would be in our jammies, perched on the bunk bed, ready for Dad’s stories. Dad would come in, settle down between us and begin to weave his tales. Through his words, I traveled to Africa, Spain, France..., wrestled with an octopus, 103
dodged enemy fire, experienced life on an ocean, met kings and queens.... In the summer, we would sit out under the stars and look up at the sky as his stories spilled out. Thus began my love for adventure and the realization of the power of words. I knew through story, I could go anywhere and do any thing. It was a magical time for me.
From these early experiences and her own reading,
Mrs. G. realized that books had been most influential in
shaping and giving meaning to her life. Like her father’s
stories, books had allowed her to escape, they had taken
her from "lonely, painful times, into an enchanting place"
where she could be the heroine. Moreover, they ignited
her imagination and permitted her to add new endings to a
story, "just to keep the story alive".
The depth of Mrs. G.’s yearning for stories has been deepened by one of her best friends, her grandmother, an
enthralling storyteller like her dad. Although her grandmother was unable to complete her schooling because of family difficulties, "she kept reading and educating herself. She always emphasized the importance of books and learning as much as you could." She reminisced:
Saturdays were my time with Grandma. I would climb up on the couch beside her and we would read and read.... I remember one time she told me, "If you can’t have it all, you might as well enjoy reading about someone else who can." Teachers, although few, have also heightened Mrs.
G.'s enthusiasm for books. In Sixth Grade her interest for stories and poems was further fuelled. She remarked,
"My teacher was way ahead of her time. We never used basal readers in her room, instead we read 'real' books and I loved school for the first time.... From Sixth
Grade on, I knew I wanted to be a teacher... and make books come alive for others just as (my teacher) had done for me."
It was not until graduate school that Mrs. G. uncovered another gem of a teacher who dearly loved stories and poems like her dad, grandmother, and Sixth
Grade teacher. Her first course for her Masters Degree at
The Ohio State University was Advanced Children's Litera ture. She recalled her delight in it:
I knew right away that this was what I had been hungry to hear.... Here was the class that was opening my eyes and telling me exactly what I wanted and waited to learn.... For the first time, everything made sense to me.
Writing was also highly valued and purposefully used in Mrs. G.'s household. She remembered how her mom wisely presented her with a journal when she was in Third Grade.
After moving to a new school, Mrs. G. experienced many lonely hours which her sensitive mom noticed. To help alleviate these times, her mother gave her a journal and 105
suggested that Mrs. G. write in it every day. "I was to
write the good things that I had done, seen, felt,
whatever. I took the journal and began to write and have
written in a journal ever since."
Poetry writing became very dear to Mrs. G. during her
university days. In fact, her dad would write her witty
poems to keep her going. She would return the same.
Today, Mrs. G. is an avid poetry reader and writer.
From these rich literacy experiences, Mrs. G.'s
thoughts regarding literacy instruction have been shaped
and were reflected in the ways she structured her
literacy/ literary learning for her children. Mrs. G.
holds the firm belief that all children should experience
the delights of literature. Hence, one of her major
teaching roles is to provide a rich literary learning
environment that motivates children to seek books for
learning and enjoyment.
Furthermore, she maintains that all children should be provided an interesting and enriched literacy instruc
tional program. The at-risk children are just as deserv
ing as are the more advanced children. "Quality instruc
tion" is for all! Within this instruction, real books must be the focal resource and reading aloud one of the most essential elements. 106
An important goal that Mrs. G. sets for herself is
"to convince each child that he can learn." In order to
meet the goal, she works with each child finding out the
insider’s view along with the outsider’s and convinces him
that he can learn. She believes that having confidence and
belief in oneself fosters the desire to seek knowledge,
something she discovered from her grandmother.
During the course of the study, Mrs. G.’s philosophy
beamed through and penetrated her warm and sensitive
teaching style. Her sense of humor, love for music and
literature, knowledge of literacy learning, deep concern
for each child’s well-being and need for organization
created a teaching/learning environment comparable to a
warm and inviting home atmosphere. The rapport she
developed with each child was as if he were her own. The
same warmth and openness was extended toward me, leading
to a relationship of trust and respect.
The Children
Selection of Children:
The choice of five children for the study was made according to the selection criteria for admittance to the
Reading Recovery program. These children were in the
lowest 20% reading achievement group as assessed by their 107 homeroom teachers. They were also the lowest five children on the wait-list for Reading Recovery. The size of the at-risk group for the study was decided arbitrarily by Mrs. G. However, her decision was partially determined by The Early Literacy Research Project’s leader who decided a group of four or five children was sufficient and workable for each teacher.
Part of the entrance assessment for the children into the Reading Recovery program is the completion of
Clay’s Diagnostic Survey. This individualized battery of diagnostic measures is designed to provide a comprehen sive picture of each child’s literacy development. This,
Spencer (1986) maintains, is the teacher’s most important responsibility, "to discover the child’s early view of the task of reading, for that is what may need to be modified
...." (p.54).
The Diagnostic Survey includes the following com ponents :
Letter Identification: Includes a set of 26 upper
case letters and a set of 28 lower case letters (two
print styles of ’a’ and ’g’ are presented). The child
is asked to identify each letter in each set and his 108 score is based on correct identification. The test indicates the child's knowledge of letters.
Word Identification; Includes three lists of 20 high frequency words, derived from the adopted basal reading materials. One list is presented to the child and the child is asked to orally identify as many words as possible. The test indicates the extent to which a child has accumulated a reading vocabulary of the most frequently used words in the First Grade basal reader.
Concepts About Print: Includes two booklets, "Sand" and "Stones", but one is required for the assessment.
From questions posed to the child, such as, "Show me the front of this book?", "Show me where to start?",
"What is wrong with the writing on this page (re-or dered letters within a word)?", his knowledge of con cepts about print is assessed. The test identifies the child's knowledge of the written language and book handling abilities. 109
Writing Vocabulary: The child is asked to produce as
many words as he knows on a blank piece of paper.
The result indicates the child’s knowledge of
letters, left to right sequencing behavior, visual
discrimination of print, hand and eye support and
written vocabulary.
Dictation: Simple sentences are read to the child
and he is to write down what he hears. The outcome
of the test indicates the child’s ability to analyze
the words he hears and to find some ways of recording
the sounds he hears as letters.
Text Reading Level and Accuracy: A graded series of
reading books are used in the test. The books are
graded from Level A to Level 20 which is approximate
ly equivalent to the second reader in First Grade.
The child is required to orally read from a graded
text while an examiner completes a Running Record,
identifying and recording reading strategies used by
the child. The child’s reading level is determined by the accuracy rate, i.e., 90X-100X of text reading.
(Clay, 1979, pp. 16-28). 110
Ab Table 1 indicates, the pre-test results of the
Diagnostic Survey administered to the five children show
their literacy knowledge at the onset of the study.
Variation in testing date signifies when the child was admitted to the program. The Table presents the results of each child's achievement in each component of the
Survey (the denominator indicates possible score).
It was from the pre-test results that Mrs. G. gained
insights about each child's literacy strengths and weak nesses, leading her to identify specific areas that required assistance. Her aim was to ensure that each child developed a self-improving strategy system that would guide him to becoming literate.
DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY COMPONENTS
TESTING Letter Word Concepts Writing Text Reading NAME DATE Identification Identification Vocabulary Dictation Level 6 Accuracy
Barney 02-02-88 52/54 7/20 11/24 21 27/37 3-96*
Chris 01-26-88 50/54 1/20 12/24 9 16/37 A - 0*
Kevin 02-23-88 48/54 2/20 16/24 9 9/37 B - 100*
Peter 01-28-88 53/54 6/20 13/24 29 27/37 4-90*
Stevie 03-03-88 53/54 15/20 15/24 — 26/37 5-95*
Table 1. Diagnostic Survey Pre-Test Results Ill
Profile of the Children:
In this brief profile of the five children's family and academic backgrounds, I will give a general overview of the study's group composition.
The group of five boys were racially mixed including two black children and three white children. At the beginning of the study, their ages ranged from 6 years 7 months to 7 years 4 months. It appeared that this was the
'Year of the Twin', for three of the boys had a twin brother. Of interest to note was that the twin brothers were also experiencing literacy difficulties. Chris and
Peter’s twins were in the Reading Recovery program, and
Kevin’s twin was assessed and accepted for a learning disabilities program. His older brother was also in a learning disabilities program.
Although Kindergarten is not mandatory for Ohio children, three of the boys completed Kindergarten at their present school, the youngest in the group had not attended a Kindergarten program and one boy’s record made no reference to such a program. He came to the study’s school in November with limited information in his cumulative file. Two of the five boys were receiving free or reduced priced meals. 112
Speech difficulties were apparent in three of the children. Barney's impairment curtailed his expressive
language ability especially during his Kindergarten year.
His Kindergarten teacher reported he rarely spoke and this trend continued into First Grade. His quietness was quite noticeable at the beginning of the study. Although Chris’ speech was unclear, it did not appear to interfere with his desire to converse with anyone, especially the teacher. At times, it was obvious that his hearing was obstructed as he asked to have questions and comments repeated or he placed his ear close to the speaker’s mouth. Kevin’s speech hindered his participation in large group discussions, but he was comfortable to express himself among the study group. He was so at ease that he would ask, "How do you say that word?" when he had difficulty pronouncing specific words.
The home environments of the five boys varied con siderably. Barney was a single child from a single parent family. He lived with his mother who provided him little encouragement regarding education. In fact, she told
Barney’s homeroom teacher that school was the place for educating her son, not the home. She took no respon sibility for the matter. Fortunately for him, his dad was interested in his education and on occasions when Barney 113 visited him, he helped Barney with his homework. It was his dad who periodically contacted the school for a progress report. Stevie's home environment was very unsettling and, at times during the study, it was extremely troubling to him. Contact with the home was at a minimum because it was difficult to reach anyone by phone and no school contact was attempted by either parent.
Although Chris’ family was together, there was evidence that difficulties existed in the home. He required much affection and attention during the study and found it emotionally difficult when the school year came to a close. However, his dad did show some concern for his progress and occasionally called Chris’ teacher to find out, "How’s Chris doin’?"
Both Kevin and Peter’s parents were interested in their progress and monitored their reading closely.
Kevin’s parents voiced more concern about his future, rather than noting his present progress. This was understandable because his siblings were having literacy difficulties. Peter’s parents were well aware of his progress and delighted in his positive turn around in reading. One day, in a jokingly manner and with a twinkle in his eye, his dad wondered aloud to Mrs. G., "What am I 114 going to do now with Peter. He sneaks a flashlight under his bedcovers to read after the lights are supposed to be out!"
Being aware of the children's backgrounds did furnish Mrs. G. pertinent information, but it did not interfere with her philosophy of giving her best for all.
She knew intuitively when a child required affection and provided it in subtle ways, e.g., placing her hand gently on a child's shoulder while he was reading. She was sensitive to the reason some children did not want to take books home and never forced the issue; and yet, she knew how to get the most out of each child and "stretch" him through her firm and compassionate ways.
The Classroom Setting
The Physical Arrangement:
The physical arrangement of any classroom is general ly personal and reflects the teacher’s perspectives on teaching and learning, her personality as well as her understanding of the children's needs and interests and the instructional program to be implemented. Moreover, it evolves gradually in accordance with all other develop ing aspects of the literacy context. 115
The setting of Mrs. G.’s classroom was no different.
No set formula was followed, but rather she worked through
the process of discovery, not prescription, to create a
purposeful, flexible design that lead to a natural, free-
flowing milieu. For suggestions to aid Mrs. G. in the
process, she referred to the handout, Supportive Classroom
Environment. given to her during the first seminar of The
Early Literacy Research Project.
Figure 1 (p. 116) displays the floor plan of Mrs.
G.’s classroom. As can be seen, the entire classroom was not used, only a section of it. Mrs. G. found that the
section highlighted in Figure 1 provided sufficient space to conduct the literacy instructional program. Although
the children had the freedom to venture to all areas of the room, they automatically confined themselves to the space indicated. This area was approximately half the size of the classroom.
Before entering the classroom, one noticed immediate ly, on the left wall, the huge ceiling to floor poster- painted picture depicting Mama in her rose patterned velvet covered chair, from Vera Williams’ book, A Chair
For My Mother. The artistic display was painted by Mrs.
G ’s homeroom class when they studied Williams’ collection of work. 116
MttMd
BOOKS
& ubooks
1 f 5 1 m ® J:rn -i n — r? V* n E u I-
Key
A = Table for Reading E = Read Aloud and Shared Familiar Books Reading/Writing Area B = Reading Area F = Extensions Area C = Book Display Table - = Display Space for D = Desks for Independent Children's Work Writing
Figure 1. Classroom Floor Plan 117
On entering the classroom, to the left, stood a
three foot, big book rack purchased by Mrs. G. Children-
made big books, such as, The Great Big Enormous Turnip.
The Three Pigs. The Dog Sat On The Mat, and commercial big
books, such as, Cat and Mouse. The Hungry Giant. Dan. The
Flying Man. hung on the rack in clothesline fashion and
were easily accessible to the children.
Area A, (Figure 1, p. 116) became the usual territory
for reading familiar books. In this space was a six foot
long, primary-size table that generally had six primary-
size chairs around it. At times, additional chairs were pulled up to the table so that all the boys, Mrs. G. and myself could sit around it. It was here that the children often read independently or with a partner during the time for Re-Reading Familiar Books. The children chose freely where they wished to sit at the table.
Along the North wall, a low storage area for art supplies was available. The top of it served as a counter for paint brushes, paints, cans, and occasionally, a drying rack for art creations. A multi-purpose sink was in one corner of the counter and the other corner was used by Mrs. G. as her private area where she kept her materials, such as, books, lesson plans, record files, related to the literacy instructional program. To the 118
left of the storage space, a portable bookcase displayed
some basal materials and Reading Recovery books.
Area B (Figure 1, p. 116) was an uncarpeted floor
space that the children often used to partner read big books. Its spaciousness allowed them to lay the books
flat on the floor and open them freely without any
interference. It also distanced them far enough from the reading table, that partner reading did not disturb or conflict with independent reading.
A six foot regular-size display table was placed against the East wall, Area C, in close proximity to the reading table in Area A. The table displayed all the books the children were introduced to through read aloud, such as, Burningham’s Mr. Gumpy1s Outing; Carle's The Very
Hungry Caterpillar; Cauley’s The Story Of The Three Little
Pigs: and Reading Recovery books, such as, In The Mirror,
The Tree-House. Mrs. Wishy-Washy (Wright Group). In addition, the children’s own written stories were available for their use. These included such writings as the retellings of The Three Little Pigs and The Great Big
Enormous Turnip. On occasions a few of the big books were displayed.
Each day Mrs. G. grouped the books for easy access.
For instance, while the children were involved with a 119 study unit on The Three Bears, all books related to the study were housed in one area; the Reading Recovery books were displayed in another area; the read aloud books in another. This arrangement helped the children to locate their books more quickly. Areas A, B, C were the usual spaces occupied during the time for Re-Reading Familiar
Books.
Independent activities, especially writing, were carried out in Area D (Figure 1, p.116). No desks were specifically assigned to the children. However, as the boys came into the classroom with their blue plastic crayon/pencil cases, they immediately went to this area and laid them on one of the desks. This indicated ownership for the literacy lesson. Sometimes the children were designated a particular desk by Mrs. G. for partner activity reasons.
Hearing stories and poems, as a group, always took place in Area E (Figure 1, p.116), a multi-purpose 10 x 12 foot space. The area was set off by bookshelves and was carpeted as well as furnished with an old, overstuffed green chair with a large hole in one arm. Both the rug and the chair were purchases of Mrs. G. The old chair often became a nesting place for someone to curl up and 120 unconsciously dig away at the hole while he was indepen dently enjoying a good book.
It was here, too, that two chart stands were located
for Shared Reading and Shared Writing purposes. At times
the children wandered over to this area to read big books
independently or in partners. In addition, drama activities were performed in this area.
The large floor space, approximately 5 x 12 feet, in
Area F (Figure 1, p. 116) was home for group extensions such as, story map making, comparison chart writing and large poster illustrations. Here the children could freely stretch out to paint, write, etc.
Along the East and West walls large bulletin boards were available for displaying the children’s art and written products, e.g., story map of Rabbit Find A Way, comparison chart of The Three Pigs. and shared writing charts, e.g., recipe for Wolf Stew. Mrs. G. also exhibited some of the children’s work, e.g., "Lost Ad for
Goldilocks", outside the classroom on the bulletin board designated for her use. The entire school therefore had the opportunity to view the children's creations. 121
Literacy Learning Resources:
Don Holdaway (1979) writes in regard to early
literacy reading materials that:
Children should experience all the rich and special powers of the written word. More than ever before there is a need to introduce children to a satisfying literature, to use such materials at the centre of instruction.... (p. 191)
This was so in the study. Children's literature was the core literacy resource for the instructional program.
The Literacy Resource Collection: At the beginning of the study, the book collection was limited. The majority of books available, e.g., The Story Box Books
(The Wright Group), Reading Unlimited Books (Scott,
Foresman) were those selected from the first lists given the Reading Recovery teachers when the program was established in the Columbus Public Schools. Although new lists had been compiled which included children's litera ture, the teachers in Study II had not received them so they continued to select books from the original lists.
In addition a few appropriate children's literature books were available. Even though the school's philosophy supported a literature based curriculum, the current school library collection as well as the classroom 122 collection revealed a real need for good books for young children. Lack of such vital materials was .partially due to the fact that this was the school’s first year of operations as a literature based alternative school.
Consequently, to fill the gap and build an appropri ate collection for the study’s use, efforts to locate books were undertaken by Mrs. G. and myself. The first books sought for the collection were selected from a recommended list entitled, Read Aloud Books For Five And
Six Year Olds, compiled by the professor who led the seminars and distributed at the initial seminar. The categorized list, e.g., Traditional Favorites, Favorite
Stories, Families and Feelings, included such books as,
Henny Penny (Galdone), The Great Big Enormous Turnip
(Tolstoy), The Little Red Hen (Zemach), Titch (Hutchins), and Peter’s Chair (Keats). Another categorized list used,
Predictable Books For Shared Reading included categories such as, Environmental Print, Questions and Refrains,
Language Patterns, Story Patterns. This listing recom mended such titles as, Hoban’s I Read Signs: Brown’s
Goodnight Moon: Hill’s Where’s Spot?. Slobodkina’s Caps
For Sale; Brown’s A Dark Dark Tale; Galdone’s The Three
Bears. Throughout the planning seminars for Study II, other lists of children’s books, such as, Texts That 123
Teach. Texts That Stretch; Some Books That Make Good
Alternative Texts, were provided.
It was from these lists that Mrs. G. began her search for the books to add to the collection. Her hunt started in the school library and the classroom library.
Finding little there, she moved on to the public librar ies, fortunately finding the experience more satisfying and successful. Hence, visits to the public libraries became a weekly routine for Mrs. G. throughout the study.
Since the loan time of two weeks for public library books often shortened planned activities related to specific books, Mrs. G. decided to purchase some of the recommended choices at local children’s book stores. She bought such well-known favorites as, Hellard's Billy
Goats Gruff; Hill’s Spot Goes To The Beach.
Another source tapped to support and strengthen the evolving book collection was my personal children’s literature library, e.g., Boynton's Good Night. Good
Night: Ernst’s The Bee; Laan’s The Big Fat Worm; Rock well's Planes. Furthermore, the collection was enriched by the leader from Study II. She generously shared children’s books from her collection with all the teachers in the seminar. These books were revisited many times with the at-risk children. Such books as, Rice’s Benny 124
Bakes a Cake; Delton’s Rabbit Finds A Way; and Reinl’s
The 3 Little Pigs filtered from this source into Mrs. G.’s
room for the duration of the study.
Four weeks prior to the completion of the study, more
books were added to the collection. A list of 25 tried
and unanimously recommended books by the teachers in The
Early Literacy Research Project were purchased through
funding from the Project. Since 15 titles were immediate
ly available from a local book store, they were bought.
Each teacher was given a set of the titles, in paperback
form, to use with the at-risk group. The remainder of the
titles arrived shortly after my data collection was completed. The recommended list included such books as,
The Little Red Hen (Galdone), The Chick and the Duckling
(Ginsburg), Rosie’s Walk (Hutchins), Have You Seen My
Duckling? (Tafuri), Leo the Late Bloomer (Kraus), and The
Carrot Seed (Krauss).
The growth of the book collection is evident from the chart, Table 2 (p.125). It compares the number and type of books available to the children at the beginning of the investigation and what was accessible at the conclusion. It is important to note that the total collection of Reading Recovery books were available to
Mrs. G. from the onset of the study. However, the 125
children's literature collection was built over the life
of the study through purchasing and borrowing means.
Book Category 02-29-88 05-27-88
Children ’ s 6 82 Literature
Reading 37 70 Recovery
Children’s - 3 Own Stories
Big Books Commercial - 5 Children- 6 Made
Table 2. Comparison Chart of Available Familiar Books
In addition to the books, Mrs. G. had other literacy
resources for the children to use that were created during
the investigation. A very important source was the
children’s own stories which they wrote independently or
through Shared Writing. For example, some of their
individual stories included, an alternative text of
Wildsmith’s Cat on the Mat, entitled, The Dog On The Mat;
a retelling of The Three Little Pigs and The Great Big
Enormous Turnip; and their shared stories comprised of
The Boy Who Didn’t Know How To Ride A Bike, The Dog On The
Mat, The Three Little Pigs, and The Great Big Enormous 126
Turnip. Shared Writing also produced other reading materials, such as, a recipe for Wolf Stew, a "Lost Ad for
Goldilocks", a story map of Rabbit Finds A Way, an invitation to Rabbit’s carrot cake party, and a comparison chart of four versions of The Three Little Pigs.
Selection of Books: "Only the rarest kind of best in anything can be good enough for the young," said Walter de la Mare (1942, p. 9) in talking about books for children. This statement is just as relevant to the books we choose for at-risk children to hear and read as it is to any other child. It was truly applicable to the selection of books for the five children in this study.
There were several recommended book lists available to help with the selection of children’s literature for the study. Many recently published books were added to the collection that were not on these lists. The follow ing text characteristics, adapted from Rhodes (1981) and
Huck et al (1987), were considered in making the choice for the children in the beginning stages of reading:
1. Rhythmical, repetitive, or cumulative patterns. Repeated words, phrases, or themes in a pattern that can be dis cerned after a few pages, e.g., Brown Bear. Brown Bear. What Do You See? (Martin), You Can’t Catch Me (Oppen- heim), This Is The Bear (Hayes). 127
2. Familiar Stories or Story Lines. Texts familiar to the children, e.g. The Three Billy Goats Gruff (illustrated by Brown), The Three Bears (Galdone), The Great Big Enormous Turnip (Tolstoy).
3. Familiar Songs and Rhymes. Texts children may have heard before, e.g., Old Mother Hubbard (Hawkins), Ten In A Bed (Rees), Mary Wore Her Red Dress And Henry Wore His Green Sneakers (Peek).
4. Familiar Sequences. Numbers, days of the week, months, e.g., The Very Hungry Cater pillar (Carle), One Duck. Another Duck (Pomerantz), 1 Hunter (Hutchins).
5. A Good Match Between Text and Illustrations. Illustrations that enhance and extend the story, making it easier to predict the meaning of text, e.g., You*11 Soon Grow Into Them Titch (Hutchins), The Little Red Hen (Galdone).
6. Predictable Plots. Incidents that occur which are predictable because of the readers or listeners' literary and/or world knowledge, e.g., Benny Bakes A Cake (Rice), Mr. Gumpy's Outing (Burningham), Rabbit Finds A Way (Delton).
7. Story Structure. Unfamiliar stories that have well constructed storylines, e.g., The Doorbell Rang (Hutchins), Stone Soup (Ross), Pumpkin. Pumpkin (Titherington).
In addition to these text characteristics, Mrs. G. and I were guided by other selection principles.
Knowledge of the children’s interests and needs as well as their reading ability was one such principle (Huck et al,
1987). For instance, knowing that Kevin enjoyed informa tional books, books of that genre were sought, e.g., 128
Barton’s Machines At Work; Miller’s Whose Hat?. Acknow
ledging Peter’s reading success and need for stretching,
such books as Galdone's The Gingerbread Boy and Jones’
I’m Going On A Dragon Hunt, became part of the literature collection.
Knowledge of the indepth thematic literature study units for the literacy instructional program provided another selection principle. One such unit was the story of The Three Little Pigs. Hence, different versions of this story were gathered. They included Blegvad’s The
Three Little Pigs; Galdone’s The Three Little Pigs; Peppe
Three Little Pigs; Reinl’s The 3 Little Pigs; and
Seymour’s The Three Little Pigs.
Although Mrs. G. and I individually searched for books, the decision of which books were to be used was a collaborative affair. As we found books which we thought were appropriate, we each read them before they were introduced to the children. The final examination and seal of approval came from the children. Through their responses such as, "Hey, where’s Galdone’s The Three
Bears.."; their requests for re-reads, e.g., "Read me, Leo the Late Bloomer (Kraus)."; and their frequent revisiting of a book, e.g., Stevie read, The Great Big Enormous
Turnip (illustrated by Oxenbury) four times in one week, 129 clear indication was exhibited regarding the favoritism of particular books.
By the end of the study the five boys had available to them a rich collection of hardback and paperback books of 166 titles. In addition, multi-copies of some titles, e.g., Galdone*s, The Three Bears and The Three Little
Pigs. were available.
Categories of Books: Four categories surfaced from the book collection. They were Children’s Literature books, Reading Recovery books, Children’s Own Stories, and
Big Books. Descriptions of each category are given below with examples:
Children’s Literature: The books in this category
generally fell into one of four genres - Folktales,
Picture Books, Poetry, and Informational Books. The
following list gives examples of titles read and
revisited in these various genres.
Folktales:
Brett - Goldilocks and The Three Bears Cauley - Goldilocks and The Three Bears The Story of The Three Little Pigs Galdone - The Amazing Pig Henny Penny Tolstoy - The Great Big Enormous Turnip 130
Picture Books:
Brimmer - Country Bear's Good Neighbor Howe - There*s A Monster Under My Bed Krauss - The Carrot Seed Wells - Noisy Nora
Poetry (Verse):
Boynton - Good Night, Good Night Jones - I*m Going on a Dragon Hunt Peek - The Balancing Act Westcott- Peanut Butter and Jelly
Informational Books:
Boon - 12 3 How Many Animals Can You See? Carle - The Very Hungry Caterpillar Ernst - The Bee Rockwell- First Comes Spring
Table 3 shows the distribution of children’s books used in the study according to genres.
Folktales Poetry Picture Books Informational
25 10 36 11
Table 3. Distribution of Children’s Book By Genre
Reading Recovery Books: These books were recommended
to accompany the Reading Recovery program. They
included many "little books" and some titles from
graded series, e.g., In the Mirror (Level 1), of
reading texts. The content of the books reflected the 131
experiences of these readers and included language
that they used in conversation and heard in the
stories read to them. The Story Box Books (The
Wright Group) were used most widely in this
category.
Children’s Own Stories: These were stories and other
written texts the children wrote independently or
through shared writing during the study. They
included retellings of folktales, e.g., The Great Big
Enormous Turnip; alternative texts of picture
books, e.g., The Boy Who Didn’t Know How To Ride A
Bike from Krauss’ The Carrot Seed; recipes
created from stories, e.g., Wolf Stew.
Big Books: These were enlarged children’s books that
were commercially-made and children-made. Some of
the commercially-made ones were Dan. The Flying Man
and The Farm Concert. while the children-made ones
included a retelling of The Great Big Enormous Turnip
and The Three Little Pigs.
The complete listing of all books used in the study may be found in Appendices E & F. 132
Arrangement of Time;
The literacy lesson was scheduled for five days a week, from 12:45 P.M. - 1:15 P.M. However, Mrs. G. often extended the thirty minutes lesson to forty minutes. The forty minutes became permanent during the last six weeks of the study. But these lessons were periodically lengthened by Mrs. G. and the children in cunning ways.
Inviting the children, individually or as a group, back to her classroom during the afternoon recess break, was one technique used by Mrs. G. Intuitively, she seemed to know when it was most appropriate to extend the invita tion. She always was sensitive to the children’s remarks when they left her room. At times the boys would comment on wanting to continue a particular extension. Such was the case when they worked on the story map of The Three
Little Pigs. Peter remarked, ’I gottta finish this little pig’s house for him to sleep in tonight! Be back later
(recess time). See ya."
Another example of the children’s desire to return was noted in a ’Barney’ incident. He was totally engrossed in his writing of The Three Little Pigs and did not wish to leave when the literacy lesson was over.
Mrs. G. noticed how quickly he returned to his writing after she had mentioned it was time to go back to his 133 classroom. The following dialogue ensued:
Mrs. G.: "It’s time to go, Barney." Barney: "Wait, wait, I’m almost finished", while he continues to write. Mrs. G. checks his story noting he requires more than a minute or two to finish. Mrs. G: "Why don’t you come back at recess time?" Barney completes his sentence. Barney: "Okay. I want to take my story home." Although Mrs. G. is not sure why he is in such a rush, she knows it is important to him to see his final product. Barney returns at recess time but still needs more time to bring closure to his story. It is two days later when the final text is ready to go home. And it does!
The literacy lesson was lengthened in another manner. Mrs. G. is a firm believer that reading aloud is one of the most important literacy events influencing literacy growth and enticing children to revisit the written word. Hence, she often invited the children, with their teacher’s permission, to join her whole class for this delightful time. To the children’s joy, the invita tion became more prevalent when I brought recently published books, such as, Russo’ Only Six More Days and
Schwartz’s Annabelle Swift. Kindergartner. for read aloud purposes.
The children also initiated requests to return to
Mrs. G.’s room after the literacy lesson was over.
Stevie, for example, wanted to read, There’s A Monster
Under My Bed (Howe), which he did not have time to read during the time allocated for Re-Reading Familiar Books. 134
As he was leaving the classroom, after the literacy
lesson was over, he half turned to Mrs. G. and called
out, "Can I come back to read at recess time? I want to
read, There*s A Monster Under My Bed." His reply from
Mrs. G. was, "You sure can!", and off he galloped at an
excited pace.
The children periodically took ownership of enhancing
their literacy development within their homeroom class
rooms. For example, for four consecutive days during Re-
Reading Familiar Books. Barney had been busy mastering the
reading of Galdone's The Three Bears. At the end of his
fourth re-reading of the story, he asked if he could take
the book home for the night. Without hesitation, Mrs. G.
gave him permission. When he returned to his classroom he
began to read The Three Bears in a low voice to himself.
Slowly his classmates noticed his reading and tuned in.
His sensitive teacher aware of the activity encouraged the
other children to listen. Before long, the entire class was experiencing the read aloud event. Barney continued
to read and upon completion the class stood and clapped
for him. It was his first read aloud sharing time with his classmates and they were as happy for him as he was
for himself. 135
Although the time for the literacy lesson was
scheduled and Mrs. G. kept within the allocated limit,
her mind was continually searching for avenues to increase
the at-risk children's exposure to books and literacy
extensions. She frequently shared some of the literacy
activities with her fellow colleagues, and they in turn
tried them in their classrooms.
The Elements Of A Lesson
The literature based program developed for the five
at-risk children in this study included seven elements:
Re-Reading Familiar Books, Read Aloud, Shared Reading,
Shared Writing, Independent Writing, Extensions, Running
Record. Although it was the intent of Mrs. G. to
incorporate the first six elements in each literacy
lesson and the Running Record in every alternate lesson,
it was not always possible. Sometimes the children became so involved with specific literacy tasks that time ran out. However, three elements were always evident in each
lesson, Re-Reading Familiar Books, Read Aloud and Writing
(Independent or Shared).
The proceeding section describes each of these elements and where applicable provides examples for elaboration. 136
Re-Reading Familiar Books:
Purpose; Frank Smith (1971, 1983,1986, 1987) states
repeatedly that if we want children to become proficient
readers they must be given the opportunity to read, i.e.,
practice reading. They need time to work things out for
themselves and promote their independence in reading. In
this study, time for the at-risk children to enjoy books
and to 'try out and practice’ their reading strategies was
referred to as Re-Reading Familiar Books.
Time: Mrs. G. had scheduled time for Re-Reading
Familiar Books during every literacy lesson from the
inception of the study. However, over the course of the
investigation the scheduled time period changed as well,
as its length.
At the beginning, the time occurred at different
intervals, e.g., 12:45 P.M.- 12:50 P.M., 1:10 P.M.-1:15
P.M.. But Mrs. G. noticed after the first week that she
needed to bring more structure to her program. The
children appeared uncertain what to do when they arrived
for their literacy lesson. They were not sure where they were to go or what they were to do. She decided that
reading and sharing familiar books was a worthwhile
literacy event to begin her lesson. It allowed the 137 children time to converse and socialize over their books as well as settle themselves into the task of reading.
The second week of the study, Mrs. G. instituted a schedule change. She moved the time for Re-Reading
Familiar Books to a permanent spot, at the beginning of the literacy lesson. By the end of the week, the change showed a noticeable improvement. As she said, "Having the time for Re-Reading Familiar Books at the beginning of the literacy lesson brings structure to my program and the children know what they have to do first when they arrive in my room." Thus, the revised schedule remained throughout the study’s duration.
For the first two weeks, five minutes were allotted to reading and sharing familiar books. However, Mrs. G. and I noted that there were a number of valid reasons to extend this time. First, as the children became more familiar with the books and more confident and successful in their reading, they demanded more time to read and share more books. For instance, on 03-10-88 Stevie was engrossed in reading, The Great Big Enormous Turnip
(Tolstoy), when Mrs. G. called the group to the read aloud area to participate in Shared Reading. All the children gathered except Stevie. They waited on the carpet a few minutes for him, but he did not come. Mrs. G. called him. 138
Stevie replied, "Wait a minute I just want to finish this
part." He continued to read, finishing his page and quickly joined the group.
The following day a similar incident occurred with
Peter. He was totally absorbed in Galdone’s The Teeny
Tiny Woman. Mrs. G. asked the boys to move to the
individual desks to continue writing their retelling of
The Great Big Enormous Turnip. Peter looked up as the boys moved and quickly glanced at Mrs. G. But within seconds his eyes refocused on his book and he pursued his reading. Like Stevie, he had to be drawn from his story and appeared not too pleased with the interruption.
A second reason for Mrs. G. to extend the children’s time for Re-Reading Familiar Books was based upon their interest in completing a story. As an example, after
Peter listened to Galdone’s The Three Bears, read enthusiastically and with superb intonations by Mrs. G., he was attracted instantly to it. It was as if a magnetism were created between the boy and the story.
Peter craved to read it himself. On his third revisit, with Barney as his partner, the two boys read The Three
Bears for eighteen minutes tackling every word throughout the text. No teacher assistance was offered nor did they ever request any. 139
A third reason for lengthening the time for Re-
Reading Familiar Books was the children's desire to read more indepth stories with complex language structures.
This was evident in the following interaction:
03-15-88: Barney and Kevin finish partner reading, My Family (Level 2) and Barney selects, Going to the Beach (Level 1) for them to read. Kevin: "No, not that one. It's too short. That*8 not a story. Let'8 get a good book." Barney chooses, The Great Big Enormous Turnip. Kevin: "Ya, that’s a story!"
Table 4 presents more evidence regarding the chil dren's growth in interest in reading stories with greater complexity. In comparing the number of words in the stories two boys read at the beginning of the study with the number read at the end indicates their desire to read longer and more involved stories.
Word ford Date Name Title Count Date Title ?ount 03-01-88 Peter Down the Stairs 26 05-27-88 The Balancing Act 155 Look at Me 36 I'm Going On A 154 Dragon Hunt My Family 29 Rosie's walk 32 We Like You 56 The Three Little Piat 899 03-01-88 Kevin Down the Stairs 26 05-27-88 I Want A Pet 89 In the Toy Shop 36 Machines at Work 55 My Family 29 Monster Party 53 Rosie's Walk 32 Whose Hat? 31
Table 4. Comparison of Texts’ Word Count 140
For these reasons, Mrs. G. wisely decided to increase the time for Re-Reading Familiar Books to. ten minutes at the beginning of the third week. This time frame was maintained throughout the study. However, on a rare occasion, such as, Peter and Barney's immersion into reading Galdone's The Three Bears, the ten minutes were extended. Flexibility of time was one of Mrs. G.’s pedagogical beliefs.
Book Selection: Naming the former literacy element of the literature based program, Re-Reading Familiar
Books. was an appropriatetitle. For it was familiar books that were placed on the display table for the children to read and share everyday during the literacy lesson. These stories became familiar to them through different avenues. Many of the books were read during
Read Aloud, others were read aloud by Mrs. G. during time for Re-Reading Familiar Books, while others became familiar to the children through a Running Record event.
In addition, their own written stories were an integral part of the book collection.
For the first week of the study, the only reading materials available to the children were Reading Recovery books. They were housed in three small plastic baskets on 141
the reading table and the boys had to dig through the
piles in order to find their choice. Since there were
four boys in the group at that time and only three
baskets, often one of the boys had to wait his turn to
find his choice.
I noted that a more efficient way needed to be
devised to decrease the time the boys spent searching for
their books. Also, the presentation of books demanded
changing so that a wider variety of books were visually
apparent. Initially, the boys selected the top books or
ones near the top of the pile. Books were rarely chosen
from the bottom half of the stack.
On 03-08-88, Mrs. G. and I discussed these issues and
concluded that the books needed to be arranged in a more
attractive manner and had to be more accessible to the
children. We talked about ways this could be achieved,
e.g., placing the reading materials on an adjacent table
to the reading table and displaying the books in a
standing or lying position.
On my return visit, 03-10-88, Mrs. G. had an inviting book display arranged for the boys. Some of the larger books, e.g., Burningham’s Mr. Gumpy’s Outing. Hutchins
Titch were standing while the others, e.g., Alborough’s
Running Bear. Galdone’s The Little Red Hen; Reading 142
Recovery books, The Tree-House, were lying flat with the front of their jackets facing up.
The quickness in which the boys selected their books for reading indicated immediately the positive effects of the new display design. Moreover, there was no time delay in finding books. Each boy readily found his first choice and began reading. During this lesson, I observed also that the boys chose a greater variety of books to read.
Hence, Mrs. G. continued to display the books in the same manner during the rest of the study.
As more books were read to the children and more stories used for Running Record purposes, they were added to the book collection and space on the display table became a concern. Mrs. G. decided to cluster the books in categories. Books that were used in study units, such as,
The Three Bears, were placed at one end of the display table and the Recovery Reading books were grouped at the other end. The children's own stories were located between these two categories. Most of the big books hung on the big book rack. Sometimes Mrs. G. moved some of the more popular ones, e.g., The Great Big Enormous Turnip
(Children-made), The Hungry Giant (The Wright Group) to the display table or place them on the floor near the right hand side of the table. By keeping the books 143 located in one area, the children did not have to roam the classroom in search of particular choices.
During the fifth week of the study, Mrs. G. noticed that there were too many books for the display table, so she had to make a teacher decision regarding what books to feature. In reviewing her daily Re-Reading Familiar
Books: Check-Lists from the first five weeks, she identified the most popular and the least popular books, and the most complex and the least complex books. From these categories she decided which books to exhibit for week six.
The books selected for the display during the sixth week included the popular books, such as, Tolstoy's The
Great Big Enormous Turnip; Galdone’s The Three Bears:
Carle’s The Very Hungry Caterpillar; and the books related to the study unit on The Three Pigs, such as,
Blegvad’s The Three Little Pigs: Cauley’s The Story of the Three Little Pigs; Galdone’s The Three Little Pigs:
Reinl’s The 3 Little Pigs. In addition, Reading Recovery books, such as, Going to the Beach: One. One is the Sun;
On a Chair: and Big Books, e.g., Dan. The Flying Man. The
Farm Concert. The Great Big Enormous Turnip became part of the collection. 144
From the sixth week on, Mrs. G. went through the same selection criteria to choose the books for the coming weeks. Approximately forty-five titles were available to the children every week. Although some popular stories were removed for a week, Mrs. G. was very aware that these titles had to be returned to the display table sometime during the remainder of the study. As an example,
Tolstoy’s The Great Big Enormous Turnip, illustrated by
Oxenbury was treasured by the children over the first six weeks, but was removed from the display the following week. However, the eighth week display included the story again.
On an occasion, a new book, e.g., The Bee (Ernst),
Gone Fishing (Long) was placed in a prominent position on the table to see how readily it would be taken for reading or browsing purposes. The children did not rush to pick these books but rather returned to the display table three or four times before they considered browsing through the pages of the unfamiliar stories. I concluded that new books required introductions of some nature, such as, hearing them being read aloud by Mrs. G. before the children considered them for reading or sharing. It was apparent that the at-risk children’s selection was highly dependent on their familiarity with the story. 145
During the study no consistent pattern of book choice
evolved. However, it was obvious that each child knew
which book he wished to read on his arrival in the
classroom. The briskness at which he selected his first
book indicated that a choice had been made readily. For
instance, on 04-21-88, upon entering Mrs. G.’s classroom
and without saying a word, Barney immediately placed his
blue crayon/pencil box on a desk and headed for the books.
Without hesitation he picked up Russo’s The Big Fat Worm.
Kevin followed right behind and selected Hill’s Spot Goes
to the Beach. Stevie took Galdone’s The Three Little Pigs
and Peter and Chris paired up for Wallner’s The Three
Little Pigs.
The only visible factor which appeared to assist some
of the children in determining their first choice for the day was the story that Mrs. G. read the previous day.
This book was inevitably read or browsed through by one or several children the next day. Table 4 (p. 146) verifies this.
The children developed certain favorites as they became more versed in storylines. Occasionally, their preferences were so strong that they were seen convincing another child to read a special book. For example, on 04-
21-88, as Peter and Kevin were standing at the display 146
Read Aloud Date Read Date Read Title By Teacher By Child
Henny Penny (Galdone) 03-14-88 03-15-88 (Barney) Chicken Licken (Omerod) 03-15-88 03-16-88 (Barney, Stevie) The Three Bears (Galdone) 03-16-88 03-17-88 (Peter, Stevie) Goldilocks and The 03-17-88 03-18-88 (Peter, Three Bears (Watts) Chris)
Table 5. Read Alou d Books Read Ily Children
table selecting books to read, Peter of>ened Seymour’s The
Three Little Pigs, and reaii it to Kevin. When he finished he picked up Reinl’s The 3 Little Pigss, and said, "Here, that’s a good Three Little Pigs. You should read it."
Kevin took it without hesitation. Although the text was complex, he attempted to read the refrains and browsed through the rest of the story.
On another occasion, 05-03-88, Stevie and Barney both wanted to read Cauley’s Goldilocks And The Three Bears, but there was only one copy. Barney had gotten to the book first. The following interaction ensued:
Stevie: "Hey, I want to read that one." Barney: "I got it first. Here (passing Stevie Galdone’s The Three Bears), this one is the same story. It's good. Why don’t you read this one?" Stevie: "I want it after you." He takes Galdone’s book and goes to the reading table. Occasionally he eyes Barney to make sure he gets Cauley’s book later. As soon as 147
Barney finishes and closes the book, he stretches across the table and takes the book.
Although the size of the book collection was con tinually increasing, Mrs. G. kept rotating the books so that stagnation did not occur. Her purpose was to have a collection that was appealing to the boys as well as one that was rich in quality for the literacy instructional program. The complete collection of books for reading and sharing during the time for Re-Reading Familiar Books is listed in Appendi:: F.
Varied Reading Modes: During the time for Re-
Reading Familiar Books, various forms of reading became evident. The most common form was reading independently.
Each child selected a book and found a place, e.g., at the reading table, on the floor or in the read aloud area, to read and/or browse. Some days, a child read aloud by himself for the entire time a variety of books from one book category or different book categories, i.e.,
Children’s Literature, Reading Recovery Books, Children’s
Own Stories, Big Books. Barney’s selection over three days showed his reading preferences (Table 6, p. 147). On
05-03-88, he chose from three categories, Children’s
Literature, Children’s Own Stories, and Big books; on 05- 148
04-88, he selected from three categories; while on 05-04-
88, he decided one type was sufficient. Kevin, on the
other hand, who selected from different categories decided
to read some stories, browse through others and tell
others. On 05-06-88, he read Dan. The Flying Man
(Recovery Reading); read and told, The Three Little Pigs
(Galdone); and browsed through, Look. There*s My Hat
(Roffey), Mary Wore Her Red Dress And Henry Wore His Green
Sneakers (Peek), and There Was An Old Woman (Wyllie).
Re-reading a particular book was not an uncommon
practice for the children. For example, on 03-15-88,
Peter became so enthralled with Running Bear (Alborough)
that he read it three consecutive times in one session, while Chris' success with No. No (Reading Recovery) had him revisiting it four successive times.
DATE TITLECATEGORY 05-03-88 First Oanas Spring (Rockwell) Children's Literature The Three Little Pigs (Galdone) Children's Literature Spot Goss 1b The Beach (Hill) Children's Literature Ihe T m p Children's Own Stories Ihe Boy Mho Didn't Know How Big Book (Alternative lb Ride A Bike Text) 05-04-88 Ihe Fare concert Big Book (Reading Recovery The Loose Tooth (Level, 14) Reading Recovery Ihe Three Little Piers (PeoDe) Children's Literature 05-05-88 Henry's Busy Day (Campbell) Children's Literature Ihe Three Little Pigs (Galdone) Children's Literature The Ginaerbread Bov (Galdone) Children's Literature
Table 6. One Child’s Selection Of Books For Independent Reading 149
Partner reading was another mode of reading that occurred during the time for Re-Reading Familiar Books.
This form of reading involved at least two or more individuals reading and sharing a book together.
At the beginning of the study, Mrs. G. instigated the pairing of partners since the children had not been exposed to this form of reading before. First, she paired the children according to similar reading abilities, e.g.,
Stevie and Peter, Barney and Kevin, later she used another method to form partners. She paired one of the better readers with one of the beginning reader, e.g.,
Stevie with Chris or Peter with Kevin.
Although Mrs. G. paired the children, they decided which book they would share. Furthermore, they determined where they would read by their choice of book. Regular size books, such as, Reading Recovery materials or
Children’s Literature were read at the reading table, while the Big Books were shared on the floor or in the read aloud area.
Toward the end of the second week of the study, the children were so familiar with the format for partner reading they began to select their own partners when they wanted to share a story. The selection criteria they employed to choose a partner, however, differed from Mrs. 150
G.’s. They used such guidelines as story interest. The following excerpt reveals how story drew the children together in a partnership.
03-17-88: Barney rushes through the class room door and heads directly to the display table. Without delay he takes Running Bear (Alborough) which he heard yesterday during read aloud and quickly sits at the reading table to begin reading. As he approaches the middle of the story, "Faster, faster ....", he begins to omit unfamiliar words, e.g., important, motion, and slurs over others, e.g., Arctic. He skips pages, "Poor old bear’s....", and becomes frus trated with the text. He stops about three-quarters through, "And worse....", closes the book, places it back on the dis play table and takes, Cat on the Mat (Wildsraith).
A little later, Peter selects Running Bear and is carefully reading each page. It is a new story for him. Barney who is sitting one seat away, notices Peter and looks at him off and on while he is reading Cat on the Mat. He hastens his reading, finishing before Peter and moves to the empty seat next to him.
Barney does not interrupt Peter as he con tinues to read, but he listens attentively, laughing at some of the language, e.g., "pooped" and scans each illustration, smiling at specific ones, e.g., the soaked Polar Bear. After Peter completes the story he begins again. Barney begins to chime in on familiar language in a very subtle manner, as if he were aware he should not participate unless invited. Peter makes no comment so Barney becomes more absorbed and slowly they are completely involved in partner reading the story. Sometimes they choral read, other times one leads and the other follows. 151
As they begin to read, "Polar Bear’s soaked through and through.", Stevie who has left his reading of Where’s Spot? (Hill) to listen to Peter and Barney, joins them in reading. At the end, Peter puts back the book, and chooses The Story of Chicken Licken (Omerod) and Barney selects, Brown Bear. Brown Bear (Martin), both read independent ly. Stevie, however, picks up Running Bear and attempts to read it.
Another partner selection guideline used by the boys was invitation, i.e., a child asked another child or teacher to read with him. On 05-10-88, Kevin and Peter were standing at the display table deciding which book to read when Kevin invited Peter to read with him.
Kevin: "How about you and me readin’?" Peter: "O.K." Kevin: "How about this one [Dan, The Flying Man (Big Book)]?" Peter: "Ya. Let’s go over here (pointing to the floor near the door)." They continue to partner read through the entire time for Re-Reading Familiar Books. Before they finish, Chris slips in and participates in the reading of Cat and Mouse.
Several times Chris extended an invitation to me to partner read with him. One such occasion occurred on 03-
11-88.
Chris: "You read with me?" Investigator: "Sure. I would like to read with you. " Chris gets, Leo The Late Bloomer (Kraus) from the display table. He has heard the story before from a read aloud event and knows the storyline very well. Even though I am aware he remembers the story well, the matching of his reading and text is difficult. We read the title together. Chris: "You read first." 152
I begin to read and it is not until the fourth page, Chris is willing to read. He recites the text paying no attention.to the print, only to the illustration. Chris: "Your turn." From then on, I read and he repeats, but at the second last page Chris says, "I read this page (last page)." And he does successfully.
Mrs. G. also extended invitations for partner reading by asking individuals to share a story. For example, on
03-14-88, she invited Stevie to share, The Great Big
Enormous Turnip (Tolstoy) and on 03-17-88, asked Kevin to read, The Bee (Ernst), with her. Behind each invitation,
Mrs. G. had a purpose, such as: (1) to introduce new stories to particular children; (2) to stretch children’s reading strategies with more indepth stories with complex language structure; (3) to listen to children read and monitor their progress; (4) to share and enjoy a "lap style" reading event; (5) to encourage children to venture into new stories after they had heard them; (6) to help children learn how to negotiate meaning of the written word; and (7) to teach children reading strate gies .
A reading mode that increasingly became more apparent as the study progressed was that of reading aloud to individuals or small groups by Mrs. G. during the time for
Re-Reading Familiar Books. It was in the third week of the investigation that reading aloud became evident 153
outside the Read Aloud time. After 03-15-88, Mrs. G. read
quite regularly to the children. She noted:
It is a wonderful opportunity to read new books to some of the boys like Chris and Kevin, so they can have more choices to select from during Re-Read ing Familiar Books. It is also a time to share a book with a child who needs to revisit a particular book that was read during the Read Aloud time. Some children need many re-readings to familiarize themselves with the book language so they can feel more comfort able and part of the literacy club.
An example of Mrs. G. engaging in a read aloud during
this time was her reading of Omerod’s The Story of
Chicken Licken on 03-16-88 to Stevie and the following
day to Chris, Kevin and Barney.
One other reading mode was observed during the time
for Re-Reading Familiar Books, and that was children's
reading aloud for assessment purposes. On alternate days
Mrs. G. completed a Running Record on particular children.
Over a fourteen day period she took at least one Running
Record on each child.
Time for reading and sharing familiar books was one of the most crucial aspect of the instructional program.
Mrs. G. maintained that, "If we want our children to enjoy reading and want them to read, we need to give them time to experience the wonders and power of the written words between the covers of a good book. These (at-risk) 154
children have very few opportunities to bathe in such
joys. It is our responsibility to find time and allow
them to be immersed in these delights" (04-19-88).
Read Aloud:
Purposes: Gathering on the carpet in the read aloud
area with Mrs. G. to hear a new story or listen again to a
familiar one was a very special time for the five boys.
Never were they forced to read sections of the story for
assessment of reading strategies. Never were they
bombarded with questions to see if they were comprehend
ing. It was always a time for the children to sit back,
relax and enjoy a story for its content, language and
power to ignite their imaginations. This was Mrs. G.'s
prime purpose for reading aloud - to provide enjoyment and
delight. As Huck et al (1987) assert, "Children need to
discover delight in books before they are asked to master
the skills of reading" (p. 6).
Enjoyment was the main reason Mrs. G. read The Three
Billy Goats Gruff (Galdone) on 03-10-88, The Teeny Tiny
Woman (Galdone) on 03-24-88, The Big Fat Worm (Russo) on
03-29-88, The Very Hungry Caterpillar (Carle) on 04-15-88, and Mr. Gumpy’s Outing (Burningham) on 05-10-88. However,
even though Mrs. G. maintained that enjoyment was the goal 155 she strived for when she read a story, she had other purposes for reading aloud to the at-risk children. These additional purposes surfaced as the study unfolded.
One aim was to help the at-risk children understand the concept of story. Mrs. G. believed that folktales were one of the best means of reaching this goal because of their well-constructed, predictable plots. Hence, she and I developed a number of study units that focused on different folktales. These units became the core of the instructional program. The first two-week study was one created around Tolstoy’s The Great Big Enormous Turnip
(02-29-88), followed by a three-week study unit on The
Three Bears and a four-week indepth study of different versions of The Three Little Pigs.
In addition, other folktales were heard throughout the investigation. For example, 02-01-88 the children listen-ed to Galdone’s The Little Red Hen, 03-14-88 Mrs.
G. read Galdone’s Henny Penny, 03-15-88 Omerod’s The
Story of Chicken Licken was enjoyed, 04-11-88 Hellard’s version of The Ugly Duckling was read and 04-27-88 Mrs. G. had the children delighting in Ross’ contemporary retelling of Stone Soup.
Linking one story with another to help strengthen the children’s understanding of story structure and meaning 156 was another goal of Mrs. G ’s read aloud sessions. She selected purposefully one book followed by another that had something in common with the first such as, story structure, characters, theme, or language. For instance, after reading Henny Penny (Galdone) on 03-14-88, she read
The Story of Chicken Licken (Omerod) on 03-23-88 and discussed with the children how these stories were alike in their structure, characters and theme. They also talked about what was different. An excerpt of the interaction that occurred during the reading of The Story of Chicken Licken was:
03-23-88: Mrs. G. reads the title and makes no reference to previously read stories. She has been making literary links for the chil dren during other read alouds, now she wants to observe if the children can make connect ions. After reading the title and discussing the endpages, she begins reading. She com pletes the first sentence and a discussion begin: Peter: "Hey, I know that story." (This is the first time he has heard it.) Barney: "Ya, that’s like a, a, a,..." Kevin: "The one with the hen and something cornin’ out of the sky." Peter: "Henny Penny by Paul Galdone."
After reading the story the children discuss how they are alike and different. Barney: "The characters." Peter: "The chicken, hen, duck." Chris: "Fox." Kevin: "Ya, and something fell from the sky in the other book." Peter: "It’s the same story." Stevie: "But in Henny Penny they are real animals. This one they are kids dressed up." 157
Exposing the children to a variety of literary
discourses assisted them in implicitly learning how
different texts have different forms of presentation. The
children therefore heard stories from various genre of
literature to increase their awareness of text differen
ces. Along with folktales and picture books, the children
listened to poetic texts of verse and rhythmic language.
Such form and language were seen and heard through Mrs.
G.’s reading of (04-21-88) The Cake That Mack Ate
(Robart), (05-03-88) Peanut Butter and Jelly (Westcott),
(05-19-88) I’m Going On A Dragon Hunt (Jones), and (05-
25-88) The Balancing Act (Peek).
Informational texts were part of Mrs. G.’s repertoire of read alouds. During the study the boys listened to
Barton’s Machines at Work. a text depicting a variety of vehicles, e.g., bulldozer, truck, crane; and equipment, such as, jack hammers, picks and shovels used to knock down a building and to build a new one. They enjoyed visiting the many rooms of the Bear family’s house in
Rockwell’s In Our House, and identifying the different activities that took place in each room in order to make the house a happy home. On 05-23-88 Mrs. G. read Whose
Hat? (Miller), an informational text that presents a number of hats which represent different occupations. 158
This became one of Kevin’s favorite books by the end of
the study.
Hearing stories re-read two and three times for the
purpose of retelling them or creating an alternative text
was another reason for Read Aloud time. For example, the
boys listened to Tolstoy’s The Great Big Enormous Turnip,
on 03-01-88 and again on 03-03-88 in order to familiarize
themselves with the theme and plot of the story. Upon
completion of the second reading, the children created a
retelling of the story through the means of Shared
Writing. They also entitled their text, The Great Big
Enormous Turnip. Delton’s Rabbit Finds A Way, was read
four times before a story map was created. And the
children were into their second week of study of The Three
Bears when they composed their own Where’s Goldilocks?
book.
Mrs. G. had many purposes for reading aloud to the at-risk children. However, the reason for reading a
particular book was always related to the totality of that day’s literacy lesson.
Time: Read Aloud was scheduled everyday throughout the study. However, on a rare occasion during the first three weeks when it was planned for the last event of the 159 literacy lesson, time ran out leaving the selected book
to be read the following day. Noticing this omission and recognizing the need for the children to hear stories,
Mrs. G. re-scheduled Read Aloud time as the second or third literacy element planned for each lesson.
The length of each Read Aloud depended on three factors: (1) the introduction and discussion which occurred before the book was read, (2) the reading of the story and discussion that transpired during the time of the reading, and (3) the follow-up discussion at the end of the story. Over the twelve weeks of the study, the
Read Aloud time varied in length from five to ten minutes per lesson. Needless to say, the length of the Read Aloud time during the last seven weeks was closer to the ten minute duration because all three cited factors demanded more time. The' children were more talkative, made more literary and lived experience links as well as proposed more questions regarding story meaning.
Book Selection: The books Mrs. G. read during the first three weeks of the study were chosen from the list,
Read Aloud Books For Five And Six Year Olds, provided at
The Early Literacy Research Project seminars. Moreover, many of the selected books from the list were lent to 160
Mrs. G. by the leader of the seminars. Others were
borrowed from the school or classroom libraries, the
public libraries, her personal library or from my
collection.
It was during the fourth week of the study that Mrs.
G. and I began to develop indepth thematic literature
units. These units listed a number of read alouds. For
instance, in planning for the unit on The Three Bears the
read alouds included: Brett's Goldilocks And The Three
Bears; Cauley's Goldilocks And The Three Bears; Galdone’s
The Three Bears: Rendall’s When Goldilocks Went In The
House Of The Three Bears; and Watts’ Goldilocks And The
Three Bears.
Howevery' while the study unit was in progress other books were read that were related in some manner to the unit or previous read alouds. For example, while the children were absorbed in the unit on The Three Bears,
Galdone’s folktale entitled, The Teeny Tiny Woman was read so that the children would become familiar with other stories written by the same author/illustrator.
Moreover, Mrs. G. wanted the children to recognize stories that had similar characteristics of former stories heard. On 03-30-88 she read Hellard’s version of The 161
Three Billy Goats Gruff. while Galdone’s The Three Billy
Goats Gruff was read 02-19-88.
More recently published books, which I brought to
Mrs. G. were among those she read to the children during
Read Aloud time. I selected these books according to the
study unit that was in progress, for literary linking
purposes and in conjunction with the children’s interests
and needs. Such books included, Pumpkin, Pumpkin
(Titherington) similar in language and content to The
Great Big Enormous Turnip (Tolstoy); I’m Going On A Dragon
Hunt (Jones) and The Balancing Act (Peek) akin in poetic
style and also a song to Mary Wore Her Red Dress And Henry
Wore His Green Sneakers (Peek); and What Next, Baby Bear!
(Murphy), Come and Play, Little Mouse (Kraus) for Peter,
Barney and Stevie to practice and stretch their reading
strategies.
Regardless of the book to be read and the purpose for
its selection, Mrs. G. always read it beforehand and knew
it well. Besides knowing the story well, Mrs. G. intensi
fied the impact of each story by her superb read aloud
techniques, such as, voice intonations, hand actions, and her sitting in close proximity to the children. 162
Shared Reading:
Purposes: Modeling reading behaviors during the literacy lesson was very important to the children's literacy development. It was an effective and enjoyable way to get children to learn how to handle written language, to learn how to negotiate the meaning of texts and to learn about the concepts of print. Much of the modeling was demonstrated through Shared Reading.
Mrs. G. was initially the model, but as the texts became familiar to the boys, they took the responsibility of guiding the way through a text. My first observation of Shared Reading while the study was in progress occurred on 02-26-88. At this time, it was evident that Mrs. G. was the guide and modeled for the children the format of sharing a story. The following excerpt portrays Mrs. G. demonstrating reading-like behaviors during a Shared
Reading event:
Mrs. G. calls the boys to the chart stand to read their big book, The Boy Who Didn't Know How To Ride A Bike, which they finished making yesterday. She holds the pointer and asks the boys to read along with her. She points to the title and as she reads, they follow. She does not read the speech balloons with the children’s invented spell ing, only the standard spelling text. As she begins the text she says (pointing to the top left hand corner), "We begin to read here." On the third page Peter and Barney read along with Mrs. G. 163
When they finish the third page, Mrs. G. asks Barney, "How did you know that this word was ’grandma’?" Before he answers, Peter responds, "It gotta ’g’ and ’r* in it." They continue to read and Stevie joins them.
On the fifth page, Mrs. G. asks, "Where do we start reading on this page?" Chris replies from his sitting position, "Up there." Mrs. G. says, "Why don’t you come and show us?" Chris does and he remains at Mrs. G.’s side. They both hold the pointer and read the sentence along with Peter, Barney and Stevie.
They complete the story in this manner, then re-read it, having each boy point to the text on his designated page. All the children chime in on this reading. However, when Kevin has to point he asks, "Do I have to point and read?" Mrs. G.’s reply, "Try." (Kevin is having difficulties with matching one- to-one . )
It is apparent from this excerpt that Mrs. G. was showing the children where to begin reading a story, how to match their reading with the printed word and how letter/sound relationships function within a word. These are the reading strategies that proficient readers use to gain access to the written word.
By 03-03-88, the teacher and children’s roles reversed and Mrs. G. followed and provided assistance when needed. For example, she continued to help Kevin match one-to-one. However, that changed as the others became competent in matching. For instance, on 03-15-88, 164
the children shared the reading of their big book, The
Great Big Enormous Turnip. It was Kevin’s turn to point
to the text while everyone was reading. Mrs. G. allowed him to point independently, but he lost track on the
fourth word the pointer was ahead of the reading. Stevie noticed this and immediately held Kevin’s pointer hand and guided him along. Off and on through the page Stevie released Kevin’s hand, giving him control. As soon as the pointer was off course, Stevie provided help. Mrs. G. watched this action, but did not interfere.
Shared Reading was a wonderful opportunity to create a hunger for books and reading. Sharing together the excitement of unveiling a text the boys created through collaborative means had a powerful influence on their desire to read and re-read the story. Even though some texts, e.g., The Three Little Pigs. took a long time to create and were read and re-read numerous times during the composing act, when the final product was read for the first time a great deal of satisfaction was expressed.
As Stevie exclaimed when he saw, The Three Little Pigs, in book format, "Did we really do that? I like that."
Chris could not wait to meet me at the door when I arrived for the lesson to express his elation. "Come look at what we made!" Taking my hand he guided me to the 165
chart stand in the read aloud area and showed me the
final product.
The children's recognition that they had authored
some stories ignited within them a compelling drive to
read and re-read their story. Whether they enjoyed it
independently or shared it with a peer, they longed to
revisit it. For instance, during the first week after The
Three Little Pigs was completed Peter and Kevin re-read it
four times.
Shared Reading provided the at-risk children an
opportunity to practice their well-established reading
strategies on new reading materials as well as test out
recently learned reading operations. For example, on 04-
21-88 the children read together what they had written in
retelling of their The Three Little Pigs. As they were
reading the sentence, "So she sent them off to build their house.", they read, "So she sent them off to build their
fortune." Peter quickly self-corrected "fortune", and said, "I mean 'house'."
In creating alternative texts, such as, The Dog On
The Mat, or retellings, e.g., The Great Big Enormous
Turnip, Shared Reading was widely used. An example of the number of shared re-reads was apparent in the children’s writing and illustrating, The Dog On The Mat, over a three 166
days period. The boys re-read it each day to find where
they left off from the day before and where they began
their new text. Then, at the end of each writing session,
they read it again from the beginning to the end of that day's text. The total shared re-readings of this one
seven-page text totalled twelve times.
Shared Reading was extremely important to learning about the editing process. For instance, after the children first read together their story, The Boy Who
Didn't Know How To Ride A Bike, Stevie noticed that something did not sound right in the title. He said,
"That don’t make sense, The Boy Didn't Know. It should be, The Boy Who Couldn't Ride His Bike." Mrs. G. asked,
"Why?" Stevi ' referred to the text and said, "Each sentence has 'couldn't' in it. See. 'My dad told me I couldn't ride my bike.’" The others agreed with Stevie and asked Mrs. G. to change it.
Collaborative learning was promoted through Shared
Reading. The children often engaged in this type of learning as they discussed specifics related to a story or strived to gain meaning of particular aspects of the stories. Mrs. G. recognized how Shared Reading encouraged collaboration and permitted the children to participate in it naturally. 167
As with the other literacy elements in the literature based program, Mrs. G. integrated Shared Reading in ways that were purposeful and meaningful. It was never used as an isolated literacy element in and of itself, rather it grew from the other elements and the study unit under examination.
Time: A set time period for Shared Reading was not scheduled for every literacy lesson. Those that were scheduled occurred after an alternative text was com pleted, such as The Cat On The Mat or a written retelling of a story was finished, e.g., The Great Big Enormous
Turnip. In addition, it was planned after charts related to particular writing tasks were finalized, e.g., on 04-
11-88, the children prepared to create a ’Lift-Up Flap
Book’ patterned from Hill’s Where’s Spot? entitled,
Where’s Goldilocks?. First they identified the locations where she might be. These places were listed by Mrs. G. on chart paper and later the children read together what the locations were. When story maps, such as, Rabbit
Finds A Way were finished the children read together the narrative and dialogue written on the map.
Unscheduled Shared Reading occurred throughout the writing of an alternative text, a retelling or a chart 168 under construction. The number of times the children participated in Shared Reading varied with the number of times it took to complete the written product. For example, writing the retelling of The Three Little Pigs, required a four days period (04-18-88 to 04-25-88).
During this time the children read the text in progress twenty different times.
It was difficult to separate the literacy elements of
Shared Reading and Shared Writing. They were closely related throughout the entire study. The time allotted to
Shared Reading depended on the length of text and its interrelatedness to Shared Writing.
Reading Materials: The majority of stories, charts and recipes used for Shared Reading were created through
Shared Writing. These included the alternative texts based on Hayes’ This Is The Bear called This Is The Bear;
Wildsmith’s The Cat On The Mat entitled The Dog On The
Mat; Krauss’ The Carrot Seed titled The Boy Who didn’t
Know How To Ride A Bike. In addition, the children dictated retellings of Tolstoy’s The Great Big Enormous
Turnip; and Galdone’s The Three Little Pigs, while the teacher wrote them. Charts related to such extensions as, making the flap book, Where’s Goldilocks?; identifying 169 characters and objects necessary for making a felt board story for The Three Bears, clothing posters related to
Mary Wore A Red Dress And Henry Wore His Green Sneakers
(Peek); and creating a recipe titled, Wolf Stew were all initially read through Shared Reading.
The use of commercial big books for Shared Reading was minimal. Several reasons contributed to this. One was that few were available in the classroom and another was that the children were more interested in reading their own written big books. An excerpt from a scenario shows the children’s disappointment with the commercial big book, When Goldilocks Went To The House Of The Bears
(Rendall), is cited below. The children had heard
Brett’s, Cauley’s, Galdone’s, and Watt’s versions of The
Three Bears. They knew the story well and had viewed and talked about the illustrations many times. In this incident it was obvious the boys were disturbed by the poor illustrations.
Mrs. G. has the big book place on the chart stand in the read aloud area. Immediately Peter says, "It’s Goldilocks." Kevin, "No it isn’t. Her hair is yellow and Goldilocks’ hair is gold."
Disappointment in the opening sentence which begins, "When Goldilocks went to the house of the bears...." is voiced by Barney. He remarks, "That's not like our stories. Ours start ’Once upon a time’. That can’t be a folktale." 170
Concern about the bed size is expressed. Kevin disagrees with the bed size. He looks closely at the illustration and comments, "The mother bear’s bed is huge." Stevie adds, "It’s gigantic. I can’t wait to see the father’s." Mrs. G. turns the page. Stevie response, "Hey man, that’s the same size." Kevin agrees, "Ya, it’s suppose to be bigger."
At the end of the reading, Mrs. G. invited the boys to share the book again. Barney’s replied, "Not again.
Oh, man." Mrs. G. asked, "Why not?" Barney quickly said,
"It ain’t as good as the others." The following day Mrs.
G. placed the book on the display table with the other read alouds, wondering if anyone would attempt it on his own. No one took it. She left it until the end of the week, but none of the boys even browsed through it.
Shared Writing:
Purposes: Shared Writing was a collaborative way for the five boys to create books to read and to learn the important conventions of writing. During the initial
Shared Writing events, Mrs. G. was the scribe as the children dictated a story to her. For example, when the children were composing their text for The Boy Who Didn’t
Know How To Ride A Bike. Mrs. G. was the scribe through out the story. While she was writing she made reference 171 to specific aspects of writing.
Mrs. G. begins writing the first sentence. 'My dad told me I couldn’t ride my oike.' She says, "I begin here (pointing to the left hand side of the chart paper). What do you hear in ’dad’?" Barney quickly spells the word and she writes it.
On the second page she asks Peter where she should begin the new sentence. He goes to the chart and points to the left side. Mrs. G. comments at the end of the sentence, "Here (pointing to the end of the sentence) I put a period. It’s just a dot at the end of the sentence to say I have finished with it." She makes the period.
She continues this format throughout the composing and follows up with the children reading it as Shared Reading.
As the children gained an understanding of Shared
Writing process, they were asked to participate in the writing. For example, on 04-26-88 they wrote a recipe for
Wolf Stew.
Mrs. G. writes the title, Wolf Stew. "What goes in our stew?" she asks. Peter: "One wolf." Mrs. G. writes ’one’ and asks Peter to write ’wolf’. Peter writes: ’wio* crosses it out and writes ’wolf’. Mrs. G.: "What else needs to go in the stew?" Chris: "Two carrots." Mrs. G. asks him to write 'two*. He begins and writes *t* but does not know what else. She asks the others and Barney replies, "wo, two." They continue in this manner for five more ingredients, then Stevie wants to have oregano in the stew. Mrs. G. has him write it. He writes, ’oregeno’. Both Mrs. G. and 172
I are surprised with the close spelling of this word. She changes 'oregeno* to 'oregano' and they complete the recipe.
Since the major purpose of Shared Writing was to
familiarize the children with the appropriate conventions
of writing, the spelling of each word was always correct.
No invented spellings werr left on the charts. Mrs. G.
would allow each child to write what he thought was the
word, phrase or sentence and she would add or delete where
necessary with the children’s assistance.
Another purpose of Shared Writing was to model different writing structures for the children. This would
provide the children the opportunity to learn that various
forms of writing served different functions. Throughout
the study, the children experienced story writing, e.g.,
The Three Little Pigs; list writing, e.g., places to find
Goldilocks; recipe writing, e.g., Wolf Stew, Carrot Cake;
invitation writing, e.g., invitations to their friend to join them for a year end party with carrot cake; and advertisement writing, e.g., "Lost Ad for Goldilocks".
The purposes of Shared Writing evolved for Mrs. G. as she became more accustomed to the literacy event. The children, too, grew in understanding of how to write collaboratively and later, transferred their knowledge to independent writing. 173
Requests for assistance by one child from another was a common source for learning as the investigation unfolded. For example, Chris was busily working on his labeling of his ingredient (two carrots) for Wolf Stew.
He had "two" written but did not know how to spell
"carrots". He asked Peter. Peter was not sure so he went to the recipe chart and found the words, "two carrots".
He called to Chris, "I’ve got it. I’ll tell you the letters and you write them down." He began, "c", waited a few seconds then gave the next letter. He continued in this mode until Chris had the completed spelling for
"carrots".
Time: On most days Shared Writing was experienced by the children and was always linked to the study units in progress. Within the study, it was the read aloud books that provided the impetus for the writing. For example, after hearing Tolstoy’s The Great Big Enormous Turnip, the children composed their own retelling of the story.
Ross’ Stone Soup along with the many versions of The
Three Little Pigs lead the children into creating their recipe for Wolf Stew. The study unit on The Three Bears generated "Lost Ads" about Goldilocks. The actual time period for each Shared Writing session varied according to 174
the text under consideration.
Writing Materials: The basis of Shared Writing was
the books the children heard daily, their life experiences
and their imaginations. Wildsmith's The Cat On The Mat was one of the first read alouds which led to the compos
ing of the alternative text, The Dog On The Mat. The mak
ing of this text and the two proceedings texts, This Is
The Bear and The Boy Who Didn't Know How To Ride A Bike were informative experiences for Mrs. G. regarding writing alternative texts.
It was evident to Mrs. G. that in order for the children to grasp the story's structure and language pattern and to freely create an alternative text, a number of re-readings of the story was a definite requirement.
Viewing a section from my fieldnotes of 02-25-88 confirms the difficulty the children had in creating an alterna tive text after hearing one reading of The Carrot Seed
(Krauss). In this excerpt Mrs. G. and the children are engaged in creating the text, The Boy Who Didn't Know How
To Ride A Bike.
Mrs. G.: Could we write a story about us learning how to ride a bike when nobody thought we could do it?
Kevin: I don't like people getting into my life. 175
Mrs. G.: I can remember my brothers saying that, "You can't do that." What are some things that happen to us when we are learning to ride our bikes?
Peter: You got to be steady.
Stevie: You got to fall down and scrape your leg or bump your head.
Mrs. G.: Who might be some people in our story that wouldn’t think we could ride our bikes?
This discussion continues but does not lead the children to producing a lead sentence similar to Krauss’, "A little boy planted a carrot seed." Mrs. G. tries to get the children to generate a sentence such as, "I decided to ride my bike." This never surfaces. The children begin to use the pattern of The Carrot Seed text at, "His mother said, ’I'm afraid it won’t come up’." Mrs. G. no longer tries to evoke a similar sentence to the first sentence in The Carrot Seed. She accepts the boys’ suggestions and starts the story with Kevin’s statement, "My dad told me that I couldn’t ride my bike."
The succeeding children-made texts, such as, The
Three Little Pigs, were created after three or more hearings of the story. Mrs. G. found this approach much more successful. The children immediately began to tell the story and their suggestions were closely patterned after the original text. As an example, the retelling of
The Three Little Pigs started, "Once upon a time there lived three little pigs who lived in their mom’s house."
Along with books selected from the Children’s
Literature category for the read aloud sessions, Mrs. G. 176 had available pads of chart paper, two chart stands, a large roll of butcher paper and a roll of white mural paper, a number of large black markers, lots of masking tape to tape the edges of the large book pages, and rings to hold the pages in place. In addition, paints and brushes, crayons, markers, multi-colored construction paper, rubber cement, and scissors were available for the children’s illustrations.
Independent Writing:
Purposes: Practice in writing is a necessity if we want the children to learn its conventions. Mrs. G. held this belief just as highly for the at-risk children as for any other children. Hence, Independent Writing, a time for each child to express his thoughts in written form, became a priority literacy event in the literature based program for Mrs. G.’s at-risk children.
A purpose for Independent Writing that surfaced as the children were involved with their individual writing was the importance of writing as a source for learning how to read. Through writing Mrs. G. noticed that Kevin and
Chris became more aware of print and its characteristics.
In fact, she maintained that Kevin, who exhibited difficulty in matching one-to-one in reading, developed 177
this awareness through his written text. She said, "He
has to slow down, think of the sounds he hears and their
sequence, as he writes. He is forced to look at the
written word as he writes."
Establishing authorship was another important reason
for Independent Writing. Mrs. G. observed that the
children maintained a great deal of interest in their own writing and were willing to pursue it over long periods of
time. For instance, Barney was as excited about his writing of The Three Little Pigs after nine days as he was when started. His enthusiasm showed through his reaction to a request from me. After commenting on his story, I asked if I could borrow it overnight because I wanted to copy it. He looked up at me with a questioning expression and replied in an hesitant voice, "Ya-a-a, I suppose.
Don't loose it. I want to take it home." He was very proud of his little book. The next day on my arrival, the first person I met was Barney. In his usually bubbly way, he greeted me with, "Where's my book?" I thanked him and gave him his book. Mrs. G. suggested that he bring his book back to add to the book display table for sharing during time for Re-Reading Familiar Books. Barney did not agree, he wanted his story at home. 178
Another purpose of Independent Writing was freedom to communicate ideas in written form without external barriers. This purpose was clearly expressed through
Barney’s actions during a writing activity. After reading
Tolstoy’s The Great Big Enormous Turnip. one extension
Mrs. G. suggested was to have the children write their retelling in a ’little’ book she had made for each child.
She gave each boy a 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 inch booklet with ten pages. In Chris, Kevin and Barney’s booklet she had written a partial sentence on each page. The omission was to be completed by the boys. For example, the first page read, "______pulled and pulled but could not pull it up." Mrs. G.’s reasoning for this structure was that the children had not written much before so she did not want to discourage them by placing a blank book in front of them. She thought it would be best to slowly ease them into writing.
Chris and Kevin were quite content to complete their book in this manner, then illustrate the text. Barney, however, thought differently. He extended the sentence from the first page. He not only completed the blank but added a pronoun to the sentence. His sentence read, "The old man pulled and pulled but he could not pull it up
(Barney wrote the underlined words)." Between Mrs. G.’s 179
first and second pages, the gap in the story was too great
and he included a complete statement between them. (The
[] indicates Mrs. G.’s text.)
Page 1. The old man [pulled and pulled but] he [could not pull it up.]
Page 2. He called the old wman cma and halp wen the trnp. (He called the old woman come and help with the turnip.)
Page 3. The woman pulled the old man The old man pulled the trnp They [pulled and pulled, but could not pull it up.]
Barney continued his book in this fashion, adding
pages as well as including two or more sentences to each
text Mrs. G. wrote. By the sixth page, Mrs. G. noticed
Barney’s innovative way of extending the story and how
close his text was to the original text. She went to his desk and suggested that she cover her writing with post-it
tape so that he could write whatever he pleased. Barney was delighted with the idea. He continued his story,
filling every page and including every incident from the original text.
Although Mrs. G. had specific purposes for Indepen dent Writing from the beginning of the study, she was flexible enough to incorporate children’s purposes also. 180
Time: Independent Writing was not scheduled for
every literacy lesson during the first two weeks of the
study. However, it did occur daily in different ways.
For example, after the children had participated in
Shared Writing during the first week and understood the
process, they were always invited to write something in
the succeeding Shared Writing events. This happened as
they composed The Great Big Enormous Turnip. Mrs. G.
asked individuals to write specific words of the text,
such as 'pulled and pulled', 'turnip'.
Another example of Independent Writing interwoven
with Shared Writing was the inclusion of speech balloons
to add dialogue to a story. When the children completed
their illustrations for The Three Little Pigs and the
story map of Rabbit Finds A Way, they incorporated speech
balloons, thus providing a running dialogue between the
characters as the story unfolded.
Furthermore, many of the extensions included indepen dent writing. Such activities as, constructing a comparison chart included speech balloons, identifying soup ingredients required labeling, inviting friends to the year end party suggested written invitations. Hence, the regularity and length of time for Independent Writing varied with each literacy lesson. 181
Types of writing: The first independent writing (02-
15-88) the children composed stemmed from the reading of
Peek’s, Mary Wore Her Red Dress And Henry Wore His Green
Sneakers. Each boy drew a picture of himself and
identified the clothing and its color he was wearing. He
then wrote a sentence patterned from the language in
Peek’s book, i.e., "Mary wore her red dress all day long".
Examples of the alternative text writing were (brackets
indicate standard spelling):
Stevie: Stevie w hs back ps 11 day 1 (Stevie wore his black pants all day long.)
Chris: Chris w hs b s d (Chris wore his blue shirt [all] day [long].)
Another form of independent writing was informational
writing. While the boys were involved in their study of
The Three Bears, they created Lost Ad posters to locate
Goldilocks. Two forms of writing were uncovered during
this activity. Four of the boys patterned their writing
from a "Lost Ad" example modeled by Mrs. G., while Peter
incorporated his information in a dialogue format. In the
following excerpts of writing, Stevie’s exhibits the
first style of writing and Peter’s the latter. (The brackets indicate the standard spellings.) 182
Stevie: We can not fimD Goldilocks. She is that the Bears house, GenomyDlocks she is 5 yes ol. GenomyDlocks neinp is 866-5464.
(We can not find Goldilocks. She is at the bears’ house. Goldilocks is 5 years old. Goldilocks’ number is 866-5464.)
Peter: Will yll go fid Godilas Yes we will Se got god har and see have on a blue bas. O.K. we will go fid Godelis
("Will you go find Goldilocks?" "Yes, we wi11." "She got gold hair and she has on a blue blouse." "O.K. We will go find Goldilocks.")
Labeling was a form of writing that became useful to the children as the study progressed. For instance, as the children prepared their construction paper soup in gredients for the purpose of dramatizing the recipe Wolf
Stew, they labeled each item (04-28-88). Such items as the following were made and labeled, Chris - 1 wolf,
Barney - 5 potatoes, Stevie - 1 shake of oregano, Kevin- some straws, and Peter - 1 shake of pepper.
Dialogue writing was another type of writing the children experienced. Mrs. G. involved the boys in this form of writing not only during Independent Writing time, but also while Shared Writing was in progress. In each story they wrote, illustrations and speech balloons were 183 an integral part of the whole text.
On 03-03-88 while Barney was composing his retelling of The Great Big Enormous Turnip which he entitled The
Trnp. samples of his dialogue writing include: Come and hlap wet the trnp (Come and help with the turnip.), I can't pull the trnp up (I can’t pull the turnip up.) When he was composing his page for the Where’s Goldilocks?, his reply to the question, "Is she in the woods?" was "No, but the nas (nut) is good."
During Shared Writing events many opportunities arose for dialogue writing by individual children. For example,
(02-26-88) after the alternative text, The Boy Who Didn’t
Know How To Ride A Bike was written, the children each took one page of the text to illustrate and included speech balloons. Peter depicted, "My big brother told me
I couldn’t ride my bike." and subsequently wrote a speech balloon for the brother saying, "You cant rid your bic
("You can’t ride your bike.")." The younger brother’s reply was, "I tnc I can (I think I can)."
The last page in the text was illustrated by Stevie, but Barney and he wrote the dialogue. The text read, "I can ride my bike." Stevie drew the boy and had him saying, "I can ride my bike!" and "Good". Barney, after 184 listening to Stevie read the comments, quickly added, "hp hp hrs!" (Hip, Hip, Hurray!).
An extension suggested during the study of the thematic literature unit on "Food" was writing invita tions. After composing recipes for carrot cake, similar to bear's carrot cake in Delton’s Rabbit Finds A Way, and
Hogrogian's Carrot Cake. and chocolate chips cookies resembling Grandma's cookies in Hutchins' The Doorbell
Rang. the children and Mrs. G. decided to invite friends to their room for a party. The carrot cake and cookies were made by the children from their composed recipes.
Samples of the invitations follow:
Barney: PeTerter we're having a Party on June The 6 1988 it is in room 5 at Mrs Gs class at (school’s name) at 1:00 PM You can wear nice cloThes but it doesnt have to Be fancy You’re evite Peterter Let me knao FriDay From Barney
Kevin: Tray, we are goin to have a party June, 6 1988. Please come Tray, in room 5 at 1:00 p.m. p, From Kevin (Mrs. G. helped Kevin with much of the spelling in the invitation.)
Story writing was another type of Independent Writing the children wrote. After experiencing the Shared Writing of The Great Big Enormous Turnip, the children wrote their own versions of the story. On 04-21-88, they wrote their 185
rendition of The Three Little Pigs. Some stories received
such titles as, The teer Litte Pags (Peter), The 3 little
Pigs and The Soa (Barney), and The 3 Little Pigs (Chris).
It was apparent over the duration of the study that
Mrs. G. tried to expose the children to as many kinds of
writing as possible. However, before she invited the
children to do any independent composing, she modeled the
form of writing to be undertaken through Shared Writing.
For instance, she had the children write an invitation to
me through the Shared Writing process before they wrote
theirs to a friend.
Writing Materials: The materials varied depending on
the writing activity. All the ’little’ books were con
structed from 8 1/2 x 11 inch white blank paper. The
story maps were created on long sections of butcher paper,
and the text and speech balloons were written directly on
this paper. Some speech balloons were written on
construction paper, cut out and glued in their appropriate
places. Chart paper was used for composing Shared Writing
stories, recipes and lists. Posters were created on
poster board.
The children’s thoughts and ideas were generated from the children’s books they had heard at Read Aloud time 186
and revisited during time for Re-reading Familiar Books.
Of course the children's lived experiences provided im
petus to some of the writing ideas. For example, (03-
03-88) at the end of Barney's, The Trnp (Turnip). his last
sentence was, "lan prnd happa Beneday haqqa BeneDay"
(Let's party. Happy Birthday, Happy Birthday!). He said,
"They need to party after getting that turnip up."
Extensions:
Although the Shared and Independent Writing literacy
elements were viewed as extensions, they will not receive
specific attention in this section since they have
already been described in the previous section of this
text.
Purpose: "Children extend their understanding of
literature when they have an opportunity to represent and
manipulate the elements of literature in some concrete
form" (Huck et al., 1987, p. 678). This was the main
purpose for conducting the extensions in the study.
For example, (03-03-88) Mrs. G. provided the boys the opportunity to achieve greater meaning of Tolstoy's The
Great Big Enormous Turnip, by first having them retell the
story, then illustrating it. She discussed with each 187 child the illustration he was going to create to ensure that the he had grasped the message conveyed on each page he illustrated. While checking on Stevie she queried him about the character he was going to make. She pointed to
"he" in the text and asked, "Who will be in your picture?"
Stevie replied, "The old man." Satisfied with his answer, she moved to Peter, had him read the text and discussed what he was going to make. This inquiry procedure continued with the other children.
Another purpose of the extensions Mrs. G. hoped to achieve was promoting greater interest in books to make them memorable. She maintained that if the boys gained deep satisfaction from the books, they would want to return to them over and over. And this was truly the case with Stevie. Over a period of fifteen days, Stevie revisited the story of The Great Big Enormous Turnip 26 times through extensions. In addition, he returned to the story 16 times by way of repeated read alouds and independent and partner reading. In total Stevie visited
The Great Big Enormous Turnip on 42 occasions (Table 7, p.
188).
Never did he voice dissatisfaction or show boredom with the story. Each visit appeared to be as interesting as the first. In fact, during the second last week of the 188
READ SHARED INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENT DATE ALOUD READING READING WRITING EXTENSION TOTAL 02-29-86 1 1
03-01-88 1 1 2
03-02-88 1 2 3
03-03-88 2 1 1 1 5
03-04-88 1 1
03-07-88 1 1 1 2 5
03-08-88 1 2 1 4
03-09-88 2 1 3
03-10-88 t 1 1 3
03-11-88 2 1 3
03-14-88 1 1 2
03-15-88 1 2 1 4
03-16-88 1 1 1 3
03-17-88 1 1 2
03-21-88 1 1
TOTAL 3 10 3 14 12 42
Table 7. Stevie’s Revisits To The Great Big Enormous Turnip
study, his longing for the story was still apparent. He quizzed Mrs. G. about the book because it was not available to him for reading at Re-Reading Familiar Books.
She had removed it the previous week from the book display, but Stevie reminded her to return it, "Gee, I like that book. Can you get it back next week?" She reassured him that she would.
Time: Extension time was planned for every literacy lesson throughout the study. Its varying time length was 189 determined by the type of activity, e.g., drama, art, combination of creative arts. For instance, dramatizing
Wolf Stew did not require as much time as dramatizing
Galdone’s The Three Billy Goats Gruff and illustrating The
Three Little Pigs took more time than labeling the illustrated characters in The Dog On The Mat.
Types of Extensions: At the beginning of the study, the most popular extension was illustrating and pencil was the medium of the day. Before long changes in art medium were noticed. The first change occurred while the children were illustrating their big book, The Great Big
Enormous Turnip. They began to pencil draw their illustrations. I commented to Mrs. G., "It would be interesting to see what the children might do with collage, sometime."
Before the lesson was over, Mrs. G. had involved
Kevin in making collage characters. She showed him
Keats’, Peter Chair to explain the process of collage making. Before long he exchanged his pencil art for construction paper collage. Peter, who was stretched out on the floor working on his picture, noticed Kevin and said, "Gad, I like that." He began to erase his drawing and became busily involved with cutting out construction 190
paper shapes. Soon all the boys were experiencing the
new medium. The Great Big Enormous Turnip became an
attractive, colorful collage illustrated story. Little if
any pencil drawing was seen from then on.
Drama was another extension that helped books become
more real for the children as they took on the role of
specific characters. After the children’s third visiting
of The Great Big Enormous Turnip. Mrs. G. invited them to
retell it through dramatization. First, she wrote the
sequence of the characters’ entrance into the story on chart paper, assuming they might need it for reference.
Then they decided who would be whom. Mrs. G. asked, "Who would like to be the old man?" Peter’s hand shot into
the air. Next was the old woman and the children appointed Mrs. G. to that role. As Kevin said, "Mrs. G., you have to be the old woman ’cause you are a girl."
She accepted. Peter ended up also being the granddaught er, Kevin the black dog, Stevie the cat, and Barney the mouse.
The drama began after their individual roles were established. The children were slow at first and somewhat shy. They also tended to try to recall the exact words from the text for their dialogue which caused them some frustration. Mrs. G.’s explanations, good humor and 191 supportive manner encouraged them to pursue to the end.
It was apparent they had not participated in this type of activity before. However, their timidness had all but disappeared when they dramatized the making of Wolf Stew later in the study.
Flannel board story telling provided the children an opportunity to retell the story of The Three Bears. After each boy made his set of flannel board characters and objects he was given an opportunity to tell it. At first,
Mrs. G. told her version of the story to demonstrate the process, then suggested one of the boys share his story.
An extension that sent the children back into their books was story mapping. The children made story maps on two occasions. Their first attempt was portraying the journey of the three little pigs and their encounters with the wolf. However, before they actually began making their map on a 15 foot sheet of butcher paper, Mrs. G. had them recall the story, listing on chart paper the people the pigs meet in sequential order, e.g., the straw man, the stick man. From the chart they mapped out the story action on the butcher paper which included labeling the places and dialogue that ensued.
Another story map was created during the last two weeks of the study when the children delved into a study 192 unit related to food. One of the stories they heard was
Delton’s Rabbit Finds A Way which led them into making a story map of Rabbit’s journey to Bear’s house for carrot cake and his return trip home.
A comparison chart of four versions of The Three
Little Pigs was created to help the children develop their concept of story. This occurred while they par ticipated in the indepth study related to the story. A survey extension of these four stories gave the children an opportunity to experience how to represent specific findings in graphic format. They had to decide which book they liked the best and which one they liked the least. They plotted the results from the information they gathered from the survey.
Book making, e.g., Where’s Goldilocks?, encouraged the children to return to a story to locate specific information and then write their own. The extension not only motivated the children to write but provided them the opportunity to create, illustrate and bind a book of their own.
After reading and re-reading Hill’s Where’s Spot?,
Hellard’s Billy Goats Gruff and The Ugly Duckling, and
Wyllie’s There Was An Old Woman. they created a lift-up flap book about Goldilocks entitled, Where’s Goldilocks?. 193
Before the children began their book making, they listed the places on chart paper where Goldilocks might be, e.g., in the woods, under the stairs, in the kitchen, on the chairs.
The children had developed an acute awareness of how to make a lift-up flap book from their exposure to such books of this format. Hence, they did not require a great deal of guidance. The most difficult aspect of the production was the making and placing of the flap. How did you make the lift-up flap and where did you put it?
Mrs. G. took the children through the process step by step and where necessary gave individual assistance.
After the pages were made, the children put them in sequential order. They spread them out in the read aloud area and began to discuss which page came first, second and so on. Much deliberation and consternation arose and
Mrs. G. had to help in the children’s negotiations. A part of the discussion is presented in the following excerpt:
Stevie: "This is the last page." Barney: "No, it ain’t." Stevie: "Oh, yes it is. That’s the part where she’s home." Kevin: "Yes, it is." Stevie: "She’s home eating dinner."
Later they become confused over a picture of a house. They are not sure if it’s Bears’ or Goldilocks’ house. 194
Stevie (reading): "Is she in the bed under the covers? No, try Goldilocks, No try (pause)." Peter: "house" Stevie (reading): "No, try the Goldilock house." Peter: "No, that don't sound right." Stevie (reading): "No, try the house." Mrs. G "Where is Goldilocks’ house? Should we try it?" Kevin: "No. " Peter: "Yes." Kevin: "No, that’s inside." Mrs. G, : "No, try Goldilock’s house" (text). "Here’s her house." That’s what Chris says, "Is she in the house? No, try the bedroom?" (text) "Is there a picture of the bedroom?" Kevin: "Yes, right here." Mrs. G : "Is the bedroom in Goldilocks’ house?" Peter: "This is the house Hey, we have a problem." Stevie: "That’s the Bears’ house. Peter: 'No, that’s Goldilocks’
The debate continues until they finally agree who owns which house and which page order is correct. When the final product is completed, the debate issues are forgotten and the boys are as excited as can be about their book.
The extensions throughout the study evolved from suggestions given at Study II seminars and the thematic literature units Mrs. G. and I developed. Regardless of the kind of extension, they were always related to the books the children heard and were purposely selected and appropriate for the story. 195
Running Record:
Purpose: Monitoring the children's reading progress was a vital guide for Mrs. G. in her planning for the literacy lesson. It was from the monitoring that the children’s reading strategies were assessed and direction given for the literacy instructional program. The Running
Record provided Mrs. G. with information related to what the children knew about the reading process and what needed to be taught. For example, on 04-25-88 when Mrs.
G. assessed Chris’ reading strategies at Level 4, she observed through the analysis of his errors that he relied heavily on meaning to gain access to unfamiliar text. She noted, "(He) needs to develop visual cues as well. (I must) keep focusing him into that." While on the srame day in completing a Running Record (Level 14) on Peter, her analysis resulted in her noting, "(He’s) using visual cues mostly - need to get him to attempt unknown words by using a combination of strategies."
Time: Mrs. G. completed at least one Running Record on each child every two weeks. In some cases, especially with the children who required more time to develop reading strategies, she monitored them more frequently. 196
For instance, between 04-25-88 and 04-29-88, Mrs. G.
assessed Chris on two occasions.
The most convenient time for Mrs. G. to take a
Running Record was during the time for Re-Reading Familiar
Books. Such an assessment was also carried out during
Extension or Independent Writing time. If a literacy
activity were organized so that the children worked in
groups or individually without requiring help for three to
five minutes then Mrs. G. would quickly call a child to
the reading table and conduct a Running Record.
Running Record Materials: At first the selected
Reading Recovery materials, such as, The Story Box series
(The Wright Group) were used with all the children for
Running Record purposes. However, as the book collection
grew and children’s literature became the focal reading
material, Mrs. G. carried out the Running Records on
specific stories the children had encountered. For
example, on 04-22-88, Stevie read Galdone’s The Three
Little Pigs: on 04-25-88, Kraus’ Come Out And Play Little
Mouse was read by Peter; and on 05-04-88, Kevin ’s reading strategies were monitored through his reading of
Henry’s Busy Day (Campbell). 197
During the last five weeks of the study, Mrs. G.
frequently alternated between using graded Reading
Recovery materials and Children’s Literature for Running
Record purposes. As an experienced Reading Recovery
teacher, she capably leveled the Children’s Literature so
that she had an approximate leveling in Reading Recovery
terms.
A Typical Literacy Lesson
The following section is a literacy lesson that is
representative of a typical literacy lesson.
(04-19-88) The children arrive at 12:45 P.M. in
pairs and individually. They have their little blue
plastic pencil/crayons boxes and, in addition, Peter carries four books which he had overnight. They place
their boxes arbitrarily on the desks where Independent
Writing usually occurs. Immediately they head for the display table to select a book to begin their time for Re-
Reading Familiar Books.
Stevie and Peter decide to partner read Galdone's
The Three Little Pigs, so they each take a paperback and go to the reading table. Kevin glances over the books and chooses Carle’s The Very Hungry Caterpillar, while Chris 198
picks up Look, There*s My Hat (Roffey) which he read
yesterday. They proceed to the reading table. Barney
stays a little longer at the display table. He browses
through Rockwell's recently displayed, First Comes Spring
then selects his own little book, The Trnp (Turnip) and
sits at the reading table. Mrs. G. has taken a seat at
the table for monitoring purposes.
Stevie and Peter open their books and begin to read:
Stevie: "You read the first page."
Peter reads the title and the author and starts reading, "Once upon a time there was an old (pause) s-sow with three little pigs."
Stevie: "Old."
Peter thinks he said, "oh", and asks, "Where’s 'oh' down here?"
Stevie (pointing to Peter’s page): "’Old’" right there."
Peter continues reading, "She had", Stevie adds, "on". Peter says, "No" and spells ’n-o’ and re-reads, "She had no money to keep them so she sent them," Stevie says, "off", Peter repeats, "off to s-s-s", Stevie helps, "se-e-ek", Peter continues, "seek their," Kevin who is sitting at the end of the table, raises his head and says, "fortune." He returns to his reading and Peter reads, "fortune".
Peter and Stevie complete the story in this manner, one assisting the other as need be.
Meanwhile Kevin and Chris are reading aloud to themselves, while Barney who has finished his story, 199
returns it to the table and selects Where’s Goldilocks?
He sits on the floor by the display table and begins to
read. Chris looks up and eyes Barney. He leaves his book
to go with him. Barney invites him to join in on the reading, "You want to read with me?" Chris replies,
"Ya!" Barney reads the page Chris wrote and notices an error in two words. Chris has "se" for "she" and "hs" for
"house":
Barney (pointing to the word): "Se" has an ’h’ in it. It spells s-h-e, (pointing to where "h" needs to go. Then he points to "hs" and says, "That’s not right. It’s "house", (spelling, h-o-u-s-e). He begins to turn the page, but Chris stops him.
Chris: "You need to lift up (referring to the flap)." He lifts the flap and reads.
Barney:"It’s your turn now."
Barney and Chris continue to the end. Barney supports Chris whenever he has difficulty in a gentle, understanding way.
As the time for Re-Reading Familiar Books continues,
Peter and Stevie finish partner reading and Peter chooses
Galdone’s The Gingerbread Boy and Stevie selects Stone
Soup (Ross) to read independently. Kevin remains on his individual reading course selecting Dear Zoo (Campbell) to read and browses through Hellard’s The Three Little
Pigs. 200
After Chris finishes reading with Barney, Mrs. G. calls him back to the reading table and prepares him for a
Running Record event. She has No. No (Level 5) awaiting him. An excerpt for the event shows how Mrs. G. conducts the session.
Mrs. G. and Chris read the title together, No. No.
Mrs. G.: "This is a story about a little girl who tries to get people to come and talk to her. (Pointing to the picture) "Who is she trying to ask first?"
Chris: "Spider."
Mrs. G.: "What do you hear in ’spider'?" (Trying to get Chris to recognize sounds in word.)
Chris: ”’b’, ’c’."
Mrs. G. "’s’ as in ’Spot’. Is there a spider there (pointing to the picture)?"
Chris: "No."
Mrs. G.: "Can it be a bug?"
Chris: "Yes."
Mrs. G.: "Good. It is a bug. What do you hear in b-b-u-g?"
Chris:
Mrs. G.: "Good. Find a word that starts with a ’b’."
Chris points to ’bug’ and they continues to discuss the book in this fashion. Once through it, Chris reads it to Mrs. G. 201
After, Chris selects Hill’s, Where’s Spot? and reads it independently. Barney is off to the read aloud area and settles in the old over-stuffed green chair to enjoy
Galdone’s The Three Little Pigs. Kevin takes the big book, Dan. The Flying Man. gathers the metal pointer from the chart stand and settles near the doorway to read. He extends the metal pointer and begins to read, pointing to every word with the pointer. You can hear his voice from any corner of the classroom.
Mrs. G. asks the children to finish reading their story, then go to the read aloud area. It’s Read Aloud time. Within a minute the children arrive on the carpet, sitting cross-legged in a semi-circle. Mrs. G. sits facing them on the carpet. They have been involved in an indepth study unit of The Three Little Pigs. Today they are to hear the third version of the story. This one is written by Edda Reinl entitled, The 3 Little Pigs. The following is an excerpt of the session.
Mrs. G. (holding the book so the children can see the front cover): "This is another story about the three little pigs. We’re going to listen to this version of it." They read the title and illustrator, then she opens the book to the endpages.
Peter: "Hey, there are more little pigs. It's ten little pigs!"
Mrs. G.: "Ten little pigs? Why are there ten little pigs?" 202
Peter begins to count the pigs, pointing to each one. Fourteen pigs! Wow!
Mrs. G.: "Why would the illustrator have all those pigs on the endpages?"
Kevin: "Hey roan, that’s where the story begins. Some stories start at the endpages."
Peter (still fascinated with the number of pigs): "Oh, I know what she did. Look there are three pigs in each row. She just made a copy to fill the endpages." (It appears his explanation satisfies him.)
Mrs. G. begins reading and the boys sit, scanning the illustrations and listening to each word. After she reads, "Kissed their mother good-bye." she makes three kiss sounds. Peter notices this action.
Peter: "I know why you did that, *cuz there are three pigs."
Mrs. G.: "Yes, that’s right. The mother would have given each one a kiss."
Later Kevin asks, "What’s a countryside?"
Mrs. G.: "Out in the country."
Barney: "I've been in the country."
The story continues with interjections of emotional
response along the way, such as, "That don’t look like
straw.", "I bet he’s tired.", and "Gad, look at the wolf!" (referring to the illustration depicting the wolf blowing up). In addition, questions in search of meaning, e.g., "What’s snooze?", "What’s sturdy?", and discussion 203 of a linking nature to the other stories previously heard, such as, "But in the other stories the pigs didn't get eaten. This wolf eats them.", "Hey, he’s (wolf) goin’ blow up. In Galdone’s version the wolf falls into the pot. "
The Read Aloud ends with a discussion of the endpages depicting three houses. The middle house Kevin claims,
"It’s camouflaged. You can’t have a green, kinda organge and black house. That's camouflage (pointing to the middle house) . "
Throughout the reading the boys exhibit different listening styles. There is the life experience linker,
Stevie. Wherever an incident in the story relates in some major or minor way to his everyday living, he makes a connection and expresses it. For example, in Reinl's story when the wolf begins to blow himself up, Stevie quickly remarks, "He’s like my dad, big and fat. He’s gigantic." Then there is the silent interpreter, Chris.
Sitting motionless, cross-legged and with clasped hand, he scans every illustrations yet is totally engrossed in every word Mrs. G. reads. Quizmaster Kevin, never holds back if there is anything to be questioned about the text or illustration. He is the verbal meaning-maksr. He is 204
the one who asks in this story, "What is snooze?, What is
sturdy?"
Quiet Barney sits in a relaxed sitting position,
right hand under his chin, supporting his head. He’s the humorous one and is always for the underdog in the story, hoping good will overcome evil. He is most delighted when he first sees the wolf beginning to blow up and anticipates what is going to happen. He smiles to himself, rings his hands and releases a soft, "Ha, ha,!" when the wolf bursts.
Serious Peter listen attentively to every sentence, phrase, word. He’s the deep thinker. His mind works overtime predicting what will happen next, verbally announcing outcomes before they happen. Usually he is right!
From the Read Aloud Mrs. G. leads the children into
Shared Writing/Shared Reading. The children have heard three versions of The Three Little Pigs so now they settle in to compose their own story in a collaborative way. They remain on the carpet, turning to face the chart stand. Mrs. G. invites them to tell their story of what happens to the three little pigs. Sections from my fieldnotes provide a view of the literacy event including interactions and a flavor of Mrs. G.’s teaching style. Mrs. G. stands by the chart, marker in hand, ready to write. Kevin selects the opening sentence, "Once upon a time there was three little pigs." Mrs. G. writes Kevin’s state ment. As she writes, she reads each word. Kevin , Peter and Barney pick up on the reading at "time..." When she finishes writing the sentence, she has the children read it in Shared Reading manner.
Mrs. G.: "Kevin, you said you had something else to add."
Kevin: "They lived in their mom’s house."
Mrs. G. reads what has been written, "Once upon a time there were (edit) three little pigs" and adds, "who lived in their mom’s house." Is that what you want to say?
Stevie: "No. Who lived in the woods."
Kevin: "Yes, I live in my mom’s house."
Mrs. G. writes, "who lived in their" and has Kevin write the rest, " mom’s house." He writes, "ms hs". With the others’ help and Mrs. G.'s guidance, Kevin adds the missing letters.
Stevie: "When we are twenty-three we don’t have to live in our mom’s and dad’s house."
Mrs. G.: "Stevie, you read what I’ve written
Stevie: "Once upon a time there were three little pigs who lived in their mom’ house."
Mrs. G.: "What did you (Stevie) want to add it?"
Stevie: "Their mom said that you are gettin too big to live with me. So she sent them off in the woods to build their own houses." 206
Kevin: "Own houses." He questions the structure of the phrase.
Mrs. G. writes Stevie’s sentence and edits part of the sentence. She explains why she changes the sentence a little, but makes no issue of it. While she writes, the children read, "Their mom said, ’You are too big to live with me.’ So she sent them off to build their own house." She makes reference to the quotation marks, i.e., "These marks (pointing to the quotation marks) we use when someone says something."
Throughout the writing of the text, Mrs. G. makes reference to specific writing conventions but never belabors the fact. She also calls on individuals to write particular words or phrases. The remainder of the text for the day is com posed in this manner. They finish their day’s writing with, "The third little pig built his house out of sticks." Before the marker is put aside, Mrs. G. has the boys read to gether the complete text.
At the conclusion of their reading, Mrs. G. mentions
that they will continue the next day. She closes the
literacy lesson with, "Good job, boys! If you would
like, you may take books with you." Peter and Kevin go to
the display table and select, while the other leave.
Taking books home was voluntary. Some days all the boys chose some book or books, other days one or two selected.
Peter never missed the opportunity to take home books.
Sometimes he carted off six.
Mrs. G. and I reflect a few minutes on the lesson, then I depart as her Reading Recovery child appears for his lesson. 207
Teaching Literacy Strategies
Building literacy strategies was a primary aim of
Mrs. G. As she moved through each literacy element she continuously employed Reading Recovery teaching techniques
to meet this goal. Asking questions and giving comments related to specific reading and writing strategies helped the children implicitly learn these strategies.
The focus of Mrs. G. questioning and commenting assisted the children in building a "self-improving system" that guided them in 1) monitoring their own reading, 2) searching for cues in word sequences, in meaning, in letter sequences, 3) discovering new things for themselves, 4) cross-checking one source of cues with another, 5) repeating as if to confirm their reading so far, and 6) self-correcting assuming the initiative for making cues match (Clay, 1979, p. 59).
In this section I describe briefly and provide examples of the early literacy strategies which Mrs. G. explicitly teaches the children.
Strategies Used On Texts: These were the reading and writing strategies that the children used as a means of checking if they were attending to the right part of the text: 1) directional movement, i.e., establishing top-left starting point, left to right movement across lines; 2) 208
one-to-one matching, i.e., matching words in speech to
words in text; 3) locating one or two known words in the
text; and 4) locating an unknown word in the text.
Strategies used on texts were taught during the time
for Shared Reading. Shared Writing. Read Aloud, and Re-
Reading Familiar Books. For example, while the children
were participating in Shared Reading Mrs. G. always
pointed to each word of the text with the metal pointer
encouraging the appropriate directional movement as well
as one-to-one matching.
At the beginning of the study, Mrs. G. verbalized why
and what she was doing. In the first reading of The Great
Big Enormous Turnip, for instance, Mrs. G. started the
reading by pointing to the first word of the story and
said, "This is where we begin our reading." On the third
page she asked Chris to indicate where the reading began
and he did successfully. The technique of modeling
directionality and matching one-to-one then sharing the
responsibility with the children became a common practice
as the study progressed.
Mrs. G. used the same method with Peter as he
struggled to write his speech balloons from left to right.
He began his task by drawing the balloon shape first,
then tried to cram the dialogue into the space. Some 209 words ended up horizontally, while others were placed vertically and diagonally. (The brackets [] indicate strategies being taught.)
Mrs. G. (noticing Peter’s writing): "Peter would you please read to me what you have. Point to each word as you read."
Peter reads and points to each word, "I think I can ride my bike." He is not confused by the erratic route he follows to read the text. He knows how he has written it and follows the writing with out difficulty.
Mrs. G. then reads it according to the direction it should follow and matches one-to-one, "ride I can I think my bike" [directional movement, matching].
Peter: "That don’t make no sense."
Mrs. G. explains to him the directional movement and Peter replies, "Oh ya." She asks him how he might be able to write it so it reads correctly. Peter thinks for a moment and discovers that if he writes the speech first, then draws the balloon shape after it will work. He says, "I know how it works." He immediately writes then draws the balloon shape. Mrs. G. replies, "Yes, that’s right." and leaves to chat with Barney.
In the following excerpt it was evident that a number of these strategies used on texts were being built by Mrs.
G.’s questioning.
Mrs. G. is reading the children’s story, The Dog On The Mat. with Chris.
Mrs. G.: "Where do we start." [directional movement] 210
Chris points to the first word, "The." Mrs. G. : "Good, that's where we start-."
She begins to read, pointing to each word with the pointer and matching one-to-one [directional movement and matching]. She invites Chris to read along and he does. On the second sentence Chris holds the pointer with her. When they come to "on the mat", Mrs. G. lets Chris read. He is successful with "on the" and pauses on "mat".
Mrs. G.: "Let's go back to the beginning" [locating]. She points to the beginning of the first sentence and Chris begins to read. He picks up the repetitive language and is successful reading the two sentences.
Mrs. G.: "Can you find 'monkey' for me?" [locating]. Chris points to 'monkey.' Mrs. G.: "Good job, Chris."
After they finish the story Mrs. G. has Chris find words he isn't sure about, such as, kangaroo, lion (he calls tiger) [locating]. Chris has no difficulty.
In this passage, Mrs. G. engaged Chris in discovering the importance of directional movement and one-to-one matching in learning to read. She also emphasized the value of knowing how to locate words by re-reading a sentence to identify unfamiliar words, i.e., 'mat',
'kangaroo' as an important literacy strategy.
Self-Monitoring: Mrs. G. encouraged self-monitoring in all the children's reading and writing events. She 211
tried to get the children to confirm what they had read and written by self-checking. She strived to build within
the children a strategy system which they could then use
to confirm all their reading and writing. The system was comprised of four cues; meaning, structure, visual and
sound. As they became knowledgeable and competent in utilizing these cues, the children learned to monitor
their reading and writing by checking one cue against another for confirmation.
For example, while Kevin was reading Hill’s Spot
Goes To The Beach. Mrs. G. sat down with him for a few minutes to observe how he was progressing with his first attempt of the story. She had been working very closely with him on one-to-one matching, and visual and sound cues
Mrs. G.: "Make sure it matches, Kevin." [matching] Kevin: "What’s that word?" Mrs. G.: "Take a look at it." [visual] Kevin: "That." Mrs. G.: "Can it be?" [cross-checking] Kevin: "No." Mrs. G.: "Why not?" Kevin: "’That’ starts with a ’th’." Mrs. G: "What does it start with?" [visual] Kevin: "’L” ' Mrs. G.: "Could it be, ’look’?" [visual, sound] Kevin: "Ya." He reads, "Look that’s my basket." 212
Mrs. G.: "Read it again and point." [locate, matching] He does, she praises him and turns to Stevie.
Another excerpt shows Mrs. G. taking Chris through a similar cross-checking process as he reads, Mr. Grump.
Her questions force him to go back to the text and look more closely at what he had read, to focus in on specific print characteristics, and to monitor his own reading.
Chris reading: "Poor old man." Mrs. G.: "Check that again." [cross-checking] Chris: "Poor. No. Poor old, poor old Grump." Mrs. G.: "How did you know that it was ’Grump* and not ’man’?" [visual,sound] Chris: "Because that starts with a ’g*." Mrs. G.: "Good." Chris: "Poor old Grump let me (pause)." Mrs. G.: "What are you noticing? Does it match up?" [cross-checking] Chris: "No." Mrs. G.: "Try it again." [cross-checking]
During another literacy event between Stevie and Mrs.
G., she encouraged him to reflect upon his lived ex perience to confirm his text reading of ’bicycle*. She directed his attention to meaning cues. Stevie had invited Mrs. G. to partner read with him, Titch by Pat
Hutchins. He read "bicycle" for "tricycle" and Mrs. G. quickly noticed the error. She asked him to look at the word again [visual]. Kevin looked over at Stevie and said, "That’s a little bike." Stevie's instant reply,
"It ain’t got no training wheels for a training wheel 213 bike." Mrs. G. asked, "Could it be a training wheel bike?" [meaning]. Stevie said, "No." Mrs. G. followed up, "Could it be ’tricycle’?" [meaning, visual, sound].
Stevie responded, "Ya, that’s what it is." and continued to read.
It was during the process of learning how to self monitor that the children searched for and discovered the cues, i.e., semantic (meaning), syntactic (structure), visual and sound, that helped them unlock the door to unfamiliar written language. Sometimes, only one cue was required to solve a word problem, while other times a combination had to be called into action.
In the following segment from my fieldnotes of a Re-
Reading Familiar Books session, Mrs. G. worked with Kevin to help him became cognizant of the different cues he might use to read a word. In this passage Mrs. G. poses questions related to meaning, visual and sound cues.
Kevin is reading, Five In A Line.
Mrs. G.: "You said that the dad was in front of the line. Can that be dad? (pointing to the picture). [meaning cue] Kevin looks at the picture and says, "Yes." Mrs. G. (pointing to the word): "Look what it starts with." [visual cue] Kevin: "The father." Mrs. G.: "Look what it starts with, m-m-m." [visual and sound cues] Kevin: "Man." Mrs. G. "Now, try it again." 214
Sometimes Mrs. G. focused on one cue such as seen here when she drew Stevie’s attention to structural cues or as in the second excerpt when she directed Chris’ attention to sound cues.
Stevie is reading Galdone’s The Teeny Tiny Woman. "And said in her biggest teeny tiny voice, ’Took it!’"
Mrs. G.: "Would she say ’took it*?" [structural]
Stevie: "Yes."
Chris who is listening in: "No, that don’t sound right."
Stevie: "Take it!"
Chris is reading, Trolley Ride, "I don’t want a rabbit." Mrs. G.: "What do you hear in 'rabbit'?" [sound] Chris: "'r'."
Mrs. G. used the same questioning technique in writing. Her aim was to have the children use the same cuing system to help them read and compose. Barney was writing a retelling of The Great Big Enormous Turnip and
Mrs. G. sat with him for a few moments to observe him writing. He stopped writing and reflected on the story to recall who was the next character to enter the scene. He had the old man, the old woman and he searched for the next character. 215
Mrs. G.: "Who do you have in your story now? Read what you have so far." [meaning cue]
Barney reads and quickly discovers the grand daughter is next on the scene. "Oh, I know now, the granddaughter." He begins to write ’granddaughter’ and hesitates.
Mrs. G.: "’Granddaughter’, what do you hear?" [sound cue]
Barney: "'G-r-a-d-o-t-r'"
Mrs. G. repeats it again very slowly and he adds ’n’ after the ’a’. She completes the rest for him.
Throughout the study Mrs. G. availed of every oppor tunity to help the children build and expand on their literacy strategies, trying to enhance their self- improving system. A great deal of the building occurred on an one-to-one basis as a result of the children’s
Running Record assessments and Mrs. G.’s daily monitoring.
From the information, she identified the strategies the children knew and the ones that needed to be taught.
Regardless of the literacy strategy the children were learning, Mrs. G. never failed to help them discover and practice it in context with familiar reading materials.
Developing Thematic Literature Units
After the first week of study Mrs. G. and I met to review the week’s literacy events and to decide where we 216 would venture with the evolving literacy instructional program for the five children. From our examination of the events recorded in Mrs. G's daily journal entries and my fieldnotes a concern arose. The children were receiving inadequate time to act on books to make them memorable and to stir their interest for revisits.
The literacy lesson plans showed that the children had time for one read aloud of a book and then the event was followed by an extension which required two or three lessons for completion. No further invitation was extended to lure the children to revisit the book in any form. For instance, the children heard Hayes This Is The
Bear on one occasion, created an alternative text over a two day period and then the book was returned to the seminar group for another teacher to share with her at- risk children.
Furthermore, we found that once a story was read aloud and an extension completed, a new story was shared that had little if any connection to the previous one.
For example, after hearing This Is The Bear, the children listened to Wildsmith’s The Cat On The Mat. From this analysis, we noted that the literacy lessons were often unrelated and lacked continuity. 217
The lack of opportunity for the children to read and
revisit books many times and the lack of continuity in the
literacy lesson plans led us to conclude that a new
instructional design had to be devised. From these
findings, we decided to develop indepth thematic litera
ture units. We felt that a curriculum model of this
nature would provide the children longer time to internal
ize the language and content of stories, to discover
delight in books, to develop literary awareness and
appreciation, and to practice and stretch their literacy
skills in meaningful and purposeful ways using familiar
reading materials.
Planning the Thematic Units:
Where To start: In planning the units, Mrs. G. and I
were guided by some basic, but pertinent guidelines considered important to the development of thematic
literature units. These were:
1. To identify the needs and interests of the five at-risk children.
2. To know books and their potential.
3. To understand the structure of literature.
4. To understand the reading and writing processes. 218
From Mrs. G.’s knowledge of the boys' literacy needs which she gained from the Running Record assessments, their literary knowledge identified from their limited repertoire of stories and their book handling skills, we decided to develop our first thematic unit around folktales. They constituted good stories that would stimulate the children's imagination and they could be linked together by such structural elements as, use of three, predictable characters.
The first study unit focused on Tolstoy's The Great
Big Enormous Turnip. illustrated by Oxenbury. This cumulative folktale was recommended at one of the first seminars and had great potential for generating various extensions. The completion of this study led easily into another folktale unit, The Three Bears. This story was selected for an number of reasons: 1) it had a well- constructed plot, 2) it comprised many well-known folktale motifs, such as, threeness, familiar beginning and ending, usual theme - good overrides evil, 3) its language was repetitive, 4) it was available in different versions, 5) it was recommended by the seminar leader and 6) it had potential for a variety of extensions.
We followed the unit of The Three Bears with another folktale study, The Three Little Pigs. The reason for 219
the choice was its similarity to the previous unit.
However, a change in literary genre came with the last study. It incorporated a number of picture storybooks-
related to the theme - Food. It was instigated by an activity the children participated in during their study of The Three Little Pigs. The children had created a recipe, Wolf Stew and were excited about the results of their composing. It was decided therefore that they should have the opportunity to compose more writings of this form. Thus, the new unit was linked to the previous by a literacy extension.
How Long: The first thematic literature unit, The
Great Big Enormous Turnip, took approximately two weeks to complete, The Three Bears ran for three weeks, The Three
Little Pigs lasted four weeks, while the Food theme ran for two weeks.
The length of time spent on each unit depended on the number of selected stories related to the topic, the quantity of meaningful extensions and the children's interests.
Deciding On Reading Materials: Once the unit of study was agreed on, Mrs. G. and I referred to the recom 220 mended book lists given at the seminars and identified those books relevant to the unit. For example, the unit on The Three Little Pigs. included such books as Gal- done’ s The Three Bears and Cauley’s The Story Of The
Three Little Pigs. These books were identified from the book lists. Another source was the seminar leader who suggested titles, authors and illustrators. From her suggestions came, Blegvad's The Three Little Pigs;
Peppe’s Three Little Pigs; and Reinl’s The 3 Little Pigs.
Mrs. G. added her purchased book, Seymour’s The Three
Little Pigs.
The same book selection sources were called on for the study units on, The Great Big Enormous Turnip and The
Three Bears. When we developed the unit on Food. we thought about authors and illustrators of recognition who had written or illustrated stories related to the unit, e.g., Hutchins, Rice, and we evaluated unfamiliar stories for their quality and appropriateness for the study, such as, Brimmer’s Country Bear’s Good Neighbor. After evaluating a number of books the following were selected for the unit, Food: Brimmer’s Country Bear’s Good
Neighbor: Delton’s Rabbit Finds A Way; Hogrogian’s Carrot
Cake; Hutchins* The Doorbell Ring; Rice’s Benny Bakes A 221
cake; Robart’s The Cake That Mack Ate. and Westcott’s
Peanut Butter and Jelly.
Once the selection of the books for the thematic
literature unit was completed, the next step was to
determine which book would be most appropriate for
introducing the study and which one would be most suitable
to bring closure to the study. We then ordered the others
in sequence according to their similarity to the previous
ly read book. For example, the Food unit started with
Delton's Rabbit Finds A Way because the children had
completed their first story map of The Three Little Pigs
and this book was suitable for the same activity. We
thought it was pedagogically sound having completed a
story map for the children to follow up with a similar
activity to reinforce and extend what they had learned.
It was also viewed as a linking device between the two
uni ts.
Identifying Extensions: Once we gathered all the
books and read them, we took each book and assessed its
potential for meaningful and purposeful extensions. For
instance, in the unit on The Three Little Pigs, after the children heard and revisited the story through listening
to different versions, e.g., Galdone, Peppe, Reinl, the 222 children heard the story, Stone Soup (Ross). In this story a clever hen manages to stall a hungry wolf’s plans to make a meal of her by persuading him to taste her stone soup while she is in the process of making it.
In helping the children synthesize their knowledge of what happened to the wolf in The Three Little Pigs with the making of soup from Stone Soup. we saw it fit to have them compose their own recipe for Wolf Stew and then dramatize the making of it.
This was the decision process for selecting and using all the books and their extensions. The books became springboards for extensions, but these extensions had to be appropriate to the unit of study; had to link to previous learnings, such as, writing recipes or making a story map or retelling stories; had to be designed to encourage the children to return to the books to make them memorable; and had to promote the children’s desire to read them again independently or with a partner.
Appendix C presents the unit developed for The Three
Little Pigs and Mrs. G.’s literacy lesson plans showing her development and execution of the study. 223
Summary
The beginnings of this investigation were rooted in
The Early Literary Research Project of The Ohio State
University. The seminars held in conjunction with this
Project provided guidance and support for the study in regard to such issues as, the elements of a literacy session, book selection, appropriate extensions, and ways of monitoring children’s literacy progress.
An important influence in the development and implementation of the early literacy instructional program under investigation in the study was the teacher. Her educational and professional backgrounds as well as her philosophical perspective on emergent literacy and the learner affected the way in which she arranged her class room and the time sequence of the literacy elements. In addition, they influenced the manner in which she created a warm and supportive atmosphere for nurturing early literacy development.
The literacy elements of a lesson were Re-Reading
Familiar Books, Read Aloud, Shared Reading, Shared
Writing, Independent Writing, Extensions and Running
Record. However, time did not permit all the elements to be included every day. Three of them were: Re-Reading
Familiar Books, Read Aloud and Shared or Independent 224
Writing. A primary purpose of Mrs. G. in each lesson was
to build on the children’s self-improving system.
Whenever possible she focused the children’s attention on
specific literacy strategies.
As the study progressed, a curriculum and instruc
tional model evolved that included thematic literature units. Each unit ran for two to three weeks and gave the children time to internalize the language of books and story content, to discover delight in books, to develop literary awareness and appreciation, and to practice and stretch the children’s literacy skills in meaningful and purposeful ways using familiar reading materials.
In Chapter V, an analysis of the children’s literacy and literary development as well as the literacy instruc tional program will be presented. CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF THE CHILDREN'S LITERACY DEVELOPMENT
AND THE LITERACY INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM
Introduction
The descriptive data collected for this study focused on the development and implementation of a literature based program and its effects on five at-risk First
Graders’ literacy development. In Chapter IV, the data regarding the teacher’s theoretical perspectives on literacy learning, the development of the literacy instructional program and its implementation, and the literacy context in which the program was carried out was presented.
An analysis of the descriptive data is given in this chapter. It shows the literacy growth of the children as well as the increase in their literary knowledge. In addition, the analysis reveals the literacy elements pertinent to each literacy lesson, the importance of integrating the elements of a lesson in a holistic manner and the value of purposeful and meaningful book selection.
225 226
A discussion related to how the children take
responsibility for nurturing their own literacy develop
ment as well as that of their peers brings closure to the
chapter.
The Children’s Literacy Growth
Formal Assessment: A formal measurement U8ed to describe
and compare the children's literacy development over the
course of the investigation was Clay's Diagnostic Survey.
This Survey was first administered to each child a month
before my data collection began. It was given again at
the end of the study. The results of both testing
sessions are reported in Table 8. (The denominator
indicates the ceiling score.)
DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY O G N P O N W r S TESTIM3 Letter Mord Writing Text N w e DATE Identification Identification w Vocabulary Dictation Lev8?a£ X9curacv B a m « y 02-02-88 5 2 / M 7/20 11/24 21 27/37 3 - 96% 06-02-88 5 1 / M 14/20 17/24 61 32/37 16-90*
Chris 01-26-88 50/M 1/20 12/24 <9 16/37 A - OK 05-31-88 M/M 3/20 14/24 22 21/37 3-96*
Kevin 02-23-88 4 8 / M 2/20 16/24 9 9/37 B - 100K 06-01-88 4 7 / M 4/20 17/24 17 19/37 3 - 93X
Peter 01-28-88 5 3 / M 6/20 13/24 29 27/37 4-90* 06-06-88 5 3 / M 18/20 21/24 57 M / 3 7 18 - 93*
Stevie 03-03-88 5 3 / M 15/20 15/24 r r 26/37 5 - 95* 06-03-88 5 2 / M 16/20 19/24 55 M / 3 7 12-90*
Table 8: Results of Pre-Test and Post-Test Diagnostic Survey 227
Despite the limitations of the testing instrument, the results do reveal valuable information. Gains were made in all test areas. Particularly high gains were made in the areas of writing and text reading. In regard to writing, the children's writing vocabulary test indicated that all of them increased their writing score by a 100% or more. Barney accelerated 200%. An examination of the text reading scores revealed impressive gains. For instance, Peter who entered the study with a text reading of Level 4 accelerated 14 levels to Level 18 over the twelve week period. Barney’s score also indicated a remarkable gain. He increased his reading level by 400%, going from Level 3 to Level 16. In Reading Recovery terms
Peter, Barney and Stevie would be considered "recovered" and would not require daily Reading Recovery lessons.
They would be identified no longer as at-risk children.
Chris’ text reading score did not show such progress.
However, an incident that occurred the day after his testing session revealed a great deal about his knowledge of books and their format. The incident was recorded by
Mrs. G. in her journal notes of 06-01-88.
This afternoon at lunch recess, Chris asked if he could come in and read with me. Natu rally I told him yes.
When he came in, I was sitting at the table with testing materials all spread out ready for Kevin. He picked up "Stones" (Clay) and asked if we could read it. He immediately asked why the author (pointing to Marie Clay's name on the cover) had white on the title. "She could use black with yellow letters. It would stand out better." Then he asked, "What other books did Marie Clay write?" I replied, "She writes mostly for adults, but she did write another book that you read yesterday."
He opened the book, attempted to read the text. I ended up reading the first page. He came to the page with the picture upside down and said, "Now, this is funny. Why is the picture upside down?" and he quickly turned the book rightside up. He noticed the words were now inverted and asked, "Why are they upside down?" I explained the best I could. He turned the book around and turned to the next page, again noting the words were inverted. "Now, this is funny. Why did the author do this?" I repeated my explanation but he still appeared unsure why any "author" would want to do this to a book. I told him that at the beginning of the year he didn’t notice these errors. He was thrilled and so impressed with himself about his progress.
We continued to read the story and he pointed out other errors: lines in the wrong order, telling me that I didn't read it the way it was written. He referred to the quotation marks as "2 commas". This was a little guy who at the beginning of the year got 3 on Clay’s, Concepts of Print. He had come a long way.
After the story was over, Chris looked at me and said, "She didn’t even have endpages and she didn’t have a dedication."
Just think of the knowledge he had gained. He was truly a member of the literacy club (Frank Smith). I am so amazed and so pleased with this book discussion. It's made everything so worthwhile for me. 229
A closer examination of this excerpt uncovered some of Chris' literacy knowledge of bookB. For example, he knows print conveys a message and that there should be a relationship between the text and the illustration, he uses literary terms to indicate specifics characteristics about a book, i.e., "author, endpages, dedication"; he is aware of concepts of print, e.g., punctuation - 2 commas, letter formation - noticed inverted letters; he has begun to develop an aesthetic appreciation for illustrations and he shows an interest in reading.
Another way to view the children's text reading growth was to compare their text reading scores from the
Diagnostic Survey with reading levels in the Ginn Reading
Series. This basal program is used by many primary teachers for reading instruction in the Columbus Public
Schools. The comparison is presented in Table 9.
TEST LEVEL GINN LEVEL NAME PRE-TEST POST-TEST PRE-TEST . POST-TEST Barney 3 16 Pre-Primer (1) Second Grade Reader (2)
Chris A 3 Readiness Pre-Primer (1)
Kevin B 3 Readiness Pre-Primer (1)
Peter 4 18 Pre-Primer (1) Second Grade Reader (2)
Stevie 5 12 Pre-Primer (2) First Grade Reader (2)
Table 9: Comparison of Text Reading Levels Ginn Series 230
Tables 8 and 9 (p. 229) indicate that Chris and Kevin continue to be below grade level in their literacy development. It appears they are now ready for the First
Grade reading program. Since the school has decided to retain the two boys in First Grade, they should fit comfortably with their reading class in September.
Meanwhile, Stevie is on par for his grade level and Barney and Peter are above their grade level in text reading.
These three boys will be in Second Grade in September and should manage very well with the average Second Grader in reading and writing.
Informal Assessment: Another means of examining the children’s literacy development was through informal means. One informal assessment was a survey of the books the boys selected to read during the time for Re-Reading
Familiar Books. The survey showed the number and reading levels of the books they read and re-read. It was noted that the children often read books at a higher level of difficulty than their text reading level indicated on the
Diagnostic Survey.
An example of higher text reading was revealed in
Peter’s readings during the fourth and fifth week of the study. His reading level at that time was approximately 231
Level 10. Peter read such books as, Galdone’s The Teeny
Tiny Woman (Level 16) and The Three Bears (Level 17),
Carle’s The Very Hungry Caterpillar (Level 18), and
Galdone’s The Three Little Pigs (Level 20). As Mrs. G. observed, "Peter is tackling text greater than what his text reading level indicates. He’s doing it quite success fully, using a variety of reading strategies."
The following text is a partial transcript of Peter's reading of The Three Bears on 03-22-88. I have compared his reading with the original text. This comparison shows how accurate his reading was and how close his word approximations were to the published text. He heard the story read aloud on one occasion before this entry.
(Brackets [] indicate the original text and underlined words are text approximations.)
(As he reads he points to each word.) Once upon a time there was [were] three bears who lived (pause) to to to together in a house (pause) in the woods. One (pause) ____ [of them] was a little wee bear, one was a middle size bear and the (long pause. Mrs. G. says, "other".) and the other was a great big bear....
One morning the three bears made (pause) por-por-porridge for breakfast and put [poured] it in. [into] their bowls. But it was too (pause) hot to eat. __ [So] they decide [decided] to go for a walk in the forest [woods].... 232
In this passage, it is apparent that Peter’s word approximations such as, was/were, put/poured are accept able and meaningful, i.e., they make sense. Kevin is another example of a reader reading books more advanced than his text reading score shows. In the eighth and ninth weeks he was reading books such as, Campbell’s
Henry’s Busy Day (Level 8) and Dear Zoo (Level 9), and attempting Galdone’s The Three Little Pigs (Level 20).
His text reading level was approximately at Level 1-2 at the time. A section from his reading of Henry’s Busy Day reveals how close his text approximation was to the original story. He heard the story once and attempted it on one other occasion. This was his second independent reading. (Brackets [] indicate the original text, underlined words are the text approximations and quota tions indicate Kevin's comments.)
This is Henry. He never sits still. He likes to chew on my slippers. He likes to scratch his back. He likes to chase the pigeons. He likes to dig holes [a hole]. He likes to dig holes. "That don’t match." He likes to dig holes. He likes to, He likes to dig a hole .... After Henry had a, "Nope." After Henry a, "That don’t make sense." After such a busy day, Henry, "Can’t wait to read the bubble (zzzz!)." After such a busy day, Henry likes to sleep in its (self-corrects) his basket....
The children’s independent writing also provided insights into their literacy growth. In examining 233 writing samples gathered during the course of the study,
it was evident that their knowledge of composing showed impressive gains in a relatively short time.
The first independent writing extension the children participated in was writing a sentence about a picture of themselves and the clothing they were wearing. The idea arose from listening to Peek's, Mary Wore A Red Dress And
Henry Wore His Green Sneakers. It was the children's initial introduction to writing individual alternative text. Stevie's writing is representative of the group's first composing and exhibits the basic understandings all the children had regarding writing:
Stevie w hs back ps 11 day 1 (Stevie wore his black pants all day long.)
His written text shows that he is aware that writing conveys a message and that the sounds in words are represented by letters. He is also cognizant that writing follows directional principles, e.g., start top left., move left to right across the line. Furthermore, Stevie’s writing reveals he does know how to spell his name and that he has some knowledge of standard spelling, e.g., day.
After the children’s first writing extension, considerable growth appeared regarding the length of text, complexity of ideas, and conventions of writing. In 234 regard to length of text, the increase was tremendous for
Peter, Barney and Stevie. It seems that the impetus behind this increase was the function and form of writing they were asked to do, i.e., retelling stories. For example, (03-03-88) after hearing The Great Big Enormous
Turnip (Tolstoy) Barney wrote ten 4 x 6 pages of text. He included every incident and added his own ending, "lan prnd happa Beneday haqqa Beneday" (Let’s have a party.
Happy Birthday, Happy Birthday!). (02-21-88) Peter’s retelling of The Three Little Pigs took twenty 4 x 6 pages to tell. He was determined to include the entire story,
"I’m goin’ put in about the fair, too."
Chris and Kevin required a great deal of individual assistance in their writing. Their stories were rather short and precise, yet they were logical and meaningful.
They always included the pertinent characters and inci dents. For instance, Kevin’s retelling of The Three
Little Pigs includes the necessary characters and actions to convey the storyline (04-29-88):
The 3 Little pigs
Once upon a time there were 3 pigs the first Little pig made ihs house out of straw the cecond pig made his house out of cticks the thrd said I mt (make) my house nc (nice) And strong t (out) of bricks The big bad wolf huffed and puffed and huffed and puffed and almost blew 235
The house down The wof fell in the pt (pot)
Building the children's repertoire of stories gave
them greater access to book language and flexibility in
using such language in their story writing. Barney’s
retelling of The Three Little Pigs, entitled The 3 little
Pigs and The Sow (Sow) is an example of how the children
periodically borrowed language and ideas from different
stories to write. The quoted entry begins with the wolf
at the first little pig’s house asking to come in.
Barney’s written dialogue between the wolf and the pig is
as follows:
"Then I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow the house in," said the big bad wolf.
"No, you won’t," said the little pig.
"Yes, I will," said the wolf.
"No, you won’t," said the little pig.
Then the wolf blew the house in. The wolf ate the first little pig.
The dialogue, "No, you won’t., Yes, I will., No,
you won’t." is the identical verbal interaction that
occurs between two animals in Laan’s The Big Fat Worm.
When Barney read his story to Mrs. G., she noted the
similarity of text. Her curiosity led her to quiz him about the interchange. She asked, "Have you heard this 236
(referring to the dialogue) before." Barney could not recall hearing it. "Do you remember the story we read on
Monday, The Big Fat Worm? Remember the bird talking to the worm and what he said?" Barney replied, "Ya." Mrs.
G. continued, "Do you remember what the bird said?"
Barney could not remember the exact words so Mrs. G. refreshed his memory. Barney chuckled and went on reading his story to Mrs. G. It is apparent from this conversa tion between Mrs. G. and Barney that children unconscious ly borrow language from different stories to compose their own.
In addition to borrowing language from books, it is evident that the children also borrow their story ideas from other sources. The ideas appear to come from three children's worlds, i.e., imaginary, literary and real.
An example from the children's Shared Writing of The Three
Little Pigs provides evidence to this fact:
Literary World: Once upon a time there lived three little pigs who lived in their mom’s house.
Real World: Speech Balloons - I love you mom. Good-by. By I love you. 237
Imaginary World: Speech Balloons depicting dream ideas.
The children’8 control over the convention of
writing grew as they experienced more writing tasks. One
of the first growth spurts was in relation to invented
spelling. An example of such an improvement is shown in
Peter’s, "Lost Ad for Goldilocks" (03-28-88). He wrote,
"Im ging to till you agne wan mor tom" (I'm going to tell
you again one more time). Another example is Barney’s writing in Where’s Goldilocks?, "is she at horn eding dinnr" (Is she home eating dinner.).
By the end of the study, the invented spellings of
Peter, Barney and Stevie had become very close approxima tions to standard spellings, e.g., comeing/coming, ther/there, whent/went. However, Chris and Kevin continued to represent many of their words with con sonants, e.g., mn/missing, brm/bedroom.
Appropriate capitalization and punctuation filtered into the children’s writing as they experienced more opportunities to write. On 04-27-88, Peter’s last page of 238 his, The Three Little Pigs, has a capital letter for the beginning of each sentence and a period at the end. On 06-
01-88, Barney wrote his invitation to his friend, Peter, and used proper capitalization. Stevie's first attempt at including suitable punctuation appeared in his story of
The great Big eomase (Enormous) tornp (03-03-88). He placed a period at the end of each page which happened to be the end of a sentence.
Furthermore, the children’s knowledge of a book's specific features was visible in their story writing.
Copyright date, c Maurch 17, 1988, appeared in Stevie’s writing of The Great Big Enormous Turnip and on 04-21-88 he dedicated his retelling of The Three Little Pigs.
Deimek to Joey and Emily (dedicated to Joey and Emily).
Each story the boys wrote had an author or authors.
Their collaborative stories included all their names and if Mrs. G. and I participated in any way our names were added. For example, we were listed as co-authors with the boys in the written retelling of The Three Little Pigs.
Page numbering was evident as early as 03-03-88.
After Stevie wrote his The great Big eomase (Enormous) tornp and read it, he added page numbers to the top right hand corner of each page. Barney did the same for his,
The Trnp. However, it was 04-21-88 before Peter’s writing 239 showed page numbering. He placed 1 page numbers in his retelling of, The Three Little Pigs, when he was reading it through the second time for editing purposes. An examination of Chris and Kevin's writings never uncovered any attempt to number pages.
Another mark of writing growth was the children's interest in editing their story writings. Their first writings had no editing. When they reached the retellings of The Three Little Pigs, editing appeared especially in
Peter's and Barney’s stories. The following excerpts provide insights into the boys’ editing process.
(04-27-88): Barney finishes writing his story, The 3 little Pigs. Mrs. G. asks him to read to see if he wishes to add or delete anything. She also asks him to consider the meaning, "Make sure it makes sense."
Barney reads, "Once a upon a time there was an old mom pig and the 3 little pigs." He adds soa (sow) after mom. He continues. "The first little pig baed (adds "t", baedt [built]) a home out strg (straw)." Reads the sentence from the beginning and adds "of" after " out".
He continues his editing, adding letters and words, never deleting. Finishing, he returns to the title and says, "Hmmm, this story is about the old sow too." He adds "and The Soa" to his title. "You know I made this book." He has already written his name down as author, but for him "author" means writer, not illustrator or publisher.
He includes, "makde by Barney" under his name as author. 240
04-27-88: Peter is on his third draft of The Teer Liite Pags and Barney is listening to his story for editing purposes. The question that guides Barney is, "Does the story make sense?" Peter is not only aware of meaning but he is conscious of his spelling, punctu ation and capitalization.
Peter begins to read, Barney is sitting next to him. He reads his title and immediately changes Teer to Thee by changing the second "1" in Liite to a "t" . He inserts an "L" before the "e". Liite becomes LittLe. Changes the "a" to "i_" in Pags.
As Peter reads, "Built his house out of sticks" Barney leans over and says, "Hey man that (sas) don’t say ’sticks’." Peter stops and slowly says, "sticks". He changes "sas" to "sacks" and continues.
Peter reads, "The third little pig built his house of bricks." Barney interrupts again, "You need "out"." Not sure just where it should go Barney tells Peter to read the sentence again. As he reads both identify where "out" should go and Peter adds it.
The boys continue with additions and deletions. After Peter reads about the second little pig his story takes a leap to the scene of the third little pig’s house and the wolf telling the pig he is going to blow the house down. Peter provides no narrative before the dialogue and Barney notices, "You never said that the wolf when to the third pig’s house." Peter agrees and adds a full page of narrative.
The boys finish the story and Peter appears pleased with the outcome.
The editing process was in its initial stage when the study came to a close, but the interest and responsibility 241
that Peter and Barney showed indicated that this process
can be initiated in the emergent stages of literacy.
However, the children do require a basic understanding of
what they have to do, why they are doing it and need to
have experienced enough stories to develop their sense of
story. It is the latter requirement that guides the
children into discovering if the story makes sense or not,
if it need re-structuring and/or if story gaps are
obvious.
Writing growth was apparent in the children’s
awareness of the different functions of writing and the writing forms these functions require. They not only wrote stories, they created recipes, identified specifics by labeling, wrote dialogue, designed and composed
invitations and presented information in an advertisement
format.
Progress in writing was evident with all the children. However, some made greater gains than others.
Peter, Barney and Stevie showed the greatest development, but Kevin and Chris did show growth and interest in the composing act. 242
The Children’s Literary Growth
The children’s literary knowledge grew as a result of
their hearing and interacting with many children’s books
as well as Mrs. G.’s style of questioning related to
literary aspects. Mrs. G. never explicitly taught the
children specifics about story structure or meaning. Nor
did she "have a lesson on how to interpret illustrations".
It was through her book discussion style and the questions
asked and comments offered during the literacy lesson that
the children’s literary knowledge increased. They learned
implicitly the meaning and usage of literary language, how
stories have characters and settings, how to negotiate
meaning from texts and the importance of illustrations to
the story.
In the following section, the children’s literary
development will be presented under the headings of story
structure and story meaning. The structural elements of a
story, such as, characters, setting, print features,
sequential order, will be discussed under the heading of
Story Structure. How children’s gain meaning of stories
through predictive and interpretative processes will be described in the section on Story Meaning. 243
Story Structure: Little evidence was uncovered at
the beginning of the study to reveal the children’s awareness of particulars necessary to create a story such as characters, settings, theme, plot development. Nor did they exhibit any understanding about the special features of a book, e.g., title, author, illustrator, print. Change began to appear in the second week of the investigation.
One of the first indications that the children were becoming aware of special written features of a text was during Shared Reading of their retelling, The Great Big
Enormous Turnip. Kevin noted, "Hey, I know why you made
ENORMOUS big." Mrs. G. asked "Why?" "’Cuz it is a big word and you have to shout it." Peter followed immediate ly, "But it means ’big’, too" (03-03-88). Special features of written language were again referred to later (04-15-88) when Barney and Chris were partner reading Galdone’s The Three Bears. As Chris approached,
"a Little Wee Bear", he turned to Barney and said, "You say that in a little voice. See, the words are little."
Barney added, "Ya, and that means the little bear is little."
The children noticed language features, such as repetition, rhythm and rhyme, after they had heard a number of repetitive and rhythmic stories. For instance, 244 when Mrs. G. was reading The Carrot Seed (Krauss) Barney commented, "It's repeating. It's saying, "It won't come up." over and over and over" ( 03-01-88). Stevie noted that the last two lines of each verse in Peek's, The
Balancing Act were the same. "That's easy to read, those
(pointing to the sentences) say the same words" (05-17-
88 ) .
The rhythm and rhyme of some stories were singled out by the children. During time for Re-Reading Familiar
Books on 04-12-88 Barney did not make particular reference to the tune of Mary Wore Her Red Dress And Henry Wore His
Green Sneakers (Peek) but one could tell he was well aware of the rhythmic language as he sang his way through the song. Watching Stevie tap his foot and nod his head as he read, Peanut Butter and Jelly (Westcott) indicated he had tuned into the rhythm of the book language (05-13-88). A verbal reference to rhyme came from Chris when he was introduced to Good Night, Good Night (Boynton). Mrs. G. read only the first two lines when Chris looked up at her and said, "Mrs. G., you know that this book rhymes" (04-
26-88)?
The boys’ recognition that story had such elements as characters and setting was evident during their social interaction while they participated in making extensions 245
and read independently. Kevin identified the characters
in The Trolley Ride to Mrs. G.f "You know Mrs. G., this
book has lots of animals. There is a turtle, chicken,
frog, cat. There's even a monster" (04-15-88).
Character qualities were noted by Peter and Barney as
they discussed the, wolf's characteristics in The Three
Little Pigs (04-19-88). Peter commented, "He has a
pointed nose and sharp nails. He's mean." Barney agreed,
"Ya, he eats people." Stevie thought the teeny tiny woman
in The Teeny Tiny Woman (Galdone) was a witch. "She’s a
witch. Because I saw that umbrella and she might fly up
in the sky" (03-24-88). These boys had synthesized the
information they had gathered from different stories and
had formed opinions about special characteristics
portrayed by different characters.
The importance of setting in a story was apparent as
the children prepared their illustrations for their
retelling of The Three Little Pigs. The discussion
related to what objects were needed for the illustrations
led the boys to identify the mom’s house and the three pigs’ houses. Peter added an apple tree, a barrel and
"We gotta draw a fair" (05-05-88). In making the felt characters and objects for their flannel board study of
The Three Bears, Barney said, "We need the Bears' house 246 and we gotta have bowls, chairs and beds" (3-24-88).
Although the children did not use specific literary language when talking about character, setting, etc., their indirect reference to these elements implied they understood their importance to story structure.
Another literary element of story is plot develop ment. The children were quite aware that stories had identifiable events and that these events had to occur in sequential order. Peter displayed his understanding of plot development when he was asked to put the retelling text, The Three Little Pigs in order. He spread out the pages, read each one, then began to select which page came first, second, etc., until he had the book completed.
When he finished he read it again in its entirety and discovered one page was improperly placed. "Hey man, that don’t make sense. The stick man comes after the straw man." He rearranged the pages and re-read. Satisfied, he took the book to Mrs. G. and said, "Here, it’s in order"
(04-22-88).
Another indication that the children were developing their sense of story was evidenced from the lengthy debate that erupted over the sequential order of Where * s
Goldilocks?. An excerpt from the argument reveals their understanding of story structure (04-15-88). 247
Stevie: "This is the last page." Barney: "No, it ain't." Stevie: "Oh yes, it is . That’s the part where she’s home." Kevin: "Yes, it is." Stevie: "She’s home eatin’ dinner."
Later, when the book is supposedly in order they read it together. They read three pages and the another argument begins.
Stevie: "Wait a minute. That don’t make sense. That’s the last page." Kevin: "No, that’s right." Peter: "It got messed up." Barney: "That one comes next." Peter: "Which one?’ Barney: "That one, about the refrigerator." Peter puts it in place but Kevin isn’t satisfied. "Let’s read it again." Stevie: "Ah man, why don't you put it like I said." Mrs. G. hears the boys arguing and comes to the scene.
Literary language increased in usage as the children
became more versed in its meaning. Never did a week go by
in the last half of the study without some child incorpor
ating literary language, e.g., author, illustrator, title,
dedication page, character, in their speech during the
literacy lesson. Even words such as "version" in
reference to folktales with the same storyline were heard.
An example of such occurred on 04-29-88 when Peter, Barney
and Chris were discussing the story action of The Three
Little Pigs in preparation for making a story map. The
children heard the word "version" used by Mrs. G. twice before when reading books. The children are trying to think about the pigs' journey after they leave their mother. As they decide on the places, Mrs. G. lists them on chart paper. They have decided that their story map will start at the sow’s house. On the chart is written, 1. mom pig's house. The boys are trying to figure out the next location. The boys aren’t sure. Should 2. read - take a walk, meet the straw man, or at the straw house? Mrs. G. gets three versions of The Three Little Pigs books (Galdone, Cauley, Reading Recovery Book). The boys take a book and begin to thumb through to find the answer.
Peter: "Hey, there it s a y they met a man with a bund1
Chris: "He found some straw." Peter: "In my book it says he bought some straw. Your (Chris) book is different."
The children find more differences and are having difficulty with deciding how their story map should be depicted. A little tension begins to mount. All remains cool until they have to decide what happened to the first little pig.
Peter: "The wolf eats him up." Chris: "No, he goes to the second pig’s house." Barney: "Eat him up, eat him up." 249
Chris: "Gross, gross. It wouldn’t be fun ny if the wolf came along and ate you up." Barney laughs. Peter locates the exact narrative in his story to confirm the wolf ate the pig. Mrs. G. reads from Chris' book which says the pig went to the second pig’s house. Peter: "Hey man, that’s a different book. That’s a different version." Barney: "Ya, that’s different. It’s another version of The Three Little Pigs."
Other special features of books became known to the
children as they discussed stories and their contents.
When Mrs. G. settled the children for a read aloud on 03-
10-88 and showed the children the jacket, Chris said, "I
know that title. It’s This Is The Bear. You read it
before." Reference to titles, authors and illustrators became common practice mid-way through the study,
especially during partner reading. When Kevin and Peter prepared to read, Dan. The Flying Man. Kevin gave the
instructions, "You read the title and I’ll read the first page. Then you read."
At the beginning of the Read Aloud session on 03-24-
88, Peter noted readily the author of The Teen Tiny
Woman. "Paul Galdone wrote that book. He writes lots of books." Another incident showing a child’s command of literary language came from Kevin. He was very proud of himself when he announced to the group how he could tell who the author and illustrator were of There Was An Old 250
Woman. "He wrote it (pointing to Stephen Wyllie) and she painted (pointing to Maureen Roffey)." Mrs. G. responded,
"How do you know?" Kevin replied, "He has a pencil and a book and she has paints and it looks like she drawing the pictures. That's how I can tell" (05-17-88).
Endpages were another book feature the children noted. Chris displayed his knowledge of this book feature after he read to me The Bee (Ernst). "See here," he said, turning to the front of the book. "These are endpages.
Some in the back, too" (03-29-88).
The value of illustrations to a story was obvious to the children as more stories were read and Mrs. G. guided them into more indepth discussion. An example of the children exhibiting this knowledge occurred during an early read aloud session (02-04-88). The children were talking about the enormity of the carrot in The Carrot
Seed (Krauss). The adjectives they used to describe the carrot size were stimulated by the carrot’s depiction in the last illustration, e.g., gigantic, b-i-g, red not orange. Nowhere in the written text was there any reference to the size of the carrot.
When the children were working on their illustrations for The Great Big Enormous Turnip. the importance of illustrations to the text was emphasized (03-17-88). Each 251
child had a page from the book which he had to illustrate.
Before they began depicting the text, Mrs. G. had them
read their text. She asked them, "What are you going to
put in you picture?" and waited for an answer before
moving on. She wanted them to know that what was
portrayed in the picture had to have some reference to the
text. Barney completed his illustration, read the text,
then said, "My picture is O.K. I got all six of mine
(characters)."
Another incident occurred during this extension
showing the children’s understanding that illustrations
enhance the text. The children were assessing the
illustrations to confirm that they did indeed relate to
the print. Kevin informed the group that the page with
the dog on it was incorrect. "Could I say something?
That don’t look like no black dog." Mrs. G. asked,
"What’s wrong, Kevin?" "It should be black, not white."
Mrs. G. replied, "How do you know?" Kevin added, "Look at
the words. It says the black dog pulled."
The children noted too that stories with the same
storyline do not have to be depicted with the same media
or design. Kevin showed this distinction when the group discussed how the four versions of The Three Little Pigs 252 varied in different ways (05-10-88). "The pictures in the books are different but the stories are the same."
The children’s growing knowledge of story structure regarding book format, print features, language patterns, elements of a story, i.e., character, setting, plot was evident within the second week of the study. However, as the investigation unfolded and the children experienced more literature and more ways to interpret it, their literary knowledge of story and its structure increased dramatically.
Story Meaning: Gaining access to the meaning of a story is achieved by different means or by a combination of these means. Three such avenues were noted in this study: prediction, interpretation and linking. These ways of determining meaning were promoted through the teacher’s questions, e.g., "What do you think is going to happen next?", "Do you know other stories that remind you of this one?" and comments, e.g., "Yes, you were right.",
"My brothers said that to me when I was little." During the course of the study the children began to make predic tions, interpretations and literary links without suggestion from Mrs. G. 253
An examination of the children’s responses indicated
that their predictions stemmed from four sources:
illustrations, repetitive and rhythmic language, intona
tions and plot development. Examples of how the children
used illustrations to predict follow.
On 04-26-88 Mrs. G. introduced the children to Stone
Soup (Ross). They immediately entered into a discussion
about who would make the soup. After looking at the cover
of the book Peter suggested the hen, "She has the stone in
her hand." A similar prediction is made by Barney as he
carefully surveyed the illustrations of Mr. Gumpy’s Outing
while Mrs. G. read, "It’s goin’ sink. It’s goin’ to
sink." Mrs. G. asked him, "How do you know Barney?"
"’Cuz look at the boat (pointing to the waterline against
the boat). It’s lower down in the water."
Rhythmic and repetitive language, and story sequence became another importance device for predicting language and comprehending stories. It was the language pattern and sequence of the text that helped the children decode and joined Mrs. G. in the reading of Laan’s Big fat Worm
(03-29-88). They knew just when to chime in on "I’m going to eat you up.", "Oh no you’re not.", "Oh yes I am." after the first hearing of the dialogue. 254
The reading of other books invited the children to
predict the language pattern and anticipate what was going
to happen next. The repetitive language and sequence of
events of such books as The Carrot Seed (Krauss), The
Three Bears (Galdone), The Great Big Enormous Turnip
(Tolstoy) assisted the children in reading and deciding
what followed. The same outcome occurred with other texts
written in rhythmic language, e.g., Peanut Butter and
Jelly (Westcott), I Know An Old Lady (Rose & Mills), Good
Night. Good Night (Boynton), I'm Going On A Dragon Hunt
(Jones).
Prediction was heightened by the different intona
tions Mrs. G. used as she read different stories, such as
Goldilocks And The Three Bears (Cauley), The Three Little
Pigs (Peppe), Come And Play. Little Mouse (Kraus). The
children's anticipation and sense of what might happen
next increased as Mrs. G. varied her speaking voice as
she read The Teeny Tiny Woman (Galdone). Barney's comment
after the reading, "That's a little scary story." Mrs.
G. asked him, "Why?" "The way you read it. It’s like a ghost story." Her manner of reading created within
Barney a haunting feeling which helped him anticipate what might follow. 255
The unfolding plot in the stories stimulated the most frequent prediction responses. The interlocking story structure of The Three Little Pigs (Galdone) lead Chris to predict that the wolf would eat the second pig after he had done it to the first. He repeated, "He's goin’ eat him, too. He's goin’ eat him." before the actual text of this incident was read. The hierarchical, logical order in The Great Big Enormous Turnip (Tolstoy) suggested to Peter that the turnip would come up when the mouse was called to help pull. "The turnip is goin’ come up now," was his response as soon as Mrs. G. read, "The cat called the mouse."
Another way the children gained deeper meaning of a story was through interpretation, i.e., taking an incident, a sentence, or a word and interpreting it from their point of view. As Stevie listened to The Cake That
Mack Ate (Robart), he inferred from the text that the corn went directly into the cake (04-21-88). He said, "Corn don’t go into a cake, man!" Kevin tried to help him out of his dilemma by explaining what was happening in the story. "The corn went into the hen and then into the egg.
The egg is in the cake."
An earlier read aloud, Running Bear (Alborough), provides more evidence of how the children interpreted 256 meaning (03-11-88). Barney noted that the bear was fat and Stevie linked this information with the text reading,
"Polar Sports" and said, "Oh, that's why the bear was running." Later Stevie questioned, "How do we know he
(Polar Bear) is working hard?" Kevin quickly replied,
"Because he's sweatin' and look, there’s steam coming out of his nose (pointing to the illustrations)."
A story meaning strategy that increased in develop ment over the course of the study was that of linking knowledge. The children began to make more links between their lived experiences and literary knowledge, and the story content. The more they linked, the greater their understanding of story structure became. This in turn enhanced the children’s interpretation of the story. It encouraged the children to risk making more predictions on the basis of semantic and syntactic expectations rather than on visual detail. Predictions based on semantic and syntactic expectations generally accelerate the accuracy of text meaning (Holdaway, 1979).
The cognitive links that appeared first in the study were those related to lived experiences. Stevie became well-known for this type of linking. A Read Aloud session never went by without him finding some incident or even a word in a story that triggered a response related to one 257 of his everyday experiences. For example, the introduc tion of The Carrot Seed (Krauss) invited him to tell about his grandma's garden crop (02-25-88), "My grandma has a garden and she plants tomatoes, apples, bananas, corn and carrots. She plants some more stuff but I forget."
Later, as Mrs. G. read The Great Big Enormous Turnip
(Tolstoy) and Kevin made reference to the turnip, "The bottom part is what you eat and the top part, the leaves you don't.", Stevie again talked about his grandma's garden. "She has them growin' in the pumpkin patch and we got one" (03-01-88) .
Chris brought more meaning to his understanding of
Polar Bear as a discussion about Polar Bears evolved from the introduction of Running Bear (Alborough) (03-11-88).
Kevin provided information about where the Polar Bears lived, "They come from the North Pole." and Chris added,
"We've got a Polar Bear friend. We had to bring money in for him. His name is Zero (Zero was a new cub born in
November, Columbus Zoo). And he’s white."
The ending to The Cake That Mack Ate (Robart) evoked
Kevin to tell about his dog doing the same thing (04-21-
88). "My dog once ate a Hershey cake that big (showing the size by stretching his arms)". He made more links with his dog as he read, Henry's Busy Day (Campbell) to 258
Mrs. G. (05-03-88). For example, after reading, "He likes
to chase the pigeons.", Kevin responded, "My dog chases.
He chases after cats. He once chased one up the tree."
Kevin explained how he made a carrot cake once with fifty-eight candles after he heard Rabbit Finds A Way
(Delton). Peter picked up swiftly on the comment and said, "You must have someone in your family fifty-eight years old." Life-to-text experiences brought meaning to many stories for the children and they made more as the study progressed.
Links related to everyday experiences were more apparent during the Read Aloud session but they were interjected on other occasions such as, Extension time.
For instance, (04-19-88) when Stevie was involved with composing the Shared Writing text, The Three Little Pigs, he told Kevin that the little pigs could not live with their mother because they were too old. Kevin replied, "I live with my mom." Stevie answered, "When we are twenty- three we don’t have to live in our mom’s and dad’s house."
Stevie provided a little information about his dad’s appearance as he worked on picture of the big bad wolf for the comparison chart (05-13-88). "He’s like my dad. He’s fat. He’s mean." 259
Growth in literary links depended mainly on two
factors. One, Mrs. G.’s asking direct questions to
stimulate thoughts about stories heard, such as, "Do you
know any other stories similar to this one?", "How are
they alike?", "Did Pat Hutchins write other books?". The
second factor was the increase in the children’s reper
toire of stories. They freely made appropriate links as
they became acquainted with more stories and acted upon
them making them memorable. An examination of the
children’s literary links shows that they used the links
for three reasons: prediction, interpretation, language
expansion.
Before Mrs. G. began reading The Three Little Pigs
(Reinl) she asked the children if they knew of other
stories that had wolves in them (04-19-88). Her intent
was to identify some stories with wolf characters then
talk a little about the characteristics of wolves in the
stories. She wanted to enhance the children’s predictions
of what might happen. If they knew that wolves were generally "bad and mean" they could expect the same in
this story. They could prepare themselves for something
"mean" to happen.
In response to Mrs. G.’s question, Barney started to recall Little Read Riding Hood but could not remember the 260
complete title. He got as far as Little Red when Peter
came to his rescue, "Oh ya, Little Red Riding Hood." Mrs.
G. followed up with, "What are the wolves like in these
stories?" Peter remarked, "He has a pointed nose and
sharp nails. He’s mean." Barney added, "Ya, and he eats
people."
The children took on the responsibility of indepen
dently making story links for their own purposes. Chris
listened to the beginning of Rice’s Benny Bakes A Cake
and quickly linked it to Robart’s The Cake That Mack Ate
(04-21-88), "Oh, I know what’s goin’ to happen. He’s
(Ralph, the dog) goin’ eat the cake like Mack."
Links were made to assist the children in inter
preting the story content. While reading The Doorbell
Rang (Hutchins) the words "share them between" were read
(05-13-88). Kevin questioned the meaning of the phrase,
"What does ’share them between’ mean?" Peter made a
reference to one of the first stories the children heard,
The Little Red Hen (Galdone). "’Member in The Little Red
Hen when the dog and cat and mouse wanted the little hen
to share the cake. Well, that’s share between." Mrs. G. added, "It means to split them up so each will get the same." 261
An incident occurred during the creating of The Three
Little Pigs comparison chart that showed the use of
literature to interpret meaning. Kevin was drawing the
characters in Galdone*s The Three Little Pigs. He drew
the three pigs and Stevie told him he had to draw a sow.
Kevin asked, "Sow! What’s a sow?" Stevie replied, "In
the stories we heard about the three pigs the mother was
called a sow. It’s a mother pig." Kevin said, "Oh." and went on with his drawing.
The meaning of "knead" needed defining for Kevin when he listened to Delton’s Rabbit Finds A Way (05-19-88).
The children talked about making a carrot cake and Peter said, "He’s going to knead it." Kevin questioned,
"Knead! What’s that?" Stevie who read Peanut Butter And
Jelly (Westcott) the previous day replied, "That’s when you take the dough and you do this (showing with his hands). It’s in Peanut Butter And Jelly. First you take the dough and knead it, knead it."
Literary links were noted through the children’s borrowing of book language to express oral and written thoughts. Peter was busy illustrating the characters in
The Three Little Pigs for the comparison chart (05-13-88).
He was drawing the wolf’s eyes and commented, "Oh, what big eyes you have." He laughed. "Just like the wolf in 262
Little Red Riding Hood.” Barney borrowed from Lann’s The
Big Fat Worm when he wrote his story of The Three Little
Pigs. The dialogue that ensued as the wolf tried to encourage the first little pig to let him come in came directly from The Big Fat Worm, "Oh, yes I am.", "Oh no you’re not."
Story meaning was greatly enhanced as the children learned how to use life-to-text experiences and literary links. They became useful strategies for predictive and interpretative purposes. Moreover, they enriched and extended the children’s oral and written language facilities.
The Literacy Instructional Program
Elements of a Lesson
Re-Reading Familiar Books
Children’s Book Choice: An examination of this literacy element revealed the determinants the children used in selecting books to read. It appeared that they chose books for a variety of reasons. Some were explicit ly stated while others seemed to be selected for tacit reasons. The greatest influence was the power of read aloud. Each book that Mrs. G. read frequently was browsed through or read and re-read the following day 263
during time for Re-Reading Familiar Books. Peter or
Barney often took the book when he arrived for the
literacy lesson. However, before the time for sharing
books was over the other had read it too. For example, on
03-14-88, the children heard Henny Penny (Galdone); on 03-
15-88, Barney selected it for his first choice to read and
on 03-16-88, he chose it as his third choice because Peter
selected it as his first choice. On 03-15-88, The Story
of Chicken Licken (Omerod) was read and on 03-16-88,
Barney read it first and Peter second. Stevie became
interested in selecting the read aloud as his first choice
during the fifth week of the study.
The children also chose a book on the recommendation
of a friend. The recommendation often was suggested when
two boys wanted the same book. Stevie was caught in this
situation after Mrs. G. read to him, Spot Goes To The
Beach (Hill) [04-11-88]. The next day he wanted to read
it at the beginning of the lesson, but Kevin had it
first. Kevin noticed Stevie's disappointment and told him
to read Where's Spot? "I got it first," said Kevin, "You
can have it after. Why don't you read this one (Where * s
Spot?) it's all about Spot." Stevie took the book
somewhat reluctantly, but he did read it while he waited. 264
Paul Galdone's books were favorites. There was often a suggestion to peers to "Read this one. It’s by Paul
Galdone." or "Oh, I read that. It’s good." Another form of recommendation came by way of hearing others reading.
Barney was busily reading The Three Bears (Galdone) when
Chris overheard him. He leaned over Barney’s shoulder so he could read along and view the illustrations. After the third page Barney turned to the display table, pulled one of multiple copies of Galdone’s book and gave it to
Chris. "Here’s another one. You can read with me" (03-
24-88) .
Mrs. G. influenced the children’s reading not only during Read Aloud but Re-Reading Familiar Books. She often read to a child a new book or a re-read of a book read during Read Aloud. Hearing a book in a "lap style" read aloud enticed the child to want to read it again by himself. This re-read by the child generally came immediately after Mrs. G. finished. For instance, she read to Chris Mr. Grump and after, he read it twice (03-
29-88). While on 05-13-88, Stevie enjoyed the delight of hearing Little Gorilla (Bornstein) read by Mrs. G. and followed up reading it independently. During the next two lessons he read it each day. 265
Sometimes Mrs. G. influenced the children’s choice by her enthusiasm for a story. . She would occasionally read to a small group during time for Re-Reading Familiar
Books a book that she enjoyed in the past. Such was the case when I brought in a number of new books to share and
Mrs. G. found one she remembered well (04-28-88). "Oh, I remember that story, There Was An Old Woman (Wyllie)." and took it from the pile. She opened it and Barney excitedly asked, "Hey, why don’t you read it?" She did with Chris and Kevin joining Barney and herself. Upon completion,
Barney took the book and went to the carpet for a re-read.
Another direct influence was the thematic literature unit under study, e.g., The Three Bears. Individual folktale studies included a number of versions of the folktale or theme studies had books related to the topic.
While the children were involved with an unit, they frequently read and re-read the books related to it. For instance, during the three week study of The Three Bears. the following books were read and browsed through a total of 32 times: Brett’s Goldilocks And The Three Bears;
Cauley's Goldilocks And The Three Bears; Galdone’s The
Three Bears; Rendall’s When Goldilocks Went In The House
Of The Three Bears; and Watt’s Goldilocks And The Three 266
Bears. Paul Galdone*s was the favorite, being read and
re-read on 17 occasions.
Particular genres appeared to lure the children to
specific books. The folktales were very popular. Two
major factors seemed to popularize the genre. One was the
unit of study and the other was the book’s structure.
Kevin said it well when he identified the crucial
ingredient, "It’s a story." Mrs. G. asked him to read
Come With Me and Plop! (Reading Recovery books). After
finishing the books he asked. "Can I get another book?"
Her reply was, "Yes, now that you have read these." Kevin remarked, "Wow, now I can read a story. A real story!"
He went to the display table, selected Galdone’s The Three
Little Pigs. returned to the reading table and said, "Now this is a story. I love this story" (05-06-88).
The participatory style of some books was influential in the children’s book choice. These were books that invited the children both physically and mentally to participate in the reading, e.g., books that had lift-up flaps; books that asked questions or books with language patterns that enticed the children to participate in their reading such as, songs, refrains. Examples of lift-up books were as Hill's Where’s Spot?: Wyllie’s There Was An
Old Woman; question books, such as, Miller’s Whose Hat?. 267 and language pattern books, e.g., Jones I'm Going On a
Dragon Hunt. Oppenheim’s You Can’t Catch Me.
Although the children were introduced to informa tional books such as, Rockwell’s Planes and Boats, and
Barton’s Machines At Work, they were not chosen often to read during time for Re-Reading Familiar Books.
It is apparent from this study that the children’s choice of books to read was influenced by five factors: hearing a book read aloud, recommendation by a friend, teacher’s influence, familiarity of story, and a well- constructed plot or language patterns.
Text Reading Complexity: The children selected books daily which varied in degree of text reading. They read books that tested and stretched their reading strate gies. However, intermingled with the more difficult books were those that they could handle with ease. The following example, Table 10 (p. 269), is representative of the children’s daily selection and is in order of the children’s choices (05-13-88) {Brackets [] indicate the child’s text reading level at the end of the study).
In addition, it was noted that Chris and Kevin selected more complex texts if they had a partner or if 268 they were extremely familiar with the storyline of the book, e.g. The Three Little Pigs.
The need for the at-risk children to have a variety of books available with varying text reading levels as well as different literary genres was evident. An examina tion (Table 11, p. 269) of the number of books and the different titles the children read or attempted to read and browsed through shows that they enjoyed the pleasures of having many books and genres to choose from.
A well-stocked book collection is a vital component to a successful literacy program.
Read Aloud
Teacher Modeling: Mrs. Q.'s style of reading aloud was one to be modeled. Her varied intonations, facial gestures and hand actions influenced the reading-like behaviors of the children, their interpretations of the story and their interest in reading the story themselves or with a partner. Her style also made the story memorable.
The influence of Mrs. G.’s read aloud style is evidence in the following example. After she had read The
Three Bears (Galdone) once, Peter immediately imitated her intonation technique and interwove it in his reading style 269
NAME TITLE TEXT LEVEL
Barney Henry’s Busy Day (Campbell) 8 [16] The Three Little Pigs (Galdone) 20 Brown Bear, Brown Bear (Martin) 4 The Gingerbread Boy (Galdone) 15
Chris What A Mess (Reading Recovery) 4 [3] Not No (Reading Recovery) 5 The Three Bears (Galdone) 17
Kevin The Three Little Pigs (Galdone) 20 [3] Where’s Spot? (Hill) 8 Dan. The Flying Man (Reading Recovery) 4
Peter The 3 Little Pigs (Reinl) 20 [18] The Three Little Pigs (Galdone) 20 Rosie’s Walk (Hutchins) 9
Stevie Titch (Hutchins) 12 [12] The Teeny-Tiny Woman (Galdone) 16 The Chick And The Ducklings (Ginsberg) 6
Table 10. Varied Text Reading Levels
NUMBER NUMBER AVERAGE NUMBER NAME OF DAYS OF BOOKS PER DAY OF TITLES
Barney 56 207 3.7 63
Chris 55 198 3.6 64
Kevin 51 178 3.5 52
Peter 58 185 3.2 63
Stevie 56 168 3.0 55
Table 11. Number of Books and Titles the Children Read 270
(03-21-88). In his first reading he used different voices
for the little wee bear, the middle-size bear and the great big bear. When he joined Barney and Stevie later in
the week to partner read the story, they decided to divide the story according to the dialogue. Peter gave the instructions, "Barney, you be the mother. Stevie you're the little bear and I’ll be the father." Before he finished Stevie said in a little wee voice, "O.K. I ’ll be the little wee bear."
The narrative was divided page by page. However, regardless who read the narrative when he came to the character's speech or character-object reference, e.g.,
"little wee bed" he applied the appropriate character inflection. In an implicit way the children were learning the difference between narrative and dialogue and characteristics of book characters.
Mrs. G. taught the children to note special features about print through her read aloud style. In each reading of The Great Big Enormous Turnip (Tolstoy), she emphasized the word ENORMOUS because it was written in enlarged and capitalized print. This way she brought the children’s attention to it. She showed them how special features of print provided clues related to its meaning and pronuncia tion. Each time the children read the story they never 271
had to ask, "What's this word (ENORMOUS)." They knew it.
Value of Re-Reading: When the children first heard a
story their attention was directed mostly to the illustra
tions. Their questions and comments were focused on the
pictures. The following examples of the children’s
comments made during the first reading of the following
stories provide evidence of how they generally give their attention first to illustrations.
03-29-88 The Big Fat Worm (Laan): Kevin: "He looks skinny (pointing to the worm)." Stevie: "Oh, Oh. He’s goin’ disappear down the hole." (referring to the illustration where the worm does go down into a hole) Kevin: "That’s how birds protect themselves. They fly away." (referring to the illustration where the bird escapes from the cat)
04-26-88 Stone Soup (Ross): Barney: "Wow, look at all the dishes. There must be 55 dishes." (kitchen scene) Stevie: "Too many dishes. She must be rich." Chris: "Hey, just look at the wolf with all them things (clothes pins) in this mouth." (wolf running with the clothes taken from the clothes line) Peter: "He’s goin’ to fall down the chimney." (wolf climbing up the chimney)
Furthermore, the children attended first to the illustrations of a new book when the storyline was familiar. For instance, even though the children heard
Cauley’s and Galdone’s versions of The Three Bears, when 272
they listened to Brett’s story their attention focused on
the illustrations.
04-22-88: Peter: "Gad, that house. That’s fancy!" (Bears’ house) Stevie: "Look at the bear table." (pointing to the end table) Kevin: "She’s (Goldilocks) different. She has real long hair." Barney: "There are mice in these pictures." (referring to the borders)
What appears to be different in this excerpt is that
the children made comparison statements. They had heard
and seen previous versions of The Three Bears. Having
sufficient knowledge regarding the story and how the
illustrations might be depicted, their comments had become
evaluative rather than literal.
It was on the second and third reading of a story the questions and comments centered on the text. Here is an
example from the second reading of The Great Big Enormous
Turnip (Tolstoy).
03-01-88: Kevin: "Why can’t the man pull up the turnip?" Peter: "*Cuz it’s enormous." Kevin: "What enormous?" Stevie: "Big."
Re-reading a story allowed the children to return to the text and give greater attention to the written word.
It provided them a second or third opportunity to uncover 273 the embedded meaning which they may not have gotten the first time through.
Facilitating Discussion: Reading aloud to the children gave Mrs. G. an opportunity to develop their predictive and interpretative skills in context. Her effective questioning technique invited the children to predict what might happen, to interpret the meaning of specific incident or isolated words and to draw on their life experiences and make literary links to enhance their meaning of the story. However, as the study progressed, the children began to initiate their own questions and comments regarding the stories in the same manner as Mrs.
G. A sampling of her questions shows how she construc tively built the children’s predictive and interpretative skills in an implicit manner.
Interpretative Questions: How do you know that? What does that mean? What do you think the story is about? Do you know other stories like this one? What was he right about? "Nothing came up." How come? Why can’t he float across it?
Prediction Questions: What do you think will happen? How is he going to get back? What might happen to the wolf? If the wolf didn’t eat the first little pig, what do you think he will do to the second? 274
Who could be at the door now? What’s going to happen to the hen now that the soup is made?
An examination of the interactions that took place
during Read Aloud showed that Mrs. G.’s style of reading
aloud impacted on the children’s read aloud manner and helped the children to predict and interpret the story to
greater depth. Her questioning technique was very effective in deepening the children’s story meaning and
showing them how they could find ways of "how to mean".
The Read Aloud sessions provided great impetus to
the value of re-reading a story. It showed how young children require more than one hearing to uncover the embedded meaning behind the written words. Moreover, re reading helped the children to familiarize themselves with the book language, creating within them a security that motivated them to want to read the book. It also gave the children time to reflect, time to make more connections to their life experiences and literary world and time to revisit a book to enjoy its delight again. Hearing books re-read showed the at-risk children that re-reading was valuable and acceptable in the literacy community. 275
Shared Reading And Shared Writing
Shared Reading and Shared Writing were seen as one literacy element in most of Mrs. G.’s literacy lessons.
It was difficult to separate the two. Shared Writing was never completed without an abundance of Shared Reading.
For example, in the following excerpt of the children’s composing process during their retelling of The Three
Little Pigs, the combination of the Shared Reading/Shared
Writing elements is evident:
04-19-88: Mrs. G.: "We’re going to tell our own story of the little pigs. How will we start it?"
Kevin: "Once upon a time there were three little pigs."
Mrs. G. begins to write the sentence and Kevin, Peter and Barney read along as she writes. When she finishes she has the children read the sentence in Shared Read ing manner. She points to each word as they read and she reads along with them.
Mrs. G.: "Kevin, did you say you had some thing else to add?"
Kevin: "They lived in their mom’s house."
Mrs. G. repeats the whole sentence, "Once upon a time there were three little pigs who (edit) lived in their mom’s house." Then she asks, "Is that what you want?"
Kevin: "Yes."
Mrs. G. writes "who lived in their mom’s house." She asks Stevie to read the complete sentence and he does. She adds, 276
"What did you want to add, Stevie?"
Stevie: "Their mom said that you are gettin' too big to live with me. So she sent them off in the woods to build their own house."
Mrs. G. writes and the boys read along as she writes. They re-read the completed sentence and then return to the beginning of their story and re-read the story to the end.
This was the Shared Writing/Shared Reading process the children followed in all the Shared Writing ac
tivities. Whenever they finished a Shared Writing event such as story, recipe, directions, or story map, Mrs. G. took them through the same process. Figure 2 represents this process.
create text
shared reading shared writing of text to date of text i shared reading of new text of text
shared Twriting shared reading of new text of text to date
create new text
Figure 2. Shared Writing/Shared Reading Process 277
The only time Shared Reading was an element by itself
occurred when the children participated in the reading of
a commercial big book, e.g., When Goldilocks Went In The
House Of The Three Bears (Rendall) or their completed a
homemade text, such as the big book, The Three Little
Pigs.
Independent Writing:
In observing the children’s Independent Writing
process it showed that each child regardless of his
writing ability followed the same process as in Shared
Writing. That is, he created text, wrote, read what he
wrote, returned to the beginning of his story to pick up
the flow of the storyline then created new text, wrote,
read. Figure 3 presents the process.
create text
independent reading independent writing of textof new text to date of textof
independent reading independent reading of new textt independent writing independent reading of text to d ateof new text of text to dateof
create new text
Figure 3. Independent Writing/Independent Reading Process 278
An example of the process in action is presented in the following passage from Stevie's writing of The Great
Big Enormous Turnip. The excerpt is taken from the third page of his writing showing that the process is continuous throughout the creation of an entire text.
03-11-88: Stevie reads the first two pages of his story, then decides his next sentence. He begins with the granddaughter entering the story.
He verbalizes what is he going to write, "The granddaughter called the black dog." He begins slowly saying each word as he writes, "T-h-e g-r-r-r-a-a-nd-d-augh-ter- r-r-r ca-l-l-l-l-ed-d-d t-h-e b-l-a-c-k d-o-g." He spells "dog" then writes it but discovers he has made an error. "Hey, wait a minute. I messed up here." (He reversed the "d".) He changes it then reads his sentence. He turns back one page and reads, "The old woman called the granddaughter, "Come help with the turnip." The grand daughter called the black dog."
He creates his new text, "The black dog call ed the cat" and begins to write it. He methodically reads it and returns to the beginning of his day’s writing and re-reads the entire text.
This process of Independent Writing helped the children maintain the sequence of the story and invited self-imposed editing as seem in Stevie's writing of "dog’.
Another finding related to Independent Writing and also found in Shared Writing was the ease and interest in which the children took in composing texts. This appears 279
to be associated with the content of the writing. Knowing
the story well helped the children direct their energies
to the conventions of writing as well as the generation of
ideas.
Writing for some children, particularly the at-risk
children becomes a monumental task when they have to
create text as well as write it. Their life experiences
and limited literary exposure make it difficult for them
to generate easily ideas that they wish to express in
written form. Retelling familiar stories and creating
alternative texts based on re-read stories alleviates some
of the stress placed on the children to create and write.
It is apparent from this study that the composing act becomes more inviting and less threatening when the
children have a story structure and content already within
them.
Extensions
The extensions, ways of returning to books to bring greater meaning to them or ways to extend the books, were part of the literacy lesson. Each extension the children participated in was related to a read aloud and a thematic unit. It was never an isolated task.
The extensions in the study included Shared Writing/- 280
Shared Reading activities as well as the Independent
Writing tasks. In addition, extensions included drama, story map making, illustrating, taking a survey and creating a comparison chart. The latter extensions were done co-operatively and became the real nucleus of collaborative learning. It was during this time the boys began to build and enhance their literacy community through the communicative, supportive networking system they created. They discussed among themselves the instructions and directions of the activity they were going to participate in, they created "small" talk about specific literacy issues and they provided help to each other as it was requested.
In regard to discussing directions related to an extension, an incident between Peter, Stevie and Barney depicts such an interaction. The boys were busy making construction paper characters and objects for their big book, The Three Little Pigs.
05-06-88: Stevie: "Hey man, I got two mom’s houses. I need two mom’s houses."
Peter: "Why do you got two? The story has one house for the mom."
Barney: "Stevie, you’re not supposed to make two houses. We figured out on the chart how many houses you have to make." 281
Peter: "Ya, you got to read the chart.
Stevie goes to the chart identifying the different characters and objects and the number they have to make for each. He runs his finger down the chart and finds out that Peter and Barney were right. He returns to his mom's houses and throws one away.
Literacy issues encouraged the boys to help each other in an informative, supportive way. An entry from my fieldnotes of 05-03-88 shows how a literacy event, i.e.,
locating information, opened a line of communications between Chris and Peter.
Chris is working on a section of The Three Little Pigs story map and he is not sure what the wolf said to the second little pig. He goes to the display table, finds Cauley’s book and returns to the map. He has an idea where the interaction occurs. In the meantime, Peter finishes his assign ed task and notices Chris searching through the book. Over he goes to Chris.
Peter: "What are you lookin’ for?"
Chris: "The second little pig and the wolf."
Peter: "I know just where that is. Find the stick man."
Chris: "Ya, that's what I want."
Peter leans over Chris' shoulders and starts looking through the pages. "There it is. Right there (pointing with his finger)."
Chris: "O.K. now I got it. That’s what I gotta write." He reads, "I’ll huff and I’ll puff." 282
Peter leaves Chris and goes to Kevin. Chris places the book on the story map and begins to write the wolf's warning in a speech balloon.
Helping each other in purposeful and meaningful ways was a common practice during extensions. When Kevin and
Peter were working on the story map, The Three Little
Pigs, Kevin asked Peter to spell "good" so he could write
"good-bye". Peter spelled, "god". Kevin told him to spell it slowly. As he did Barney, who is lying on the carpet working on this speech balloon for the straw man, heard him and said, "No, that ain’t right. It’s g-o-o-d."
As Kevin continued to write, Peter and Barney discussed the spelling of "good". Both were sure they were right.
Kevin finished writing and Peter looked at what he had written, "god", and said, "Ya, that’s right." Kevin looked at it and in astonishment remarked, "No it ain’t, that’s spells "dog" (saying the word)." Peter was sure he was correct and added, "No man, that’s good. D-o-g
(spelling it) spells "dog"." Barney returned to his work whispering to himself, "g-o-o-d spells "good"."
Besides the extensions becoming an influential source in creating the literacy community, they were crucial in inspiring the children to return to the story for such things as, more information, cross-checking language, extending meaning. An extension that sent the 283
children back into books for more meaning was story map
making. When the children were making story maps, The
Three Little Pigs and Rabbit Finds A Way, they had to
return to the books to locate the sequential order of the
journeys and identify the important places to map.
Another extension that sent the children back into
books many times was the making of a comparison chart that
included four versions of The Three Little Pigs. The
children had to return to the pages of the four books to
locate information that was necessary to show similarities
and differences in the texts.
An extension that went beyond the book was writing
recipes, e.g. Wolf Stew. In this task the children had to
synthesize what they had remembered from books that
included recipes, such as, Ross' Stone Soup and West- cott’s Peanut Butter And Jelly and create their own.
Another activity that was based on extending books that had been read to them was the writing of invitations.
Writing a "Lost Ad for Goldilocks" also took the children
into the book as well as beyond it.
Running Record
The information gathered from the Running Record was important to Mrs. G.’s daily planning in two respects. 284
First, knowing the literacy strategies the children knew and did not know affected how she "taught" during specific literacy events such as, Shared Reading and Shared
Writing. For example, when she had noted that all the children knew where to start reading a story, she no longer said, "This is where we start to read" at the beginning of Shared Reading. Similarly, when the children knew where to start writing on a page, she discontinued making such a reference when she began a Shared Writing task.
However, strategies that required further practice, e.g., matching one-to-one, continued to be emphasized by
Mrs. G. during Shared Reading. For instance, knowing
Kevin needed more practice with matching one-to-one, she often called on him to point as the children read together a story. Also, she knew she had to encourage Peter,
Stevie and Barney to employ more than meaning strategies to become proficient readers. Hence, she would sometimes ask Peter, "What to you see at the beginning of the word?" or if Barney incorrectly identified a word she would repeat the word he said and asked, "What do you hear in
"lady" (when the word was "woman")?"
Secondly, the information Mrs. G. gathered from the
Running Record affected how she worked with individual 285 children. Her analysis of the assessment provided valu able information that aided Mrs. G. in enhancing each child’s self-improving system. She knew just where he was in developing his strategies and where and when to scaf fold the child’s learning.
Furthermore, Mrs. G.’s knowledge of ’just where the children were’ in their reading and writing development allowed her to have a sense of their potential develop ment. As she said, "I know how far I can stretch them."
Knowing each child’s zone of proximal development
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86) she could comfortably guide and challenge them to greater heights. For example, in the eighth week she knew Stevie could read stories at Level
10. So she invited him to read with her There Was An Old
Lady (Bonne) Level 14. She wanted to ’stretch’ his reading strategies within the confines of a supportive context. Stevie was quite successful with his first attempt. In fact, he returned to the book when they finished to read it alone.
The need to constantly monitor the children’s reading and writing progress was vital to their progress as well as to the development of a purposeful and meaningful literacy program. 286
Children Nurturing Their Own Literacy Development
Over the duration of the study the children's interactions revealed that they were learning ways to support their own literacy development and become influential in promoting their self-improving system.
Furthermore, they indicated that they were contributors to the nurturing of each others’ literacy development. In essence, they were taking on the responsibility of creating a literacy community that supported literacy learning.
In my analysis, five themes appeared that gave credence to this development. The themes were (1) forming partnerships, (2) giving unsolicited support, (3) recog nizing literacy abilities, (4) demonstrating modeling techniques, and (5) identifying sources of help, such as, the teacher, a friend, books and charts. These themes will be further described and examples provided.
Forming Partnerships: Although Mrs. G. introduced the boys to the idea of forming partnership to help each other as they read familiar books, it did not take long before they were creating their own partnerships. At first the children formed partnerships during Re-Reading
Familiar Books but later it was evidenced during Independ 287
ent Writing activities. Eventually, co-operative learning
filtered into all the literacy events.
The boys usually formed pairs for literacy learning
as well as social reasons. The following excerpts are
representative of the partnerships formed and samplings of
the interactions that occurred:
03-01-88: Stevie is sitting on the floor reading the alternative text, The Boy Who Didn’t Know How To Ride A Bike. Barney goes over to Stevie and sits by him.
Stevie: "You want to read? You can start."
Barney reads the title and starts to read the authors’ names. He pauses after read ing his name and Stevie reads the next name which is his, then pauses. Barney tries the third name, K-e-e-v-vin and reads the other two names. Stevie reads the first page and Barney the second. They establish turn- taking and complete reading the story.
The reason for this partnership formation appeared to be story interest. Both boys wanted to read the same book at the same time. Barney figured out just how he could achieve this goal. However, after gaining entrance to
Stevie's reading world, Barney realized that if he was to remain with Stevie he had to co-operate according to
Stevie’s rules - two basic guidelines in any community, following rules and being co-operative in a meaningful 288
03-03-88: Kevin asks Barney to read with him at the ' beginning of the lesson. Barney agrees. Kevin has already selected My Family (Reading Recovery book). They sit at the reading table and Kevin begins, "My mom likes me." Barney reads the next page and Kevin says, "My turn", and reads the page.
After each page Barney reads, Kevin quickly reminds him, "My turn." They complete the book and decide to read another one together.
This partnership was formed by invitation and the task of reading was quickly shared. Through Kevin’s instructions, he indirectly teaches Barney that partner reading involves ’taking turns’. He established the ground rules and enforced them through-out the reading.
Barney conformed and appeared not disturbed by it.
The establishment of a community generally requires rules (laws) and agreements. This is an example where the children shows that they are cognizant of the fact a similar structure is needed to begin a literacy com munity .
03-22-88: Peter is reading Galdone’s The Three Bears. Barney has finished reading Martin’s Brown Bear. Brown Bear and selects Galdone’s The Three Bears. He sits next to Peter at the reading table and looks at Peter’s book to find out which page he is on, then turns to it in his book. Peter does not notice and continues to read. When he begins, "One morning, the Three Bears made porridge...." he pauses after "morning" and Barney reads, "the Three Bears". Peter repeats "the Three Bears" and continues. He reads "boots" and 289
morning, the Three Bears made porridge...." he pauses after "morning" and Barney reads, "the Three Bears". • Peter repeats "the Three Bears" and continues. He reads "boots" and Barney corrects him "bowls". Peter repeats "bowls". Barney chimes in on "too hot to eat."
Peter reads,"so they go outside." and Barney says, "No, no. no. That’s not right, d-d-d" (Mrs. G. tells them "decided"). They finish the page and Peter turns to Barney and says, "You read this one." The partnership is established and they help each through the book. Sometimes one leads, other times the partner takes the leadership role.
The partnership formed in this excerpt had a social
basis to its foundation but quickly became a supportive
one. Barney showed how he could be invited into partner
reading with Peter without upsetting him. He was socially
aware that there were guidelines he must follow to be
accepted into Peter’s reading world. Once he was welcomed
he played a supportive role by helping Peter read the
page. Peter recognized Barney’s intent and accepted him
in full partnership by asking him to read the next page.
The following partnership was initially created for
social purposes but became educational in nature. It showed how the ’better’ reader (Peter) supported and scaffolded another reader’s (Kevin) reading.
04-21-88: Peter and Kevin are sharing Wallner’s The Three Little Pigs. They are reading about the third little pig. Kevin is reading. 290
"The third little pig used bricks to build his house. Soon for, noon he door." (Kevin is guessing "soon")
Peter: "Hey, man." (Noticing Kevin's guess ing . )
Kevin: "Hoor, house."
Peter: "Soon." "What do you hear in II soon_ _ _ _ ft or ti
Kevin: "Soon, s ."
Peter: "Ya, (pointing to "soon")." He points to the sentence and reads, "Soon, he looked out of his front door."
Kevin repeats the sentence and continues, "door and saw his", Peter corrects him, "the". Kevin repeats, "the little." Peter says, "No, it’s "wolf"." Kevin reads, "the wolf chasing the (pause)." Peter adds, "two". Kevin says, "the two pigs. He." Peter corrects him, "They". Kevin reads "they" (pause). Peter helps, "ran". Kevin repeats, "ran" (pause). Peter says, "inside" and Kevin finishes the sentence, "inside the house." Kevin tells Peter to read the next page and he does.
This pairing indicates how children can successfully
support and scaffold another child’s learning. Peter who
had read this story was sensitive to Kevin’s difficulties
in reading and nurtured him through the page. Kevin, on
the other hand, showed determination and perseverance to read the complete page. Peter stretched Kevin’s reading
strategies but never left him too long without guidance to frustrate him. Considering Kevin text reading level was 3 291
at the time of this reading, he fared well with this text
at approximately Level 20. This partnership provides
evidence that at-risk children who are familiar with story
and have sensitive, supportive help can extend their
literacy skills to the ultimate.
Forming partners supported the development of the
children's literacy skills as well as their social skills.
These excerpts show how the at-risk children were quite
capable of creating a purposeful, meaningful and social-
able literacy community.
Providing Unsolicited Support: Unsolicited support
was provided by a child when he recognized a friend was in
need. It was not planned nor premeditated. It happened
just when a child needed it. It was purposeful and
supportive. However, once given, the support was removed.
This form of assistance was observed during reading and writing tasks. The examples that follow will shed meaning
on this worthwhile and productive help.
03-22-88: (Reading) Peter and Barney are partner reading The Three Bears (Galdone) and Kevin is reading Where's Spot? (Hill). After Kevin reads, "Is he in the piano?" he pauses as he looks at the animal in the piano. He identifies the animal as an octopus and Peter quickly says, "rhinoceros". Kevin repeats "rhinoc eros", then turns to the next page. Peter does not wait for Kevin’s reply, he’s back reading with Barney.
03-29-88: (Reading) Stevie is reading The Teeny Tiny Woman (Galdone) to Mrs. G. Chris is sitting near by, reading The Storm (Reading Recovery). Stevie reads, "Give me my bone... And said in her (long pause)". Chris adds, "Teeny tiny voice" then continues reading his book. 04-29-88: (Reading) Peter is reading A Night In The Swamp (Hurd) and Chris is listening to Mrs. G. read, There’s A Monster Under My Bed (Howe). Mrs. G. asks Chris, "Why is he telling everyone good-bye?" Before Chris answers, Peter responds, "’Cuz he thinks he’s going to eat him up." Chris looks at him and says, "Ya. I guess so."
05-10-88: (Reading) Barney begins to read, Dan, The Flying Man (Reading Recovery) over in the read aloud area. Peter is sitting at the reading table, reading The Three Little Pigs (Peppe). Barney reads, "I am Jack the flying man." Peter hears him and says, "He ain’t Jack the flying man. It’s Dan, the flying man.", then returns to his reading, "The second little pig..."
05-06-88: (Writing) Kevin is trying to spell "out", but the only sound he hears is "t". Mrs. G. says it slowly and he repeats "t’. Peter and Barney are writing in the same area and overhear the interaction between Mrs. G. and Kevin. Peter looks up from his book and spells, "o-u-t" then says the word. He adds, "That’s how you spell "out", o-u-t." Barney pipes up, "Ya, it’s "o-u-t"." Peter continues, "I’m on page 28" and returns to his writing. So does Barney.
05-13-88: (Writing) Peter is busy writing his story about The Three Little Pigs. As he writes, he spells 293
in a low voice a number of words. Barney is writing his story nearby and hears Peter as he spells "wolf". Peter spells, "wlof". Barney says, "No, it’s w-o-l-f." Peter spells it as Barney told him and they con tinue on their independent ways.
The provision of unsolicited support by peers appears to be a meaningful form of assistance that the children give freely. It could be seen as a form of scaffolding to help the child in need to get over a difficulty without frustration and continue on his way.
Recognizing Literacy Abilities; Another theme that surfaced related to the children’s supporting and nurturing their own literacy development as well as their peers was recognizing reading and writing limits. At no time were the children informed of their text reading scores or writing abilities, yet they appeared to be aware of their capabilities and sensitive to other’s abilities.
They even made comments such as, "You know that story well.", "You can help me. You know how to say that word.", "Peter, you are a good writer. You can write alot.", "You know this good."
The following excerpts provide evidence to the children’s ability to know their literacy level and to recognize that of their peers: 294
03-21-88: (Recognizing Own Ability) Peter ventures into the reading of The Three Billy Goats Gruff (Galdone) for the first time. He begins to read, but encounters difficulty on the second sentence. He pauses for a short time then begins telling the story. When he comes to the first Billy Goat crossing the bridge, he points to, "Trip, Trap..." and reads each word. He completes the dialogue, then tells the narrative. He continues in this manner until the end.
03-24-88: (Recognizing Peer’s Ability) Barney and Chris are partner reading The Three Bears (Galdone) and Barney begins reading the first page. Then he asks Chris (Text reading Level A) to re-read the first page. Chris puts his finger on the first word but does not read. Barney whispers to him, "Once upon ...." and Chris repeats. Barney takes him through much of the book this way.
05-17-88: (Recognizing Own Ability) Kevin and Peter are partner reading and have returned to the display table for another book. Kevin selects, The Farm Concert and says, "I can’t read that book (pointing to The Gingerbread Boy) it’s too hard for me."
It appears that if the children know what they and their peers can accomplish they are more aware of the kind of help they need to provide and to what extent they should give it.
Modeling Techniques: Mrs. G. demonstrated for the children many reading- and writing-like behaviors through
Shared Reading/Shared Writing. The children showed many 295 of these behaviors in their independent activities and when they provided help to their peers. Modeling Mrs.
G.'s teaching style was most beneficial. The children were reinforcing effective ways to extend their literacy growth. They were teaching themselves and others literacy skills. Some examples of the children demonstrating Mrs.
G.’s teaching style are:
03-21-88: Barney is paired with Chris and they are going to read The Carrot Seed (Krauss). Barney asks Chris to read. He opens to the first page and says, "A boy planted a seed." Barney looks at him and says, "Put your finger on the word. It don’t say that." Chris begins again, pointing to the words. He hesitates on "little" so Barney tells him. Chris reads, "A little boy (long pause)." Barney asks, "What’s he doin’?" Chris has to be told "planted" but he reads the rest. Barney tells him, "Read it again."
05-03-88: Chris is writing his story of The Three Little Pigs and Barney is helping him. Chris asks, "How do you spell house?' Barney says, "H-o-u-s-e, what do you hear?" Chris says, "h-s" and puts it down. Later he wants to know how to spell "out" and Barney takes him through the same routine. Chris hears the "t" and puts it down. He repeats the word and decides to make a box with three sections (a strategy Mrs. G. had showed him how to use). Barney says "out" slowly but Chris still does not know what letters he needs. Barney finally spells "out" and Chris writes it. 296
05-10-88: Kevin and Peter have taken the retelling of The Three Little Pigs to read. Peter has the pointer and tells Kevin he has to read first. As Peter points to each word Kevin reads. Kevin stops at "their" and Peter takes him back to the beginning of the sentence to re-read. This time Kevin is successful.
Identifying Helpful Sources: Independence in reading is an aim in the teaching of reading. The five at-risk children in this study showed that they were seeking this goal just as much as any other reader. After they had experienced three weeks of the literacy program, it became apparent that there were a number of particular sources they could use to reach specific ends. The use of these sources gave them a sense of independence and ways to learn how to mean.
At first, they knew Mrs. G. was a good source of information for questions related to spelling a word, pronouncing a word, finding a book. Needless to say, they had to be prepared for her questions when they requested such information. Rarely did she give them the answer without asking, "What do you hear in that word?", "Could it be alligator?", "Where could you look for that book?"
The children quickly learned whom they could call on among their peers for assistance in their reading and 297 writing activities. Peter, Barney and Stevie often provided peer help when they were asked and sometimes, when they were not asked. Frequent questions such as,
"Tell me how to spell ____ ?", "Where does this go?", "Is there another book by Paul Galdone?", "What does that mean?"
As time progressed the children uncovered two other sources: book support and chart assistance. The following entries are examples of how the children discovered and/or used these sources.
02-26-88: (Book Source) Stevie is writing speech balloons for the characters in his illustration in The Boy Who Didn’t Know How To Ride A Bike. Words he does not know, e.g., couldn’t, he goes to the text and finds them. Once he finds the words, he spells them then writes them in the appropriate places.
04-15-88: (Book Source) Chris is trying to spell "try" and Peter tells him it is "troy". Stevie suggests it’s "tay", then he goes and gets Where’s Spot? (Hill) to show Chris how to spell it cor rectly. He finds it and says, "I have it." Turns to the page with "try" and adds, "There it is "t-r-y"." Pointing to the word, he shows Chris.
04-15-88: (Chart Source) Kevin is busy composing his "Lost Ad for Goldilocks". He wants to make sure he spells "Goldilocks" right, so he goes to the chart listing information that should be on each Lost Ad. He finds "Goldilocks" and sits in front of the chart to get the spelling. 298
04-28-88: (Chart Source) Stevie goes to the chart listing the ingred ients for Wolf Stew to compare this spellj-.g of "sticks". As he spells *L, he checks each letter against !*is spelling.
An examnation of the literacy events and the children* interactions during these events revealed many crucial elements necessary to develop and support a literacy community. The freedom to form partners for social as well as literacy learning provided the children the opportunities to learn basic understandings necessary to create a co-operative, supportive and responsible literacy community. The partnerships allowed the children to learn more about each other and learn how to collabor- atively work together to bring meaning to their literacy tasks.
Sources to gain information are vital to a com munity's existence and independence. The children learned in implicit ways different sources they could tap for knowledge. But the most important element in the building of the literacy community for these five at-risk children was BOOKS. They had to have something in common to start their community, to ignite their imaginations, to stimu late talk, and to create co-operative tasks. BOOKS were that 'something', that commonality. They were the source upon which the foundations of the literacy community was 299
formed and they became impetus behind its spreading
literacy landscape.
Summary
The literacy growth of the five at-risk First
Graders in this study was assessed by forma] and informal
means. Results from the Diagnostic Survey, a formal
measurement, revealed that all the children made substan
tial gains in their text reading and writing scores. In
particular, noticeable improvement was shown in the
children’s writing vocabulary and dictation as well as
their text reading levels. However, a survey of the
books the children were reading during Re-Reading Familiar
Book time indicated that they were reading stories
successfully at levels greater than shown on the Diagnos
tic Survey.
The children’s writing development advanced in a
number of areas. An analysis of their story writings
showed an increase in text length, complexity of ideas,
use of book language, and awareness of writing conventions
and specific book features. In addition, the children gained insights about different writing functions and
their appropriate forms. 300
A close look at the children’s written stories
evidenced that they borrowed their writing ideas from
three sources. It is apparent that they relied on their
real world, especially for dialogue writing; their
literary and real worlds for creating their narrative,
and their imaginary world for futuristic ideas.
Growth in literary knowledge regarding story
structure and meaning was evident in the children’s story
discussions, writings and social interactions. This
growth was greatly influenced by the teacher’s questions
and comments made throughout the literacy lesson and their
daily contact with a number of children’s books. As the
children became more aware of the structural elements of a
story and more familiar with the story content, their
predictive and interpretative skills improved. This
improvement influenced their gaining greater access to the
embedded story meanings.
An examination of the literacy instructional program
revealed that the children’s choice of books for reading was swayed by a number of factors: hearing a story read aloud, recommendations by friends, teacher's enthusiasm, use in thematic literature units, genre, and well-con structed story. Their favorite books were the folktales. 301
It was apparent that children need to revisit a story
more than once to understand its structure and meaning.
During the first reading of a story, the children
generally concentrated on the illustrations, giving little
attention to the structure and embedded meaning. It was
on the second and third reading, the children’s attention
focused on story structure and meaning of the written
word.
The children’s writing process mirrored that of the
shared writing process. First, they created text, then
wrote it, read it, created new text, wrote it, read it,
returned to the beginning of the text and re-read the
complete text. This process reflected some aspects of the
reading process also. The children would read, if they
had difficulty with a word, they would return to the beginning of the sentence and try again.
Monitoring the children’s literacy development was essential to the teacher’s program planning and teaching
strategies required to meet each child’s literacy needs.
Over the course of the study, five themes surfaced that appeared to be most influential in developing a successful, supportive and sensitive literacy community.
They were: forming partnerships, providing unsolicited support, recognizing literacy abilities, modeling reading- 302
and writing-like behaviors and identifying sources of help.
The following chapter summarizes the study, lists the findings, presents the implications and suggests recommendations to be considered for further research. CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
The Problem of the Study
A number of primary age children enter school with a deficiency in their literacy development that makes it most difficult for them to meet the demands of the school curriculum. These children are often provided literacy instructional programs which are contrary to present theoretical and practical perspectives regarding how literacy emerges and how children learn.
The purpose of this study was therefore to develop and implement a literacy instructional program for five at-risk First Graders based on a theoretical framework derived from recent research findings related to emergent literacy and young children's learning. A descriptive account and analysis were made of the literacy elements that comprised the program and how they were interrelated and interdependent. In addition, the study described the effectiveness of the program on the children's literacy development. Specific observations were directed toward how the literacy elements enhanced the children's literacy skills.
303 304
Procedures
The investigative nature of the study required a naturalistic approach. Hence, the study was of a qualitative design and the role of the investigator was that of a participant observer. The five at-risk children and one teacher were observed a minimum of three times a week for approximately forty minutes. The data was collected over a period of twelve weeks from the beginning of March to the end of May in a First Grade classroom in a K-5 urban school.
The collection of data was gathered through daily fieldnotes and audio taping, video taping of selected literacy lessons and photos of children participating in the program and their work. In addition, data was collected from the teacher's daily journal and weekly informal meetings of the teacher and investigator. The collection of children's writings and the Clay Diagnostic
Survey (1979) also provided valuable information about the children’s literacy progress.
Data were presented in two sections. The first reported in Chapter IV described the teacher’s theoretical perspectives on literacy learning; her organization of the classroom, the literacy learning resources and the literacy lesson; the children; and the literacy elements 305 of the instructional program. The second section,
Chapter V, analyzed the children's literacy development as a result of their participation in the literacy instructional program as well as the literacy instruc tional program.
Findings
The Teacher
1. The teacher’s physical organization of the class room facilitated children's growth in literacy learning.
2. The teacher’s arrangement of reading and writing materials made them easily accessible to the children, emphasizing their importance.
3. The teacher’s physical organization of the class room and the arrangement of literacy materials made it feasible to conduct a purposeful, mean ingful and comprehensive literacy lesson in forty minutes.
4. The teacher’s integrated organization of the literacy elements created a structured, cohesive literacy lesson.
5. The teacher’s arrangement of time provided the children daily opportunities to hear and discuss stories, to act on them, and to practice their reading strategies on familiar and free choice books.
6. The teacher’s questions and comments focused the children’s thinking on reading and writing strategies and literary understandings.
7. The teacher’s modeling of reading- and writing- like behaviors was crucial to the children’s learning of these behaviors. 306
8. The teacher’s knowledge of children’s literature, the reading and writing processes and how to monitor the children’s literacy progress were important to the development of the literacy instructional program and the children’s literacy development.
The Literacy Instructional Program
1. The major focus of the literacy instructional program was on the development of the children’s literacy strategies to enhance their self-improv ing system.
2. The materials selected and the teaching techni ques employed were chosen on the basis of promot ing the children’s self-improving systems.
3. The instructional program included seven litera cy: Re-Reading Familiar Books, Read Aloud, Shared Reading, Shared Writing, Independent Writing, Extensions, Running Record.
4. Well-developed, meaningful and purposeful thema tic literature units were considered as the core study units of the literacy instructional program.
5. The daily literacy lesson included time to read aloud to the children, time for the children to freely choose familiar books to read and share, and time for the children to write.
6. The daily literacy lesson plan was integrated so that each literacy element was interrelated and interdependent.
7. The literacy lesson plan was developed around the children’s literacy needs and interests.
8. The teaching of literacy strategies was conducted in a meaningful and purposeful literacy context. 307
9. The literacy instructional program included the teaching of reading and writing strategies as well as strategies to develop the concept of story.
10. The literacy instructional program had available for the children’s and teacher’s continuous use a book collection of quality and quantity.
11. The materials for the literacy program included a variety of art materials, various kinds of paper for writing, chart paper pads, chart stands.
12. A comprehensive, effective literacy instructional lesson was conducted in 40 minute daily period.
13. Adequate space and a constant scheduled time period were important to the effectiveness and efficiency of the literacy instructional program.
The Literacy Learning Resources
1. Children needed a wide range of reading materials in regard to text reading difficulty and varying literary genres.
2. Since stories were the children’s most popular choice of reading materials, the bulk of the book collection consisted of children’s litera ture .
3. Multiple copies of selected stories, e.g., The Three Bears and The Three Little Pigs (Galdone) were available to the children for partner reading, independent reading and extension tasks.
4. The book collection was partially rotated on a weekly basis. Books removed one week were returned within two weeks.
5. The children were allowed to take books home from the book collection. 308
6. The majority of books in the collection were familiar to the children. It was found that books which were not introduced through read aloud or some other means were not selected to be read by the children. FAMILIARITY of story was highly influential in the children’s choice of books.
7. The book collection included books with well- constructed storylines; predictable plots; good match between text and illustrations; familiar stories, songs, rhymes, sequences; and rhythmic al, repetitive, cumulative patterns.
8. The book collection included different versions of stories for thematic literature study units, partner reading and extensions purposes.
9. Recommended book lists were available to the teacher for reference in choosing quality books for the at-risk children.
10. The books chosen for the book collection were of high quality, met the needs and interests of the children and related to the thematic literature study units.
11. The book collection included children-made stories and big books.
12. The book collection was attractively displayed in an organized manner.
The Elements Of A Lesson
Re-Reading Familiar Books
1. The purpose of Re-Reading Familiar Books was to provide children the opportunity to practice their reading strategies. A time for them to work things our for themselves and promote their independence in reading.
2. Time for this literacy element was increased as the children become more competent in their reading. 309
3. The children had the freedom to read independent ly or with a partner.
4. The children selected reading partners for a different reason than the teacher. The children selected on the basis of story interest, while the teacher assigned on the basis of reading ability.
5. Partner reading with the teacher served different purposes: to introduce specific books to a particular individual, to increase a child’s language facility, to monitor reading progress, to share a "lap style" read aloud event, to encourage a child to venture into new stories, to help a child learn how to negotiate meaning of the written word, and to teach specific reading strategies.
6. The children had the freedom to: choose any book to read, find a comfortable and appropriate place to read, re-read a story several times, read in any manner they wished, i.e., read, attempt to read, browse through a book.
7. The greatest influence on the children’s choice of books to read and share was hearing stories read aloud. Other factors that influenced choice were: recommendation by a peer, teacher’s enthusiasm, familiarity with the story, re-reads through thematic literature study units, well- constructed plot and predictable language.
8. The most read and re-read books were those that had a well-constructed story, e.g., fairytales. Other favorites, especially by the beginning readers were "participatory" books, i.e., those that invited mental and physical participation by asking questions or lift-up flap books, such as Where’s Spot?. 310
Read Aloud
1. The main purpose of reading aloud was to provide enjoyment and delight. Other purposes for read ing aloud were: to develop children's concept of story; to help children learn to link their life experiences and literary knowledge to new stories, thereby broadening their understanding of the embedded meanings in the stories; and to to expose the children to different literary discourses.
2. Every read aloud event served a specific purpose.
3. Stories read aloud were introduced in meaningful and purposeful ways.
4. Some books were read and re-read two or more times.
5. Hearing stories re-read familiarized the children with the book language and story structure which benefited their independent reading of the story.
6. The children’s responses were related to the illustrations during the first read aloud of a story. During the second and third hearing, their responses became more focused on the storyline and print.
7. The children first focused their responses on the illustrations when they heard a different version of a story.
8. Hearing stories read by the teacher provided the children with the opportunity to learn reading- like behaviors such as, intonations and book handling skills; and structural elements of a story and ways to uncover its meaning through predictive and interpretative means.
9. Questions posed during a read aloud event were focused on the story’s content and structure rather than taking the children outside the realm of the story. 311
10. Reading aloud required more time as the children became more knowledgeable about books and demanded more time for discussion.
11. The teacher always knew a story well before read ing it to the children.
Shared Reading And Shared Writing
1. Shared Reading and Shared Writing were interre lated and interdependent literacy elements.
2. Shared Reading and Shared Writing were effective ways of modeling reading- and writing-like behaviors.
3. Shared Reading and Shared Writing were effective means of promoting collaborative learning.
4. Shared Reading and Shared Writing were valuable ways of producing meaningful children-made read ing materials.
5. Children needed to hear a story three to four times before being requested to create a retelling or an alternative text through Shared Reading and Shared Writing means.
Independent Writing
1. The children’s independent writing process mirrored that of the shared reading/shared writing process.
2. The children’s creations of their own written text influenced their interest in reading it many times. Authorship fostered reading and writing.
3. Independent writing influenced learning how to read. In particular, it was important in teach ing children to match one-to-one and to hear sounds in words.
4. Children needed the freedom to express their ideas in written form without any external barriers or structures imposed on them. 312
5. Retelling stories was an effective way to ease children into writing independently.
6. Knowing a storyline helped the children to maintain the sequence of their written story and invited self-imposed editing.
7. The childrenexperienced writing in different forms: story writing, listing, labeling, dialogue writing, informational writing.
Extensions
1. Two types of extensions were included in the literacy instructional program: activities that took the children back into a book to extend their understanding of it, such as, story maps, drama, and activities that took children outside a book where they had to synthesize their knowledge from many sources to complete the task, such as, writing recipes and invitations, creating "Lost Ads".
2. Extensions were varied and related to a story in purposeful and meaningful ways.
3. Group extensions influenced collaborative learning.
Running Record
1. Monitoring children’s reading and writing progress was vital to the development of the instructional program, the materials selected and effective teaching.
2. Monitoring children’s literacy developemnt was an ongoing event.
The Children’s Literacy and Literary Growths
1. All children showed literacy and literary growth over the course of the study. 313
2. Impressive gains were made in the children’s text reading scores, and writing vocabulary as well as dictation scores.
3. The children showed that they could read more difficult texts then indicated by their scores from the formal measure.
4. The children’s writing growth increased regarding text length, complexity of ideas and conventions of writing.
5. The children’s writing reflected the language and style of the stories they heard and read. The stories that had the greatest influence were those they heard re-read and acted upon for different purposes.
6. Children borrowed their story ideas from three sources: their real world, their literary world and their imaginary world.
7. The children showed dramatic improvement in their literary knowledge of story structure and story meaning, their knowledge of authors and illustrators and their works, and their knowledge of stories.
8. The children’s knowledge of story structure was a powerful aid in learning how to read and write.
9. The children's desire to read a favorite story was a highly influential motivator in learning how to read.
Ways Children Supported Literacy Development
1. Children formed partnership from social and literacy learning reasons.
2. Partnerships encouraged collaborative learning; increased social awareness; and developed sensitive and supportive human qualities.
3. Children provided unsolicited help to appropri ately support peer literacy learning. 314
4. Children appeared to be aware of each other’s literacy abilities and intuitively knew effective ways to help each other.
5. Children identified sources that were useful in learning how to mean and in achieving literacy independence. The children used four such sources: the teacher, their peers, the books and the charts.
6. Children implicitly learned reading- and writing- behaviors the teacher modeled and used this know ledge to promote their own growth in literacy as well as their peers'.
Since this was a naturalistic study employing an ethnographic approach to the research, the findings were related to a specific setting and participants. However, generalizations can be appropriately made which are transferable to similar settings. In the following section, a discussion of the implications for the development and implementation of literacy instructional programs for at-risk children and teacher education is presented. The conclusion suggests directions for further research. 315
Implications for Literacy Instructional Program
1. A rich and varied book collection should be readily accessible to children. The book collection that developed over the course of this study was received positively and was used extensively by the children and teacher. The children’s literature books, big books and
Reading Recovery ’little’ books and children-made books provided the children the opportunity to freely choose familiar books to read and share, and to work things out for themselves, promoting their independence in reading.
The books considered for the collection were introduced to the children in some manner before being displayed, familiarizing the children with the book language and story. Familiarity of this nature was a powerful influence on the children’s choice of books to read.
Important too was the location and arrangement of the books.
2. The daily literacy lesson should schedule time for the children to hear books read aloud, for the children to read and share familiar books and for them to write independently or collaboratively. In this study, hearing stories read aloud had significant impact on the children’s desire to read. It motivated the children’s to persevere over complex texts for long uninterrupted 316 time. Moreover, reading aloud helped the children to learn how a story was structured and how to gain access to its meaning. It provided the children the opportunity to become familiar with book language and increased their repertoire of stories broadening their literary landscape.
This influenced their choice of book for reading indepen dently or with a partner. Most importantly reading aloud provided the children time to enjoy the delight of books fostering their desire to read.
Time to read "real" books of their own choice gave the children an opportunity to try their reading strate gies on familiar books and stretch these strategies on more difficult texts, thus building on their self- improving system. The more sophisticated their system became, the more independent they became as readers. It also provided time to share favorites with friends, and to learn the value of collaboration in learning to read.
If children are to become proficient writers they require time and practice. The children showed great delight in composing their own texts through Shared or
Independent Writing. Their authorship fostered more writing and reading. Knowing stories and retelling them made the writing process somewhat less demanding then if they had to create the entire text on their own. 317
3. Literacy instructional program should include
Shared Reading. Extensions and a Literacy Monitoring
System. The children in this study participated in Shared
Reading mostly in regard to Shared Writing. The two literacy elements were interdependent and provided the children numerous situations to witness effective reading- and writing-like behaviors modeled by the teacher. It was noted that the children did indeed use many of the reading and writing strategies they observed through Shared
Reading/Shared Writing in their independent reading and writing work. In some instances, the children employed the modeling behavior when providing assistance to their peers during literacy activities.
The literacy extensions invited the children back into the story to gain greater meaning of the story or extended them beyond the story so that they had to synthesize their knowledge from a number of sources. They provided the children a variety of experiences with the same story. Inviting the children to revisit and re-read stories helped to make the book language and story more familiar and thus easier to read. The children's confidence in their reading rose as they became more successful in reading a book. 318
A vital element to the instructional program was the constant monitoring of the children’s progress in reading and writing. The information gained from the monitoring guided the planning of the literacy lessons and the t teaching strategies for individual assistance.
4. The literacy instructional program should evolve from the children’s literacy needs. The basis from which the literacy program was developed in this study was the children’s knowledge of literacy strategies. Knowing the reading and writing strategies of the children, how early literacy emerges and how children learn became the impetus from which the thematic literature units were developed, literacy lessons planned and the materials selected. The children’s needs and interests were therefore the core from which the instructional program developed.
5. The literacy activities should be integrated and interrelated. The provision of indepth thematic litera ture units gave the children much time and varied opportunities to practice their literacy strategies in familiar context. Children need time to internalize book language and content of stories, to discover delight in books, to develop literary awareness and appreciation and to practice and stretch their literacy skills in meaning 319 ful and purposeful ways using familiar reading materials in a variety of experiences.
6. The ultimate purpose of a literacy instructional program should be to develop children who not only know how to read but become readers who love and enjoy reading.
Too frequently at-risk children are drilled on skills of reading without ever having the chance to enjoy reading.
In this program poor readers were treated the same way as gifted.
Implications for Teacher Education
1. If teachers are to make changes in their literacy instructional programs, professional development related to literacy learning should become a priority issue at
School Board District Level. This teacher’s theoretical knowledge and practical ideas related to early literacy development were enhanced by her participation in weekly seminars in conjunction with The Early Literacy Research
Project. School Board District personnel need to develop short and long term professional development plans that will provide teachers the opportunity to be knowledgeable about current research findings related to early literacy and to learn meaningful and purposeful practical ideas to support literacy growth. 320
2. If teachers are to make changes in their literacy
instructional programs, teacher educators at the univer
sity level should provide relevant courses to early
literacy development. It is at the university level that
the most recent research findings are mostly likely to be
first known. In this regard, teachers educators need to
develop courses and seminars related to these findings for
classroom teachers. These courses and seminars should
present the research, theory and recommend practical
teaching strategies in an integrative way so that teachers
can implement the new ideas successfully in their classrooms.
3. If literacy instructional programs are to change, communications between the Universities. School Board
Districts and Provincial/State Department of Education need to be open and continuous. Classroom teachers are often torn in deciding what is best for their children.
The Universities suggest specific teaching/learning ideas, the Department of Education demands different teaching/ learning strategies and the School Districts request something distinct from the others. The classroom teacher is left to filter all the information and decide what is the best instructional procedures for the children by incorporating directives from the three sources. If we 321 are to make gains in literacy learning, some common theoretical and practical perspectives must be presented.
4. Teacher support groups or networking should be fostered. This teacher recognized the many benefits gained from the weekly seminars of The Early Literacy
Research Project. The group’s interaction was invaluable, the suggested teaching/learning ideas feasible and practical and the constructive criticism was meaningful.
Teacher educators, i.e., university faculty and School
Board District Personnel should support teachers in developing and maintaining groups of this nature.
5. Teacher educators should consider promoting teachers as researchers in their classrooms. If change is to occur within the classrooms, teachers need to learn ways and means of identifying what needs changing without always having to be dependent on an outside person(s) or institutions to initiate change. Teachers who are knowledgeable about conducting micro-studies in their classrooms will be more aware of their teaching style, the value of children’s interactions and can begin to make changes without long delays waiting for others to tell them what needs changing. 322
6. Teacher educators need to reconsider their teaching/learning perspectives related to at-risk children. At-risk children generally have literacy gaps when they enter school, but this does not mean they think or learn differently than other children. As Frank Smith
(1987) maintains, these children’s brains do well at,
"comprehending, remembering, learning, reasoning, imagin ing, intuition, and recognizing patterns in all things."
The brain fails only in "contrived circumstances" (p. 1).
That is, the children are confronted by teaching/learning situations that are not directly connected to anything they already know. The courses provided teachers of at- risk children often recommend "contrived circumstances" teaching/learning instructional programs. These children need instructional programs that build on what they already know. The programs need to provide learning situations that are meaningful and relevant to the children.
7. Teachers ...need to have teacher.i...... —educators — ■■■■■■ ; — — 'in' their classrooms on a regular basis. Since students of teacher education are often presented with a segmented undergraduate program, it would be helpful for novice teachers if teacher educators and/or School District personnel would visit their classrooms to discuss, 323
demonstrate and collaborate on integrative teaching/learn
ing strategies. They need to create a supportive teaching
community so the children will receive quality instruc
tion .
8. Effective change in literacy instructional
programs requires the efforts of the entire school
system. All primary teachers and administrators need to
be knowledgeable about current research in literacy
learning if change efforts are to have significant and
long lasting impact. Working with individual teachers is
only a beginning and is not enough. Having an entire
staff committed to change and participating in it, brings
about the change more readily and in a more encouraging
and supportive context.
Directions for Further Research
1. Replication with other at-risk First Graders. The replication of this study in other' First Grade environ ments would contribute to the effectiveness of this literacy instructional program on the literacy development of at-risk First Graders. How do the literacy gains of other at-risk First Graders compare to those described in this study?
2. Replication in Chapter 1 and Remedial Classes. How effective would this literacy instructional program be in Chapter 1 and Remedial classes? What literacy strategy gains would these children make? Is this literacy instructional program appropriate for these children? 324
3. Replication at other grade levels. First Grade was chosen because that was grade level The Early Literacy Research Project was associated with. How would this literacy instructional program benefit at-risk Kindergar- tners or Second Graders? Would these children respond similarly to the children in this study in regard to daily hearing stories read, having time to read and share books independently or with a partner, and having an opportunity to write independently or collaboratively?
4. Replication in a regular First Grade classroom. Could this program be implemented in a regular First Grade classroom with twenty or twenty-five children? What literacy growths would be revealed? What changes, if any, would have to be made?
5. Longitudinal study of the at-risk children in this study. Will these children continue to make literacy gains in their homeroom classroom next year? How will they develop and change over the next five years? Will they approach literacy tasks in the same manner? How do they refine their literacy strategies? Are some strategies dropped as new ones are learned? Will these at-risk chil dren continue to progress at the same rate they indicated in this study?
6. Indepth study on particular literacy elements. Such investigations as, What would be the literacy and literary gains of at-risk children who were read and re-read to on a daily basis over the same time period as this study? or over the duration of a school year?, What would be the difference in writing growth, style and content between at-risk children who write story retellings and at-risk children who write what they wish?
7. Studies related to the influence of teacher modeling of reading- and writing-like behaviors on literacy develop ment . It was apparent in this study that the teacher’s style of teaching had a powerful impact on the children’s literacy development. Her enthusiasm for books and superb read aloud style emotionally charged the children to want to read books. What effects does teaching style have on at-risk children’s literacy learning? Are there specific teaching techniques that every teacher should develop? Does a teacher’s knowledge and love for literature have a direct influence on at-risk children's desire to read and write? How do at-risk children benefit? 325
8. Indepth study related to the progress of a large number of children participating in the literacy instructional program developed in this study. Once the elements of the program have been thoroughly developed and tested, a number of teachers could be trained and an empirical study made of the progress of their children. APPENDIX A
FORMAT OF WEEKLY PLAN
326 FORMAT OF WEEKLY PLAN
327
WEEK OF-______ELEMENTS OF A MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY LESSON
Re-Reading Familiar Books
Read Aloud
Shared Reading
Shared Writing
Independent Writing
Other Extensions
Running Record APPENDIX B
RE-READING FAMILIAR BOOKS
CHECK-LIST
328 RE-READING FAMILIAR BOOKS
329 Week Of:______
TITTLE/AUTHOR Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Children's Literature
*
Little Books
Big Books APPENDIX C
THEMATIC LITERATURE UNIT:
THE THREE LITTLE PIGS
330 FORMAT OF WEEKLY PLAN
331
WEEK O F: I W > L l 6 ~ ~ 2 2 * * ELEMENTS OF A MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY LESSON
Three The Three The Three Re-Reading UU\e TVc\s UVV\t Little "Picvs Familiar T'VwWv/kv^e (2k . mAe|I) 'BenlrAadcn (.partner) Books (partner) $er* C\nde\>) Ben (2k indep) %»\\N Ondep) The Three. " W 3 U U W The Shr>j Of Read Ihe Three LiVUe ?,q & Y i p Aloud Little Tiqs Lcrtinda Tkut Goldoni Cauley \ h^eie^Ling ^eVetlvhg Retelling l^eteLUhg Shared Reading The Three The Three The Three /The Three I UVVle’hqs UW-leTiq* U H l t UVV\e liv / / f sr dUt m a h v e OiU&rncJhvie a\3cfrnrvjtsi€ Shared 3L^tmokv)e text text text Writing text
/
\^eteVLi Rete\LvtS<^ Retelling Independent Writing The Three The Three The Th r e e U H l e V ^ * LiVHe 'V^s Li-Vtte T*qs
Other Extensions
Running Record FORMAT OF WEEKLY PLAN
332
week of- &pr\l 25**- Z^r"
e l e m e n t s OF A MONDAYTUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAYFRIDAY LESSON
TV»e "TVvnet The. “YWee T he-T hree Re-Reading UYWe "Pios UVYW UtV\e ^Pias. Familiar Ondep-) Rtck.\j Crndc^ t\a*Wk>fle Books “feen Cmdep} HftrVcnCurxkp) Clarinet) V\ar\(5v> Cvndr?} "bil^ bndcp)
"The. "Three Read 9 ^ o n e U U \e T \tis
Aloud So i x p ‘forv'j R o ss tr* t Tb\eg\Ja TWe. Tkree T h e Three. UWle T W W o\C L i W W V \as Shared I R e c ip e Reading (aLfcrna&ue SY ew (alWrmYwt text) / t e x t ) U%i v^dir Shared Character*, S Y e w Writing o b j e d ^or i\VusYtxkVi*>» feUtrngAip. R eteU u n ^ ‘UeVelU.ru^ Speech BeJU** Speech haYW* Independent aUenyihtoc a lb m p b u ^ Writing 1V\e Tlnree th r e e . t u it ( t b e itw e e u ni ii t e_ T tclb rce YjiUUu'Pi^ UYUe ‘Ptas little TAe»s CcmsVrudk C onstruct TUusYnaAa l&usYraYe H ake., Other •Oo.T>«.r ©We<4\ “Paper cbjph, aAkmaYw e a lb rro h v lt ■UnQcechev^s CVyimcYers t e x t , t e x t , Extensions c V tiv a d tn for The. Three. Cbr fi»cVfe»T he T h re e The Three Wo\P &Ve\M k iU \e T>i^s UYUe. 'W** uUVe T^as Running Repord FORMAT OF WEEKLY PLAN 333 w e e k o f - M a y (p*1 ELEMENTS OF A MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAYFRIDAY LESSON The Three Re-Reading The Three. The Three UH\e T\^s V.iUVe V\£\s tiU\e Trqs Familiar MortonCinde^ Marlonlwdq) MartenfKyl® Books Uer»Gnd«p}ftenffttcky (.partner) Coartnert h*ckv Thr*e.e 1he tanarinq The 1hree Read UH\« U W e T\.as ~ ^ r Aloud Rbdhev) TtutLGaAdene %u.V. Caldbne Tfeppe The Three Stervj Shared \Alo\f UltWe. ^ujs M a p . Reading SVevJ (aUermtioe The "iKree text) LiVUeTias \ldent»f \f Shared 1 places Writing Storv Map, % n Storw Maf>, S u rv e y Cmmparivan Lonparitcn Independent The Three The Three Chart Chart ''UeheUarc)1 UU\e Vio^s Writing UW« T>i0s The Three The Three The Three .Speech U tk e V\c,v Littk *fls, W r W e Vuxs V T ex t > ri-ut «■ l)rumatiie. ConrxpcvnscrxI ^ Other lUa&VTatens C h art iTUustmhw Extensions Vio\f The T hree UHle Vids S te w / (4 \JerstentT Running Record APPENDIX D BOOKS VISITED BY ONE CHILD DURING RE-READING FAMILIAR BOOK TIME 334 Books Visited By One Child During Re-Reading Familiar Book Time (Peter) WEEK TITLE/AUTHOR READING RECOVERY LEVEL 1 Cat On The Mat (Wildsmith) 1 The Trolley Ride 4 Houses 4 The Storm 3 Haunted House 7 Look At Me 3 We Like You 2 Down The Stairs 2 My Family 2 2 (2X) The Great Big Enormous Turnip (Alternative Text) (2X) The Great Big Enormous 14 Turnip (Oxenbury) My Family 2 Who Will Be My Mother? 2 Dan, The Flying Man 4 Carrot Seed (Krauss) 12 (3X) "Pardon," Said The Giraffe 9 (West) One, One Is The Sun 3 Animals At The Zoo 1 Going To the Beach 1 (4X) Running Bear (Alborough) Henny Penny (Galdone) 15 Mrs. Wishy-Washy 4 Brown Bear, Brown Bear (Martin) 4 3 (2X) Running Bear (Alborough) Where's Spot? (Hill) 8 Brown Bear, Brown Bear (Martin) 4 The Story Of Chicken Licken (Ormerod) (2X) The Three Bears (Galdone) 17 (2X) Goldilocks And The Three Bears (Watts) I Swim Going To The Beach Owl At Home (2X) The Three Bears (Galdone) The Teeny-Tiny Woman (Galdone) (2X) Dan, The Flying Man (3X) The Farm Concert The Dog On The Mat (Alternative Text) The Great Big Enormous Turnip (Alternative Text) Where's Spot? (Hill) Titch (Hutchins) A Big Fat Worm (Laan) The Hungry Giant The Three Billy Goats Gruff (Galdone) The Story Of The Three Bears (Cauley) Dear Zoo (Campbell) Running Bear (Alborough) (2X) Billy Goats Gruff (Hellard) (2X) The Three Pigs (Hellard) A Night In The Swamp (Hurd) The Farm Concert The Hungry Giant The Dog On The Mat (Alternative Text) (3X) Where's Spot? (Hill) The Three Billy Goats Gruff (Galdone) Going To The Beach Spot At The Beach (Hill) (2X) The Very Hungry Catepillar (Carle) The Tree-House The Three Pigs (Galdone) Little Pig A Big Fat Worm (Laan) 337 6 (2X) The Three Pigs (Hellard) Spot At The Beach (Carle) (2X) The Gingerbread Boy (Galdone) Come Out And Play, Little Mouse (Krauss) Where’s Spot? (Hill) 8 The Trolley Ride Little Pig (Wright) 4 First Comes Spring (Rockwell) Stone Soup (Ross) 7 1,2,3 How Many Animals Do You See? (Boon) There Was An Old Woman (Wyllie) A Night In The Swamp (Hurd) (2X) The Great Big Enormous Turnip (Alternative Text) There’s A Monster Under My Bed (Howe) The Gingerbread Boy (Galdone) First Comes Spring (Rockwell) (2X) Three Little Pigs (Peppe) Dan, The Flying Man 4 The Farm Concert 5 The Hungry Giant 10 Peanut Butter and Jelly (Westcott) 8 Loose Tooth 14 (2X) The Three Pigs (Hellard) (2X) Three Little Pigs (Peppe) Mary Wore Her Red Dress (Peek) The Great Big Enormous Turnip 14 (ill. Oxenbury) Spot Goes To The Beach (Hill) Where’s Spot? (Hill) 8 The Gingerbread Boy (Galdone) The Bee (Ernst) The Three Little Pigs (Alternative Text) Dan, The Flying Man 4 338 The Farm Concert 5 Cat And Mouse 3 Peanut Butter And Jelly (Westcott) No, No 5 The Three Pigs (Hellard) Rosie's Walk (Hutchins) 9 The Three Little Pigs (Alternative Text) The Farm Concert 5 A Zoo In Our House (Eyles) 10 Pumpkin, Pumpkin (Titherington) Gone Fishing (Long) Ten In A Bed (Rees) My Dog (Taylor) 11 The Three Little Pigs (Galdone) 20 Rosie's Walk (Hutchins) 9 I'm Going On A Dragon Hunt (Jones) The Balancing Act (Peek) Cat On The Mat (Wildsmith) 1 Brown Bear, Brown Bear (Martin) 4 Rabbit Finds A Way (Delton) 12 (2X) Rosie’s Walk (Hutchins) 9 The Fat Cat (Kent) 16 The Carrot Seed (Krauss) 12 The Balancing Act (Peek) Spot At The Beach (Hill) Good Night, Good Night (Boynton) "Pardon," Said The Giraffe 9 (West) I'm Goir.g On A Dragon Hunt (Jones) (2X mearj number of times the book was read that week) APPENDIX E READ ALOUD BOOKS 339 340 READ ALOUD BOOKS Alborough, J. (1985). Running bear. New York: Knopf. Brett, J. (1987). Goldilocks and the three bears. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. Brimmer, D. (1988). Country bear’s good neighbor. Illustrated by R. Councell. New York: Orchard. Burningham, J. (1971). Mr. Gumpy’s outing. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Carle, E. (1969). The very hungry caterpillar. New York: Philomel. Cauley, L. (1980). The story of the three little pigs. New York: Putnam. Cauley, L. (1981). Goldilocks and the three bears. New York: Putnam. Delton, J. (1975). Rabbit finds a way. Illustrated by J. Lasker. New York: Crown. Dodds, S. (1987). Charles Tiger. Boston: Little, Brown. Galdone, P. (1968). Henny Penny. New York: Clarion. Galdone, P. (1970). The three little pigs. New York: Clarion. Galdone, P. (1972). The three bears. New York: Seabury Press. Galdone, P. (1973a). The little red hen. New York: Scholastic. Galdone, P. (1973b). The three billy goats gruff. New York: Clarion. Galdone, P. (1981). The amazing pig. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Galdone, P. (1984). The teeny tiny woman. New York: Clarion. 341 Hayes| S. (1986). This is the bear. Illustrated by H. Craig. New York: Lippincott. Hellard, S. (1986). Billy goats gruff. New York: Putnam. Hellard, S. (1987). The ugly duckling. New York: Putnam. Hogrogian, N. (1977). Carrot cake. New York: Greenwillow. Howe, J. (1986). There’s a monster under my bed. Illustrated by D. Rose. New York: Atheneum. Hutchins, P. (1986). The doorbell rang. New York: Scholastic. Jones, M. (1987). I’m going on a dragon hunt. Illustrated by C. Firmin. New York: Four Winds. Kraus, R. (1971). Leo the late bloomer. Illustrated by J. Aruego. New York: Windmill. Krauss, R. (1945). The carrot seed. Illustrated by C. Johnson. New York: Harper & Row. Laan, N. (1987). The big fat worm. Illustrated by M. Russo. New York: Knopf. Oppenheim, J. (1986). You can’t catch me. Illustrated by A. Shachat. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Ormerod, J. (1985). The story of chicken licken. New York: Lothrop. Peek, M. (1985). Mary wore her red dress and Henry wore his green sneakers. New York: Clarion. Peppe, R. (1979). Three little pigs. New York: Lothrop. Pomerantz, C. (1984). One duck. another duck. Illustrated by J. Aruego & A. Dewey. New York: Greenwillow. 342 Reinl, E. (1983). The 3 little pigs. USA: Picture Book Studio. Rendall, J. (1986). When Goldilocks went in the house of the three bears, New York: Scholastic. Rice, E . (1981). Benny bakeB a cake. New York: Greenwi' low. Robart, R. (1986). The cake that Mack ate. Illustrated by M. Kovalski. New York: The Atlantic Monthly. Rockwell, A. (1982). Boats. New York: Dutton. Rockwell, A. (1985a). First comes Spring. New York: Crowell. Rockwell, A. (1985b). In our house. New York: Crowell. Ross, T. (1987). Stone soup. New York: Dial. Stevens, J. (1986). Goldilocks and the three bears. New York: Holiday. Tolstoy, A. (1968). The great big enormous turnip. Illustrated by H. Oxenbury. New York: Watts. Watts, B. (1984). Goldilocks and the three bears. New York: North-South Books. Westcott, N. (1987). Peanut butter and .jelly, New York: Dutton. Wildsmith, B. (1982). Cat on the mat. Oxford: Oxford University Press. APPENDIX F RE-READING FAMILIAR BOOKS 343 344 RE-READING FAMILIAR BOOKS Alborough, J. (1985). Running bear. New York: Knopf. Barton, B. (1987). Machines at work. New York: Crowell. Blegvad, E. (1980). The three little pigs. New York: Atheneum. Bonne, R. (1961). I know an old lady. Illustrated by A. Graboff. New York: Scholastic. Boon, E. (1987). 1 2 3 How many animals can you see? New York: Orchard Books. Bornstein, R. (1976). Little gorilla. New York: Clarion. Boynton, S. (1985). Good night. good night. New York: Random House. Brett, J. (1987). Goldilocks and the three bears. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. i Brimmer, D. (1988). Country bear*s good neighbor. Illustrated by R. Councell. New York: Orchard. Brown, M. (1983). The silly tail book. New York: Parents Magazine Press. Burningham, J. (1971). Mr. Gumpy*s outing. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Campbell, R. (1982). Dear zoo. New York: Puffin. Campbell, R. (1984). Henry*s busy day. New York: Viking. Carle, E. (1969). The very hungry caterpillar. New York: Philomel. Cauley, L. (1980). The story of the three little pigs. New York: Putnam. Cauley, L. (1981). Goldilocks and the three bears. New York: Putnam. 345 Delton, J. (1975). Rabbit finds a way. Illustrated by J. Lasker. New York: Crown. Dodds, S. (1987). Charles Tiger. Boston: Little, Brown. Eyles, H. (1985). A zoo in our house. Illustrated by A. Cooke. New York: Warner. Ernst, C. (1986) The bee. Illustrated by L. Ernst. New York: Lothtop. Galdone, P. (1968). Henny Penny. New York: Clarion. Galdone, P. (1970). The three little Digs. New York: Clarion. Galdone, P. (1972). The three bears. New York : Seabury Press. Galdone, P. (1973a) The little red hen. New York: Scholastic. Galdone, P. (1973b). The three billy goats gruff. New York: Clarion. Galdone, P. (1975). The gingerbread boy. New York: Clarion. Galdone, P. (1981). The amazing pig. New York : Houghton Mifflin. Galdone, P. (1984). The teeny tiny woman. New York: Clarion. Ginsburg, M. (1972) The chick and the duckling. Illustrated by J. Aruego & A. Dewey. New York: Macmillan. Hayes, S. (1986). This is the bear. Illustrated by H. Craig. New York: Lippincott. Hellard, S. (1986). Billy goats gruff. New York: Putnam. Hellard, S. (1987). The ugly duckling. New York: Putnam. Hill, E. (1980). Where*s Spot? New York: Putnam. 346 Hill, E. (1984). Baby bear*a bedtime. New York: Random House. Hill, E. (1985). Spot goes to the beach. New York: Putnam. Hogrogian, N. (1977). Carrot cake. New York: Greenwillow. Howe, L. (1986). There*s a monster under my bed. Illustrated by D. Rose. New York: Atheneum. Hurd, T. (1987). A night in the swamp. New York: Harper & Row. Hutchins, P. (1968). Rosie*s walk. New York: Macmillan. Hutchins, P. (1971). Titch. New York: Viking Penguin. Hutchins, P. (1978). Happy birthday, Sam. New York: Viking Penguin. Hutchins, P. (1986). The doorbell rang. New York: Scholastic. Jones, M. (1987). I*m going on a dragon hunt. Illustrated by C. Firmin. New York: Four Winds. Kent, J. (1971). The fat cat. New York: Scholastic. Kraus, R. (1971). Leo the late bloomer. Illustrated by J. Aruego. New York: Windmill. Kraus, R. (1986). Where are you going. liitle mouse? Illustrated by J. Aruego & A. Dewey. New York: Greenwillow. Kraus, R. (1987). Come and play. little mouse. Illustrated by J. Aruego & A. Dewey. New York: Greenwillow. Krauss, R. (1945). The carrot seed. Illustrated by C. Johnson. New York: Harper & Row. Laan, N. (1987). The big fat worm. Illustrated by M. Russo. New York: Knopf. 347 Long, E. (1984). Gone fishing. Illustrated by R. Brown. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Martin, B., Jr. (1967). Brown Bear. Brown Bear. Illustrated by E. Carle. New York: Holt. Miller, M. (1988). Whose hat? New York: Greenwillow. Murphy, J. (1984). What next, baby bear!. New York: Dial. Oppenheim, J. (1986). You can’t catch me. Illustrated by A. Shachat. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Ormerod, J. (1985). The story of chicken licken. New York: Lothrop. Peek, M. (1985). Mary wore her red dress and Henry wore his green sneakers. New York: Clarion. Peek, M. (1987). The balancing act. New York: Clarion. Peppe, R. (1979). Three little pigs. New York: Lothrop. Rees, M. (1988). Ten in a bed. Boston: Little, Brown. Reinl, E. (1983). The 3 little pigs. Natick, MA: Picture Book Studio. Rendall, J. (1986). When Goldilocks went in the house of the three bears. New York: Scholastic. Rice, E. (1981). Benny bakes a cake. New York: Greenwillow. Robart, R. (1986). The cake that Mack ate. Illustrated by M. Kovalski. New York: The Atlantic Monthly. Rockwell, A. (1982). Boats. New York: Dutton. Rockwell, A. (1985a). First comes spring. New York: Crowell. Rockwell, A. (1985b). Planes. New York: Dutton. Roffey, M. (1985). Look, there*s my hat. New York: Putnam. 348 Ross, T. (1987). Stone soup. New York: Dial. Seymour, P. (1987). The three little pigs. Illustrated by J. Wallner. New York: Viking. Stevens, J. (1986). Goldilocks and the three bears. New York: Holiday. Tafuri, N. (1984). Have you seen my duckling? New York: Greenwillow. Taylor, J. (1988a). My cat. Illustrated by R. Cartwright. New York: Macmillan. Taylor, J. (1988b) My dog. Illustrated by R. Cartwright. New York: Macmillan. Titherington, J. (1986). Pumpkin, pumpkin. New York: Greenwillow. Tolstoy, A. (1968). The great big enormous turnip. Illus trated by H. Oxenbury. New York: Watts. Tolstoy, A. (1971). The great big enormous turnip. Oakland, N.J.: Scott, Foresman &. Company. Watanabe, B. (1977). How do I put it on? Illustrated by Yasuo Ohtomo. New York: Philomel. Watts, B. (1984). Goldilocks and the three bears. New York: North-South Books. Wells, R. (1973). Noisy Nora. New York: Dial. West, P. (1986). "Pardon?" said the giraffe. New York: Harper & Row. WeBtcott, N. (1987). Peanut butter and .jelly. New York: Dutton. Wildsmith, B. (1982). Cat on the mat. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wyllie, S. (1985). There was an old woman. Illustrated by M. Roffey. New York: Harper & Row 349 Breakthrough. Los Angeles, CA: Bowm&r The loose tooth (1973). [Reading Recovery Level 14] The Story Box Books. California: The Wright Group A Get-Ready Books In the mirror (1983). [Reading Recovery Level 2] On a chair (1983). [Reading Recovery Level 2] One, one, is the sun (1983). [Reading Recovery Level 2] If you meet a dragon... (1983).[Reading Recovery Level 2] The tree-house (1983). [Reading Recovery Level 2] The storm (1983). [Reading Recovery Level 3] A monster sandwich (1983). [Reading Recovery Level 3] Ready-Set-Go Books Come with me (1981). [Reading Recovery Level 3] Lost (1981). [Reading Recovery Level 3] Plop! (1981). [Reading Recovery Level 3] Little pig (1981). [Reading Recovery Level 4] What a mess! (1981). [Reading Recovery Level 4] Grumpy elephant (1982). [Reading Recovery Level 5] A Read-Together Books Cat and mouse (1986). [Reading Recovery Level 3] Dan, the flying man (1983). [Reading Recovery Level 4] 350 The farm concert (1983). [Reading Recovery Level 5] In a dark dark wood (1980). [Reading Recovery Level 8] Mrs. Wishy-Washy (1980). [Reading Recovery Level 8) The hungry giant (1980). [Reading Recovery Level 10] This Is The Way I Go Books. USA: DLM I .iump (1976 ) . [Reading Recovery Level 3] I swim (1976). [Reading Recovery Level 3] I climb ( 1976) . [Reading Recovery Level 3] Can You Do This Books. USA: DLM I can play ( 1977 ) . [Reading Recovery Level 3] Ready To Read Books. Wellington, New Zealand: Hasselberg Going to the beach (1984). [Reading Recovery Level 1] I can read (1983). [Reading Recovery Level 3] A School Zone Start To Read Books. Grand Haven, MI.: School Zone I want a pet (1984). [Reading Recovery Level 4] 351 Reading Unlimited Books. Oakland, N.J.: Scott, Foresman The bus ride (1976). [Reading Recovery Level 4] The three little pigs (1976). [Reading Recovery Level 13] The great big enormous turnip (1976). [Reading Recovery Level 14] The pot of gold (1976). [Reading Recovery Level 16] Windmill Books. New Zealand: Heinemann Stables are for horses [Reading Recovery Level 4] (1985) . Where are the car keys? [Reading Recovery Level 4] (1985). Children-Made Big Books The Boy Who Didn*t Know How To Ride A Bike The Dog Sat On The Mat The Great Big Enormous Turnip The Three Little Pigs Where*s Goldilocks? BIBLIOGRAPHY 353 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allington, R.L. (1977). If they don't read much, how they ever gonna get good? Journal of Reading. 21. 57-61. Allington, R.L. (1980a). Poor readers don’t get to read much in reading groups. Language Arts. 57. 872-877. Allington, R.L. (1980b). Teacher interruption behaviors during elementary grade oral reading. Journal of Educational Psychology. 72, 371-377. Allington, R.L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. Elementary School Journal. 83. 548-559. Allington, R . , Stuetzel, H . , Shake, M . , & LaMarche, S. (1986) What is remedial reading? A descriptive study. Reading Research and Instruction. 26, 15-30. Allington, R., & Broikou, K. (1988). Development of shared knowledge: A new role for classroom and specialist teachers. The Reading Teacher. 41 , 806- 811. Anderson, R., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Washington, DC: The National Institute of Education. Applebee, A.N. (1978). The child's concept of story. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Altwerger, B., Diehl-Faxon, J., & Dockstader-Anderson, K. (1985). Read-aloud events as meaning construction. Language Arts. 62, 476-484. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. New York: Penguin. Barthes, R. (1975). S/Z. New York: Hill and Wang. Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 354 Bauman, M.L. (1987). Literature, repetition, and meaning. Language Arts, 64, 54-60. Beaver, J. (1982). Say it! Over and over. Language Arts, 59, 143-148. Bettelheim, B. (1977). The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy tales. New York: Vintage. Bissex, G.L. (1980). GNYS AT WRK: A child learns to write and read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bissex, G.L. (1985). Watching young writers. In A. Jaggar & M.T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Observing the language learner. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Bloome, D. (1985). Reading as a social process. Language Arts, 62. 134-142. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bondy, E. (1984). First graders* socially constructed definitions of reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. Brissey, L. (1982). Observing and recording children’s responseto literature read aloud. Unpublished masters thesis. University of New Mexico. Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. New York: Penguin. Britton, J. (1977). The nature of the reader’s satisfaction. In M. Meek, A. Warlow, & G. Barton (Eds.), The cool web:_The pattern of children’s reading. London: Bodley Head. Bruner, J. (1984). Language, mind, and reading. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy. London: Heinemann. 355 Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds. possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burchby, M. (1988). .Literature and whole language. The New Advocate. 1_, 114-123. Burroughs, M. (1970). The stimulation of verbal behavior in culturally disadvantaged three-year-olds. Unpub lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Burton, F. (1985). The reading-writing connection: A one year teacher-as-researcher study of third-fourth grade writers and their literary experiences. Un published doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Bussis, A., Chittenden, E., Amarel, M . , & Klausner, E. (1985). Inquiry into meaning: An investigation of learning to read. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Butler, C. (1980). When the pleasurable is measurable: Teachers reading aloud. Language Arts. 57., 882-885. Butler, D. (1980). Cushla and her books. Boston: Horn Book. Butler, A., &. Turbill, J. (1984). Towards a reading- writing classroom. Rosebery, Australia: Bridge Printery. CiAlkins, L. (1983). Lessons from a child:_____On the teaching and learning of writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Crago, H . , & Cargo, M. (1976). The untrained eye? A preschool child explores Felix Hoffman's Rapunzel. Children's Literature in Education. 22., 135-151. Cazden, C. (1965). Environmental assistance to the child's acquisition of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 356 Chapman, J. (1987). Reading: From 5 - 11 years. Philadelphia, PA: Open University. Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational Review. 42. 1-33. Clark, M. (1976). Young fluent readers. London, England: Heinemann. Clay, M. (1972). Reading: The patterning of complex behavior (2nd ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann. Clay, M. (1975). What did I write?: Beginning writing behaviour. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties: A diagnostic survey with recovery procedures. Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. (1982). Observing young readers. London: Heinemann. Cochron-Smith, M. (1984). The making of a reader. Norwood, N J : Ablex. Cochron-Smith, M. (1986). Reading to children: A model for understanding texts. In B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), Acquisition of literacy from an ethnographic perspective. Norwood, N J : Ablex. Cohen, D. (1968). The effect of literature on vocabulary and reading achievement. Elementary English. 45. 209-213, 217. Cullinan, B.E., Jaggar, A., & Strictland, D. (1974). Language expansion for black children in the primary grades: A research report. Young Children. 29, 98-112. Cullinan, B.E., & Strickland, D.S. (1986). The early years: Language, literature and literacy in classroom research. The Reading Teacher. 39. 798- 806. 357 DeFord, D.E. (1981). Literacy: Reading, writing, and other essentials. Language Arts. 58, 652-658. DeFord, D.E. (1986). Children write to read and read to write. In D.R. Tovey & J.E. Kerber (Eds.), Roles in literacy learning. Newark. DE: International Reading Association. Department of Education Wellington (1985). Reading in .junior classes. Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printer. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. New York: W.W. Norton. Dowhower, S.L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly. 22, 389- 406. Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A.H. (1982). Reading, writing, and language: Young children solving the written language puzzle. Language Arts, 59 , 829-839. Dyson, A.H. (1985). Individual differences in emerging writing. In M. Farr (Ed.), Advances in writing research :______Vol. 1 Children’s early writing development. Norwood, N J : Ablex. Dyson, A.H. (1987). Unintentional helping in the primary grades: Writing in the children’s world. (Report No. 2). Berkley, CA: University of California, Center for the Study of Writing. Eckhoff, B, (1983). How reading affects children’s writing. Language Arts, 60 , 607-616. Favat, F.A. ( 1977 ). Child and tale:____ The origins of interest. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 358 Feitelson, D., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Patterns of book ownership and reading to young children in Israeli school-oriented and nonschool-oriented families. The Reading Teacher, 39, 924-930. Feitelson, D., Kita, B . , & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Effects of listening to series stories on first graders’ comprehension and use of language. Research in the Teaching of English. 20, 339-356. Ferguson, D. (1979). The effects of oral reading and related language experiences on the reading readiness of kindergarten children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama. Ferreiro, E. (1978). What is written in a written sentence? A developmental answer. Journal of Education. 160, 25-29. Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fox, C. (1985). The book that talks. Language Arts. 62, 374- 384. Frye, N. (1964). The educated imagination. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Giacobbe, M.E. (1981). Who says children can’t write the first week? In R.D. Walshe (Ed.), Donald Graves in Australia: "Children want to write...”. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gladstone, R. (1988). Illiteracy saps nation’s strengths. The Columbus Dispatch. H, pp. 1-14. Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropology And Education Quarterly. 12, 51-70. Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill. Goodman, Y. (1984). The development of initial literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy. Exter, NH: Heinemann. 359 Goodmani K., 4 Goodman, Y. (1977). Learning about psycholinguistic processes by analyzing oral reading. Harvard Educational Review. 47, 317-333. Graves, D. (1978). We won't let them write. Language arts, 55. 635-640. Graves, D. (1981a). Patterns of child control of the writing process. In R.D. Walshe (Ed.), • Donald Graves in Australia: "Children want to write...". Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Graves, D. (1981b). What children show us about revision. In R.D. Walshe (Ed.), Donald Graves in Australia: "Children want to write...". Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Graves, D. (1981c). Writing research for the eighties: What is needed. Language Arts, 58. 197-206. Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Graves, D.f 4 Stuart, V. (1985). Write from the start. New York: Dutton. Gregory, R.L. (1977). Ways forward for the psychologist: Alternative fictions. In M. Meek, A. Warlow, 4 G. Barton (Eds.), The cool web:_____ The pattern of children's reading. London: Bodley Head. Hall, N. (1987). The emergence of literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Halliday, M. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London, England: Arnold. Hardy, B. (1977). Narrative as a primary act of mind. In M. Meek, A. Warlow, & G. Barton (Eds.), The cool web:_____The pattern of children's reading. London: Bodley Head. Harste, J.C., Woodward, V.A., 4 Burke, C.L. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 360 Haskett, G. , & Lenfestey, W. (1974). Reading-related behavior in an open classroom: Effect of novelty and modelling on preschoolers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 7_, 233-241. Haynes, M . , & Jenkins, J. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal. 23, 161-190. Heald-Taylor, G. (1987). How to use predictable books for K-2 language arts instruction. The Reading Teacher. 40, 656-663. Heath, S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society. 11, 49-76. Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S.B., & Branscombe, A. (1986). The book as narrative prop in language acquisition. In B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), Acquisition of literacy from an ethnographic perspective. Norwood, N J : Ablex. Hepler, S. (1982). Patterns of response to literature: A one-year study of a fifth and sixth grade classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Henderson, E. (1981). Learning to read and spell: The child's knowledge of words. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press. Hickman, J. (1979). Response to literature in a school environment, grades K - 5. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Hiebert, E. (1981). Developmental patterns and interrelationships of preschool children's print awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 16. 236-259. Hill, E. (1980). Where's Spot? Great Britain: Heinemann. 361 Hoffman, D. (1976). Ten days with Inga and In the Night Kitchen: An episode in language development. Communication Education. 25. 1-15. Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. New York: Scholastic. Holdaway, D. (1980). Independence in reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Holdaway, D. (1984). Stability and change in literacy learning. Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Holdaway, D. (1986). Guiding a natural process. In D. Tovey & J. Kerber (Eds.), Roles in literacy learning:____A new perspective. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York: Macmillan. Huck, C.S. (1977). Literature as the content of reading. Theory Into Practice. 26, 363-371. Huck, C.S., Hepler, S., & Hickman, J. ( 1987). Children * s literature in the elementary school (4th. ed.). New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. Irwin, O. (1960). Infant speech: Effect of systematic reading of stories. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 3, 187-190. Kiefer, B. (1988). Picture books as contexts for literary, aesthetic, and real word understandings. Language Arts, 65, 260-271. Kozol, J. (1985). Illiterate America. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Lamme, L.L. (1976). Reading aloud to young children. Language Arts, 53, 886-888. Lamme, L.L. (1983). The composing processes of three young children. Research in the Teaching of English. 17, 31-50. Langer, J. (1986). Children reading and writing: Struc tures and strategies. Norwood, N J : Ablex. 362 Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage. Lunzer, E.A., & Gardner, K. (1979). The effective use of reading. London: Heinemann. Mandler, J., & Johnson, N. (1977) Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology. 9, 111-151. Martinez, M. (1983). Exploring young children's comprehension through story time talk. Language Arts. 62 . 202-209. Martinez, M . , & Roser, N. (1985). Read it again: The value of repeated readings during storytime. The Reading Teacher. 38, 782-786. Martinez, M . , Cheyney, M . , McBroom, C., Hemnter, A., & Teale, W.H. (1988) No risk kindergarten literacy environments for at risk children. Paper presented at the International Reading Association Annual Conference, Toronto, Canada. Martinez, M., & Teale, W.H. (1988). Reading in a kindergarten classroom library. The Reading Teacher, ii. Mclnnes, J. (1986). Children’s quest for literacy. In D. Tovey & J. Kerber (Eds.), Roles in literacy learning. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. McKenzie, M. (1986). Journeys into literacy. Huddersfield, England: Schofield & Sims. McVitty, W. (Ed.) (1986). Getting it together: Organising_____ the_____reading-writing______classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Meek, M. (1982). Learning to read. London, England: The Bodley Head. 363 Michaels, S., &. Cazden, C. (1986). Teacher/child collaboration as oral preparation for literacy. In B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), Acquisition of literacy from an ethnographic perspective. Norwood, N J : Ablex. Mikkelsen, N. (1987). The power of story. Language Arts. 64., 61-72. Miles, D. (1985). Meaning making with story. Language Arts. 62 . 343-348. Miles, M.B., & Huberman A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. London, England: Sage. Mills, E. B. (1974). Children's literature and teaching written composition. Elementary English. 51. 971- 973. Moffett, J. (1983). Teaching the universe of discourse. Portsmouth, N H : Heinemann. Morrow, L.M. (1985). Reading and retelling stories: Strategies for emergent readers. The Reading Teacher, 38_, 870-875. Morrow, L.M. (1988). Young children's responses to one- to-one story readings in school settings. Reading Research Quarterly. 23. 89-107. Newman, J. (1985). The craft of children's writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labelling. Journal of Child Language. j>, 1-15. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How American schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Pinnell, G . , Lyons, C . , & DeFord, D. (1987). A proposal for the early literacy research project. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Paley, V.G. (1981). Wally's Stories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 364 Psacharopoulosi G. (1981). Returns of education: An updated international comparison. Comparative Education. 17. 321-341. Raftery, S.C. (1974). The effect of a quality literature program conducted by elementary education majors on the reading achievement of second grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, New York University). Dissertation Abstracts International. 35. 2830A. Resnick, D.P., & Resnick, L.B. (1977). The nature of literacy: An historical exploration. Harvard Educational Review. 47, 370-385. Rhodes, L. (1981). I can read! Predictable books as resources for reading and writing instruction. The Reading Teacher. 34. 511-518. Rhodes, L., &. Dudley-Marling, C. (1988). Readers and writers with a difference. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Rosen, H. (1986). The importance of story. Language Arts. 63. 226-237. Roser, N. (1987). Research currents: Relinking literature and literacy. Language Arts. 64 . 90-97. Rosenblatt, L.M. (1968) Literature as exploration. New York: Noble and Noblr.. Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rosenblatt, L.M. (1980). "What facts does this poem teach you?" Language Arts. 57. 386-394. Rowan, B. , Guthrie, L. , Lee, G . , & Pung-Guthrie, G. (1987). The design and implementation of chapter 1 instructional services: A study of 24 schools. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Sawyer, W. (1987). Literature and literacy: A review of research. Language Arts, 64, 33-39. 365 Schickedanz, J.A. (1978). "Please read that story again!" Exploring relationships between story reading and learning to read. Young Children. July. 48-55. Schickedanz, J.A. (1981). "Hey! This book is not working right." Young Children. 37, 18-27. Schickedanz, J.A. (1986). More than the ABCs: The early stages of reading and writing. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Shanahan, T. (1988). The reading-writing relationship: Seven instructional principles. The Reading Teacher. 4i, 636-647. Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading:______A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt. Smith, F. (1982). Writing and the writer. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Smith, F. (1983). Essays into literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Smith, F. (1986). Insult to intelligence:_____The bureaucratic invasion of our classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Smith, F. (1987). What the brain does well. Victoria, BC: Abel. Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Smith, L.A. (1980). Child writers in children’s literature. Language Arts. 57. 519-523. Smith-Burke, M.T. (1985). Reading and talking: Learning through interaction. In A. Jaggar & M.T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Observing the language learner. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Snow, C. (1977). The development of conversation between mothers and babies. Journal of Child Language. 4., 1- 22. 366 Snow C, & Coldfield, B. (1982). Building stories: The emergence of information structures from conversa tion. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Snow, C., & Goldfield, B. (1983). Turn the page please: Situation specific language learning. Journal of Child Language, 10. 551-570. Snow, C . , & Ninio, A. (1986). The contracts of literacy: What children learn from learning to read books. In W.H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 116-138). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Soshtarich, J. (1974). A study of the reading behavior of sixth graders: Comparisons of active and other readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Spencer, M.M. (1976). Stories are for telling. English in Education. 10. 15-23. Spencer, M.M. (1986). Nourishing and sustaining reading. In D. Tovey & J. Kerber (Eds.), Roles in literacy learni ng: A new perspective. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Spencer, M.M. (1987a). How texts teach what readers learn. Victoria, Canada: Abel. Spencer, M.M. (1987b). Playing the texts. Language Matters, 1_, pp. 1-4. Stein, N.L., & Glenn, C.G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R.O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60, 627-642. 367 Strickland, D. (1971). The effects of a special literature program on the oral language expansion of linguistically different. negro. kindergarten children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University. Strong, E.L. (1978). The use of children’s literature >o foster positive reading attitudes in primary children with reading difficulties. Unpublished masters thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Strong, E.L. (1986). Shared reading/shared writing: Theory into practice. Unpublished paper, The Ohio State University. Sulzby, E. (1985a). Children’s emergent abilities to read favorite storybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20. 458-481. Sulzby, E. (1985b). Kindergartners as writers and readers. In M. Farr (Ed.), Advances in writing research. Vol. 1: Children’s early writing development. Norwood, N J : Ablex. Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read and write. Exter, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, D., ft Strickland, D. (1986). Family storybook reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, D . , ft Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate :______Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Teale, W.H. (1982). Toward a theory of how children learn to read and write naturally. Language Arts, 59, 555- 570. Teale, W.H. (1984). Reading to young children: Its significance for literacy development. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, ft F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy. London: Heinemann. Teale, W.H. (1986). Home background and young children’s literacy development. In W.H. Teale ft E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, N J : Ablex. 368 Teale, W.H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Introduction: Emergent literacy as a perspective for examining how young children become writers and readers. In W.H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, N J : Ablex. Teale, W.H., Hiebert, E.H., & Chittenden, E.A. (1987). Assessing young children's literacy development. The Reading Teacher. 40., 772-777 . Temple, C . , Nathan, R . , & Burris, N, (1982). The beginnings of writing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Thorndike, R.L. (1973). Reading comprehension, education in 15 countries: An empirical study. New York: Holstead Wiley. Tompkins, G. E. &. Webeler, M. (1983). What will happen next? Using predictable books with young children. The Reading Teacher. 36, 498-502. Turbill, J. (1982). No better way to teach writing! Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Turbill, J. (1983). Now, we want to write! Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Yaden, D. (1988). Understanding stories through repeated read-alouds: How many does it take? The Reading Teacher. 41. 556-560. Yolen, J. (1981). Touch magic: Fantasy. faerie and folklore in the literature of childhood. New york: Philomel. Vandergrift, K.E. (1986). Child and story: The literary connection. New York: Neal-Schuman. Voss, M.M. (1988). "Make way for applesauce": The literate world of a three year old. Language Arts. 65, 272-278. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John- Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 369 Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Rev.). (A. Kozulin, Ed.) Cambridge. MA: MIT. Walker, G., &, Kuerbitz, I. (1979). Reading to preschoolers as an aid to successful beginning reading. Reading Improvement. 16. 149-154. Walshe, R.D. (1986). Every child can write: Learning and teaching written expression in the 1980*8. Australia: Bridge Printery. Weiss, M.J. (1986). Writer and readers: The literary connection. The Reading Teacher. 39, 758-763. • Wells, G. (1981). Learning through interaction: The study of language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. White, D. (1954). Books before five. New York: Oxford University Press. Whitehead, M. (1983). Proto-narrative moves in early conversations. In M. Meek (Ed.). Opening moves. London, England: University of London. Wilcox, L.M. (1977). Literature: The child's guide to creative writing. Language Arts. 54, 549-554. Woolsey, D.P. (1986). First grade children's responses to teacher change in literacy contexts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Yocom, J.A. (1987). Children's responses to literature read aloud in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Zolotow, C. (1980). Say it! Illustrated by James Stevenson. New York: Greenwillow. ■ <•