1

Promoting Vocabulary Development and Knowledge of Narrative and Expository

Texts Through Instructional Read Alouds in First Grade Classrooms:

Results From an Experimental Study

Scott Baker, Ph.D.Lana Edwards Santoro, Ph.D.

David Chard, Ph.D.Hank Fien, Ph.D.

Yonghan Park, Ph.D.Janet Otterstedt, M.S.

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences

(CFDA No. 84.305: Goal 3)

Reading Research Phoenix 2009International Reading Association

2

Project Staff

Janet OtterstedtKarie Wilson

Priti HariaSusanna Williams

Lisa HowardEugenia Coronado

Len HatfieldDave Hulegaard

3

Project Purpose

• Feature an approach to Read Alouds that promotes children’s understanding of narrative and informational text through the use of text structure and strategic vocabulary instruction.

• Facilitate dialogic interactions between the teacher and students.

• Promote increased comprehension of text and target vocabulary use.

4

Building Comprehension Through Instructional Read Alouds

The Comprehension

Conversation

(Santoro, Baker, Chard, & Howard, 2007)

Highly Purposeful

Interactive

IntentionalExtract Meaning

Construct Meaning

5

Read Aloud Efficacy Studies• Year 1:

– Read Aloud Efficacy (Oregon)• 6 intervention and 6 comparison teachers• 225 students

• Year 2: – Read Aloud Efficacy and Fidelity (Oregon)

• 12 intervention teachers• 237 students

– Small Group Enhancement Instruction (Booster Development Pilot Study)

• Year 3:– Read Aloud Efficacy (Virginia)

• 20 intervention and 19 comparison teachers• 635 students

– Booster Efficacy Study (Oregon)• 12 intervention teachers• 107 students

• Year 4:– Read Aloud + Booster Efficacy (Virginia)

• 25 intervention teachers

6

Year 1

• 1 school district in the Pacific Northwest• 12 schools• 12 teachers / 1 teacher per school

– Teachers were randomly assigned to intervention (Read Aloud) and comparison conditions

– 6 teachers in intervention and 6 teachers in comparison conditions

• 225 students

7

Research Questions

1. Are there differences in student comprehension and vocabulary outcomes?

2. Are Read Aloud practices different across conditions?

3. Are Read Aloud practices associated with student comprehension and vocabulary outcomes?

4. Is fidelity of implementation associated with outcomes?

5. What is the impact of the Read Aloud intervention for students with low vocabulary and language skills?

8

Read Aloud Curriculum

• 9 science-based thematic units– 19 week implementation (including introductory pre-

unit)– 2 weeks/unit– 2 related books/unit

• 1 narrative, 1 expository

• 6 or 7 30-minute lessons per unit– 3 on the expository book– 3 or 4 on the narrative book

9

Before• Identifying the purpose for reading

– Information or Storybook

• Previewing– Title, author, illustrator

• Predicting/Priming• Defining Critical Vocabulary (e.g. if

vocabulary word is part of book title)

10

During• Using consistent framework (e.g., story

elements, info. headings, info. text focus questions)

• Question-asking strategies• Making connections (Text to text, text to self,

text to world)• Making inferences• Self-monitoring: What do you do when you don’t

understand something?• Vocabulary

11

After• Retell of storybooks

• Retell of information text (review with KWL chart and tell with information retell sheet)

• Vocabulary Introduction, Review and Extension Activities

12

“Repeated Reading” Format: Information Text

Lesson 1:Prepare to read (preview; id purpose; K & W of KWL Chart)Read 200-300 words (often selected portions of text)Review L of KWL Chart; Start retell practice

Lesson 2:Review info/vocab covered in Lesson 1 (with book/chart) Read another 200-300 wordsReview L of KWL Chart; Continue retell practice

Lesson 3:Review info/vocab covered in Lessons 1 & 2 (w book/chart) Read another 200-300 wordsReview L of KWL Chart; Do complete retell

13

Information Text Framework• KWL:

• What do we think we know about the topic?• What do we want to know about the topic?

• General Animal Focus Questions–What is a mammal? (What makes a

mammal a mammal?)–What are some types of mammals?

• Specific Animal Focus Questions–What does it look like?–What does it eat?

• What have we learned about the topic?

14

K-W-L

What You Think You

Know

What You Want to

Know

What You Learned

15

“Repeated Reading” Format:Narrative Text Type

Lesson 4:Prepare to read (preview/id purpose/prime)Read entire story (minimal stops)Start retell practice (personal response)Vocabulary introduction

Lessons 5 & 6:Review vocabulary“Discuss” story using retell sheetRetell practice

Lesson 7:Review vocabularyRe-read entire story Do a complete retell

16

Narrative Text Framework

• Story Elements/Personal Response• Who is the story about?

Main Character/Character Clues and/or Setting

• What happened first/next/end?• Did I like/not like the story? Why?

17

18

19

Research to Practice

–Apply the organizing frameworks to your content area units and themes.

–Does your content area instruction cover any other topics that don’t “fit” the organizing frameworks discussed? If so, what focus questions would apply?

20

Research to Practice

–What books and themes will you use for your Read Aloud time?

–How will you integrate the purposeful use of narrative and informational text?

21

Research to Practice

– Think strategically about before and after reading components.

– Connect a text-structure framework throughout the before, during, and after reading components.

– Emphasize vocabulary through explicit instructional routines and opportunities to interact deeply with target vocabulary.

– Systematically review and summarize.

22

Research to Practice– Practice retelling!– Promote active student engagement and

talk.• Active student responding (e.g.,

thumbs-up, thumbs-down)• Student partner talk (e.g., “Book Clubs”)• Student group and individual responses• Follow-up “Talk Routines”

23

24

Measures

• Comprehension– Narrative Retell (Strong Narrative Assessment

Procedure, SNAP, Strong, 1998)– Information Retell– Gates-MacGinitie Listening Comprehension Subtest

• Vocabulary– Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge (Target Vocabulary

from Read Aloud Curriculum)

• Language– Test of Oral Language Development-Primary: Third

Addition (Newcomer & Hammill, 1997)

25

Statistical ModelA two-level hierarchical linear random intercept model was used for the analysis of intervention effect on each assessment. Intervention effects were examined at the classroom level, while students’ language/literacy risk status and pretest scores were controlled as student-level predictors and covariates.

Level 1 (student)

Yij = β0j + β1j (pretest*) + β2j (at-risk language) + β3j (at-risk

literacy) + β4 (at-risk in both) + rij

*Pretest scores were grand mean centered.

Level 2 (classroom)

β0j = γ00 + γ01 (intervention) + u0j

β1j= γ10

β2j= γ20

β3j= γ30

β4j= γ40

2626

Performance of Intervention and Comparison Groups at Pretest

* p < .05 ; ** p < .01 ; *** p < .001

Assessment Listening Comprehension Vocabulary Knowledge Expository Retell Narrative Retell

Fixed Effect Coefficient SE t Coefficient SE t Coefficient SE t Coefficient SE t

Class mean 14.29 0.56 25.33 *** 13.17 1.06 12.37 *** 2.59 0.2510.18 ***

9.22 0.7412.45 ***

Intervention 0.61 0.70 0.86 0.56 1.33 0.42 0.14 0.29 0.48 0.55 0.85 0.65

At risk language

-3.75 0.62 -6.01 *** -6.60 1.16 -5.70 *** -1.21 0.33 -3.61 ** -2.25 0.97 -2.32 *

At risk literacy -1.21 0.84 -1.44 -5.18 1.54 -3.37 ** -0.13 0.44 -0.29 -1.64 1.30 -1.27

At risk in both -0.51 1.22 -0.42 2.49 2.23 1.12 -0.04 0.66 -0.06 -0.61 1.90 -0.32

Random Effect Variance df χ2 Variance df χ2 Variance df χ2 Variance df χ2

Class mean 0.70 10 18.82 * 2.60 10 19.66 * 0.03 10 10.96 0.24 10 10.19

Student-level 13.45 46.67 3.87 33.95

2727

Listening Comprehension Vocabulary Knowledge Expository Retell Narrative Retell

Fixed Effect Coefficient SE t Coefficient SE t Coefficient SE t Coefficient SE t

Class mean 16.74 0.36 45.87 *** 22.83 1.2717.96 ***

4.83 0.33 14.65 *** 13.55 0.71 19.01 ***

Intervention 0.18 0.46 0.40 8.62 1.52 5.67 *** 0.65 0.37 1.75 2.25 0.82 2.73 *

Pretest a 0.41 0.04 9.93 *** 0.79 0.09 9.21 *** 0.44 0.09 4.67 *** 0.39 0.07 5.94 ***

At risk language -1.30 0.41 -3.20 ** -4.77 1.54 -3.10 ** -0.89 0.46 -1.94 † -2.06 0.93 -2.23 *

At risk literacy 0.29 0.51 0.58 -0.81 1.95 -0.41 -0.80 0.59 -1.36 -2.22 1.23 -1.81 †

At risk in both -1.43 0.73 -1.95 † -2.86 2.77 -1.03 0.43 0.88 0.49 0.87 1.79 0.49

Random Effect Variance df χ2 Variance df χ2 Variance df χ2 Variance df χ2

Class mean 0.34 10 22.10 * 2.82 10 16.35 † 0.01 10 8.41 0.32 10 11.46

Student-level 4.83 71.78 6.96 30.07

Standardized Effect ofIntervention

No significant intervention effect

95% CI (5.64, 11.59)Effect size = .74

R square (class-level) = .87

No significant intervention effect

95% CI (.63, 3.86)Effect size = .36

R square (class-level) = .78

† p <.10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01 ; *** p < .001a Pretest scores were centered around the grand mean of each assessment.

Examination of Intervention Effects

2828

Estimated Class Mean Scores and Confidence Intervals for Vocabulary Knowledge

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1217

22

27

32

37

INT

ER

CE

PT

Control

Intervention

2929

Estimated Class Mean Scores and Confidence Intervals for Narrative Retell

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1210

13

16

19

INT

ER

CE

PT

Control

Intervention

30

Process Hypotheses: Mediating and Dose-Response

Effects• Process analyses will allow us to test:

– (a) hypothesized mediating effects (Baron and Kenny,1986).• H1: Teachers in treatment classroom will engage in

more dialogic discussion with children than in control classrooms.

• H2: Teachers in treatment classrooms will provide more opportunities for students to respond to questions and engage in text talk than in control classrooms.

• H3: Students in treatment classrooms will be more engaged than students in control classrooms.

31

Process Hypotheses: Mediating and Dose-Response

Effects• Process analyses will allow us to test:

– (b) the degree to which implementation differs across treatment classrooms is associated with differences in children's vocabulary and retell outcomes.• H4: Differences in implementation fidelity will be

related to student outcomes.

32

Mediation Observation System

• Measures of read aloud instruction before and after intervention training in experimental and comparison conditions.

– Two observations before and after intervention1. Each teacher reads the same narrative book

2. Each teacher reads the same expository book

– Twelve first-grade teachers: 6 intervention and 6 comparison

33

Mediation Observation System

• Observation protocols correspond to three sections of read aloud lessons:

1. Before text reading

2. During text reading

3. After text reading

34

Description of Observation System

• Observations divided into three sections to correspond to distinct parts of read aloud lessons:

1. Before reading the text,2. During the reading of the text, and3. After reading the text

• Each section contained items addressing components associated specifically with read aloud time (e.g., teacher sets purpose for reading), and generic instructional components (e.g., teacher asks questions).

• Two observations: one tailored to reading narrative texts, and one tailored to reading expository texts.

35

36

37

38

RQ: Are read aloud practices of narrative texts different across conditions?

Before Intervention

E C

After Intervention

E C

Mean number of story components addressed 20.2 16.8 24.3 16.8

Proportion of story elements addressed .52 .43 .62 .43

39

RQ: Are read aloud practices of information texts different across

conditions?Before

Intervention

E C

After Intervention

E C

Mean number of story components addressed 19.2 21.7 24.8 19.8

Proportion of story elements addressed .52 .59 .67 .54

40

RQ: Are read aloud practices of narrative texts associated with student outcomes?

Outcome MeasureBefore

InterventionAfter

Intervention

Vocabulary +.08 +.46

Narrative Retell +.25 +.56

Correlations between number of items addressed during instruction and end-of-year outcomes

41

Treatment Fidelity Observations

• The six teachers in the experimental condition were observed implementing all three narrative lessons of a complete instructional unit.

• Fidelity observations were highly specific, and included items suggested but not required in the intervention.

42

Fidelity results averaged across observations

Fidelity component

% of components addressed

Before reading items 79%

During reading items 74%

After reading items 64%

Vocabulary items specifically

72%

43

RQ: Is implementation fidelity of narrative texts associated with student

outcomes?

Fidelity component VocabularyNarrative

Retell

Before reading items +.74 +.63

During reading items –.29 –.07

After reading items +.87 +.82

Vocabulary items specifically

+.61 +.22

4444

Using Data to Determine Next Steps for Year 2

-10 0 10 20 3010

20

30

40

50

60

Pretest (Centered)

Vo

ca

bu

lary

Kn

ow

led

ge

Control, No risk language

Control, At risk language

Intervention, No risk language

Intervention, At risk language

4545

Using Data to Determine Next Steps for Year 2

-8 -3 2 7 12

8

13

18

Pretest (Centered)

Na

rra

tiv

e R

ete

ll

Control, No risk language

Control, At risk language

Intervention, No risk language

Intervention, At risk language

46

Conclusions

• Incorporating more strategic vocabulary and comprehension instruction during read alouds appears to be a promising way to boost student vocabulary and comprehension.

• Next Steps:– Examine impact of Booster instruction on

vocabulary and comprehension achievement of students with low vocabulary and language skills.

47

Research to Practice:Conclusions

• Think thematically and pair information and narrative books.

• Consider instructional supports for students with low vocabulary and language skills.

48

Research to Practice:Conclusions

• Plan read alouds more strategically!– How will you use a repeated reading model? How can you read

books differently for different comprehension purposes?– What text-to-text, text-to-self, text-to-world links will you use?– What comprehension frameworks will you use?

• How will these frameworks be used before, during, and after (retells!) reading?

– What vocabulary words will you select?• What vocabulary routines will you use? How will you use

questions, reasons, and examples to promote depth?– How will you expand discourse and facilitate talk during read

alouds?• What ways can you increase your use of partner talk?

49

Any Questions?

• Scott BakerPacific Institutes for Research/University of Oregon

sbaker@uoregon.edu

541-343-4484

• Lana SantoroPacific Institutes for Research/Instructional Research

Group

lsantoro@pacificir.org

703-971-0310

http://www.readaloudproject.org