Book Access and Rereading with Audiotapes: Extending Literacy

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 405 567 CS 012 755

AUTHOR Koskinen, Patricia S.; And OthersTITLE Book Access and Rereading with Audiotapes: Extending

Literacy Learning into the Homes of Culturally andLinguistically Diverse Students. Reading ResearchReport No. 75.

INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;National Reading Research Center, College Park,MD

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 97CONTRACT 117A20007NOTE 53p.PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MFOI/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Elementary Education; *English Instruction; Parent

Participation; Program Effectiveness; *ReadingAchievement; *Reading Motivation; Reading Research;*Second Language Learning; *Talking Books

IDENTIFIERS *Diversity (Student); Nonnative Speakers

ABSTRACT

With the rapidly increasing number of second-languagelearners in elementary school classrooms and the difficulty they areexperiencing in learning to read, educators need to create literacyprograms that are appropriate for children who speak English as asecond language (ESL) as well as native English-speaking (NES)students. There is also a need to support literacy instruction inother contexts, especially in the home. A study investigated whetherrereading at t..!Tr_. is a signi2icant supplement to the literacyinstructional program of ESL and NES students. Of specific interestwas exploring the impact of increased access to books and rereadingwith an audio model in children's reading achievement and motivation.For a 7-month period, 131 first graders in 12 classrooms participatedin 1 of 3 treatment groups: (1) structured shared reading at schoolin a book-rich environment and daily rereading of books withaudiotapes at home; (2) structured shared reading at school in abook-rich environment; or (3) unmodified school reading. Resultsrevealed enhanced comprehension and motivation for book-richclassrooms both with and without a home component. In addition,whereas home-based reading with audio support increased manystudents' reading interest and promoted parental involvement inliteracy activities, it appeared to have particular benefits forsecond-language learners. (Contains 63 references and 8 tables ofdata. An appendix lists books used in the school-home readingprojects.) (Author/RS)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

from the original document.***********************************************************************

Book Access and Rereading withAudiotapes: Extending LiteracyLearning into the Homes ofCulturally and LinguisticallyDiverse Students

Patricia S. KoskinenUniversity of Maryland College Park

Irene H. BlumStephanie A. BissonStephanie M. PhillipsTerry S. CreamerFairfax County Public Schools

Tara Kelley BakerUniversity of Maryland College Park

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

ED CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

NationalReading ResearchCenter

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 75

Winter 1997

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

Book Access and Rereading with Audiotapes:Extending Literacy Learning into the Homes of

Culturally and Liguistically Diverse Students


Irene H. BlumStephanie A. Bisson

Stephanie M. PhillipsTerry S. Creamer

Fairfax County Public Schools


READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 75Winter 1997

The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Center Project of the Universityof Georgia and University of Maryland. It was supported under the Educational Research andDevelopment Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administered by the Officeof Educational Research, and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The fmdings andopinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the NationalReading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.Department of Education.

3

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

James F. Baumann, Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jamie Lynn Metsala, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

John F. O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

James V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

Cynthia R. HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Betty Shockley-BisplinghoffClarke County School District, Athens, Georgia

Linda DeGroffUniversity of Georgia

Publications Editors

Research Reports and PerspectivesLinda DeGroff, EditorUniversity of Georgia

James V. Hoffman, Associate EditorUniversity of Texas at Austin

Mariam Jean Dreher, Associate EditorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Instructional ResourcesLee Galda, University of GeorgiaResearch HighlightsWilliam G. HollidayUniversity of Maryland College Park

Policy BriefsJames V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

VideosShawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office ManagerKathy B. Davis, Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative AssistantValerie Tyra, AccountantUniversity of Maryland College Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, New York

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, Albany

Ronald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopmentMarsha T. DeLainDelaware Department of Public InstructionCarl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Barbara McCombsMid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory (MCREL)

Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchool District No. 5Kalispell, Montana

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers UniversityPeter WinogradUniversity of Kentucky

Production EditorKatherine P. HutchisonUniversity of Georgia

Assistant Production EditorJennifer Moon

University of Georgia

Dissemination CoordinatorJordana E. RichUniversity of Georgia

Text FormatterAngela R. WilsonUniversity of Georgia

NRRC - University of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602-7125(706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: [email protected]

NRRC - University of Maryland College Park3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: [email protected]

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) isfunded by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education toconduct research on reading and reading instruction.The NRRC is operated by a consortium of the Univer-sity of Georgia and the University of Maryland CollegePark in collaboration with researchers at several institu-tions nationwide.

The NRRC's mission is to discover and documentthose conditions in homes, schools, and communitiesthat encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic,lifelong readers. NRRC researchers are committed toadvancing the development of instructional programssensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, and motiva-tional factors that affect children's success in reading.NRRC researchers from a variety of disciplines conductstudies with teachers and students from widely diversecultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kinder-garten through grade 12 classrooms. Research projectsdeal with the influence of family and family-schoolinteractions on the development of literacy; the interac-tion of sociocultural factors and motivation to read; theimpact of literature-based reading programs on readingachievement; the effects of reading strategies instructionon comprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovative groupparticipation structures on motivation and learning; thepotential of computer technology to enhance literacy;and the development of methods and standards foralternative literacy assessments.

The NRRC is further committed to the participationof teachers as full partners in its research. A betterunderstanding of how teachers view the development ofliteracy, how they use knowledge from research, andhow they approach change in the classroom is crucial toimproving instruction. To further this understanding,the NRRC conducts school-based research in whichteachers explore their own philosophical and pedagogi-cal orientations and trace their professional growth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRCactivities. Information on NRRC research appears inseveral formats. Research Reports communicate theresults of original research or synthesize the findings ofseveral lines of inquiry. They are written primarily forresearchers studying various areas of reading andreading instruction. The Perspective Series presents awide range of publications, from calls for research andcommentary on research and practice to first-personaccounts of experiences in schools. InstructionalResources include curriculum materials, instructionalguides, and materials for professional growth, designedprimarily for teachers.

For more information about the NRRC's researchprojects and other activities, or to have your nameadded to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742(301) 405-8035

NRRC Editorial Review Board

Peter AfflerbachUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jane AgeeUniversity of Georgia

JoBeth AllenUniversity of Georgia

Janice F. AlmasiUniversity of Buffalo-SUNY

Patty AndersUniversity of Arizona

Harriette ArringtonUniversity of Kentucky

Marlia BanningUniversity of Utah

Jill BartonElizabethtown College

Eurydice BauerUniversity of Georgia

Janet BentonBowling Green, Kentucky

Irene BlumPine Springs Elementary School

Falls Church, Virginia

David BloomeVanderbilt University

John BorkowskiNotre Dame University.

Fenice BoydUniversity of Georgia

Karen BromleyBinghamton University

Martha CarrUniversity of Georgia

Suzanne ClewellMontgomery County Public Schools

Rockville, Maryland

Joan ColeyWestern Maryland College

Michelle CommeyrasUniversity of Georgia

Linda CooperShaker Heights City Schools

Shaker Heights, Ohio

Karen CostelloConnecticut Department of Education

Hartford, Connecticut

Jim CunninghamGibsonville, North Carolina

Karin DahlOhio State University

Marcia DelanyWilkes County Public Schools

Washington, Georgia

Lynne Diaz-RicoCalifornia State University-San

Bernardino

Mark DressmanNew Mexico State University

Ann DuffyUniversity of Georgia

Ann Egan-RobertsonAmherst College

Jim FloodSan Diego State University

Dana FoxUniversity of Arizona

Linda Gambrel'University of Maryland College Park

Mary GrahamMcLean, Virginia

Rachel GrantUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara GuzzettiArizona State University

Frances HancockConcordia College of Saint Paul,

Minnesota

Kathleen HeubachVirginia Commonwealth University

Sally Hudson-RossUniversity of Georgia

Cynthia HyndUniversity of Georgia

Gay IveyUniversity of Georgia

David JardineUniversity of Calgary

Robert JimenezUniversity of Oregon

Michelle KellyUniversity of Utah

James KingUniversity of South Florida

Kate KirbyGeorgia State University

Linda LabboUniversity of Georgia

Michael LawUniversity of Georgia

Donald T. LeuSyracuse University

Susan LytleUniversity of Pennsylvania

Bert ManginoLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan MazzoniBaltimore, Maryland

Ann Dacey McCannUniversity of Maryland College Park

Sarah McCartheyUniversity of Texas at Austin

Veda McClainUniversity of Georgia

Lisa McFallsUniversity of Georgia

Randy McGinnisUniversity of Maryland

Mike McKennaGeorgia Southern University

Barbara MichaloveFourth Street Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Elizabeth B. MojeUniversity of Utah

Lesley MorrowRutgers University

Bruce MurrayAuburn University

Susan NeumanTemple University

John O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

Marilyn Ohlhausen-McKinneyUniversity of Nevada

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

Barbara M. PalmerMount Saint Mary's College

Stephen PhelpsBuffalo State College

Mike PickleGeorgia Southern University

Amber T. PrinceBerry College

Gaoyin QianLehman College -CUNY

Tom ReevesUniversity of Georgia

Lenore RinglerNew York University

Mary RoeUniversity of Delaware

Nadeen T. RuizCalifornia State University-

Sacramento

Olivia SarachoUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Betty Shockley-BisplinghoffBarnett Shoals Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Wayne H. SlaterUniversity of Maryland College Park

Margaret SmithLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan SonnenscheinUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Bernard SpodekUniversity of Illinois

Bettie St. PierreUniversity of Georgia

Steve StahlUniversity of Georgia

Roger StewartBoise State University

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research

and Improvement

Louise TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Bruce VanSledrightUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara WalkerEastern Montana University-Billings

Louise WaynantPrince George's County Schools

Upper Marlboro, Maryland

Dera WeaverAthens Academy

Athens, Georgia

Jane WestAgnes Scott College

Renee WeisburgElkins Park, Pennsylvania

Allan WigfieldUniversity of Maryland College Park

Shelley WongUniversity of Maryland College Park

Josephine Peyton YoungUniversity of Georgia

Haffie YoppCalifornia State University

About the Authors

Patricia S. Koskinen is a principal investigator atthe National Reading Research Center. In addition,she is a member of the Reading Center and theGraduate Faculty in the College of Education atthe University of Maryland. Dr. Koskinen hasbeen a language arts and classroom teacher andalso has taught a range of graduate and undergrad-uate courses in reading and children's literature.Her research interests include motivation,vocabulary learning, and reading comprehensioninstruction. She may be contacted at the NationalReading Research Center, 3216 J.M. PattersonBuilding, University of Maryland at College Park,College Park, Maryland 20742.

Irene H. Blum is a reading and ESL consultant inSingapore. She is also a Principal Investigator withthe National Reading Research Center. Afterreceiving her Ph.D. from the University of Mary-land, she directed a number of grants and servedas Field Placement Coordinator in the Departmentof Education at Catholic University, Washington,DC. She has taught elementary school in NewJersey and California and was a reading special-ist/Reading Recovery® teacher with the FairfaxCounty Public Schools, Fairfax, Virginia. Herresearch interests include language and readingacquisition and early literacy instruction. She maybe contacted at PSC 470 RMO, FPO AP 96534-0001.

Stephanie A. Bisson is the assistant coordinatorfor Title I in the Fairfax County Public Schools.She earned her B.A. at Ham line University inMinnesota and her M.A. at Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and State University. Her research inter-ests include early literacy learning, staff develop-ment, and family literacy. She may be contacted at

the Lacey Instructional Center, Title I Office,3705 Crest Drive, Annandale, VA 22003.

Stephanie M. Phillips is a Program Assistant inthe Title I Office in the Fairfax County PublicSchools. She earned her B.S. at Hampton Univer-sity in Early Childhood Education and her gradu-ate degree at Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University in reading. Her current researchinterests include early literacy learning. She maybe contacted at the Lacey Center, Title I Office,3705 Crest Drive, Annandale, VA 22003.

Terry S. Creamer is a first-grade teacher in theFairfax County Public Schools. She earned herB.S. at Radford University in Virginia and herM.A. at the University of Virginia. Her currentresearch interest is in applying Reading Recovery®techniques in the classroom setting. She may becontacted at Halley Elementary School, 8850Cross Chase Circle, Fairfax Station, VA 22039.

Tam Kelley Baker is a graduate assistant at theNational Reading Research Center. She receivedher B.S.W. at Wheelock College, her M.S.W. atBoston University and is currently working to-wards her Ph.D. in Human Development at theUniversity of Maryland. Her research interestsinclude motivation and self-regulation. She may becontacted at the National Reading Research Cen-ter, 3216 J.M. Patterson Building, University ofMaryland at College Park, College Park, Mary-land 20742.

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and MarylandReading Research Report No. 75Winter 1997

Book Access and Rereading with Audiotapes:Extending Literacy Learning into the Homes ofCulturally and Linguistically Diverse Students


Irene H. BlumStephanie A. Bisson

Stephanie M. PhillipsTerry S. Creamer

Fairfax County Public Schools


Abstract. With the rapidly increasing number ofsecond-language learners in elementary schoolclassrooms and the difficulty they are experiencingin learning to read, educators need to create literacyprograms that are appropriate for children whospeak English as a second-language (ESL) as wellas native English-speaking (NES) students. There isalso a need to support literacy instruction in othercontexts, especially in the home. The purpose of thepresent study was to investigate whether rereadingat home is a significant supplement to the literacyinstructional program of ESL and NES students. Ofspecific interest was exploring the impact of in-creased access to books and rereading with an audiomodel on children's reading achievement andmotivation. For a seven-month period, 131 first-graders in 12 classrooms participated in one of threetreatment groups: (a) structured shared reading at

1

school in a book-rich environment and daily reread-ing of books with audiotapes at home, (b) structuredshared reading at school in a book-rich environ-ment, or (c) unmodified school reading. Resultsrevealed enhanced comprehension and motivationfor book-rich classrooms both with and without ahome component. In addition, whereas home-basedreading with audio support increased many students'reading interest and promoted parental involvementin literacy activities, it appeared to have particularbenefits for second-language learners.

Schools in the United States are facing theever-increasing challenge of educating studentswho do not speak English as their first lan-guage. Between 1970 and 1994, the proportionof the United States' population that was for-eign-born increased from 4.8 to 8.7% (Hansen

2 Koskinen, Blum, Bisson, Phillips, Creamer, & Baker

& Bachu, 1995). Current projections estimatethe number of United States residents whospeak English as a second language will reach40 million by the year 2000 (Trueba, 1989).Recent immigrants, who are often poor orsurvivors of war, civil strife, or economicdepression, come from extremely diversecultures. From 1980 to 1990, Hispanic popula-tions went up by more than 50% andAsian/Pacific Islander presence increased morethan. 100% (Garcia, 1992). This escalation incultural and linguistic diversification is particu-larly evident in the school-age population, inwhich 2.3 million students are currently identi-fied as having "limited English proficiency"(United States Department of Education,1992).

There is a growing concern with the failureof second-language learners to keep pace withmainstream native English-speaking students ineducational achievement, including readingachievement. For example, Garcia (1992)reports that among Hispanics there is a 35 %grade-retention rate, a two-to-four grade-levelachievement gap, and a 40% high schooldropout rate. In a recent review of research onreading instruction for second-language learn-ers, Fitzgerald (1995b) points out that theseachievement figures are not surprising consid-ering the length of time and amount of effortrequired to learn conversational English andthen the more formal or academic language ofinstruction. Without the necessary communica-tion skills in English it is difficult, if not im-possible, for these children to participate suc-cessfully in school activities, especially thoserelated to literacy learning. Because readingprovides critical access to acquiring new infor-

mation and helping to develop independence inlearning, designing educational environmentsthat support the literacy learning of culturallyand linguistically diverse learners must have ahigh priority (Fitzgerald, 1995b; Gersten &Jimenez, 1994).

In the past, second-language learners haveoften been taught separately until acquiring alanguage proficiency level determined by theirschool or school system. Recently, however,research has suggested the value of havingsecond-language learners mainstreamed (An-zalone, Straub, & Thomas, 1994; Morrow,1992). These new research findings, alongwith the rapid increase in the number of immi-grants, have encouraged the examination ofalternative models. If teachers are to respondsuccessfully to the challenge of teaching sec-ond-language learners and native Englishspeakers in the same classroom, thoughtfulconsideration must be given to the creation ofa productive educational setting as well as thedesign and implementation of instructionalactivities which are appropriate and effectivefor both groups (Gersten & Jimenez, 1994).

In our work with students, we have beeninfluenced by theory related to developingexpertise (Meichenbaum & Biemiller, 1990).The practical implications for developingreading expertise suggest the importance ofcreating a learning environment where childrenread with understanding, feel successful, learnstrategies to improve reading, and are motivat-ed to practice. Current research supports theuse of similar activities for both first- andsecond-language learners because literacylearning processes are essentially the same forboth groups (Boyle & Peregoy, 1990; Fitzger-

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 75

to

Book Access and Rereading with Audiotapes 3

ald, 1995a). However, limited second-languageproficiency, background knowledge, andexperiences that do not match the content oftypical school texts may interfere with thespeed and ease of comprehension for second-language learners (Boyle & Peregoy, 1990). Inorder to foster expertise, the program, materi-als, and activities must provide many opportu-nities to develop and practice language andreading skills within a setting that supports andnurtures both the affective and the cognitiveaspects of literacy development (Alexander &Entwisle, 1988; Gambrell, 1996; Lau & Cheu-ng, 1988; Oldfather, 1993; Snow, Barnes,Chandler, Goodman, & Hemphill, 1991).

Currently, researchers have begun to devel-op a more comprehensive and balanced view ofreading. This evolving theoretical perspectiveincludes an emphasis on motivation and socialinteraction, as well as cognition and knowledgeacquisition (Brandt, 1990; Csikszentmihaly,1991; Guice, Allington, Johnston, Baker, &Michelson, 1996; McCombs, 1989; Turner, &Paris, 1995). This view emphasizes the impor-tance of increasing children's motivation toread and the teacher's role in providing thismotivation. Research findings suggest that"classroom cultures" that foster reading moti-vation share certain characteristics, such as ateacher who is a reading model, a book-richclassroom environment, opportunities forchoice, familiarity with books, and socialinteraction about books (Gambrell, 1996;Guice et al., 1996; Oldfather, 1993; Ruddell,1995; Turner & Paris, 1995).

To supplement their experiences at school,students can also benefit from literacy opportu-nities in contexts other than the classroom. One

important area is the home. The relationship ofchildren's experiences with language andreading at home to their success in learning toread is well-documented (Durkin, 1966; Teale,1986; Tobin & Pikulski, 1988; Wells, 1985).However, many second-language learners donot have sufficient opportunities to practiceEnglish in their homes. These students fre-quently reach the end of their sixth year ofschooling with a cumulative exposure of ap-proximately 40,000 hours of their home lan-guage, but only 3,000 hours of English (Elley& Mangubhai, 1983). While research suggeststhat access to books is another crucial factor inearly literacy development (Elley, 1992, 1996;Gambrell, 1993; Morrow, 1992), it has beenreported that some second-language learners donot have many books (written in English)available in their home environment (Blum,Koskinen, Tennant, Parker, Straub, & Curry,1995). Second-language learners who havelimited opportunities to practice spoken Eng-lish and few experiences reading Englishstorybooks at home are likely to be at a disad-vantage in their ability to develop literacyskills.

Having more books available appears to beespecially helpful to second-language learnersbecause these books provide an alternativesource of experience with the target language.In a review of nine evaluative studies, Elley(1991) examined the effects of programs thatexpose young second-language learners to"book floods," large quantities of high-inter-est, illustrated storybooks. He reports consis-tent and stable evidence that children showrapid improvement in reading and listeningcomprehension, and gains appear to transfer to


11


all aspects of the child's target language, in-cluding grammatical structures and expressivelanguage competence.

Along with the positive impact of bookaccess on oral language, a growing body ofevidence indicates that when children haveenvironments that are book-rich, the motivationto read is high (Allington & McGill-Franzen,1993; El ley, 1992; Gambrell, 1993; Morrow,1992). In addition, research suggests thatincreasing the number of books available tochildren in the classroom can have positiveeffects on the amount and quality of literacyexperiences in the classroom as well as in thehome environment (Blum et al., 1995; Gam-brell, 1993).

In our efforts to design literacy instructionalprograms that foster expertise, we have beeninterested in exploring the benefits of repeatedreading with beginning readers in a variety ofsettings. Our current focus has been on usingthis strategy as part of a school-home literacyprogram with children who speak English as asecond language (ESL) as well as native Eng-lish-speaking learners (Blum et al., 1995).Repeated reading involves multiple readings ofa text and provides substantial practice inreading connected discourse. This relativelysimple rehearsal strategy allows novices to feellike experts as they become more fluent readers(Blum & Koskinen, 1991). Along with otherresearchers and practitioners, we have beenparticularly interested in the use of repeatedreading to develop fluency (i.e., smooth,accurate, natural, expressive reading) and toencourage motivation with both developing andless proficient readers.

Researchers have examined a variety ofrepeated reading strategies and their findingsdemonstrate evidence of improved reading rateand accuracy (Chomsky, 1976; Dahl, 1974;Dowhower, 1987; Herman, 1985; Samuels,1979), increased vocabulary (El ley, 1989;Koskinen & Blum, 1984; Rasinski, 1990), andenhanced comprehension (Dowhower, 1987;Herman, 1985; O'Shea, Sindelar, & O'Shea,1985; Yaden, 1988). Repeated reading alsoenhances self monitoring, one of the behaviorsessential for independent reading. Clay (1991)suggests that rereading familiar text is "oneway of developing the smooth orchestration ofall those behaviors necessary for effectivereading" (p. 184). Repeated reading is anactivity that engages student interest and oftenleads to increased confidence in reading (Kos-kinen & Blum, 1984; Topping, 1987; Trach-tenberg & Ferruggia, 1989). Repeated readinghas been used in settings where students workindividually (Dowhower, 1987; Herman, 1985;Samuels, 1979), and in pairs (Koskinen &Blum, 1984). In addition, researchers havereported successful use of rereading with a liveor audiotaped model of the text (Blum et al.,1995; Carbo, 1978; Chomsky, 1976; Gamby,1983; Shany & Biemiller, 1995).

Because repeated reading allows students atmany different instructional levels to partici-pate in the same activity and improve at theirown pace, it is a very flexible strategy and canbe modified for use in both classroom andhome contexts. While there is support in theliterature for the in-school use of repeatedreading with below-average native English-speaking readers, there is limited research onits use with young native English-speaking



children at home or with second-languagelearners in either the school or home setting.Repeated reading may have particular benefitsfor young second-language learners, especiallywhen it is used with an auditory model tosupport and extend language learning. Thisauditory model provides a form of scaffoldingthat is critical for beginning readers (Feitelson,Goldstein, Iraqi, & Share, 1993; Vygotsky,1978).

To explore the benefits of extending theliteracy instructional program into the homecontext, we conducted a study with first-gradesecond-language learners (Blum et al., 1995;Koskinen, Blum, Tennant, Parker, Straub, &Curry, 1995). This study used single casemethodology to investigate the effects of re-reading at home both with and without anaudiotaped model. Findings indicate that sec-ond- language learners showed substantialgrowth in their ability to read books of increas-ing difficulty both fluently and accurately whengiven the opportunity to reread books withaudiotapes at home. In addition, teachers andparents reported that students read more anddemonstrated increased confidence and inde-pendence in literacy activities.

The encouraging findings from this initialschool-home study with audio models suggest-ed the need for systematic investigation with alarger sample of children and teachers to pro-vide more generalizability of results. There wasalso a need to specify essential features of aneffective school-home program. The purpose ofthis study, therefore, was to investigate wheth-er rereading at home is a significant supple-ment to the literacy instructional program ofsecond-language learners and native English-

speaking students. Of specific interest wasexploring the impact of increased access tobooks and rereading with an audio model onchildren's reading achievement and motivation.Participation in a book-rich literacy instruction-al program that included rereading of multi-level patterned books at home with audiotapeswas compared with (a) participation in a book-rich program including multi-level patternedbooks based only in school, and (b) participa-tion in an unmodified instructional readingprogram. Comparisons were made on measuresof fluent oral reading, comprehension, andreading motivation/behavior. In addition, thisstudy investigated whether there was a relation-ship between students' English language profi-ciency and their learning of literacy skillsthrough participation in a school-home readingprogram.

Method

Setting

The study took place in 12 first-gradeclassrooms located in four elementary schoolswithin a suburban school district near Wash-ington, D.C. Each school served a diversestudent population, representing many lan-guage, cultural, and socioeconomic groups.The students were in classrooms that had areduced pupil-teacher ratio (approximately 15to 1) and five or more students who spokeEnglish as their second language. Some stu-dents in each classroom received additionalsupport from the ESL, Title I, or other re-source teachers.


13


As participants in the first-grade reduced-ratio program in the school district, teacherswere receiving staff development training. Inaddition, teachers had the opportunity to take agraduate level course in reading strategies.Training focused on meeting the needs of adiverse population of students, observingstudent behavior, managing instruction, andusing assessment information to plan appropri-ate instruction for children.

Teachers provided a balanced language artsprogram with time throughout the day forreading and writing with students. Instructionincluded activities such as reading aloud,shared reading, shared and interactive writing,focus lessons, and guided reading. Studentswere given daily opportunities for rereadingfamiliar texts, independent reading, and inde-pendent writing. Center-based activities, fol-low-up activities, and projects were oftenincluded within the reading/writing workshop.All classrooms had libraries, and children wereencouraged to take books home for recreationalreading; however, daily home reading pro-grams with audiotapes were not part of theclassroom routines prior to the beginning ofthis project.

Participants

One hundred and thirty-one first-gradechildren in 12 classrooms participated in thisresearch study. There were 77 ,boys and 54girls who ranged in age from 5 to 7, with anaverage age of 6 years and 1 month. All chil-dren were reading on the pre-emergent oremergent level as determined by the schoolsystem's adaptation of Clay's (1993) observa-

tion survey. Each classroom had children whospoke both English as their first language andchildren who spoke English as a second lan-guage. Forty-nine students were native speak-ers of English and 82 students spoke English asa second language. Thirty-two of these second-language students were proficient in English,as determined by the school system's ESLProficiency Rating Scale, and received noadditional English language support services.Fifty of these second-language students weredesignated by the school system as eligible forEnglish language support services. The Englishlanguage proficiency of those students receiv-ing support services included 24 students onLevel A (lowest level of proficiency), 12students on Level Bl, 10 students on Level B2,and 4 students on Level C (highest level,nearing proficiency).

In this study, the students' parents camefrom more than 23 countries and 13 differentlanguages were spoken. The primary languagesthat the participating children and parents usedto communicate with each other at home wereas follows: English (54), Spanish (38), Chinese(2), Vietnamese (22), Arabic (2), Urdu (3),Korean (1), Turkish (1), Laotian (1), Cambodi-an (1), Amharic (4), Cantonese (1), and Taga-log (1).

Design

A quasi-experimental design was used inthis research study. From the pool of volun-teers, three intact first-grade classrooms ineach of four schools were randomly assigned toone of the following three treatment groups: (a)structured shared reading at school and reread-


14


ing of books with audiotapes at home (SRS-BAH), (b) structured shared reading at school(SRS), or (c) unmodified school reading (Con-trol). Students in the SRSBAH classes partici-pated in the school intervention with manymulti-level patterned books that included audio-tapes and books packaged for home use; stu-dents in the SRS classes participated in theschool intervention with many multi-levelpatterned books, but did not have books andaudiotapes for home use. Participants in theControl classes continued their regular readinginstructional program. The school-home versuscontrol comparison evaluated the effect of theclassroom shared reading and rereading ofmulti-level books plus home rereading withaudio support relative to the unmodified read-ing instruction (control). The structured sharedreading at school versus the control comparisonassessed the effect of structured shared readingand rereading of multi-level books in the class-room relative to unmodified reading instruc-tion. Comparisons between the school-homeand the school-only interventions permitted atest of the effect of adding a home componentthat included books and audiotapes, as opposedto using only the school-based shared readingand rereading of multi-level books.

Each treatment group contained students ofvarying levels of English language proficiency.These included: (a) ESL students with supportservices (ESL w/services), (b) ESL studentswithout support services (ESL w/o services),and (c) native English-speaking students(NES). Including English proficiency level asan independent variable provided an opportuni-ty to assess the interaction of treatment withproficiency.

Instructional Materials

The instructional materials used in thisstudy were developed in a previous study(Blum et al., 1995; Koskinen et al., 1995) andwere used successfully with ESL students. Theteacher researchers who participated in thedevelopment of these materials also used themwith NES students who were beginning readersand reported that they were equally appropriatefor these children as well. Similar to somehomes of ESL children, some NES childrenalso need to have access to additional develop-mentally appropriate books at home for dailyhome reading. The materials used in the Blumet al. (1995) study and the present study weredeveloped so students would have successfulinitial experiences with storybook reading. Theshort books with repetitive language patternsthat were used in the classroom were alsoappropriate for use at home. Audiotapes wereincorporated in the home-reading activity ofthe SRSBAH group to provide support for oralreading and enable children to read indepen-dently. They also provided a model for chil-dren whose parents did not speak English orwere not available to help. In addition, becausemany beginning readers are not in the habit ofdaily reading, special care was given to devel-oping procedures for daily routines and pack-aging of materials to facilitate book access andencourage reading at home. The followingmaterials were used in the study.

Books

The shared and repeated reading in thisproject was conducted with short books writtenin English. These books contain familiar con-cepts and vocabulary with commonly usedoral language patterns. In addition, illus-


15


trations depict the meaning and language of thetext. The gradually increasing levels of diffi-culty (beginning with single-word labels andtwo-word sentences and moving to complextext with literary language) provide an opportu-nity for emergent readers to have successfulexperiences with print. Consequently, thesebooks are particularly appropriate for second-language learners, as well as beginning readerswho are native speakers of English.

One hundred and fifty-four different bookswere used in this study, ranging in difficultyfrom emergent to independent first-grade level(see Appendix). In each class there were twocopies of each title, color-coded to assist withthe organization and management of projectmaterials and activities. One copy, markedwith a red dot, was used for in-class readingafter it had been introduced; a second, markedwith a yellow dot, was packaged along with anaudiotape of the story for home use. The"packages" consisted of plastic bags with thebook's title written on the front. Each bookwas numbered and a library pocket was affixedto the back inside cover so that it could bechecked out for home use.

Audiotapes

Audiotapes were made for all project booksby native English-speaking adults, and the textwas read exactly as presented. On each of thetapes, the reader stated the book's title alongwith the name of the author and illustrator.Students were then directed to the story andencouraged by the reader to "Put your fingerunder the first word and follow along as Iread." The book's text was then read expres-

sively, but at a pace that would allow begin-ning readers to match oral and written words.Students were also given at least three secondsto turn the page after they were given a signalindicating that they should do so. This amountof time allowed the young readers to both lookat the pictures and physically turn the page.

Tape Recorders

Battery-operated tape recorders with simplecontrols were provided for each participatingchild. The children were taught how to use thetape recorder and were given one for theirpersonal use during the project. Then, thechildren were instructed to take the tape re-corder home so they could read along with thetaped books each night.

Backpacks

Backpacks, marked with the project title,"Dog Gone Good Reading," and designatedexpressly for the purpose of carrying readingmaterials to and from school, were given toeach child for his or her use during the project.This packaging was designed to provide amotivating and convenient way to transportmaterials, and also to help children rememberto read on a daily basis.

Check-out/Check-in Chart

To assist with management of the dailybook exchange, a poster board chart was used.This chart, with the project logo (dog mascot)and title, "Dog Gone Good Reading," con-tained each child's name printed on a library


16


card pocket that was glued on the board. Thechildren were taught to remove the library cardfrom the back of their book and place it in theirpocket on the chart when they checked out abook and tape. When they checked in materi-als, they retrieved the card from their chartpocket and replaced the card in the book.

Teacher Training Materials

All teachers received the same informationand written packets of training materials for anorientation session and pre/posttesting proce-dures. Parallel procedures were developed fortreatment sessions. The orientation session withteachers in each school provided an overviewof the project's purposes and procedures.Details related to the criteria for student partici-pants, random assignment of classes, instruc-tional materials to be used and general assess-ment activities were shared in this introductorysession. In addition, the eventual distribution ofmaterials was discussed. The three teachers ineach school were aware that they would beparticipating in different activities and that allproject materials (books, audiotapes, etc.)would be divided equally among participatingteachers at the end of the study.

Training guidelines were prepared for allgroups. Written procedures were given to thetwo treatment groups that had instructionalinterventions. Teachers in the SRSBAH groupreceived guidelines for (a) conducting class-room shared reading, (b) planning for reread-ing at home, (c) suggestions for getting startedwith books and audiotapes at home, and (d)maintaining home use of books and audiotapes.The SRS group received training materials for

classroom-shared reading that were the same asthose used in the SRSBAH group. No formalwritten procedures were given to the Controlgroup because they were following their regu-lar reading procedures and did not have anintervention to implement. Their treatmenttraining time, however, was equal to the othertwo groups and was spent discussing the detailsof their language arts program.

During the sessions that involved assess-ment activities training, participating teachersin each school received packets of materials forthe pretests at the beginning of the study andthen another packet of materials for posttestingat the end of the study. Each assessment mea-sure included written directions for administra-tion that reflected the procedures presented inthe assessment training sessions.

Assessment Materials

The assessment instruments used in thisstudy included: the Oral Reading Assessment,the Writing Vocabulary Assessment, the Begin-ning Reading Assessment, the Oral StoryRetelling Assessment, the English LanguageProficiency Assessment, the Me and My Read-ing Scale, as well as Student, Parent, andTeacher Surveys and Interviews. The followingis a description of each measure.

Literacy and Language AchievementMeasures

Oral reading assessment. To provide anestimate of fluent oral reading level, children'soral reading was observed and coded using aprocedure referred to by Marie Clay (1993) as


17

10 Koskinen, Blum, Bisson, Phillips, Creamer, .& Baker

a"running record." The materials for this task,which were adapted from Clay's observationsurvey (1993), include a set of leveled booksthat had been selected and used as part of theschool system's Title I assessment. The levelsof difficulty were identified as "emergentreader," "novice reader," "apprentice reader,"and "developing reader." After a brief bookintroduction, a child read one of two availablebooks at each level until he or she fell below aword accuracy rate of 90% . The highest levelat which a child scored 90% or above wasconsidered his or her instructional reading.level. This task was administered by the class-room teacher as both a pretest and a posttest.

Writing vocabulary assessment. The WritingVocabulary Assessment, adapted from Clay'sobservation survey (1993), provides a sampleof words the child can write independently.Clay suggests that such a writing sample canprovide information about some of the featuresof print to which children are attending, theirknowledge about letters and letter sequencing,details of letter formation, letter order, wordconfiguration, and visual discrimination ofprint. In this study, the writing task was admin-istered to students in groups of four. They weregiven 10 minutes to write all the words theyknew, beginning with their own name. Toinitiate testing, teachers provided brief writingprompts, such as: "Do you know how to write`cat'?" or "Do you know how to write anyother animal words like 'dog'?" Credit wasgiven for every word the student wrote accu-rately. This measure was used as a pretest andposttest.

Beginning reading assessment. The Begin-ning Reading Assessment (BRA), adapted from

Clay's observation survey (1993), was used asa pretest-only measure to determine children'sknowledge about concepts of print and theconventions for written language. Clay sug-gests that knowledge of these concepts hasproved to be a sensitive indicator of behaviorsthat support reading acquisition. This 11-itemindividually administered measure is appropri-ate for emergent readers and identifies stu-dents' understanding of concepts, such as print(rather than pictures) contains the message, theterm "letter," the term "word," the one-to-onematch between a spoken word and a word inprint, and the reading of print in Englishmoves from left to right. Because some of thestudents in this study were emergent readerswith limited oral reading or writing ability, theteacher-administered BRA provided anothermeasure with which to determine the compara-bility of treatment groups.

Oral story retelling assessment. This holisticcomprehension measure demonstrates students'ability to construct meaning through a verbalretelling. The retelling posttest task, which waspart of the school system's first-grade diagnos-tic procedures, included a book that was ofinterest to first-grade children and was chosenfor-quality of plot structure, including stronglydelineated characters, definite setting, obviousplot episodes, and clear resolution. This indi-vidually administered activity involved listen-ing to an audiotape of the story while lookingat the book and then orally retelling the story.To facilitate retelling, teachers used promptssuch as: "Where did the story happen?" and"Who was in the story?" These assisted oralretellings were tape recorded and later tran-scribed for story grammar analysis. A template


18


of the story's characters, setting, plot episodes,and resolution was used in the analysis of eachtranscribed retelling. The interrater reliabilityfor the scoring of 60 randomly selected retell-ings was .94.

English language proficiency assessment.Second-language learners had been assessedand assigned an English language proficiencyrating by the school system prior to the begin-ning of this study. When appropriate, thisrating was used to assign students to one of thestudy's three different English proficiencygroups: (a) ESL students with services, (b)ESL students without services, and (c) nativeEnglish speakers. At the end of the study, toassess growth in second-language learners'English proficiency, the language proficiencyclassification determined by the ESL teacher inthe school was used. This rating was based onthe student's performance on a set of assess-ment measures that included three components:(a) speaking and listening through story retell-ing, (b) a writing sample using a picture as aprompt, and (c) an oral reading component.The ratings, A, Bl, B2, and C, ranged from A(lowest level of proficiency in English) to C(nearing proficiency).

Motivational/Behavioral Surveys

Me and My Reading Scale. This 15-itemsurvey (Gambrell, 1993) was used as a posttestmeasure to assess students' reading motivationand literacy behavior. The survey, which has areliability of .68, includes items with a Likenscale as well as forced choice responses toquestions about (a) individual and family read-ing habits, and (b) attitudes toward books,

reading, and being read to. Teachers adminis-tered surveys to small groups of children,reading each item aloud. Pictures were alsoprovided on the survey to help teachers guidethe children from one question to the next.

Individual child observation surveys. A 12-item survey, using a Likert-scale response, wasused as a pretest and posttest to assess teachers'perceptions of individual student's readingmotivation and behavior. The survey, whichwas completed by each child's teacher, focusedon the child's reading habits in school andattitude toward books. For children who usedbooks in the classroom only, the posttest sur-vey included four additional items that relatedto child engagement with project materials,child interest in reading, and the impact of theproject on reading achievement. The posttestsurvey for children who used books and tapesat home also had four additional items. Thesefocused on student independence in completingthe activity, attitude toward reading, andreading achievement.

Child interview. At the conclusion of thestudy, an eight-item individual interview wasconducted by the teachers of children who hadused books and tapes at home. Questionsprovided an opportunity for children to com-ment on how frequently they engaged in thebooks and tapes activity, whether they enjoyedthe activity, and their view of its impact ontheir learning to read.

Parent surveys. To assess parents' percep-tions of their child's reading motiva-tion/behavior and to explore parents' percep-tion of the treatment effectiveness, parentswere asked to complete a written survey at thebeginning and again at the end of the study.


19


The pretest survey included 12 items with aLikert-scale response related to child andfamily reading habits, as well as child attitudestoward books. An additional open-ended re-sponse item asked parents to comment on whattheir child liked best about school. At theconclusion of the study, this survey was admin-istered again. Parents of children who had usedbooks and tapes at home were asked to respondto nine additional questions using a Likert-scaleresponse. These questions were related to thefrequency of book and tape use, the child'sresponse to the books and tapes activity, andthe child's engagement with books. Threeadditional open-ended questions asked parentsto elaborate on both the child's and their ownresponse to the books and tapes activity. Trans-lated surveys were provided for parents whodid not speak English.

Parent telephone interview. At the conclu-sion of the study, a phone interview was con-ducted with selected parents of children whohad used books and tapes at home. In eachclassroom using the books and tapes at home,three parents of second-language learners whoreceived ESL services and three parents ofnative English speakers were randomly selectedto be interviewed. Interview questions relatedto the parents' observation of their child'sreading behavior in terms of interest, amountof time spent reading, attitude toward books,student independence in completing the booksand tapes activity, and mechanical operation ofthe tape recorder. Interpreters fluent in theparents' languages were available to assist withthe interviews if needed.

Classroom survey. A Classroom Survey(Gambrell, 1993) was used at the beginning of

the study. This survey consisted of 14 itemsproviding descriptive information related to theexperience of the teacher, materials used forreading instruction, the use of literature in theclassroom, and the motivational level of thestudents.

Teacher questionnaire. All teachers com-pleted a written questionnaire at the conclusionof the study. The basic questionnaire includedeight items with both Likert-scale and yes/noresponse formats. Questions focused on theteacher's in-school reading programs, use ofschool-home reading programs, and availabili-ty of materials. For teachers using the books inschool, the questionnaire included additionalitems related to their use of project materials,project organization and management, and theimpact of the project on students' attitudetoward reading and reading achievement. Thequestionnaire for teachers using the books andtapes at home, included additional items relatedto their use of project materials and the impactof the project on students' attitudes andachievement.

Final teacher interview. An interview wasconducted at the end of the study with all theteachers involved. Questions in the interview _

were similar to those in the Teacher Question-naire. The interview, conducted by the Title 1research assistants, provided an opportunity forteachers to confirm and elaborate on theirquestionnaire responses.

Procedures

In October, four Title 1 schools were select-ed to participate in this study. All the schoolshad at least three first-grade teachers who had


2 0


volunteered to be a part of this seven-monthproject. Researchers who were also Title 1Program Assistants conducted an initial orien-tation with teachers in each school. This ses-sion provided an overview of the researchproject, including random assignment of class-es to treatment groups and assessment measuresto be used.

A second session was conducted with theteachers in each school to introduce the specificpretest measures they would be using in theproject. The teachers were given assessmentpackages that contained all the necessary mea-sures, and then the detailed written guidelinesfor administration were discussed. Many of theteachers, however, were familiar with most ofthe assessment measures because they hadparticipated in a one-semester graduate-levelcourse. This course provided considerablepractice in the administration of the schoolsystem first-grade evaluation measures, threeof which were used as pretests in this study.

To obtain baseline information about theparticipating students, teachers administeredthe following measures: the Beginning ReadingAssessment; the Writing Vocabulary Assess-ment; and the Oral Reading Assessment. Theteachers also completed an Individual ChildObservation Survey for each student and asurvey about her classroom instructional activi-ties. In addition, the teachers sent a readingbehavior survey home to the parents and ob-tained ESL proficiency ratings for second-language learners from the ESL resourceteacher in each school. Researchers were inclose communication with the teachers andwere available to provide assistance whenneeded.

During October, teachers in each schoolwere randomly assigned to one of three treat-ment groups: (a) structured shared reading atschool and rereading of books with audiotapesat home (SRSBAH), (b) structured sharedreading at school (SRS), or (c) unmodifiedschool reading (Control). Teachers in theSRSBAH treatment group, which involvedstructured shared reading at school and reread-ing of books with audiotapes at home, partici-pated in a training session that used proceduresand materials developed in the Blum et al.(1995) study. The teachers began interventionactivities by introducing the project books.Initially, a new book was introduced to stu-dents each day by the teacher. This five-minuteshared reading procedure included: (a) an orallook-through with the children making predic-tions based on pictures and the teacher provid-ing key vocabulary and examples of languagepatterns necessary for independent reading, (b)an oral reading of the book by the teacher, and(c) a rereading of the book with the children.

After two weeks of daily reading of theproject books, the children were introduced toprocedures for taking books and audiotapeshome. A second copy of each book that hadbeen shared in class was placed with an audio-tape in a special basket for home use. Becausethese books and audiotapes were in yellowcolor-coded packages, they were easily identi-fied by the students. A routine was establishedfor checking out the book and audiotape pack-ages and returning the packages to the class-room. Backpacks were provided to transportbooks and tapes to and from home.

Each child in the SRSBAH treatment groupalso was given a tape recorder to keep at home


21


for the duration of the project. In addition toteaching the children how to use this machine,the teacher helped children think specificallyabout where they would do their home reading(location) and where at home they would storetheir tape recorder. Students took books homeon a daily basis so they could practice readingthem with the audiotape at least three times tothemselves or a family member. While childrenwere directed to choose at least one book theycould read, they were also permitted to takeadditional books from the set that had beenpreviously introduced. Also, during this time,the home-based reading project was describedto the parents, and they were asked to remindtheir child to listen to and read the books theywere bringing home. While parent support aslisteners and assistants was invited and encour-aged, children could participate in this home-reading project without direct parental involve-ment. During the seven-month interventionperiod, teachers were asked to monitor homeuse of books by (a) having students share oneof the books they read at home with a partner,and (b) marking a weekly reading chart to notehow frequently each child took books andaudiotapes home.

Teachers in the SRS treatment group, whichinvolved structured reading in schools, fol-lowed the same procedures as the SRSBAHtreatment group for in-class shared reading ofnew project books. After the book introduc-tions, the SRS students had books available forrereading in their classrooms. These childrendid not have extra books or audiotapes to takehome; however, they participated in the regularschool program that encouraged reading athome.

The Control group classes followed theirregular reading program that involved someshared reading of materials and encouragedreading at home. Instruction in these classes,however, was not supplemented with projectbooks, audiotaped stories, or tape recorders.

At the end of the study, in late May andearly June, data were collected from students,teachers, and parents to assess the effectivenessof the treatment activities. Assessment mea-sures included: (a) the Oral Reading Assess-ment, (b) the Writing Vocabulary Assessment,(c) the Oral Retelling Assessment, (d) an ESLproficiency rating to indicate English languageproficiency of participating second-languagelearners, and (e) child, teacher, and parentsurveys/interviews related to children's read-ing/motivation behavior and teacher interviewsrelated to the value of school-initiated homereading programs. The Parent Surveys weretranslated into Spanish, Korean, and Vietnam-ese and interviews were conducted with inter-preters for parents of second-language learnerswho did not speak English.

Results

Both quantitative and qualitative procedureswere used to analyze the data from this study.One-way and two-way analysis of variance andco-variance procedures, as well as chi squareprocedures, were employed to analyze literacyand language achievement data, including theOral Reading Assessment, the Writing Vocabu-lary Assessment, the Oral Story RetellingAssessment, and the ESL Proficiency Rating.These procedures were also used to analyze theMe and My Reading Scale, and portions of the


22


Table 1Means and Standard Deviations for Literacy Achievement Measures

Treatment Groups

SRSBAH SRS Control

Measure M (SD, IV) M (SD, IV) M (SD, IV)

Oral Reading Level 3.98 (1.35, 46) 3.66 (1.58, 44) 3.82 (1.40, 41)

Writing Vocabulary 32.82 (15.05, 46) 34.37 (25.13, 43) 34.64 (12.35, 39)

Oral Retelling 13.11 (4.32, 45)8 14.59 (4.18, 44)a 11.10 (3.84, 41)"

Note: Scores are significantly different (p < .01) if they do not have the same superscript.

student, parent, and teacher survey data. Posthoc comparisons were conducted for analyseswith significant differences using the Fisher'sLSD multiple comparisons to determine whichbetween-group differences were significant. Inaddition, descriptive procedures were used forselected portions of the survey and interviewdata.

Preliminary data analysis focused upon thecomparability of the three treatment groups,including two experimental groups (school-home reading with audiotapes [SRSBAH] andschool rereading [SRS]) and one control group.Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed therewere no statistically significant differencesamong treatment groups on oral reading pretestlevels (SRSBAH, M = 1.61; SRS, M = 1.59;Control, M = 1.54; F(2, 128) = .24, p =.79), the Beginning Reading Assessment pretest(SRSBAH, M = 7.20; SRS, M = 7.65; Con-trol, M = 7.93; F(2, 125) = 1.07, p = .35),or the writing vocabulary pretest scores (SRS-BAH, M = 9.11; SRS, M = 9.26; Control,M = 6.74; F(2,125) = 1.81, p = .17).

A chi square analysis (chi square = 3.13;df = 4; p = .54) determined that there wereno significant differences among treatmentgroups on the distribution of students from thethree language proficiency groups (ESL w/services, ESL w/o services, and NES). Inaddition, there were no significant differencesamong treatment groups on pretest proficiencylevels for the ESL w/services group (SRSBAH,M = 2.14; SRS, M = 1.82; Control, M =1.50; F(2, 47) = 1.65, p = .20). (It should benoted that the other two proficiency groupswere not pretested or posttested because theyhad been evaluated previously and were con-sidered proficient speakers of English.)

Literacy and Language Achievement

Literacy and language achievement depen-dent variables consisted of oral reading, writ-ing vocabulary, story retelling scores, andEnglish language proficiency. Posttest meansand standard deviation for these literacyachievement scores are presented in Tables 1and 2.


23


Table 2Means and Standard Deviations for Oral Reading Level, Writing Vocabulary, and Oral Retelling by Levelof English Language Proficiency

Level of English Language Proficiency

ESL w/ Services ESL w/o Services NES

Measure M (SD, N) M (SD, N) M (SD, IV)

Oral Reading Level 3.47 (1.66, 50)a 3.74 (1.37, 32) 4.25 (.94, 49)b

Writing Vocabulary 34.59 (18.43, 49) 32.49 (16.62, 32) 34.76 (19.27, 47)

Oral Retelling 12.19 (5.04, 49) 12.56 (3.82, 32) 14.05 (3.81, 49)

Note: Posttest scores are significantly different (p < .05) if they do not have the same superscript.

Oral Reading Assessment

A two-way analysis of covariance (ANCO-VA) was used to determine if there were differ-ences among treatment groups on oral readinglevel posttests. The oral reading pretest wasused as a covariate for this posttest readinglevel analysis. There were no statisticallysignificant differences among treatment groupson oral reading level and there were no signifi-cant interactions between treatment and Englishproficiency level. There were, however, signif-icant differences by proficiency level on read-ing level between the ESL with services andthe NES groups, F(2,121) = 3.75, p < .05.As expected, post hoc comparisons revealedthat NES group scores were higher than theESL with services group. Means and standarddeviations are shown in Table 2.

Writing Vocabulary Assessment

A two-way ANCOVA with the vocabularypretest as a covariate was used to determine if

there were differences among groups on thewriting vocabulary posttest. There were nostatistically significant differences amongtreatment groups on writing vocabulary andthere were also no significant interactionsbetween treatment and English proficiencylevel. In addition, there were no significantdifferences by proficiency level on writingvocabulary.

Oral Story Retelling Assessment

The two-way ANOVA of the oral storyretelling scores revealed significant differencesamong treatment groups on this listening com-prehension measure, F(2, 121) = 7.37, p <.01. Post hoc comparisons revealed that boththe SRSBAH and SRS groups' scores weresignificantly higher than the Control group'sscores. There were no significant interactionsbetween treatment and English language profi-ciency. There also were no significant differ-ences by proficiency level on story retellingscores.


24


Table 3Means and Standard Deviations for the Me and My Reading Scale

Treatment Groups

SRSBAH SRS Control

Measure M (SD, N) M (SD, N) M (SD, N)

Me and My Reading 34.91 (3.79, 46)8 34.98 (4.86, 44)a 32.17 (6.87, 41)b

Note: Scores are significantly different (p < .05) if they do not have the same superscript.

English Language Proficiency Assessment

A one-way ANCOVA was used to deter-mine if there were differences among treatmentgroups on the English language proficiencyposttest levels of ESL students who receivedEnglish language support services. An analysisusing the English language proficiency pretestlevel as a covariate revealed no significantdifferences among treatment groups.

Motivation/Behavior Measures

Me and My Reading Scale

A two-way ANOVA of the total scores onthe Me and My Reading Scale revealed nosignificant differences among treatment groupsor language proficiency levels. Thep value fortreatment groups, however, was nearly signifi-cant for treatment F(2, 122) = 2.99, p =.0538, so a reanalysis of the data was con-ducted without proficiency levels. A one-wayANOVA revealed treatment to be significantF(2, 128) = 3.91, p = .022. Means and stan-dard deviations are presented in Table 3. Posthoc comparisons revealed that the scores of the

SRSBAH and the SRS groups were significant-ly higher than the Control group's scores.

Individual Child Observation Survey (ICOS)

A two-way ANCOVA was conducted on the12 items of the ICOS which were completed byteachers in all three treatment groups. TheICOS pretest score for each item was used asa covariate. Teachers' observations of indi-vidual children revealed statistically significantdifferences among treatment groups on fiveitems. Means and standard deviations aredisplayed in Table 4. The five questions withpost hoc analyses are as follows: (a) "Does thestudent take books home from school ?",F(2,98) = 13.35, p < .0001; and (b) "If thestudent has free time, would he/she choose toread a book?", F(2,118) = 5.61, p < .01.Post hoc comparisons revealed that the SRS-BAH group's scores were significantly higherthan SRS and Control groups' scores. (c)"Does the student enjoy listening to stories atthe listening center?", F(2,118) = 5.09, p <.01. Post hoc comparisons revealed that theSRS group's scores were significantly higherthan the SRSBAH and the Control's scores. (d)


25

z 0 z tri

tr1 tr1 0 tr1

4:1 -3

26

Tab

le 4

Mea

ns a

nd S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

ns fo

r th

e In

divi

dual

Chi

ld O

bser

vatio

n S

urve

y

Tre

atm

ent G

roup

s

Item

(1-

4 sc

ale)

SR

SB

AH

SR

SC

ontr

ol.

M(S

D, N

)M

(SD

, N)

M(S

D, N

)

I. D

oes

the

stud

ent t

ake

book

s ho

me

from

scho

ol?

Sel

dom

/Onc

e a

wee

k/2

or 3

times

a w

eek/

Nea

rly e

very

day

3.71

(.75

,43

)'2.

89(.

96,

35)b

2.81

(.96

,30

)b'

2.If

the

stud

ent h

as fr

ee ti

me,

wou

ld h

e/sh

ech

oose

to r

ead

a bo

ok?

3.27

(.70

,43

)'2.

88(.

80,

44)b

2.80

(.60

,41

)b.-

Nev

er/S

eldo

m/S

omet

imes

/Mos

t of t

he ti

me

3. D

oes

the

stud

ent e

njoy

list

enin

g to

sto

ries

at th

e lis

teni

ng c

ente

r?3.

42(.

62,

43)'

3.77

(.45

,44

)b3.

47(.

50,

41)'-

*

Not

at a

ll/N

ot v

ery

muc

h/S

ome/

Ver

y m

uch

4. D

oes

the

stud

ent's

con

vers

atio

n co

ntai

nre

fere

nces

to b

ooks

he/

she

has

read

?3.

03(.

53,

43)°

2.85

(.66

,42

)'2.

52(.

51,

41)b

-

Nev

er/N

ot v

ery

ofte

n/S

omet

imes

/Ofte

n

5. Is

the

stud

ent's

writ

ing

influ

ence

d by

book

s he

/she

has

rea

d?N

ever

/Not

ver

y of

ten/

Som

etim

es/O

ften

ES

L w

ith s

ervi

ces

2.88

(.48

,21

)'2.

14(1

.01,

15)b

2.27

(.75

,12

)b-

ES

L w

ithou

t ser

vice

s2.

12.

(.67

,8)

'3.

32(1

.05,

9)b

2.10

(1.0

8,12

)'-

Not

e: S

core

s ar

e si

gnifi

cant

ly d

iffer

ent i

f the

y do

not

hav

e th

e sa

me

supe

rscr

ipt.

p <

.000

1. p

< .0

01. p

< .0

1.

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

27

00


"Does the student's conversation contain refer-ences to books he/she has read?", F(2, 116) =8.51,p < .001. Post hoc analysis revealed thatthe SRSBAH and SRS groups' scores were sig-nificantly higher than the Control group'sscores. (e) "Is the student's writing influencedby books he/she has read?", F(4,115) = 4.16,p < .01. Because a two-way ANCOVA re-vealed a significant interaction between treat-ment and proficiency, two subsequent one-wayANCOVAs were conducted with post hocanalyses. In the SRSBAH group, ESL studentswith services had significantly higher scoresthan the ESL students with services in the SRSand Control groups, F(2,44) = 5.62, p < .01.Also, in the SRS group, ESL students withoutservices had significantly higher scores than theESL students without services in the SRSBAHand the Control groups, F(2, 25) = 9.28, p <.001. There were no significant interactionswith the NES group.

A two-way ANOVA was used to analyzedata on two additional ICOS items (parallelstatements) that were appropriate for only theSRSBAH and SRS treatment groups. Meansand standard deviations are shown in Table 5.On the item "Participating in the 'Dog GoneGood' books and tapes project increased thestudent's interest in reading," F(2,83) =44.87, p < .0001, the SRSBAH group'sscores were significantly higher than the SRSgroup's scores. There were also significantdifferences in proficiency level for the SRS-BAH group. A one-way ANOVA revealed thatthe scores for the ESL students with serviceswere significantly higher than the scores ofstudents in the ESL without services or theNES groups (ESL w/services M = 3.81; ESL

w/o services, M = 3.27; NES, M = 3.36;F(2,43) = 3.59, p < .05). On the statement"Participating in the 'Dog Gone Good' booksand tapes project increased the student's read-ing achievement," F(2,82) = 34.54, p <.0001, the SRSBAH group's scores weresignificantly higher than the SRS group'sscores. There were no significant differencesby proficiency level.

One item in the ICOS was addressed onlyby teachers in the SRSBAH group (see Table5). For the question, "Does the student remem-ber to take the 'Dog Gone Good' books/tapeshome and then bring them back to school onhis/her own?" mean response was high (M =3.67) and an ANOVA revealed a significantdifference in proficiency level, F(2, 43) =3.52, p < .05. Post hoc comparison revealedthat the scores of ESL students with serviceswere significantly higher than students' scoresin the ESL without services and the NESgroups.

Descriptive measures were used to analyzethe SRSBAH and SRS groups' teachers' re-sponses to the question "What did the studentlike best about the 'Dog Gone Good' readingproject?" Categories of their answers with thenumber of responses are presented in Table 6.Teachers of children in the SRSBAH groupmost frequently mentioned that students likedreading more books (N = 9), reading withfriends and family (N = 9), and taking bookshome (N = 9). Teachers of the SRSBAHgroup also noted that students liked havingreading homework (N = 7), specifically thatthey liked using the tape with the book (N =6), that children liked rereading the books(N = 5), and that children liked having some


28

z O O c-)2 8 O

29

Tab

le 5

Mea

ns a

nd S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

ns fo

r th

e In

divi

dual

Chi

ld O

bser

vatio

n S

urve

y (S

RS

BA

H a

nd S

RS

Gro

ups

Onl

y)

Item

(1-

4 sc

ale)

Tre

atm

ent G

roup

s

SRSB

AH

SRS

M(S

D, I

V)

M(S

D, I

V)

IA.

Part

icip

atin

g in

the

"Dog

Gon

e G

ood"

boo

ks a

nd ta

pes

proj

ects

3.48

(.66

, 46)

'2.

40(.

82, 4

3)'''

incr

ease

d th

e st

uden

t's in

tere

st in

rea

ding

. (SR

SBA

H)

I B

.Pa

rtic

ipat

ing

in th

e "D

og G

one

Goo

d" b

ooks

pro

ject

incr

ease

dth

e st

uden

t's in

tere

st in

rea

ding

. (SR

S)N

ot a

t all/

A li

ttle/

Som

e/V

ery

muc

h

2A.

Part

icip

atin

g in

the

"Dog

Gon

e G

ood"

boo

ks a

nd ta

pes

proj

ect

3.36

(.72

, 46)

'2.

27(.

94, 4

2)b.

incr

ease

d th

e st

uden

t's r

eadi

ng a

chie

vem

ent.

(SR

SBA

H)

2B.

Part

icip

atin

g in

the

"Dog

Gon

e G

ood"

boo

ks p

roje

ct in

crea

sed

the

stud

ent's

rea

ding

ach

ieve

men

t. (S

RS)

Not

at a

ll/A

littl

e/So

me/

Ver

y m

uch

3.D

oes

the

stud

ent r

emem

ber

to ta

ke th

e "D

og G

one

Goo

d" b

ooks

3.67

(.70

, 46)

and

tape

s ho

me

and

then

bri

ng th

em b

ack

to s

choo

l on

his/

her

own?

(SR

SBA

H o

nly)

Nev

er/S

eldo

m/S

omet

imes

/Mos

t of

the

time

ESL

with

ser

vice

s

ESL

with

out s

ervi

ces

NE

S

3.95

(.22

, 21)

'"

3.36

(1.0

3, 1

1)b

3.50

(.76

,14

)b

Not

e: S

core

s ar

e si

gnif

ican

tly d

iffe

rent

if th

ey d

o no

t hav

e th

e sa

me

supe

rscr

ipt.

'p <

.000

1.p

<.0

5.

BE

ST C

OPY

AV

AIL

AB

LE


Table 6Categories with Number of Responses for Question #16 in the Individual Child Observation SurveyQuestion 16: What did the student like best about the "Dog Gone Good" reading project?

Treatment Groups

Category SRSBAH SRS

Reading more books 9 27

Having books and tapes with a recorderat home

11 0

Reading with friends and family 9 10

Taking books home 9 0

Having homework 7 0

Rereading books 5 3

thing special (i.e., the book and tape) forthemselves (N = 5). Teachers in the SRSgroup most often mentioned that children likedthe opportunity to read more books (N = 27)and frequently mentioned that children likedreading with friends and family (N = 10).

Child Interview

To gain specific information about usingbooks and tapes at home, ANOVA and de-scriptive procedures were used to analyzeinterview responses by children in the SRSB-AH group. Questions in this conversationalinterview conducted by the classroom teacherfocused on how much students practiced read-ing, whether children felt they could managethe activity independently, their response to thematerials, and their view of the impact of theactivity on their reading achievement. Means

and percentages for items are displayed inTable 7.

In response to the question related to theamount of practice, 75 % of all the SRSBAHstudents reported they practiced reading withthe books and tapes almost every day. Withinthe SRSBAH group, however, there weresignificant differences among English profi-ciency levels with the students in the ESL withservices group reporting significantly higheramounts of practice than students in the ESLw/o services (ESL w/services, M = 3.90; ESLw/o services, M = 2.82; NES, M = 3.50;F(2,41) = 5.'74, p < .01).

Many of the children (80%) indicated thatusing books and tapes helpdd them learn toread "a lot." In commenting on why, childrenmost frequently mentioned the value of tapes inhelping to identify words and the benefit ofpractice. Some specific comments made by the


31


Table 7Means and Percentage for Items in the Individual Child Interview (SRSBAH Group)

A. * When you took the books and tapes home, did you have a chance to practice reading with them?M= 3.52 (N = 44)

Not much Once a week Two or threedays a week

9% 5% 11%

Almost every day

B.* Do you think that practicing with the books and tapes helps you learn to read?M = 2.78(N = 46)

It doesn't help It helps some It helps a lot2% 17% 80%

C. Do you like reading the books and tapes at home? M = 3.67 (N = 41)

Not at all4%

A little Some A lot4% 11% 80%

D.* Does someone at home listen when you practice with your books and tapes?M= 2.72 (N = 46)

Not much Once a week Two or threedays a week

37% 4% 9%

75%

Almost every day

E.* Did you ever have any problems using the books, tapes, and tape recorder?M= 1.31 (N = 39)

No Yes69% 31%

F.* Would you like to take books and tapes home again in the second grade?M = 1.88 (N = 40)

No Yes13% 88%

50%

G.* Do you think that I should have books and tapes for the first graders in my class next year?M= 2.00 (N = 41)

No Yes100%

* Scale reversed on original survey.


32


students included: "The book has a lot ofwords you don't know and the tape shows youwhat they are"; "If I don't know which wordto read, I just put the tape on and they help mewhich word it is"; "Before I didn't know thewords and I was just making them up"; and "Ithelps me learn from reading."

Eighty percent of the students reported thatthey liked to use the books and tapes at home"a lot." There were, however, significantdifferences among English proficiency levelson this item. Students in both the ESL withservices and ESL without services groups weresignificantly more positive about the homereading activity than the NES group (ESLw/services, M = 3.86; ESL w/o services, M =3.91; NES, M = 3.21; F(2,43) = 4.20, p <.05). In commenting on why they liked theactivity, children most frequently mentionedthey felt the activity helped them learn to readand that they enjoyed it. Some specific com-ments made by the children were: "If we gethard books, it teach us how to read"; "Thetapes helped me out with reading"; "It's funtaking books home from school"; and "It wasfun reading with the tape."

The book and audiotape activity was specifi-cally designed so that children could completeit independently; however, the involvement ofother family members was encouraged. Wewere interested to note that more than 60 % ofthe children reported that other family mem-bers listened while they read at least once aweek, and 50% reported that someone listenedto them read every day. Although childrenmost frequently responded that their motherlistened to them, their father and siblings werealso frequently mentioned as listeners. About

half the children indicated they completed theactivity without help or reminders. Thosechildren who noted they had help in remember-ing to practice indicated that a family member,such as mother, father, or sibling, had remind-ed them.

About one-third of the children reportedhaving problems using the books, tapes, andtape recorders. These problems, however,were only minor mechanical problems involv-ing batteries or operating the tape recorder.Their responses indicated that in almost everycase the child was able to get assistance from afamily member who resolved the problem.

Children were very enthusiastic about theprospect of continuing to use books and tapesin second grade. They most frequently com-mented that the activity helped them to learnand that they enjoyed it. Some specific com-ments included: "We could learn more betterand we could read hard books"; "So I couldread better and better"; "Because I like readingalong with the tapes"; and "Because I wouldlike to learn to read better than I read now, butI still don't like reading."

One hundred percent of the children thoughtthe teacher should use books and tapes withnext year's first-graders. They most frequentlycommented that using the books and tapeswould help next year's first-graders learn toread and that it was an activity other beginningreaders would enjoy. Children made commentssuch as: "It would be fun for them too and theycan learn how to read"; "Because they'll readbetter"; "They'll want to listen to the taperecorder"; and "Because when the kids readthem, they can have fun and learn so manywords."


33


Parent Survey

A two-way analysis of covariance (ANC-OVA) was used to determine if there were dif-ferences among treatment groups on 12 indi-vidual items on the Parent Survey posttest.These items were completed by parents in allthree treatment groups. The Parent Surveypretest was used as a covariate for these analy-ses. There were statistically significant differ-ences among treatment groups on only one ofthese items, "Does your child bring bookshome from school?" SRSBAH, M = 3.73;SRS, M = 3.09; Control, M = 3.14; F(2,101)= 11.00, p < .0001. Post hoc analysis re-vealed that the SRSBAH group's scores weresignificantly higher than SRS and Controlgroups' scores. There were no significantdifferences by English proficiency level on thisitem.

Descriptive procedures were used to analyzethe responses from the question "What doesyour child like best about school?" "Reading"was most frequently mentioned in both theSRSBAH and SRS groups (SRSBAH, N = 27;SRS, N = 27; Control = 10). "Playing withothers/recess/play time" was also frequentlymentioned by parents (SRSBAH, N = 14;SRS, N = 19; Control, N = 13).

Means and percentages for the nine itemsfrom the Parent Survey that were addressedonly by the parents in the SRSBAH group aredisplayed in Table 8. It should be noted that themajority of parents whose children broughthome books and audiotapes reported that theirchild: (1) remembered to bring home andreturn books "most of the time" (76%), (2)read along with the audiotapes "almost every

day" (64%), (3) "often" looked at the bookwhile listening to the audiotape (88%), (4) washelped "a lot" in their reading by the booksand tapes (59 %), and (5) enjoyed listening toand reading with the tape recorder "a lot"(70 %). In addition, 70 % of the parents report-ed that using the books and tapes increasedtheir child's interest in reading "a lot."

Parent Interview

To learn more about the effectiveness ofusing books and tapes at home, parents of threesecond-language learners and three nativeEnglish speakers in each SRSBAH classroomwere randomly selected to be interviewed bytelephone. Fifteen parents (eight parents ofESL with services students and seven parentsof NES students) were contacted and complet-ed the interviews. Descriptive procedures wereused to analyze their responses to the interviewquestions.

Most parents (N = 11) reported that chil-dren engaged in the books and tape activityevery day and all the parents reported thatchildren read along with the tapes at least twicea week. When asked if their child pays atten-tion to the words in the books while he/shelistens, parents frequently noted behaviors suchas the child looking at the book while listeningand pointing to words (N = 6) or the childreading a book back to parents (N = 3). Somespecific comments were: "He looks at the bookwhile he is listening"; "Because she points tothe word that she is looking at and listeningto"; and "He comes out of his room laughingand talking about the book."


34


Table 8Means and Percentage for Items in the Parent Survey (SRSBAH Group)

A. * Did your child remember to bring the "Dog Gone Good" books/tapes home and then bring themback to school on his/her own? M = 3.57 (N = 42)

Never Seldom Sometimes Most of the time (Not answered)5% 14% 76% 5%

B.* About how many clays a week does your child read along with the audiotape? M = 3.59 (N = 39)

Less than once Once a week Two or three Almost every daya week times a week

5% 31% 64%

C. Does your child look at the book while he/she is listening to the audiotape? M = 3.9 (N = 41)

Never Not very often Sometimes Often12% 88%

D.* Do you think your child pays attention to the words in the book while he/she listens?M= 3.73 (N = 41)

Never Not very often Sometimes Often2% 22% 76%

E. Does your child ever talk about the books that he/she listens to on the tape recorder?M= 3.24 (N = 41)

Never Not very often Sometimes Often10% 56% 34%

F. Has using the books and tapes helped your child learn to read? M = 3.44 (N = 39)

Not at all A little Some A lot15% 26% 59%

G.* Does your child enjoy listening to and reading with the tape recorder? M = 3.68 (N = 40)

Not at all A little Some A lot2.5% 27.5% 70%

H.* Has using the books and tapes increased your child's interest in reading? M = 3.6 (N = 40)

Not at all A little Some A lot5% .25% 70%

I. Has participating in the "Dog Gone Good" books and tapes project provided you with ideas forhelping your child with reading? M = 3.34 (N = 41)

No Not Many Quite a few Many12% 42% 46%

* Scale reversed on original survey.


35


Parents indicated that children frequentlytalked about the books they listened to. Theirconversation sometimes involved story retelling(N =3); a reference to the difficulty of thebook (N = 4); or a reference to anotheraspect of the book (e.g., character, setting,title) (N = 3). Some specific comments includ-ed: "Lu mentioned the animals in the booksthat he reads"; "Sometimes he talks about thepeople or what happened in the book"; "If helikes it, he tells me if it's funny. He tells me allthe books he likes"; and "Tells us if the bookis hard or easy." A large majority of these par-ents (N = 13) reported that their child was"reading more" and also that their child wasreading books other than the project books(N = 12). Some specific comments were:"She's reading more and better. This thing ishelping her a lot. Loan is reading better and isimproving"; "He sometimes goes to the librarywith his sister to check out books to read"; and"She reads more often."

Parents reported almost unanimously (N =14) that their child enjoyed listening to andreading with the tape recorder and had noproblems using the books, tapes, or tape re-corder. Two specific comments were: "Helikes to read along with the tape," and "Hesays it helps him learn to read." They alsoreported positive participation of other familymembers. For example, several parents men-tioned that their child read with other familymembers (N = 10). Some specific commentsfrom parents of second-language learners were:"The family is very happy that it's not only Lucan benefit from the program, but the wholefamily can benefit from listening and learningto speak English"; "They loved the idea of

reading with the books and tape. It also helpother member of the family to learn English";"It is a good way to learn English and othermember of family can benefit as well"; and"He reads with his sister who is in kindergar-ten, so she is learning to read. They like it."Other than the focus on learning English, mostof the NES parents' comments parallel those ofESL parents. Some specific comments ofparents of NES students were: "My youngerchild enjoys listening," "His younger brotheris learning with him," and "Two sisters alsolisten!"

Teacher Questionnaire and Interview

At the conclusion of the study, each partici-pating teacher completed a written question-naire and was then individually interviewed.The interview items were based on those in thewritten questionnaire. The interview formatprovided an opportunity for teachers to con-firm and expand on their questionnaire re-sponses.

All the teachers in this study reported thatthey used shared reading on a regular basis andhad incorporated some type of school-homereading program prior to their participation inthe study. However, none of these school-home programs involved children taking booksor books and tapes home on a daily basis. Allthe teachers viewed shared reading as an im-portant instructional activity and a school-homereading program as a useful support activity.

At the conclusion of the study, teachers inboth the SRSBAH and SRS groups reportedthat the books provided by the project were animportant addition to their classroom. Teachers



most frequently mentioned the benefits ofproviding choice and its impact on both moti-vation and student's self-concept as a reader.Some specific comments made by the teacherswere: "Having a sufficient variety (of books)with language they are familiar with and havingthe levels showed them they could read";"They could read a variety of books at a leveland felt successful"; and "[Project books]developed confidence." Teachers in both theSRSBAH and SRS groups were extremelypositive about the impact of shared readingwith project books on student attitude. Teach-ers frequently mentioned that the book intro-duction and sharing was an important factor inmotivating students, both generally in terms ofwanting to read, and specifically in terms ofwanting to read a particular book. In addition,teachers mentioned frequently that sharedreading with project books increased studentself-confidence and provided additional oppor-tunities to hear fluent models. Some specificcomments made by the teachers were: "It[shared reading] developed confidence . . .

they get to hear language . . . good for a highminority population because they can hearanother adult talk like books . . . it encouragedpositive attitude"; and "They now like to readindependently or with a friend. "

All the teachers in the SRSBAH group wereenthusiastic about sending books with audio-tapes home and mentioned their students'increased reading interest and achievement.These teachers also planned to use books withaudiotapes as part of their next year's school-home reading program. Some specific com-ments from teachers were: "If I purposelypulled out a book that was a little harder, they

could read it the next day"; "Got kids excited.Many wanted to listen to books again"; " . . .

encouraged talk about books. Last year I didn'thave that kind of talk going on"; "boosted selfconcept"; "DEAR time got longer"; and"Children chose to read. They love to read."

Teachers also mentioned many positiveparent responses. Some parents had observedthat using the audiotaped books had encour-aged brothers and sisters to read. Parents ofESL children reported special benefits of usingthe books and tapes. One parent noted, "Mychild's oral language vocabulary has grown somuch. His English has grown because of thetapes." Other parents of ESL children com-mented that the tapes helped the whole familylearn English.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigatewhether rereading at home is a significantsupplement to the literacy instructional pro-gram of second-language learners and nativeEnglish .speaking students. Of specific interestwas exploring the impact of increased access tobooks and rereading with an audio model onchildren's reading achievement and motivation.Participation in a book-rich literacy instruction-al program that included rereading of multi-level patterned books at home with audiotapes(SRSBAH) was compared with (a) participationin a book-rich program including multi-levelpatterned books based only in school (SRS),and (b) participation in an unmodified instruc-tional reading program (Control). Comparisonswere made on measures of fluent oral reading,comprehension, and reading motivation/be-


37


havior. In addition, this study investigatedwhether there was a relationship betweenstudents' English language proficiency andtheir learning of literacy skills through partici-pation in a school-home reading program.

The results of this study add substantialdocumentation to a growing body of researchthat attempts to identify specific features ofliteracy instruction that foster achievement andmotivation. The initial focus of the study wasto examine the effects of a school-home pro-gram to supplement classroom literacy instruc-tion. This program included the use of a largenumber of additional books that were shared inthe classroom before they were used at home(SRSBAH). In order to evaluate the impact ofthe home component, it was necessary to havea treatment condition that had the same book-rich classroom environment without the home-based reading component (SRS).

It is noteworthy that our findings revealedbenefits of book-rich classrooms both with andwithout a home component. The SRSBAH andSRS groups' scores were significantly higheron comprehension (Oral Retelling) and motiva-tional (Me and My Reading) measures than thescores of the Control group. Observational datafrom teachers and parents supported the abovefindings. Teachers of children in the SRSBAHand SRS groups substantiated indications ofincreased interest in books and reading. Thesignificant differences among groups related tostudents' references to books are of particularinterest. The SRSBAH and SRS teachers notedthat students' conversations contained referenc-es to books more frequently than did the teach-ers in the Control group. Parents also noticedtheir children's interest in reading. The SRS-

BAH and SRS parents most frequently men-tioned "reading" as what their child liked bestabout school, while Control parents morefrequently mentioned "playing with oth-ers/recess/play time."

There are a number of reasons that mayaccount for the significantly higher comprehen-sion and motivation scores of the SRSBAH andSRS groups. In this study, the SRSBAH andSRS classrooms conducted a shared readingactivity in school with each of the books.Recent research (Reutzel et al., 1994) docu-ments the effectiveness of shared reading as aninstructional procedure. In addition, Feitelsonet al. (1993) demonstrate the value of teachersreading to students as a way to increase asecond-language learner's reading achieve-ment. In the current study, the shared readingprovided an auditory model, extended back-ground vocabulary knowledge, and generallyexcited students' interest by the teacher'sattention to the book. Teachers in all threeconditions reported using shared reading atleast three to four times a week. So it appearsthat all children in this study were receivingthe benefits of this instructional procedure. Itshould be noted, however, that shared readingin the SRSBAH and SRS classrooms includedthe shared reading of multi-level project books.Teachers attempted to choose books at stu-dents' instructional levels, present books insmall groups, and provide structured introduc-tions to project books; whereas shared readingin the Control group usually included wholegroup sharing of big books or charts chosenaccording to topic or theme.

Teachers in both SRSBAH and SRS class-rooms were extremely positive about the im-

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT 'NO. 75

38


pact of shared reading with project books onstudent attitude. They noted the importance ofthe book introduction and book sharing inmotivating students. In addition, teachersmentioned frequently that shared reading withproject books increased student self-confidenceand provided additional opportunities to hearfluent models of English. "It [shared reading]developed confidence . . . they get to hearlanguage . . . good for a high minority popula-tion because they can hear another adult talklike a book. It encouraged positive attitude";and "They now like to read independently orwith a friend."

Book access was another important elementin accounting for the difference between thebook-rich classrooms and the Control group.The SRSBAH and SRS teachers were especial-ly enthusiastic about the additional booksprovided by the project. Recent research con-firms the importance of having access to largenumbers of books (Elley, 1991, 1996; Gam-brell, 1993; Guice et al., 1996). Followingshared reading with the teacher, the projectbooks remained available to the students forrereading. They provided an opportunity forreading practice with easy books, which ishelpful to beginning readers in developingfluency (Clay, 1991; De Ford, 1991; Rasinski,1990; Shany & Biemiller, 1995).

In addition, teachers in both groups wereimpressed with students' enthusiasm for read-ing more books and reading with friends andfamily. In the SRS group, it appears that hav-ing the increased number of books at schoolalso encouraged reading at home. This findingis similar to results reported by Elley (1991,1996) and Gambrell (1993). In commenting on

why they felt having the additional materialswas advantageous, teachers most frequentlymentioned the benefits of providing choice andits impact on both motivation and students'concepts of themselves as readers. They alsonoted the benefit of having many books ofvarying levels of difficulty that provided op-portunities for repeated practice with booksthat appealed to the children. Some specificcomments made by the teachers were: "havinga sufficient variety [of books] with languagethey are familiar with . . . having the levels,showed them they could read"; "They couldread a variety of books at a level and feltsuccessful"; and "[Project books] developedconfidence."

The literature related to developing exper-tise suggests the importance of providingopportunities for children to gain knowledge,feel successful, acquire strategies, and bemotivated to practice (Meichenbaum & Biemil-ler, 1990). The program, materials, and activi-ties in this study represent an attempt to re-spond to the practical implications of thistheory base. Students in the SRSBAH and SRSgroups were in learning environments thatfostered reading expertise by providing a book-rich environment and many opportunities toreread books. Shared reading with the teacher,other students, parents, or the audiotapesprovided scaffolding to ensure that studentscould read with understanding and feel success-ful. The rereading with a partner in school orat home with an audiotape was clearly aneffective strategy that students intentionallyused to improve their own reading. It alsoappears that motivation to read was positivelyaffected by having a teacher as a reading mod-


39


el, by increased access to and familiarity withbooks, by opportunities for choice of books,and social interactions related to books.

In this study, there were special benefitsrelated to the use of books and audiotapes athome. This supplement to classroom literacyinstruction was valuable for both second-lan-guage learners and native English-speakingstudents. Students who read books with audio-tapes at home appeared to be highly motivatedto participate in this activity and were able toarticulate how it was helpful. Eighty percent ofthe SRSBAH students stated that reading bookswith audiotapes at home helped them learn toread "a lot." Students commented, "The bookhas a lot of words you don't know and the tapeshows you what they are"; and "It helps melearn from reading." These students were alsoextremely positive about the activity, with 80%mentioning that they enjoyed it "a lot." Theynoted: "It's fun taking books home fromschool"; "I like reading them"; and "It was funreading with the tape." Students were also ableto complete the home-based reading withaudiotapes activity independently, and they didso on a regular basis.

Teacher observations and interviews re-vealed important advantages to using books andtapes at home. The SRSBAH group teacherswere significantly more positive than teachersin the SRS group about the project's impact onstudents' reading achievement. When com-menting on student achievement, one SRSBAHteacher noted, "If I purposely pulled out a bookthat was a little harder, they could read it thenext day." Another teacher, commenting on themany discussions students had about books,mentioned, "Last year I didn't have that kind

of talk going on." Both the teachers and stu-dents recognized the benefits of using audio-tapes. It seems that these audio models provid-ed a form of scaffolding that is so valuable forbeginning readers (Feitelson et al., 1993;Vygotsky, 1978). This support made it possiblefor children to read more difficult material andalso focus on meaning.

The SRSBAH group teachers were alsosignificantly more positive than teachers in theSRS group about the project's impact on stu-dents' interest in reading. Along with thisgeneral observation of increased student inter-est were other teacher observations and com-ments related specifically to changes in studentbehavior with books. As expected, data fromthe Individual Child Observation Survey re-vealed significant differences among groups inthe frequency with which children took bookshome. Teachers reported that SRSBAH chil-dren took home books more frequently thandid SRS or Control group children. Of specificinterest were the significant differences amongtreatment groups related to students' free-timeactivities. Teachers in the SRSBAH groupreported more frequently than either the SRSor the Control group teachers that their stu-dents would choose to read a book in their freetime. One SRSBAH teacher said that manystudents "wanted to listen to books again andagain." She noted the books "helped developindependence" and "encouraged positiveattitude about reading." These data on en-hanced student motivation support and extendprevious research that explored increased bookaccess (Gambrell, 1993; Guice et al., 1996)and access to books with audiotapes (Blum etal., 1995).


40


Teachers also felt that parental involvementin the home-based reading with audiotapes wasparticularly valuable. Teachers reported com-ments from parents such as: "siblings couldlisten"; "child took pride in being able to readto the whole family"; and "[reading] boostedthe kid's self-confidence." Teachers felt thebooks and tapes activity "opened parents' eyesto the importance of books in the home." Oneteacher reported, "Some [parents] have goneout and bought books."

Parents of the students participating in theSRSBAH activity were positive about theirchild's home-based reading. Eighty-five per-cent of the SRSBAH parents reported that theirchild's reading was helped "some" or "a lot"by participating in the activity. Parent re-sponses reflected awareness of specific readingbehaviors, such as the child looking at the bookwhile reading, pointing to the words, andretelling the story. As expected, SRSBAHparents' rating of the frequency of childrenbringing books home from school was signifi-cantly higher than those of SRS and Controlgroup parents. The majority of SRSBAHparents confirmed child and teacher reports thatchildren remembered to bring home and returnthe books and that children read along with thebooks and tapes regularly. Although the booksand tapes activity was designed so that childrencould complete the activity independently, itwas particularly interesting to find that almostall the children reported that other familymembers did in fact listen to them read at leastonce a week. Fifty percent of the SRSBAHchildren reported that someone listened to themread almost everyday.

The SRSBAH group parents also noted thepositive impact of the books and tapes activityon their child's motivation to read. They indi-cated that children frequently talked about thebooks they brought home for the books andtapes activity. One parent mentioned, "Hecomes out of his room laughing and talkingabout the book." These parents reported ex-panded interest in reading, reflected by thechild reading more and also reading booksother than the project books. A parent com-mented, "She's reading more and better. Thisthing is helping her a lot." Another parentreported, "He likes to read along with the tape.. . . He says it helps him learn to read." Par-ents also reported a positive response fromother family members: "He reads with hissister who is in kindergarten so she is learningto read. They like it"; "My younger childenjoys listening"; and "His younger brother islearning with him."

Another component of this study was todetermine whether there was a relationshipbetween students' English language proficiencyand their learning of literacy skills throughparticipation in a school-home reading pro-gram. While using books and tapes at homeappears to be an appealing and productivereading activity for both ESL and NES stu-dents, the findings from this study indicate thatthis activity may be especially appropriate forsecond-language learners. It is clear from thedata that most of the students in the SRSBAHgroup enjoyed reading books with tapes athome. When rating how much they liked thisactivity, however, responses of ESL studentswere significantly higher than those of NESstudents. In addition, ESL parent comments


41


pointed out some special benefits of usingbooks with tapes in an ESL household, "Thefamily is very happy that it's not only Lu canbenefit from the program, but the whole familycan benefit from listening and learning to speakEnglish." In a sense, the audiotapes put Eng-lish words "in the air" in ESL homes and, as aresult, family members became more aware oftheir child's reading. This increased socialinteraction is a vital element in fostering litera-cy learning (Guthrie, Schafer, Wang, & Affler-bach, 1993).

Certain findings related to the SRSBAHgroup suggest particular benefits for the ESLchildren with services who have been designat-ed by the school system as least proficient inspeaking and reading English. While 75 % ofthe SRSBAH children reported that they prac-ticed reading with books and tapes every day,it is interesting to note that ESL students withservices reported practicing even more fre-quently than ESL students without services. Inthe SRSBAH group, there were also significantdifferences among language proficiency groupsrelated to bringing home and returning books.Teachers observed that ESL students withservices remembered to bring home and returnbooks and tapes significantly more often. Asdiscussed in previous research with ESL stu-dents receiving services (Blum et al., 1995),home-based rereading with an audio modelprovided beginning readers an opportunity forsuccess. Their enthusiastic behavior may be anindication that students recognized this activityas a useful strategy to help them learn to read.

Teachers of SRSBAH students reported thatESL students with services produced writingthat reflected books they had reread with tapes

significantly more often than ESL studentswithout services. For these ESL students withservices, there appeared to be what Brown andCambourne (1987) refer to as linguistic spill-over between the texts students read and theirwriting. Vocabulary and text features frombooks students listened to at school and athome appeared in writing they produced inschool. The additional rereading and listeningexperiences appeared to transfer to improvedwriting.

The promising findings related to benefits ofincreasing book access with a home-basedreading program in the Blum et al. (1995)study, and the results from the current studysuggest the need for additional research tospecify the essential features of an effectiveschool-home program. While it appears thatfirst-grade students benefit from rereadingbooks with audiotapes at home, providingstudents with books, audiotapes, and taperecorders requires considerable preparation ofmaterials and is more expensive than simplyusing books. There is a need, therefore, todetermine whether home rereading of books isas effective as home rereading of books withaudiotapes in exciting interest and helpingensure success. Additionally, there continues tobe a need to investigate how the introduction ofstorybooks and audiotapes at home influenceparents' interest and support of their child'sliteracy activities.

The importance of the elementary schoolyears in shaping future reading motivation andachievement has been well-established (Alling-ton, 1994; Purcell-Gates, McIntyre, & Frep-pon, 1995; Turner, 1995). We know thatchildren who are motivated and spend more


42


time reading are better readers. As Gambrellpoints out "in order for students to develop intomature, effective readers, they must possessboth the skill and the will to read" (Gambrell,1996). With the rapidly increasing numbers ofsecond-language learners in elementary schoolclassrooms and the difficulty they are experi-encing in learning to read, educators need torespond with programs that focus on enhancingmotivation as well as achievement. Theseprograms must be appropriate for both second-language learners and native English-speakingstudents working together in the same class-room. In addition, educators need to find waysto expand and support literacy instructionbeyond the confines of the classroom. Theresults of the present study demonstrate thebenefits of increasing book access and provid-ing opportunities for rereading at school aswell as at home. The home-based reading withaudiotapes also increased students' interest inreading and promoted parental support andinvolvement in literacy activities. This study isone example of a school program that supportseffective classroom instruction in a way thathelps students develop reading expertise. Thehome-based reading, which students clearlyenjoyed, provided a way to extend literacylearning into the home environment and en-courage reading as a pleasurable activity. If wewant our children to become lifelong readers,educators need to give thoughtful considerationto developing more educational programs thatprovide meaningful reading opportunities inrecreational as well as educational settings.

References

Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1988).Achievement in the first 2 years of school:

Patterns and processes. Monographs of theSociety of Research in Child Development, 53,1 -157.

Allington, R. L. (1994). The schools we have. Theschools we need. The Reading Teacher, 48,14-29.

Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1993,October 13). What are they to read? Not allchildren, Mr. Riley, have easy access to books.Education Week, 26.

Anzalone, B., Straub, M., & Thomas, W. (1994,February): An inclusive model for the reading-writing classroom. Paper presented at the Vir-ginia State Reading Association, Arlington, VA.

Blum, I. H., Koskinen, P. S., Tennant, N., Parker,E. M., Straub, M., & Curry, C. (1995). Usingaudiotaped books to extend classroom literacyinstruction onto the homes of second-languagelearners. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27,535-563.

Blum, I. H., & Koskinen, P. S. (1991). Repeatedreading: A strategy for enhancing fluency andfostering expertise. Theory into Practice, 30,195-200.

Boyle, 0. F., & Peregoy, S. F. (1990). Literacyscaffolds: Strategies for first- and second-lan-guage readers and writers. The Reading Teach-er, 44, 194-200.

Brandt, D. (1990). Literacy as involvement: Theacts of writers, readers, and texts. Carbondale,IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Brown, H., & Camboume, B. (1987). Read andretell. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Carbo, M. (1978). Teaching reading with talkingbooks. The Reading Teacher, 32,267-273.

Chomsky, C. (1976). After decoding: What?Language Arts, 53, 288-296.

Clay, M. (1993). An observation survey of earlyliteracy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-mann.


43


Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The con-struction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Csikszentmihaly, M. (1991). Literacy and intrinsicmotivation. In S. R. Graubard (Ed.), Literacy:An overview by fourteen experts (pp. 115-140).New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Dahl, P. J. (1974). An experimental program forteaching high speed word recognition and com-prehension skills (Final Report of Project No.3-1154). Washington, DC: National Instituteof Education, Office of Research. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 099 812)

DeFord, D. (1991). Fluency in initial readinginstruction: A reading recovery lesson. TheoryInto Practice, 30, (3), 201-210.

Dowhower, S. I. (1987). Effects of repeated read-ing on second-grade transitional readers' fluencyand comprehension. Reading Research Quarter-ly, 22,389-406.

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

Elley, W. B. (1996). Lifting literacy levels withstory books: Evidence from the South Pacific,Singapore, Sri Lanka and South Africa. Paperpresented at World Conference on Literacy,Philadelphia, PA.

Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do studentsread? Hamburg, Germany: International Asso-ciation for the Evaluation of Educational Ach-ievement.

Elley, W. B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a secondlanguage: The effect of book-based programs.Language Learning, 41, (3), 375-411.

Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition fromlistening to stories. Reading Research Quarter-ly, 24, 174-187.

Elley, W. B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). Theimpact of reading on second language learning.Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53-67.

Feitelson, D., Goldstein, Z., Iraqi, J., & Share, D.L. (1993). Effects of listening to story readingon aspects of literacy acquisition in a diglossicsituation. Reading Research Quarterly, 28,71-79.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995a). English-as-a-second lan-guage learners' cognitive reading processes: Areview of research in the United States. Reviewof Educational Research, 2, 145-190.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995b). English-as-a-second lan-guage reading instruction in the United States: Aresearch review. Journal of Reading Behavior,27,115-152.

Gambrell, L. B. (1996). Creating classroom cul-tures that foster reading motivation. The Read-ing Teacher, 50, 14-25.

Gambrell, L. B. (1993). The impact of RUNNINGSTART on the reading motivation and behaviorof first-grade children. Unpublished manu-script, National Reading Research Center,University of Maryland at College Park.

Gamby, G. (1983). Talking books and tapedbooks. The Reading Teacher, 36, 366-369.

Garcia, E. (1992). Linguistically and culturallydiverse children: Effective instructional practicesand related policy issues. In H. C. Waxman, J.Walker de Felix, J. E., Anderson, & H. P.Baptiste, Jr. (Eds.), Students at risk in at risk-schools: Improving environments for learning(pp. 65-86). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

Gersten, R., & Jimenez, R. T. (1994). A delicatebalance: Enhancing literature instruction forstudents of English as a second language. TheReading Teacher, 47, 438-449.

Guice, S., Allington, R., Johnston, R., Baker, K.,& Michelson, N. (1996). Access?: Books,children, and literature-based curriculum inschools. The New Advocate, 9,197-207.

Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W., Wang, Y., & Affler-bach, P. (1993). Influences of instruction onreading engagement: An empirical exploration


44


of a social-cognitive framework of readingactivity (Reading Research Report No. 3).Athens, GA: NRRC, Universities of Georgiaand Maryland.

Hansen, K. A., & Bachu, A. (1995). The foreign-born population: 1994. In Current populationreports: Population characteristics (CensusBureau Report No. P20-486). Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Commerce.

Herman, P. A. (1985). The effect of repeatedreadings on reading rate, speech pauses, andword recognition accuracy. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 20, 553-564.

Huck, C., Hepler, S., & Hickman, J. (1993).Children's literature in the elementary school.New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Koskinen, P. S., & Blum, I. H. (1984). Repeatedoral reading and the acquisition of fluency. In J.Niles & L. Harris (Eds.), Changing perspec-tives on research in reading/language processingand instruction. Thirty-third yearbook of theNational Reading Conference (pp. 183-187).Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

Koskinen, P. S., Blum I. H., Tennant, N., Parker,E. M., Straub, M., & Curry, C. (1995). HaveYou Heard Any Good Books Lately? Encourag-ing Shared Reading at Home with Books andAudiotapes. In L. M. Morrow (Ed.), FamilyLiteracy: Connections in Schools and Communi-ties (pp. 87-103). Newark, DE: IRA.

Lau, K. S., & Cheung, S. M. (1988). Readinginterests of Chinese adolescents: Effects ofpersonal and social factors. International Jour-nal of Psychology, 23, 695-705.

McCombs, B. L. (1989). Self-regulated learningand academic achievement: A phenomenologicalview. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk(Eds.), Self-regulated learning and achievement :Theory, research, and practice (pp. 51-82).New York: Springer-Verlag.

McGill-Franzen, A. M., & Allington, R. L. (19-91). Every child's right: Literacy. The ReadingTeacher, 45, 5-11.

Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1990, May).In search of student expertise in the classroom:A metacognitive analysis. Paper presented at theConference on Cognitive Research for Instruc-tional Innovation, University of Maryland,College Park, MD.

Morrow, L. M. (1992). The impact of a litera-ture-based program on literacy achievement, useof literature, and attitudes of children fromminority backgrounds. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 27, 251-275.

O'Shea, L. J.; Sindelar, P. T., & O'Shea, D. J.(1985). The effects of repeated readings andattentional cues on reading fluency and compre-hension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17,120-142.

Oldfather, P. (1993). What students say aboutmotivating experiences in a whole languageclassroom. The Reading Teacher, 46, 672-681.

Purcell-Gates, V., McIntyre, E., & Freppon, P. A.(1995). Learning written storybook language inschool: A comparison of low-SES children inskills-based and whole language classrooms.American Educational Research Journal, 32,659-685.

Rasinski, T. V. (1990). Effects of repeated readingand listening-while-reading on reading fluency.Journal of Educational Research, 83, 147-150.

Reutzel, D. R., Hollingsworth, P. M., & Eldredge,J. L. (1994). Oral reading instruction: Theimpact on student reading development. Read-ing Research Quarterly, 29,41-62.

Ruddell, R. B. (1995). Those influential literacyteachers: Meaning negotiators and motivationbuilders. The Reading Teacher, 48, 454-463.

Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeatedreading.. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403-408.


45


Shany, M. T., & Biemiller, A. (1995). Assistedreading practice: Effects on performance forpoor readers in grades 3 and 4. Reading Re-search Quarterly, 30, 382-395.

Snow, D. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Good-man, I. F., & Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilledexpectations: Home and school influences onliteracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Teale, W. H. (1986). Home background and youngchildren's literacy development. In W. H. Teale& E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writingand reading (pp. 173-206). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

Tobin, A. W., & Pilculski, J. J. (1988). A longitu-dinal study of the reading achievement of earlyand nonearly readers through the sixth grade.National Reading Conference Yearbook, 37,49-58.

Topping, K. (1987). Paired reading: A powerfultechnique for parent use. The Reading Teacher,40, 608-614.

Trachtenberg, P., & Ferruggia, A. (1989). Bigbooks from little voices: Reaching high riskbeginning readers. The Reading Teacher, 42,284-289.

Trueba, H. T. (1989). Raising silent voices: Edu-cating the linguistic minorities for the 21stcentury. New York: Newbury House.

Turner, J. D., & Paris, S. G. (1995). How literacytasks influence children's motivation for literacy.The Reading Teacher, 48, 662-675.

Turner, J. D. (1995). The influence of classroomcontexts on young children's motivation forliteracy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,410-441.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Secre-tary. (1992, June 30). The condition of bilingualeducation in the nation: A report to Congressand the President. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Education, Office of the Secretary.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Thedevelopment of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wells, C. G. (1985). Preschool literacy-relatedactivities and success in school. In D. Olson,N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy,language, and learning: The nature and conse-quence of literacy (pp. 229-255). Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

Yaden, D. (1988). Understanding stories throughrepeated read-alouds. How many does it take?The Reading Teacher, 41, 556-560.

Author's Note. Additional support for this projectwas provided by The Wright Group and RigbyEducation publishing companies, and the CircuitCity Stores, Inc. We express our sincere apprecia-tion to the following teachers who participated inour study: Tracie Berry, Natalie Bohlmann, SallyBurdick, Tara Burke, Dianna White Gartrell, KarenKirkman, Grace Ku, Nancy McFadden, EileenMcMahon, Ellen Thomas, Mary Ann Stevener, andLee White. In addition, valuable assistance wasgiven by Linda Gambrell, Eileen Kramer, DouglasCoulson, Katherine Kane, Cynthia Lake, Qiang Ko,Norma Dunn, Amy Blum, Benjamin McGrew,Cheryl Koskinen, and Jason Goldstein.


46


Appendix


4A

APPENDIX

Books Used in the School-Home Reading Projects

TITLE PUBLISHER LEVEL' # OF WORDS

Baby Gets Dressed Wright E 16The Farm Rigby E 28The Ghost Wright E 26Go, Go, Go Wright E 17A Party Wright E 14What Are You? Rigby E 27Who Likes Ice Cream? Rigby E 15A Zoo Rigby E 28All Of Me Rigby E 25The Ball Game Rigby E 37Buffy Rigby E 31The Chocolate Cake Wright E 23The Circus Rigby E 28Don't Wake the Baby Rigby E 18Frightened Wright E 42Fruit Salad Rigby E 29In the Mirror Wright E 23Jack-in-the-box Rigby E 34Major Jump Wright E 22My HomeCowley Wright E 46Our Baby Rigby E 28A Scrumptious Sundae Rigby E 32The Tree House Wright E 32A Toy Box Rigby E 33What's for Lunch? Wright E 36Who's Coming for a Ride Rigby E 25Yuck Soup Wright E 25Big and Little Wright E 36Buzzing Flies Wright E 45Dear Santa Rigby E 49Dressing Up Rigby E 31Getting Ready for the Ball Rigby E 27I Love My Family Wright E 31In My Bed Rigby E 57Little Brother Wright E 31

'Level: E = Emergent, N = Novice, A = Apprentice, and D = Developing

48

Appendix continued

TITLE PUBLISHER LEVEL* # OF WORDS

A Monster Sandwich Wright E 36My HomeMelser Wright E 42Nighttime Wright E 44Sharing Rigby E 24Shoo! Wright E 37Silly Old Possum Wright E 41The Storm Wright E 29Sunrise Rigby E 46Teeny Tiny Tina Rigby E 34Tommy's Tummy Ache Rigby E 20Uncle Buncle's House Wright E 56What Has Spots? Rigby E 29When I Play Rigby E 31Climbing Rigby E 34Happy Birthday! Rigby E 28Houses Wright E 59In My Room Rigby E 44Little Pig Wright E 53The Monsters' Party Wright E 92Our Street Wright E 40The Pet Parade Rigby E 33The Scarecrow Rigby E 31Up in a Tree Wright E 47Wake up, Mom! Wright E 94The Bike Parade Rigby N 16The Farm Concert Wright N 74Hello Goodbye Rigby N 29Horace Wright N 56The Monkey Bridge Wright N 63Our Dog Sam Rigby N 56Reading is Everywhere Wright N 53Surprise Cake Rigby N 32We Make Music Rigby N 44What Can Fly? Rigby N 28Along Comes Jake Wright N 86


49

Appendix continued

TITLE PUBLISHER LEVEL* it OF WORDS

Bread Wright N 69Goodbye, Lucy Wright N 60Mr. Grump Wright N 77One Cold, Wet Night Wright N 134The Seed Wright N 51Too Big for Me Wright N 70Where Are You Going, Aja Rose? Wright N 100Ants Love Picnics Too Rigby N 27The Big Toe Wright N 123The Boogly Rigby N 61In a Dark, Dark Wood Wright N 81Don't You Laugh at Me! Wright N 167Grumpy Elephant Wright N 94The Haunted House Wright N 78The Present Rigby N 30The Red Rose Wright N 127Three Little Ducks Wright N 102Timmy Rigby N 54Two Little Dogs Wright N 72The Well-fed Bear Rigby N 35What Did Kim Catch? Rigby N 48Where is Nancy? Rigby N 56Baby's Birthday Rigby N 53The Best Place Rigby N 61The Farmer and the Skunk Peguis N 127Five Little Monkeys Jumping Clarion N 100+Go Back to Sleep Rigby N 74Guess What! Rigby N 28Let's Have a Swim Wright N 74Oh, A-Hunting We Will Go Atheneum N 100+Teddy Bear, Teddy Bear Peguis N 100+Who Will Be My Mother? Wright N 156Dear Zoo Four Winds A 115The Fat Pig Peguis A 100+Grandpa Snored Rigby A 52

*Level: E = Emergent, N = Novice, A = Apprentice, and D = Developing

.0

Appendix continued

TITLE PUBLISHER LEVEL* # OF WORDS

It's Not Fair Rigby A 51

Mike's New Bike Troll A 183

Pardon? Said the Giraff Harper Collins A 100+When Dad Came Home Rigby A 46When I Was Sick Rigby A 53

Come for a Swim! Wright A 100+Dad's Headache Wright A 100+The Gingerbread Boy Steck-Vaughan A 100+Helping Scholastic A 100+The Hungry Giant Wright A 100+The Lion and the Mouse Steck-Vaughan A 100+Meanies Wright A 100+Rosie's Walk Macmillan A 100+Susie Goes Shopping Troll A 100+T-Shirts Richard Owen A 100+The Wedding Rigby A 100+When Lana Was Absent Rigby A 100+The Cooking Pot Wright A 100+Greedy Cat Richard Owen A 100+Hansel and Gretel Ladybird A 100+Happy Birthday Troll A 100+I Saw A Dinosaur Rigby A 100+My Boat Wright A 100+The Carrot Seed Harper Collins A 100+It Didn't Frighten Me Scholastic A 100+Noise Wright A 100+Obadiah Wright A 100+One Monday Morning Scribners A 100+One Sock, Two Socks Gage A 100+Peanut Butter and Jelly Dutton A 100+The Terrible Tiger Wright A 100+Three Little Witches Troll A 100+Elephant in Trouble Troll D 100+Fun at Camp Troll D 100+The Giant's Boy Wright D 100+


51

Appendix continued

TITLE PUBLISHER LEVEL` # OF WORDS

The Three Little Pigs Gage D 100+The Tiny Woman's Coat Wright D 100+Goodnight Moon HarperCollins D 100+Help Me Wright D 100+I Know an Old Lady Wright D 100+I Was Walking Down the Road Scholastic D 100+The Kick-a-lot Shoes Wright D 100+Little Red Riding Hood Ladybird D 100+You'll Soon Grow into Them, Titch Greenwillow D 100+Are You My Mother? Random House D 100+Go, Dog, Go! Random House D 100+Green Eggs and Ham Random House D 100+Hop on Pop Random House D 100+I Can Read with My Eyes Shut! Random House D 100+

*Level: E = Emergent, N = Novice, A = Apprentice, and D = Developing

NationalReading ResearchCenter318 Aderhold, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-712532161 M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

53

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

IC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

Et This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

Documents

Book Access and Rereading with Audiotapes: Extending Literacy