View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teaching Parents of At-Risk Preschoolers to Employ Elaborated and Non-Elaborated Vocabulary Instruction during Shared Storybook Reading

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teaching Parents of At-Risk Preschoolers to Employ Elaborated and Non-Elaborated Vocabulary Instruction during Shared Storybook Reading
Language: English
Authors: Requa, Mary Kathryn, Chen, Yi-Jui Iva (ORCID 0000-0001-9845-5764), Irey, Robin, Cunningham, Anne E.
Source: Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 2022 36(1):159-182.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 24
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Parent Workshops, Intervention, Vocabulary Development, Parent Child Relationship, Comparative Analysis, Story Reading, Parents as Teachers, Measures (Individuals), Reading Achievement, Correlation, At Risk Persons, Preschool Children, Family Environment, Intelligence Tests, Verbal Ability, Vocabulary, Federal Programs, Disadvantaged Youth
Geographic Terms: California
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test
DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2021.1931579
ISSN: 0256-8543
Abstract: This study examines the influence of a parent workshop intervention on vocabulary acquisition of at-risk preschool children during parent-child shared storybook reading. Sixty-nine parents were randomly assigned to either treatment or control group. In the treatment condition, parents were taught to implement elaborated vocabulary instruction (definitions, synonyms, and examples) and non-elaborated vocabulary instruction (simple definitions only) during shared storybook reading (SSR). In the control group (stories only), parents read the same storybooks as the treatment families but did not provide direct vocabulary instruction. Children's vocabulary learning was assessed using a researcher-designed assessment, Big Words for Little People (BWLP), at three time points during the study: before, after, and 14 days following the end of the intervention. The results suggest that meaningful explanations of unfamiliar words during parent-child shared storybook reading may be a viable strategy for fostering vocabulary learning, which is critical for later reading achievement.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1326222
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGHG0h95v_h5WJ-zXWehbnkAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEoM1LTmsivDFjPcHwIBEICBm-n_CGQawsTPy9jf2FIw2NrnPJaXTMkYUSqt1FWDbcqnRLE0FwF2T10PZv-oGmgMhL68N-hvYWzm4osVE0Q1kncwpBAR4HM_j4J8vMPKk-e9TZwg77Jl32EPjBFM0EZ0WO4z2hIEGc8bx4FFXbRKBeA8F7_HUEZygQLqmYrviIMLnYVtZ7rnDH3jf102tTds8n8Atn_oQipjAEC2
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0154689337;40z01jan.22;2022Jan18.05:51;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0154689337-1">Teaching Parents of At-Risk Preschoolers to Employ Elaborated and Non-Elaborated Vocabulary Instruction During Shared Storybook Reading </title> <p>This study examines the influence of a parent workshop intervention on vocabulary acquisition of at-risk preschool children during parent-child shared storybook reading. Sixty-nine parents were randomly assigned to either treatment or control group. In the treatment condition, parents were taught to implement elaborated vocabulary instruction (definitions, synonyms, and examples) and non-elaborated vocabulary instruction (simple definitions only) during shared storybook reading (SSR). In the control group (stories only), parents read the same storybooks as the treatment families but did not provide direct vocabulary instruction. Children's vocabulary learning was assessed using a researcher-designed assessment, Big Words for Little People (BWLP), at three time points during the study: before, after, and 14 days following the end of the intervention. The results suggest that meaningful explanations of unfamiliar words during parent-child shared storybook reading may be a viable strategy for fostering vocabulary learning, which is critical for later reading achievement.</p> <p>Keywords: Elaborated and non-elaborated vocabulary instruction; parent-child home literacy experiences; shared storybook reading</p> <p>The home environment, the context in which children first encounter language and literacy, plays a crucial role in children's early literacy development (Bennet et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref1">9</reflink>]; Weinberger, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref2">99</reflink>]). In <emph>Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading</emph>, Anderson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]) stated, "The single most important activity for building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading is reading aloud to children" (p. 23). The American Academy of Pediatrics (2015) suggests that parent-child reading advances cognitive development and recommends that parents begin this practice at birth (Hutton et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref4">47</reflink>]). Parents are urged to read to their children early and often; however, some families lack the resources and/or knowledge needed to engage in high-quality reading experiences with their children (Korat et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref5">54</reflink>]; Neuman et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref6">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>The volume (quantity) and diversity of language (quality) that a child hears at home during the early years predicts a child's vocabulary size (Biemiller, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref7">10</reflink>]) and later reading ability (Hirsch, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref8">45</reflink>]). Hart and Risley ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref9">43</reflink>]) suggest that children's oral language is related to the quality of the language input provided by parents. In their research, children from economically advantaged homes (e.g., children of professional parents) had receptive vocabularies that were as much as five times larger than that of children from lower socio-economic status (SES) households (e.g., families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children), presumably because of differences in language input. In low-income households, there may be challenges for families to provide adequate environments to foster the development of language (Snow et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref10">86</reflink>]), resulting in distinct disadvantages when children from those households learn to read. These children often enter kindergarten 12–18 months behind middle-class children in vocabulary knowledge (Farkas & Beron, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref11">35</reflink>]; Layzer & Price, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref12">57</reflink>]), undermining their later reading and school success (Beck & McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>]; Biemiller, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]; Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref15">27</reflink>]; National Early Literacy Panel, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref16">65</reflink>]). Indeed, about half of children in poverty cannot meet basic reading proficiency criteria in grade 4 (Kena et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref17">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>Students from low-SES homes are exposed to fewer language learning activities at home; they are read to and talked to less, and as a result they have knowledge of far fewer words than their middle- and upper-class peers (Evans, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref18">34</reflink>]; Hulsey et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref19">46</reflink>]). Hart and Risley ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref20">44</reflink>]) estimate that the average child from a professional family is exposed to about 42 million words, compared to 13 million for a child from a poor family before entering formal schooling. Thus, interventions that focus on encouraging parental talk can begin to reduce significant differences in vocabulary knowledge among young children from varying socioeconomic households (Landry et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref21">56</reflink>]; Mendelsohn et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref22">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Learning the meanings of new words is an essential component of early reading development (Roskos et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref23">75</reflink>]). Vocabulary, the store of word knowledge available in an individual's lexicon, is the foundation of oral language comprehension and sets the stage for later reading comprehension (Beck & McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>]; Snow et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref25">86</reflink>]). The size of children's vocabulary knowledge is strongly related to how well they will come to understand what they read (Stahl & Nagy, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref26">89</reflink>]).</p> <p>Vocabulary instruction may be especially applicable to preschool programs such as Head Start that serve large populations of low-income, English- and Spanish-speaking children. Young dual language learners from non-English-speaking homes with a low socioeconomic status are at an even greater risk for poor academic achievement (Halle et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref27">41</reflink>]). Because of these risks and the consequential achievement gap often faced by this population, more research is needed on the activities and contexts that encourage novel vocabulary acquisition during SSR (Lipsky, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref28">58</reflink>]; Walsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref29">97</reflink>]). English- and Spanish-speaking children's early vocabulary development may be enhanced through parent implementation of effective word learning strategies in their native language (Collier & Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref30">23</reflink>]; Oller & Eilers, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref31">69</reflink>]; Rolstad et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref32">74</reflink>]). In order to improve vocabulary outcomes for all children, there is a need to provide parents with the necessary tools to support oral language development and vocabulary knowledge in the home prior to entering formal schooling.</p> <p>Adult-child storybook reading interactions provide highly contextualized exposures to novel words in a routine that is authentic, familiar, and often motivating to young children (Roth, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref33">76</reflink>]). Children's early exposure to books is related to the development of vocabulary and listening comprehension skills and these language skills are directly related to children's reading in later grades (Sénéchal & LeFevre, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref34">80</reflink>]). Although reading aloud with children has long been considered an essential activity for the development of language and literacy skills, there remains uncertainty about how to provide high-quality reading experiences between adult/child dyads and how many encounters with print are sufficient to influence oral language outcomes. As children's first teachers, parents are uniquely qualified to improve their child's vocabulary knowledge through vocabulary instruction during shared reading experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-2">Early vocabulary instruction</hd> <p>There is an emerging consensus that some children require and benefit from intensive vocabulary interventions early in development (Neuman & Dwyer, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref35">68</reflink>]). These interventions need to accelerate – not simply improve – children's vocabulary development in order to narrow the achievement gap. To substantially narrow the vocabulary gap between children from varying backgrounds, we need to better understand the potential impact of parental interventions specifically targeted to accelerating young children's word learning.</p> <p>Vocabulary gains are higher when instruction is provided to define unfamiliar words (Marulis & Neuman, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref36">61</reflink>]) via definitions, synonyms, and examples (Chlapana & Tafa, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]; Damhuis et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref38">25</reflink>]). While research indicates that simply reading stories out loud positively impacts vocabulary development (Penno et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref39">70</reflink>]; Sénéchal, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref40">77</reflink>]), the effects are greater when supplemented with explicit word teaching techniques (McBride-Chang, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref41">62</reflink>]). Notably, this instruction does not need to be provided by a teacher; rather, parents can enhance oral language development by engaging in dialogic reading (pointing, providing definitions, or asking children questions) when reading to their children (Sim et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref42">84</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-3">Shared storybook reading (SSR)</hd> <p>Traditionally, reading storybooks aloud has been a source of entertainment for parents and children alike and is a daily routine in many households (Bus, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]). In a research context, this activity has become known as shared storybook reading (SSR) and is defined as early reading activities involving the presence of a book and an adult reading aloud with or to children (Durkin, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref44">31</reflink>]/1975; Wells, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref45">100</reflink>]). The interactions between parent and child that occur during SSR have significant outcomes in terms of oral language development, emergent literacy skills, and later academic achievement (Sénéchal & LeFevre, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref46">78</reflink>]; Sénéchal et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref47">81</reflink>]; Shahaeian et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref48">83</reflink>]). SSR provides the adult with the opportunity to engage in positive and meaningful literacy-oriented interactions with children.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-4">SSR as a mechanism to promote literacy skills</hd> <p>A meta-analysis conducted by the National Early Literacy Panel ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref49">65</reflink>]) confirmed that the best predictors of later literacy achievement are language, print awareness (including alphabet knowledge), and phonological awareness, and these skills can be targeted in order to prevent literacy difficulties. SSR can provide an appropriate context for targeting these skills. Studies have shown that print referencing strategies improve print awareness skills (Justice & Ezell, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref50">49</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref51">50</reflink>]; Lovelace & Stewart, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref52">60</reflink>]; Stahl, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref53">87</reflink>]; Van Bysterveldt et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref54">96</reflink>]). These strategies focus children's attention on the forms (e.g., alphabet letters), conventions (e.g., reading directionality), and functions (e.g., print represents speech) of print. During SSR, the adult can systematically use nonverbal cues, such as following the text with his or her finger while reading, or verbal cues, such as interrupting reading in order to talk about print concepts.</p> <p>Research focused specifically on vocabulary development through SSR (e.g., Elley, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref55">33</reflink>]; Justice et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref56">51</reflink>]; Penno et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref57">70</reflink>]; Robbins & Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref58">72</reflink>]; Sénéchal, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref59">77</reflink>]) suggest two main factors can improve vocabulary learning: repeated exposure and elaboration of the meaning of words. According to the National Reading Panel ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref60">66</reflink>]), explicit instruction of vocabulary is highly effective. To develop vocabulary intentionally and deepen children's knowledge of word meanings, students should be explicitly taught specific words. Thus, SSR may be a powerful means by which to improve children's later skilled reading comprehension. Elaborated exposures may be more powerful for stimulating word learning compared to non-elaborated, incidental encounters (Nagy & Herman, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref61">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>A strong and well-established link between vocabulary and later reading comprehension has long been documented (Anderson & Freebody, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>]; Anderson & Nagy, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>]) as well as the important role that vocabulary knowledge plays in the successful acquisition of later skilled comprehension (Catts et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref64">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref65">19</reflink>]; Chaney, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref66">20</reflink>]). A recent longitudinal examination of the association of SSR and children's later academic achievement indicated that early shared reading was associated with children's academic achievement directly and indirectly through receptive vocabulary and early academic skills (Shahaeian et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref67">83</reflink>]). The size of children's vocabulary knowledge is strongly linked to what they will eventually be able to comprehend as they learn to read text. Sénéchal and LeFevre ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref68">80</reflink>]) conducted a five-year longitudinal study with 168 middle- and upper middle-class children in which they explored early home literacy experiences, receptive language, emergent literacy skills, and reading achievement. Results suggest that children's early exposure to books was related to the development of vocabulary and listening comprehension skills, and that these language skills were directly related to children's reading in Grade 3. Results of recent meta-analyses of the impact on improving word learning from SSR indicate the interactions between adults and children during SSR significantly influence the number of new words children learn from shared storybook reading (Flack et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref69">37</reflink>]; Wasik et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref70">98</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-5">SSR as an intervention to promote word learning</hd> <p>The existing literature on the positive effects of SSR suggests two promising findings: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>) instruction of word meanings in the context of storybooks can accelerate vocabulary growth (Elley, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref72">33</reflink>]; Justice et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref73">51</reflink>]; Penno et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref74">70</reflink>]; Robbins & Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref75">72</reflink>]; Sénéchal, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref76">77</reflink>]), and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>) exposure to novel words through repeated readings of storybooks influences children's vocabulary development (Eller et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref78">32</reflink>]; Elley, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref79">33</reflink>]). It appears that children make more gains in vocabulary development when the adult reader engages the child in SSR that focuses on learning novel word meanings.</p> <p>The interactions between adults and children during SSR significantly influence the number of new words children learn from SSR (Flack et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref80">37</reflink>]; Wasik et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref81">98</reflink>]). More specifically, children exposed to SSR in the context of a parental intervention study showed greater gains than control children in expressive vocabulary, rhyme, and concepts about print (Sim et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref82">84</reflink>]). Additionally, Jeynes ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref83">48</reflink>]) found that parental interventions that targeted SSR and included guidance in the use of explicit literacy strategies (e.g., asking questions; Chlapana & Tafa, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref84">22</reflink>]; Damhuis et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref85">25</reflink>]) resulted in tangible vocabulary outcomes that lead to improved academic performance. However, SSR is a highly variable construct and the formats and techniques differ across contexts, so an investigation determining which are most effective is needed.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-6">Dialogic reading</hd> <p>One type of shared storybook reading interaction is dialogic reading, which emphasizes the importance of dialogue between the adult and child about the book. Dialogic reading strategies actively engage the child through sentence completion; recall; open-ended, wh-, and distancing questions, and can produce measurable gains in children's language skills and expressive vocabulary (Arnold et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref86">5</reflink>]; Arnold & Whitehurst, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref87">6</reflink>]; Lonigan & Whitehurst, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref88">59</reflink>]; Valdez-Menchaca & Whitehurst, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref89">95</reflink>]; Whitehurst et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref90">102</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref91">103</reflink>]).</p> <p>The National Reading Panel ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref92">66</reflink>]) recommends word learning instruction be taught through embedded activities during parent/child interactions, such as SSR. There are several components of effective vocabulary instruction that can be incorporated in SSR: defining words, questioning as a means to promote discussion, re-telling, re-reading, using realia to illustrate word meanings, and providing activities that promote discussion of vocabulary (Wasik et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref93">98</reflink>]). Embedding these vocabulary practices in an SSR intervention can accelerate the development of oral language and vocabulary skills (Pollard-Durodola et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref94">71</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-7">Elaborated and non-elaborated vocabulary instruction</hd> <p>Justice et al. ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref95">51</reflink>]) examined the extent to which kindergartners learned the meaning of novel vocabulary words using elaborated versus non-elaborated techniques. Elaborated word instruction provides children with additional exposure to words beyond what is customary in typical SSR and plays an important role in developing vocabulary. In elaborated word instruction, the adult introduces a word that the child does not know and provides a definition, a synonym, and an example of its use in a familiar, everyday context. In non-elaborated word instruction, children are taught new, unfamiliar words as they occur in the text of storybooks with simple definitional explanations provided by the adult reader (Justice et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref96">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research suggests elaborated instruction may provide the most optimal strategy in influencing positive growth for young word learners. Coyne et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref97">24</reflink>]) found statistically significant differences in new word learning favoring words taught with elaborated instruction over words receiving only incidental (non-elaborated) exposure during story reading on all measures. Even more promising, moderate to large effect sizes were found for the word elaboration condition, indicating that direct instruction of vocabulary results in reliably greater word learning in kindergarten students than does incidental exposure (Justice et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref98">51</reflink>]). More recently, Vaahtoranta et al. ([<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref99">94</reflink>]) found that when experimenters used the elaborated techniques of defining and explaining novel words when reading stories to kindergarten children, it resulted in large gains (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.54) in targeted receptive vocabulary from pretest to posttest.</p> <p>In their meta-analysis of word learning techniques used during SSR, Marulis and Neuman ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref100">61</reflink>]) examined explicit instruction, which emphasized directly teaching new and novel words using definitions and examples given before, during, or after a storybook reading. They coded strategies as "implicit" when the method of instruction was exposure to words within the context of an activity, such as a storybook reading activity, without intentional stopping or deliberate teaching of word meanings. They found that children made significantly higher gains with interventions that used an explicit (elaborated) method, g = 1.11, SE = 0.13, 95% CI = [0.83, 1.40], than those that employed an implicit method only, g = 0.62, SE = 0.084, 95%CI = [0.46, −.78], Q(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref101">2</reflink>) = 18.36, <emph>p</emph> <.001. While Marulis and colleagues' description of explicit instruction aligns with our elaborated instructional method, the implicit treatment did not include definitional support during SSR. However, the non-elaborated approach in the current study required parents to provide very brief definitions of novel words encountered as they appeared in targeted storybook text during SSR.</p> <p>While previous research has recognized that elaborated instructional techniques that include specific word definitions can influence successful word learning, Dickinson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref102">26</reflink>]) found that acquisition of new vocabulary can be fostered through exposure to many unknown words during shared book reading, without specific word meanings provided. Their results also suggest, however, that children build meaningful word knowledge from intentional adult instruction where word definitions and examples are supplied (Dickinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref103">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-8">Repeated reading</hd> <p>Research suggests that repeated book reading episodes have positive effects on the expressive language of young children (Carey, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref104">17</reflink>]; Eller et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref105">32</reflink>]; Elley, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref106">33</reflink>]; Trivette et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref107">91</reflink>]). Frequent, repeated exposures to new words, either within the context of a single book or through repeated readings of the same book, facilitate children's learning of words (Elley, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref108">33</reflink>]; Penno et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref109">70</reflink>]; Robbins & Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref110">72</reflink>]; Sénéchal, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref111">77</reflink>]). Brett et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref112">14</reflink>]) argued that repeated readings of a story might not be necessary for vocabulary acquisition if new words are explained as they occur in the story. However, Brabham and Lynch-Brown ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref113">13</reflink>]) found that explaining target words during three repeated readings of storybooks provided greater retention of vocabulary, suggesting that the impact of multiple exposures to a novel word facilitates vocabulary learning. While there is limited research to clarify the number of times parents should read to children on a weekly basis, the U.S. Department of Education Early Childhood – Head Start Task Force ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref114">92</reflink>]) recommends that young children be read to several times a day in the preschool classroom and in the home environment.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-9">Research gap</hd> <p>To identify the best early predictors of literacy acquisition in preschool-age children, the National Early Literacy Panel (National Early Literacy Panel, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref115">65</reflink>]) conducted a meta-analysis of 299 studies. They found a significant effect for home literacy activities and parents' reading behaviors on children's oral language. Research on how parents can promote high-quality language development for preschool-age children is, in fact, quite limited. Of the 16 studies included in the National Early Literacy Panel ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref116">65</reflink>]) meta-analysis focusing on oral language interventions, only three were interventions in which only parents provided the instruction. The results of these three studies are promising and achieved large mean effect size (<emph>ES</emph> = 1.35, 95% CI = [0.56, 2.14]) that were statistically significant (<emph>p</emph><.006).</p> <p>Studies targeting vocabulary learning included in the National Early Literacy Panel ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref117">65</reflink>]) meta-analysis used simple pretest–posttest designs, with no control groups, which made it difficult for the panel to determine whether any gains were due to instruction or to typical maturation. Notably, our project featured a pre-posttest matched pairs design with a treatment group and a control (stories only) group to circumvent this challenge.</p> <p>This study addresses a significant research gap, particularly in the context of shared reading interventions implemented by parents at home. The majority of rigorous book reading studies continue to be conducted in classroom settings with teachers and researchers implementing the book reading, often under artificial conditions (Wasik et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref118">98</reflink>]). Wasik et al. ([<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref119">98</reflink>]) reviewed the literature on book reading and vocabulary development among young children with a particular focus on vocabulary learning through book reading. In their analysis of 36 book reading studies, they found only two studies that were conducted entirely in homes by parents (Wasik et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref120">98</reflink>]). The two studies that were included in their analysis used parent self-reporting measures to examine book reading experiences in the home environment, making it difficult to ascertain reliability and implementation fidelity. More observational measures, especially for use in the context of family-focused book reading interventions, are needed.</p> <p>Sim et al. ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref121">84</reflink>]) investigated a shared reading intervention with parents to enhance young children's early literacy skills. The study examined the effects of a home reading intervention (dialogic reading) provided by parents to 5- to 6-year-old children prior to formal schooling. Their findings suggest that the shared reading intervention offered by parents at home had beneficial effects on children's language skills, with children exposed to the shared reading intervention showing greater gains than control children in expressive vocabulary. This supports the importance of engaging parents in the development of emergent literacy by explicitly teaching parents to engage in specific strategies when reading to their children. Results of research conducted by Teepe and colleagues (Teepe et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref122">90</reflink>]) show strong support that training parents' interaction behavior through activities such as modeling, opportunities to practice, and interactive discussions in a family literacy program facilitates children's vocabulary development. The extent to which interactive "parenting education" enhances the effects of vocabulary learning specifically is an important question that has not been investigated in a sufficiently rigorous way (Grindal et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref123">40</reflink>]). In order for future research in this area to influence policymakers and practitioners, further investigation is needed to ascertain the promise of home-based, parent interventions. Our study identifies the potential of parent interventions for promoting children's emergent literacy skills.</p> <p>Given the importance of vocabulary and the unique benefits of book reading as a vehicle for word learning, more research on the specific aspects of SSR that are effective at improving word learning is warranted. Our investigation examines parents' implementation of explicit instructional behaviors to improve children's vocabulary acquisition. Studies such as ours help to expand the relatively small number of interventions that rely on parents specifically to enhance children's vocabulary development (e.g., Dialogic Reading; Whitehurst & Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref124">101</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-10">Current study</hd> <p>We provided an intervention workshop for parent participants in the treatment group focused on instructional word learning strategies to implement effective teaching opportunities to benefit their children to prepare them for formal school entry and beyond. The parent workshops were presented in an interactive, engaging, and informative format that brought families of young children together to support their children's language development. We examined two vocabulary instructional methods: elaborated and non-elaborated word instruction. The following research questions were addressed in the study:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Are there differences in target vocabulary learning between at-risk English-speaking and dual language Spanish-speaking preschool-age children whose parents participated in a vocabulary intervention workshop (treatment) and children whose parents did not attend the workshop (control)?</item> <p></p> <item> Are there differences in vocabulary learning between elaborated meaning instruction and non-elaborated meaning instruction?</item> <p></p> <item> Do at-risk preschool-age children whose caregivers participate in an intervention workshop sustain targeted vocabulary word knowledge two weeks following intervention?</item> <p></p> <item> Are there positive associations between the frequency of SSR (two or four repeated readings of the same storybook each week) and children's vocabulary learning, both immediately following the conclusion of the intervention and two weeks following the study's conclusion as measured on a researcher created targeted word assessment?</item> </ulist> <p>We hypothesized that preschool-age children whose parents participated in the intervention workshop would acquire and retain knowledge of the targeted vocabulary words as a result of the instructional strategies employed by their parents during SSR and at both posttests. We also hypothesized that elaborated instruction was a more effective way to facilitate children's vocabulary acquisition than non-elaborated instruction. Further, the dosage (two times versus four times per week) of shared reading sessions on targeted word learning may influence children's vocabulary acquisition.</p> <p>Because parents provide literacy learning experiences and activities at home, it is of critical importance to educate them about strategies to teach their children more effectively. One way to do this is through a parent/caregiver intervention designed to teach direct vocabulary instruction to children during SSR (e.g., elaborated and non-elaborated vocabulary instruction) in the home environment. In order to expand our understanding of the effects of parent-only interventions on language learning, we investigated the effects of coordinating a home and parent program focused on parents' home literacy behaviors and the influence of frequent, elaborated and non-elaborated vocabulary instruction during SSR.</p> <p>To do this, our study asked participating families to conduct the required activities of the study in their natural home environment over the course of each week during the four weeks of the study at times that were convenient to both child and parent. We provided a series of three parent instructional workshops designed for parents of Head Start preschool-age English- and dual language, Spanish-speaking children. The three parent information sessions provided in this study used a combination of interactive discussions, demonstrations, role-playing with feedback, handouts, and coaching (see Appendix B). Parents were taught both an elaborated and non-elaborated vocabulary teaching approach. The elaborated method focused on teaching target word meanings (three words in each storybook) in pre-selected storybooks through definitions, synonyms, and examples. Non-elaborated instruction exposed the child participants to word meanings within the context of the storybooks via simple definitions of pre-selected, targeted words (three words in each storybook). To measure individual differences in vocabulary ability prior to the study, receptive and expressive assessments revealed that no statistically significant differences were found between participants, indicating that the children were comparable before the intervention (see Table 2). To measure individual differences of targeted vocabulary knowledge of the child participants, a researcher-created vocabulary assessment, Big Words for Little People (BWLP), was used.</p> <p>Table 1. Percent of fidelity by treatment dosage groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Treatment: Elaborated Word Instruction (%) Executed</td><td>Treatment: Non-elaborated Word Instruction (%) Executed</td><td /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Group 1</td><td>79</td><td>70</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Group 2</td><td>74</td><td>76</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> Group 1<emph> = two repeated readings each week of intervention</emph>. Group 2<emph> = four repeated readings each week of intervention.</emph></p> <p>Table 2. Participant characteristics at the start of intervention</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Treatment (<italic>n</italic> = 42)</td><td>Control (<italic>n</italic> = 30)</td><td><italic>t</italic>-Test comparisons</td></tr><tr><td>Variable</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>Min</td><td>Max</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>Min</td><td>Max</td><td><italic>t</italic>(70)</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Cohen's <italic>d</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age (months)</td><td>54.26</td><td>5.31</td><td>44</td><td>62</td><td>52.26</td><td>5.12</td><td>45</td><td>62</td><td>1.59</td><td>.12</td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td>PPVT</td><td>98.47</td><td>15.02</td><td>74</td><td>137</td><td>96.23</td><td>13.10</td><td>72</td><td>123</td><td>0.66</td><td>.51</td><td>0.16</td></tr><tr><td>EOWPVT</td><td>95.59</td><td>16.96</td><td>55</td><td>134</td><td>97.56</td><td>14.40</td><td>58</td><td>130</td><td>–0.52</td><td>.61</td><td>–0.12</td></tr><tr><td>BWLP pre</td><td>7.00</td><td>2.33</td><td>3</td><td>13</td><td>7.43</td><td>2.77</td><td>0</td><td>12</td><td>−0.72</td><td>.48</td><td>–0.17</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>. PPVT = standard score on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.; Dunn & Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref125">29</reflink>]); EOWPVT = standard score on the Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.; Gardner, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref126">38</reflink>]); BWLP pre = vocabulary raw score on the pretest target vocabulary list.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-11">Method</hd> <p>Using a between-subjects design, we introduced two instructional strategies in a series of three intervention workshops to parents of preschool children in the treatment condition (N = 39). The remaining families were assigned to the control (stories only) condition (N = 30) and did not receive the instructional intervention. Within both control and treatment groups, families were randomly assigned to one of two subgroups for frequency of shared storybook reading (two or four repeated readings per week). Participants were randomly assigned using a table of numbers to arbitrarily assign family dyads to the reading frequency subgroups (Fisher, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref127">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Child participants were matched using expressive and receptive word knowledge and then their families were randomly placed in either treatment or control groups. Additionally, at pretest, posttest 1, and posttest 2, all participants were administered a measure assessing selected vocabulary from the stories used in the storybook intervention. The National Reading Panel ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref128">66</reflink>]) concluded that specific vocabulary growth is best assessed through researcher-developed measures because these measures are more sensitive to gains achieved through instruction than are standardized tools. To assess specific vocabulary growth, we developed a 24-word instrument, Big Words for Little People (BWLP), in which children were asked to identify word meanings through a receptive vocabulary measure of target words.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-12">Research design</hd> <p>A pretest, posttest 1, and posttest 2, matched pairs research design was used to examine the effect of a workshop designed to teach parents how to provide their children with elaborated and non-elaborated vocabulary instruction during SSR. Students were matched on English or Spanish verbal ability as measured by the <emph>Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Fourth Edition</emph> (PPVT – 4; Dunn & Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref129">29</reflink>]), or <emph>Test de Vocabulario en Imganes Peabody: Adaptacion Hispanoamericans</emph> (Dunn et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref130">30</reflink>]) and the <emph>Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-4th Edition</emph> (EOWPVT – 4; Gardner, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref131">38</reflink>]) and then randomly assigned to either the treatment or the control (stories only) group (Figure 1).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Overview of the experimental design</p> <p>At pretest, there was an equal distribution of mean scores among all participants using the standard scores on the PPVT-4, the EOWPVT – 4, and the raw scores on the BWLP (Table 2). There were no systematic differences between the treatment and comparison groups (Table 2). For dual language, Spanish-speaking families, all child assessments, parent workshops, word meaning labels, and storybooks were provided in Spanish.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-13">Participants</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0154689337-14">Sampling frame</hd> <p>Participants for this study were recruited from Northern California YMCA Head Start early childhood education programs. The YMCA has been serving low-income children and their families since 1972.</p> <p>Participants were drawn from six preschool classrooms in six Northern California YMCA Head Start preschools. The six schools were located within several miles of one another in urban communities in the region. Each school contained approximately 20 to 30 preschool students (approximately 4 years of age) and primarily served families with low SES, according to the Poverty Guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref132">93</reflink>]). The schools were ethnically diverse: The composition of the combined populations of the participating Northern California YMCA Head Start preschools was 38.5% African American, 8.4% White, 35% Hispanic, and 5% other.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-15">Participant description</hd> <p>The children of the 78 consenting families (36 males, 42 females) ranged in age from 44 months to 61 months, with a mean age of 52.26 months (<emph>SD</emph> = 5.12) at entry to the study. Eighteen children were White, non-Hispanic (25%); 20 children were Black, non-Hispanic (28%); 28 children were Hispanic (40%); and three children were Asian or Pacific Islander (4%). Children who did not meet qualification criteria included those who were not considered adequately proficient in English or Spanish based on teacher recommendation and/or observation (e.g., Chinese- and Arabic-speaking children) and children who qualified for special services through an individualized education plan.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-16">Sample attrition</hd> <p>Of the 78 total families who agreed to participate at the beginning of the study, nine families (12% of the consenting sample) subsequently left the study and did not complete the intervention. This attrition rate is less than the 30% benchmark suggested for group-design treatment research (Gersten et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref133">39</reflink>]). The explanations that parents gave for non-completion included illness-related issues (<emph>n</emph> = 1), relocation (<emph>n</emph> = 2), and immigration status (<emph>n</emph> = 6). Families who enroll in Head Start are not required to be authorized U.S. residents and the parents of six families who withdrew from participation expressed concern about their immigration status and the use of videotape for research purposes. Sixty-nine families agreed to participate and completed the study; 39 families were assigned to the treatment condition and 30 families were assigned to the control (stories only) group.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-17">Treatment group</hd> <p>Parents in the treatment group attended a series of three instructional workshops over the course of four weeks, each approximately 45 minutes in length, to acquire elaborated and non-elaborated vocabulary teaching techniques to employ with their preschool child during SSR. The training sessions, presented in both English and Spanish, focused on the positive effects of shared reading with vocabulary instruction for preschoolers. Demonstrations were interactive and included role-playing and practice, informational handouts, and coaching support for parents.</p> <p>During workshop sessions, parents were provided information about the benefits of shared reading, the importance of vocabulary development for successful transition to formal schooling and beyond, and the procedures to conduct effective vocabulary instruction during SSR. Parents then were instructed to conduct direct instruction using both elaborated and non-elaborated methods during SSR. All parents were given the same preselected storybook each week during the course of the four-week intervention. Each family was given a video recorder to document their SSR experiences at home for fidelity purposes. Instructions for the operation of the video camera were provided.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-18">Control group (stories only)</hd> <p>Families in the control group received the same storybooks (one each week), but no other information was provided. They had no knowledge of the targeted words, received no instruction regarding the vocabulary learning strategies, and were asked to simply read the assigned stories to their child and record the sessions. Each family was given a video recorder to document their SSR experiences. The control group also received instructions about how to operate the video camera for recording SSR activities at home.</p> <p>In order to reduce the potential confound of a Hawthorne effect (Roethlisberger & Dickinson, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref134">73</reflink>]), parents in the control group were given an instructional workshop that targeted mathematics games and activities. During the course of the intervention period, parents in the control group were given a math instructional intervention to alleviate the potential effects of preference or bias among participants.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-19">Word-level manipulation</hd> <p>Parents assigned to the treatment group, presented half of the words (12 words) using the elaborated instructional method and half of the words (12 words) using the non-elaborated method for each storybook (Appendix A). To support parents while conducting effective SSR with elaborated vocabulary instruction, the researcher modeled the requisite methods of elaborated and non-elaborated vocabulary instruction. Scripted adhesive labels were pasted onto the pages of preselected storybooks where the targeted words first appeared. Parents in the treatment group were asked to use both methods of vocabulary instruction during each session and to video-record the parent-child SSR interactions. Depending on the word, parents in the treatment group used either the elaborated or non-elaborated method to provide vocabulary instruction about that word during shared reading. In other words, the manipulation of the instructional method (e.g., elaborated and non-elaborated) was within the treatment group at the word level.</p> <p> <emph>• Elaborated vocabulary instruction</emph>. The elaborated vocabulary instruction emphasized precise definitions, synonyms, and examples of word meanings. Parents directly taught the meaning of new, unfamiliar words at the point at which they occurred in the storybooks. Specifically, at the end of a sentence where a target word appeared, the adult reader stopped reading to provide the definition of the word followed by an example of its use, or provided a synonym to help explain its meaning (Justice et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref135">51</reflink>]). For example, the word <emph>slunk</emph> was defined on an adhesive label as "to move quietly away." Then, the synonym <emph>sneak</emph> was provided on the label. Lastly, an example of <emph>slunk</emph> was included on the label: "The dog slunk away after chewing up the man's slipper."</p> <p> <emph>• Non-elaborated vocabulary instruction</emph>. For the non-elaborated vocabulary instruction, only definitions of the targeted words were provided in the storybooks on the adhesive labels. Synonyms and examples of word meanings were not provided. When words requiring non-elaborated instruction were encountered in the story, parents provided the child with a simple definition of the word (Stahl & Fairbanks, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref136">88</reflink>]) and continued with the story. For example, the word <emph>peered</emph> was selected as a word to be taught using the non-elaborated method. The definition, "to look very hard at something that is difficult to see," was written on an adhesive label placed in the storybook where the word first appeared.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-20">Measures</hd> <p>Three assessments were administered to all child participants in a private setting in the children's schools by the researcher prior to the start of the investigation. Two assessments were used to measure children's receptive and expressive vocabulary knowledge. One researcher-designed assessment, <emph>Big Words for Little People</emph> (BWLP), was used to measure changes in children's vocabulary knoweldge between the pretest, posttest 1, and posttest 2.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-21">Receptive language measure</hd> <p>The <emph>Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test</emph> (4th ed.; PPVT-4; Dunn & Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref137">29</reflink>]), a measure of receptive language, was administered individually to each child participant before the start of the study. The PPVT-4 is a standardized, individually administered test of receptive language and vocabulary that assesses an individual's ability to comprehend word meanings. Participants were presented with four pictures and asked to point to the picture that corresponds with the word provided orally by the examiner.</p> <p>Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP; Dunn et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref138">30</reflink>]) is based on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT – 4), a leading measure of receptive vocabulary. TVIP contains 125 translated items to assess the vocabulary of Spanish-speaking and bilingual students. Standard scores were derived based on the number of correct items and the child's chronological age. The PPVT – 4 and TVIP have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Reported test-retest reliability is.77 (Dunn & Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref139">28</reflink>]; Dunn et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref140">30</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-22">Expressive language measure</hd> <p>Children's expressive language ability was measured before the start of the study using the <emph>Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test</emph> (4th ed.; EOWPVT-4; Gardner, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref141">38</reflink>]). This assessment was used as (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref142">1</reflink>) an index of expressive vocabulary achievement (words the child understands, can retrieve from his lexicon, and can use to express ideas orally), and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref143">2</reflink>) a screening test of verbal ability. Adminstration of this measure took place before the intervention period began. The child was presented with a picture and asked to identify it using one word. Alpha coefficients reported in the EOWPVT – 4 manual for the sample age group range from.93 to.97.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-23">Big Words for Little People outcome measure</hd> <p>The BWLP, a researcher created picture vocabulary test, was used to measure children's pre-intervention and post-intervention receptive knowledge of 24 target words at three time points: pretest, posttest 1, and posttest 2. Assessments were administered in English for native English speakers. For Spanish-speaking children, the Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP), the EOWPVT-4 Spanish-Bilingual Edition, and the BWLP assessments were all administered with the support of on-site English/Spanish translators.</p> <p>The BWLP is an individually administered vocabulary test designed to assess the child participants' knowledge of the target words chosen from four pre-selected storybooks and required no reading or writing on the child's part. The assessment followed the structure of the PPVT-4. Raw scores for individual items were summed to derive a total score; scores could potentially range from 0 to 24.</p> <p>Three types of reliability assessments for the BWLP pretest, the BWLP posttest, and the BWLP posttest 2 were conducted: Cronbach's alpha, test-retest reliability, and split-half reliability. Table 3 summarizes the reliability coefficients. Test-retest reliability was performed by correlating the pretest with the two posttests, as well as correlating the immediate posttest 1 and posttest 2; thus, the column of test-retest reliability has two reliability coefficients. The split-half reliability was performed by correlating the even items with the odd items. As indicated in Table 3, the test-retest reliability is lower for the BWLP pretest. The split-half reliability is also lower for the BWLP pretest. This might be due to the fact that when taking the pretest, participants had no knowledge of the target vocabulary so they may have guessed the answer. A guessing effect increases the randomness of responses, which in turn leads to low reliability. Consequently, the reliability based on the test-retest reliability between the two posttests, <emph>r</emph> =.72, is more informative.</p> <p>Table 3. Reliability coefficients</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Reliability</td><td>Cronbach's alpha</td><td>Test-retest reliability</td><td>Split-half reliability</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>BWLP Pretest</td><td>.54</td><td>N.A</td><td>.15</td></tr><tr><td>BWLP Posttest 1</td><td>.61</td><td>.72</td><td>.65</td></tr><tr><td>BWLP Posttest 2</td><td>.60</td><td>.72</td><td>.65</td></tr><tr><td>Average</td><td>.58</td><td>.72</td><td>.48</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>. Test-retest reliability is not provided for BWLP pretest because the effect of treatment affects the test-retest reliability.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-24">Materials</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0154689337-25">Storybook selection</hd> <p>Four storybooks were used during the intervention reading sessions (Appendix A). The book selection method was adopted from criteria developed by Hargrave and Sénéchal ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref144">42</reflink>]). The four books chosen (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref145">1</reflink>) contained colorful illustrations that helped to narrate the story, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref146">2</reflink>) contained vocabulary words that were unlikely to be known by the children (six such words were required for each book), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref147">3</reflink>) were of the narrative genre, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref148">4</reflink>) were developmentally appropriate for young children (Hargrave & Sénéchal, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref149">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-26">Target word selection</hd> <p>Six words occurring in the texts were selected from each of the four storybooks used in this study, for a total of 24 words; 12 words were taught in the elaborated word condition and 12 words were taught in the non-elaborated word condition (see Appendix A). There were three criteria required for selection of the words from the storybooks:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Words needed to be categorized as "tier two" words, that is, a medium- to high-frequency word that occurs in a variety of contexts (Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref150">7</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> Words needed to be judged as likely to be unknown by preschool children.</item> <p></p> <item> Target words needed to occur in the storybook in a context that provides little or no meaning-making support (Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref151">7</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <p>Finally, to determine which of the 24 target words were to be introduced in elaborated and non-elaborated word learning conditions, a systematic sampling procedure was used. A number between one and 24 was assigned to each of the target words. In this procedure, every fourth word on the list of target words was placed on a list for the elaborated word learning condition until the desired sample was achieved (12 words). The remaining words were placed on a list for the non-elaborated word learning condition (12 words).</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-27">Fidelity</hd> <p>Fidelity of implementation was examined in two ways. SSR sessions were videotaped in the home by parents and they were asked to keep a book log record of the number of times they conducted the SSR sessions with their child.</p> <p>Adherence to the number of assigned repeated readings (e.g., two or four times per story) was examined. Bookmark reading logs were created and given to all participating families to document each date that SSR interactions occurred. The self-reported bookmark logs were returned to the researcher and fidelity of implementation was calculated. Overall, 64% of all participating families returned the completed bookmark records of their shared reading sessions. According to their self-reporting, parents in the two repeated readings condition completed 82% of the required repeated reading sessions (eight sessions). Families in the four repeated readings condition engaged in 78% of the required repeated readings (16 sessions).</p> <p>In addition to the bookmark log method to examine fidelity of parent engagement, parents in both treatment and control groups were asked to videotape each of their assigned SSR sessions in the home environment. We coded videos of intervention activities in the home to track the number of SSR sessions administered to children by their parents. The coding of videos counted each time the parent read the targeted storybooks to their child. Eighty percent of assigned SSR repeated readings (i.e., 2 vs. 4 times) in the treatment group and 70% of assigned SSR repeated readings in the control group were conducted.</p> <p>Lastly, we used a stratified random sampling method to select 20% of the subject population for videotape observations of parent behaviors concerning the instructional method employed (non-elaborated and elaborated). Because the treatment group was subdivided into two differing dosage groups (2 repeated readings or 4 repeated readings), we selected a proportional sample from each dosage group (seven family videotapes from each of the dosage groups; 20%, <emph>n</emph> = 14). Parents in both treatment and control (stories only) groups were asked to record their SSR sessions. However, only the videotapes of the treatment group families were observed and coded by the researcher and a trained graduate student to examine the implementation of the elaborated and non-elaborated instructional methods by parents in the treatment group only. Interrater reliability between the two raters was.98. Based on observations of videotape recorded by <emph>treatment</emph> families, fidelity of vocabulary learning instructional strategies implemented for each treatment family ranged from 67% to 92%. The percentage of the elaborated and non-elaborated instruction that treatment parents provided was calculated as well to indicate the degree of fidelity for each of the two dosage types (Table 1).</p> <p>While fidelity strategies and guidelines exist in the medical and psycho-social literature, there is no consensus regarding "acceptable levels" for fidelity of treatment in an educational context (Gersten et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref152">39</reflink>]; Kratochwill & Shernoff, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref153">55</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref154">85</reflink>]). Borrelli et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref155">12</reflink>]) defined studies in the medical field that had 80% or greater adherence as having "high treatment fidelity." Therefore, the levels of fidelity reported here provide evidence that parents provided activities and engagement that adhered to the research design.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-28">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0154689337-29">Overview of data analysis strategy</hd> <p>A two-level repeated measure logistic regression model with random effects for child participants was used to examine the data. Level 1, word-level variables include the performance of target words (dichotomous coding, correct performance coded as 1 and incorrect performance coded as 0), type of word instruction used during shared reading (coded with indicators for elaborated instruction and non-elaborated instruction, with the control group as the reference group), the time point of the outcome measures (i.e., coded as posttest 1 and posttest 2, with the pretest as the reference group), and dosage (i.e., dichotomous coding, two repeated readings coded as the reference group). Level 2, child-level variables include the PPVT – 4 standardized score, EOWPVT standardized score, and age in months.</p> <p>Logistic regression produces estimates on a logit scale, which is not easily interpreted. So, we transformed logits into odds ratios, which is more straightfoward. This transformation is commonly used in research using logistic regression (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref156">21</reflink>]). An odds ratio of 1 means that the odds are equal, suggesting no effect or association. An odds ratio greater than one means a positive or facilitative effect or association; in contrast, an odds ratio less than one suggests negative or inhibitive effect or association.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-30">Pre-analysis data inspection</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0154689337-31">Missing data patterns</hd> <p>Among the 69 families who completed the intervention, three children failed to take both posttest 1 and posttest 2 and 1 child missed posttest 2. We, therefore, used listwise deletion when running the two level logistic regression model.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-32">Child characteristics</hd> <p>Using results from the participants' preliminary screening, mean standard scores were calculated for the PPVT-4 and the EOWPVT-4 and raw scores were analyzed for the BWLP. As shown on Table 3, on the PPVT-4, a measure of single-word receptive vocabulary, a standard score of 100 is the average score for a person this age in the norming population. The standard deviation of the PPVT-4 standard scores is 15. The mean standard score on the PPVT-4 for the treatment group was 98.47 (<emph>SD</emph> = 15.02; range: 74–137) and 96.23 (<emph>SD</emph> = 13.10; range 72–123) for the control (stories only) group. Standard scores for the EOWPVT-4, a measure of single-word expressive vocabulary, are based on a population distribution having a mean (and median) of 100 and standard deviation of 15. The mean standard score for the treatment group on this assessment was 95.59 (<emph>SD</emph> = 16.96; range: 55–134) and 97.56 (<emph>SD</emph> = 14.40; range: 58–130) for the control (stories only) group. The third screening assessment, the BWLP, tested children's knowledge of the targeted vocabulary at pretest. The mean raw pretest score on the BWLP was 7.00 (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.33; range: 3–13) for the treatment group and 7.43 (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.77; range: 0–12) for the control (stories only) group. Two-sample <emph>t</emph> tests were performed to compare the mean differences in age, PPVT-4 scores, and EOWPVT-4 scores between treatment and control groups. As indicated in Table 2, no statistically significant differences were found between the treatment and control groups on participants' age, performance on the PPVT-4, the EOWPVT-4, and the BWLP pretest, indicating that the two groups were comparable before the intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-33">Two-level logistic regression model</hd> <p>As shown in Table 4, a significant effect of word instruction during shared reading was found. Controlling for other covariates in the models, on average, the estimated odds of identifying target words correctly was 1.41 times as great in non-elaborated instruction as the words learned in the control context, OR = 1.41, <emph>p</emph> =.001. This suggests that non-elaborated instruction was a more effective vocabulary learning method than merely word exposure (as represented by the shared reading activity in the control group). Similarly, on average, the estimated odds of answering target words correctly was 1.57 times as great in the elaborated instruction group compared to the control context, OR = 1.57, <emph>p</emph> <.001. A post hoc non-linear comparison between non-elaborated and elaborated instructional type indicated that the elaborated word instruction had higher probability of answering target words correctly than non-elaborated instruction, OR = 1.32, <emph>p</emph> <.001. These findings consistently demonstrated that words were better acquired during the shared reading activities conducted by the treatment group parents than the control group parents, and elaborated instruction was a more effective way to facilitate children's vocabulary acquisition than non-elaborated instruction.</p> <p>Table 4. Two-level repeated measure logistic regression model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Odds Ratios</td><td>Std. Err.</td><td>z</td><td>P >|z|</td><td>[95% CI]</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Fixed effects</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Non-Elaborated</td><td>1.41</td><td>0.14</td><td>3.42</td><td>.001</td><td>1.16 1.7</td></tr><tr><td>Elaborated</td><td>1.57</td><td>0.16</td><td>4.5</td><td><.001</td><td>1.29 1.91</td></tr><tr><td>Posttest 1</td><td>2.29</td><td>0.17</td><td>11.25</td><td><.001</td><td>1.98 2.64</td></tr><tr><td>Posttest 2</td><td>2.07</td><td>0.15</td><td>9.85</td><td><.001</td><td>1.79 2.39</td></tr><tr><td>Dosage 4 times</td><td>1.06</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.488</td><td>0.89 1.27</td></tr><tr><td>PPVT</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.844</td><td>0.99 1.01</td></tr><tr><td>EOWVT</td><td>1.01</td><td>0.001</td><td>2.09</td><td>0.036</td><td>1.00 1.02</td></tr><tr><td>Age in months</td><td>1.02</td><td>0.001</td><td>2.19</td><td>0.029</td><td>1.00 1.04</td></tr><tr><td>ELL</td><td>1.09</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.77</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.88 1.34</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.02</td><td>−5.5</td><td><.001</td><td>0.01 0.12</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Random effects</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Child level intercept variance</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.02</td><td>3.5</td><td><.001</td><td>0.04 0.14</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>. PPVT = standard score on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.; Dunn & Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref157">28</reflink>]); EOWPVT = standard score on the Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.; Gardner, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref158">38</reflink>])</p> <p>Both estimates of posttest 1 and posttest 2 indicate that children performed better on posttest 1 and posttest 2 than the pretest. After controlling for type of word instruction and child-level characteristics, the estimated odds of correctly answering an item on the BWLP posttest 1 was 2.29 times greater than on the BWLP pretest, OR = 2.29, <emph>p</emph> <.001. Similarly, the estimated odds of answering an item on BWLP correctly was 2.07 times as great in posttest 2 compared to the pretest, OR = 2.07, <emph>p</emph> <.001. Both estimates indicated that children's performance on the BWLP increased at both posttest 1 and posttest 2. After adding treatment into our regression analyses, an additional 32% of the variance in the BWLP posttest 2 performance was explained. A post hoc non-linear comparison indicates that compared to the posttest, the estimated odds of answering an item on BWLP at posttest 2 correctly decreased by 12%, OR =.88, <emph>p</emph> <.001, suggesting the effect of delay.</p> <p>Positive association between performance on the BWLP and age in months and the EOWVT was found. For every one standardized score increase on the EOWVT, the estimated odds of answering an item on the BWLP correctly increased by 1%, controlling for the other variables, OR = 1.01, <emph>p</emph> =.04. For every one month increase in age, the estimated odds of answering an item on BWLP correctly increased by 2%, OR = 1.02, <emph>p</emph> =.03.</p> <p>No significant differences between two and four repeated readings were found, OR = 1.06, <emph>p</emph>=.5, suggesting that four repeated readings of the words during shared reading do not render a statistically higher performance than two repeated readings, as measured by children's performance on the BWLP.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-34">Discussion</hd> <p>The primary goal of this study was to experimentally examine the effects of an intervention conducted by researchers and given to parents of preschool-age children to teach new vocabulary through elaborated and non-elaborated word instruction during parent-child SSR experiences in the home environment. Specifically, we examined children's acquisition of novel vocabulary words in targeted storybooks, the contribution of parents' instructional vocabulary learning strategies during shared storybook reading, and the necessary or optimal frequency of SSR to support vocabulary learning. Results demonstrated that parents who enhanced the quality of reading interactions using elaborated and non-elaborated word learning techniques with their children significantly supported new vocabulary learning.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-35">Effects of treatment on vocabulary learning: Posttest 1</hd> <p>To address our first research question, we explored differences in target vocabulary knowledge between at-risk English-speaking and dual language, Spanish-speaking preschool-age children whose parents participated in an vocabulary intervention workshop (treatment) and children whose parents did not attend the workshop (control). Children whose parents participated in the instructional intervention (treatment) demonstrated knowledge of new, novel words embedded in storybooks read by their parents and consistently outperformed children whose parents did not participate in the intervention (control). Thus, evidence gathered as part of this study suggests that parents who participated in the intervention workshop successfully engaged in direct instruction of vocabulary during SSR, which led to improved vocabulary knowledge for their children.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-36">Effects of treatment on vocabulary learning: Posttest 2</hd> <p>Expanding our investigation to examine the effects of direct instruction on children's vocabulary growth over time, we conducted posttests using the BWLP outcome measure to address our second research question. Children's performances on the BWLP assessment 14 days after the conclusion of the study showed that children were successful in sustaining vocabulary knowledge two weeks following the intervention period. Although differences in performance between the BWLP posttest 1 and the BWLP posttest 2 were significant, children still performed better on the posttest 2 than the pretest, suggesting that vocabulary learning was successfully maintained. The results of this study are consistent with previous findings, suggesting that explicit vocabulary instruction has positive effects on long-term vocabulary learning outcomes (e.g., Hargrave & Sénéchal, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref159">42</reflink>]; Sénéchal & Cornell, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref160">79</reflink>]; Sénéchal et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref161">82</reflink>]). The estimated odds of answering an item on the BWLP correctly were twice as likely on the posttest 2 as on the pretest, suggesting children who were exposed to these word learning strategies sustained their word learning over time.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-37">Effects of elaborated versus non-elaborated vocabulary instruction</hd> <p>Our third research question analyzed if there was a difference in children's vocabulary growth as a result of differing instructional techniques (e.g., elaborated vs. non-elaborated word instruction). Child participants with parents who engaged in elaborated and non-elaborated word instruction (i.e., the treatment group) had a higher probability of answering items correctly on both the posttests of the BWLP assessment as compared with children who engaged in adult-child reading with no vocabulary instruction (i.e., the control group). Our findings consistently demonstrated that words were better acquired during the shared reading activities conducted by the treatment group parents than the control group parents, and elaborated instruction was a more effective way to facilitate children's vocabulary acquisition than non-elaborated instruction. The present findings support previous research that suggests the potential impact of elaborated exposures of novel words during classroom storytelling for facilitating vocabulary development for at-risk kindergarten children (Justice et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref162">51</reflink>]). These findings are similar to those reported by Penno et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref163">70</reflink>]), for which elaborated exposure produced greater gains than non-elaborated exposure for 5- through 7-year-old children in a classroom setting. In the current study, when parent/child dyads encountered new words in storybooks during SSR in the home environment, words taught using both elaborated and non-elaborated methods of instruction consistently demonstrated new word acquisition overall. However, target words in the elaborated instructional condition were more successfully acquired than words in the non-elaborated condition. The study establishes the efficacy of direct vocabulary instruction in the context of shared storybook reading activities in the home environment.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-38">Effects of frequency of repeated reading</hd> <p>While there is limited research to clarify the amount of time or the number of times parents should read to children on a weekly basis, we examined the additive effects of repeated readings on children's vocabulary learning. We manipulated frequency of repeated readings via number of repeated readings of the same storybook (e.g., two or four readings) and measured word learning outcomes at both posttests on the BWLP, a researcher-created targeted word assessment. We found that two or four repeated readings of the target words in context did not significantly affect word learning. This finding is consistent with Brett et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref164">14</reflink>]), who argued that repeated readings of a story might not be necessary for vocabulary acquisition if new words are explained as they occur in the story.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-39">Conclusion</hd> <p>Our series of workshops on vocabulary instruction for parents of small children had beneficial effects on parents' use of the instructional strategies presented and children's vocabulary skill development. Children whose parents were in the treatment group made greater gains than control children in learning targeted words from pre-selected stories. Parents can be successfully instructed to engage in vocabulary instruction in elaborated and non-elaborated word learning methods for positive outcomes in child vocabulary learning.</p> <p>Our results support the importance of engaging parents in the development of vocabulary by teaching them to provide word learning instruction when reading with their children at home. It appears that one way to increase the knowledge and understanding about how to engage in quality SSR is through informational supports for parents (Lonigan & Whitehurst, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref165">59</reflink>]; Sénéchal et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref166">82</reflink>]; Stahl, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref167">87</reflink>]) as demonstrated in our treatment group. Widespread implementation of these SSR strategies evidenced in the present study may begin to close the well-documented word gap among children of varying SES backgrounds (Hart & Risley, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref168">44</reflink>]). The study gives support for an effective intervention approach that could be easily delivered to parents by preschool administrators, literacy coaches, or teachers. The results described here may influence educational stakeholders to support early interventions particularly for children from underprivileged backgrounds whose parents may not have the resources or understanding of how to engage their children in effective reading practices at home.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-40">Clinical implications</hd> <p>In the treatment intervention, techniques to teach vocabulary were incorporated into parent-child SSR sessions to enhance the language skills that contribute to reading achievement (Lonigan & Whitehurst, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref169">59</reflink>]; Stahl, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref170">87</reflink>]). It is reasonable to suggest that awareness of vocabulary instructional strategies could enhance existing SSR practices for parents in the home environment. However, training would be necessary. The results provide evidence that mentoring in the form of parent workshops can facilitate the effective transfer of knowledge and techniques for vocabulary instruction from researchers to parents. Through the analysis of child participants' knowledge of targeted words, it is possible to provide the opportunity for parents to learn effective teaching strategies that will encourage vocabulary growth in very young children. Parent instructional workshops to specifically teach these methods may be a viable strategy for accelerating vocabulary growth for at-risk preschool-age children.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-41">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>The results of this research suggest that providing meaningful, elaborated or non-elaborated explanations of unfamiliar words during parent-child SSR activities can foster vocabulary learning for preschool-age children. Although the participating families in this study provided insights into these parental teaching strategies in the home environment, the sample size posed a limitation. Given the small sample size (N = 69), it would be challenging to assume that the results from this study could be used to justify future parent education programming especially in under-resourced communities. However, previous studies and the findings of this investigation support the implementation of parent educational workshops to enhance children's vocabulary through shared storybook reading can begin to ameliorate the differences in vocabulary knowledge between children in low-income families and their middle-income peers.</p> <p>In this study, several attempts were made to verify fidelity of implementation of SSR activities. However, non-response bias may have been a factor influencing the videotaped observations and reading log responses. Our data show that 60% of the participating families in the treatment group returned the videotape recordings and 64% of the treatment families returned the reading logs. It may be that the families who returned the videotape and reading logs are not entirely representative of the total population of the study. These self-reported data collection methods may have prompted inaccuracies in parent reports of adherence to implementation fidelity and dosage.</p> <p>Our fidelity check revealed that the families who were asked to read two times a week conducted approximately 82% of the required readings (approximately 1.6 readings each week). Participants asked to complete four repeated readings were slightly less compliant, meeting the target just 72% of the time (approximately three readings each week). Therefore, our finding on dosage does not reflect the difference between two times and four times a week. Because the requisite SSR activities transpired at participants' homes, rather than in a laboratory setting, it is challenging to fully control dosage in practice.</p> <p>We administered posttest 1 immediately following the fourth week of the intervention; 14 days following the conclusion of the intervention, we administered posttest 2. Thus, both posttests assessed the targeted words under two different timeframes. Because elaborated and non-elaborated instruction was implemented each week in the treatment group, and exposure to the same six words each week occurred for both groups, the differences in the posttest timeframe were counterbalanced between control and intervention groups and between elaborated and non-elaborated word instruction.</p> <p>Our study has yielded data that can be used to design larger, confirmatory studies. In order to provide reliable evidence of the efficacy of our parent intervention workshop, future research should involve a larger population of participant families. This research supports the need for continued examination of shared storybook reading word-learning experiences in the home environment that will support later reading and academic success for all children.</p> <p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0154689337-42">Appendix A. Storybook titles and target words</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Storybook Title</td><td>Elaborated Target Words</td><td>Non-elaborated Target Words</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Giraffes Can't Dance</italic> (Andreae et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">1999</xref>)</td><td>Elegant Definition: very fancy and pretty Synonym: fancy Example: A princess dressed in beautiful clothes is elegant.</td><td>Buckled Definition: to bend, to suddenly fall when bent</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Prance Definition: to walk or move in a lively and proud way Synonym: Strut Example: A horse that walks proudly by taking high steps is prancing.</td><td>Entranced Definition: to fill with delight or wonder</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Sneered Definition: an expression on a person's face that is like a smile but that shows dislike and a lack of respect for someone or something Synonym: mean look Example: When someone sneers at you it means they frown at something with an expression that shows they don't like it.</td><td>Rooted Definition: unable or unwilling to move from one spot</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Book! Book! Book!</italic> (Bruss, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2001</xref>)</td><td>Heaved Definition: push, pull, or lift something using a lot of effort or muscle Synonym: lifted Example: It took two strong people to heave the trash into the truck.</td><td>Squawked Definition: a loud harsh noise</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Pouted Definition: making a face to show you are unhappy or annoyed Synonym: frowned Example: The boy pouted when he didn't get what he wanted.</td><td>Whinnied Definition: The sound a horse makes</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Ruffled Definition: Feathers stand out on a bird's body Synonym: Poof; Make (something) appear fuller and softer by shaking it Example: The bird ruffled her feathers and flew away</td><td>Gathered Definition: get together in a group</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Wolf!</italic> (Bloom & Biet, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">1999</xref>)</td><td>Confidence Definition: When you feel sure that you can do something Synonym: Belief Example: The children played with confidence on the jungle gym</td><td>Passion Definition: A strong feeling or interest in something</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Admire Definition: You like and respect someone or something very much Synonym: like very much Example: The child admired the way the boy could skateboard so well.</td><td>Peered Definition: Look very hard at something that is difficult to see</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Slunk Definition: to move quietly away Synonym: sneak Example: The dog slunk away after chewing up the man's slipper.</td><td>Budge Definition: unwilling to move from a specific spot</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Mysterious Tadpole</italic> (Kellogg & Free, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">1977</xref>)</td><td>Retrieve Definition: to go get something from another place. Synonym: fetch, get Example: If you retrieve something, you get it back from where you left it.</td><td>Obedience Definition: doing what you are told to do by someone in charge</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Suspiciously Definition: to think something is wrong by the way someone behaves. Synonym: sneaky Example: The boy was sneaking around the tree, hiding suspiciously.</td><td>Ordinary Definition: plain, not special</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Astounding Definition: to be amazed by something; shock with wonder or surprise Synonym: surprising Example: If something is astounding, you are amazed that it could happen.</td><td>Sensible Definition: having or showing good sense or good judgment</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0154689337-43">Appendix B. Intervention Framework</hd> <p>Graph</p> <ref id="AN0154689337-44"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref62" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77 – 117). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref63" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. (1991). Word meanings. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 690 – 724). Longman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission of Reading. U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref148" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Andreae, G., Parker-Rees, G., Williams, B. D., & Mansfield, D. (1999). Giraffes can't dance. Orchard.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref86" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Arnold, D. H., Lonigan, C. J., Whitehurst, G. J., & Epstein, J. N. (1994). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: Replication and extension to a videotape training format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (2), 235 – 243. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref87" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Arnold, D. S., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1994). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: A summary of dialogic reading and its effect. In D. K. Dickinson (Ed.), Bridges to literacy: Children, families, and schools (pp. 103 – 128). Blackwell Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref150" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, I., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary development. Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref13" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children's oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107 (3), 251 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1086/511706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref1" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bennet, K. K., Weigel, D. J., & Martin, S. S. (2002). Children's acquisition of early literacy skills: Examining family contributions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17 (3), 295 – 317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00166-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequisite for school learning. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 41 – 51). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bloom, B., & Biet, P. (1999). Wolf! Orchard Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borrelli, B., Sepinwall, D., Ernst, D., Bellg, A. J., Czajkowski, S., Breger, R., DeFrancesco, C., Levesque, C., Sharp, D. L., Ogedegbe, G., Resnick, B., & Orwig, D. (2005). A new tool to assess treatment fidelity and evaluation of treatment fidelity across 10 years of health behavior research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73 (5), 852 – 860. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.5.852</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brabham, E. G., & Lynch-Brown, C. (2002). Effects of teachers' reading-aloud styles on vocabulary acquisition and comprehension of students in the early elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (3), 465 – 473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.465</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and explanations of target words. The Elementary School Journal, 96 (4), 415 – 422. https://doi.org/10.1086/461836</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bruss, D. (2001). Book! Book! Book! Arthur A. Levine Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bus, A. G. (2001). Joint caregiver-child storybook reading: A route to literacy development. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 179 – 191). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carey, S. (2010). Beyond fast mapping. Language Learning and Development, 6 (3), 184 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2010.484379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45 (6), 1142 – 1157. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2002/093)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32 (1), 38 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2001/004)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaney, C. (1998). Preschool language and metalinguistic skills are links to reading success. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19 (3), 433 – 446. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, Y. I., Cunningham, A. E., Rabe‐Hesketh, S., Hinshaw, S. P., & Irey, R. C. (2021). The Effect of Orthographic Neighbors on Second‐Grade Students' Spelling Acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 119 – 141. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.291">http://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.291</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chlapana, E., & Tafa, E. (2014). Effective practices to enhance immigrant kindergarteners' second language vocabulary learning through storybook reading. Reading and Writing, 27 (9), 1619 – 1640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9510-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2 (1), 1 – 20. https://<ulink href="http://www.berkeleyschools.net/wpcontent/uploads/2011/10/TWIAstounding%5fEffectiveness%5fDual%5fLanguage%5fEd.pdf?864d7e">www.berkeleyschools.net/wpcontent/uploads/2011/10/TWIAstounding%5fEffectiveness%5fDual%5fLanguage%5fEd.pdf?864d7e</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli Jr., R., Jr, & Kapp, S. (2009). Direct vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Teaching for breadth versus depth. The Elementary School Journal, 110 (1), 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1086/598840</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damhuis, C. M., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2014). Sustainability of Breadth and Depth of Vocabulary after Implicit versus Explicit Instruction in Kindergarten. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 61 (3), 194 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2014.932562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickinson, D. K., Nesbitt, K. T., Collins, M. F., Hadley, E. B., Newman, K., Rivera, B. L., Ilgez, H., Nicolopoulou, A., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2019). Teaching for breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Learning from explicit and implicit instruction and the storybook texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47 (2), 341 – 356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.07.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L. S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Sexton, H., Duckworth, K., & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43 (6), 1428 – 1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN : Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2012). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed. PPVT-4). Pearson Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L. M., Lugo, D. E., Padilla, E. R., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Test de Vocabulario en Imganes Peabody: Adaptacion Hispanoamerians. AGS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durkin, D. (1974/1975). A six year study of children who learned to read in school at the age of four. Reading Research Quarterly, 10 (1), 9 – 61. https://doi.org/10.2307/747085</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eller, R. G., Pappas, C. C., & Brown, E. (1988). The lexical development of kindergarteners: Learning from written context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20 (1), 5 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968809547621</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24 (2), 174 – 187. https://doi.org/10.2307/747863</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, G. W. (2004). The Environment of Childhood Poverty. American Psychologist, 59 (2), 77 – 92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farkas, G., & Beron, K. (2004). The detailed age trajectory of oral vocabulary knowledge: Differences by class and race. Social Science Research, 33 (3), 464 – 497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2003.08.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher, R. A. (1925). Theory of statistical estimation. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 22 (5), 700–725. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1017/s0305004100009580">http://doi.org/10.1017/s0305004100009580</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flack, Z. M., Field, A. P., & Horst, J. S. (2018). The effects of shared storybook reading on word learning: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 54 (7), 1334 – 1346. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000512</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner, M. F. (2010). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Academic Therapy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality Indicators for Group Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research in Special Education. Exceptional Children, 71 (2), 149 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grindal, T., Bowne, J. B., Yoshikawa, H., Schindler, H. S., Duncan, G. J., Magnuson, K., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2016). The added impact of parenting education in early childhood education programs: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 238 – 249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K., Wandner, L., Wessel, J., & Vick, J. (2009). Disparities in early learning and development: Lessons from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). Child Trends.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargrave, A. C., & Sénéchal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention with preschool children who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (1), 75 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(99)00038-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator, 27 (1), 4 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge of words and the world: Scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and the nation's stagnant comprehension scores. American Educator, 27 (1), 10–13, 16–22, 28–29, 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulsey, L. K., Aikens, N., Kopack, A., West, J., Moiduddin, E., & Tarullo, L. (2011, December 15). Head Start children, families, and programs: Present and past data from FACES (OPRE Report No. 2011-33a). Office of Planning, Research & Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/present%5fpast.pdf">www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/present%5fpast.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutton, J. S., Horowitz-Kraus, T., Mendelsohn, A. L., DeWitt, T., & Holland, S. K., & C-Mind Authorship Consortium. (2015). Home reading environment and brain activation in preschool children listening to stories. Pediatrics, 136 (3), 466 – 478. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-0359</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47 (4), 706 – 742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912445643</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2000). Enhancing children's print and word awareness through home-based parent intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9 (3), 257 – 269. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0903.257</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2004). Print referencing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35 (2), 185 – 193. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2004/018)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Justice, L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words from storybooks: An efficacy study with at-risk kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36 (1), 17 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2005/003)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kellogg, S., & Free, K. R. (1977). The mysterious tadpole. Dial Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Barmer, A., & Velez, E. D. V. (2015). The condition of education 2015. NCES 2015-144. National Center for Education Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Korat, O., Klein, P., & Segal-Drori, O. (2007). Maternal mediation in book reading, home literacy environment, and children's emergent literacy: A comparison between two social groups. Reading and Writing, 20 (4), 361 – 398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9034-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill, T. R., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Evidence-based practice: Promoting evidence-based interventions in school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 18 (4), 389 – 408. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.4.389.27000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2006). Responsive parenting: Establishing early foundations for social, communication, and independent problem-solving skills. Developmental Psychology, 42 (4), 627 – 642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.627</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Layzer, J., & Price, C. (2008). Closing the gap in the school readiness of low-income children. US Department of Health and Human Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipsky, M. (2013). Head Start teachers' vocabulary instruction and language complexity during storybook reading: Predicting vocabulary outcomes of students in linguistically diverse classrooms. Early Education & Development, 24 (5), 640 – 667. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.721112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 (2), 263 – 290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80038-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovelace, S., & Stewart, S. R. (2007). Increasing print awareness in preschoolers with language impairment using non-evocative print referencing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38 (1), 16 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2007/003)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marulis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children's word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80 (3), 300 – 335. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310377087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride-Chang, C. (2012). Shared book-reading: There is no downside for parents. In S. Suggate & E. Reese (Eds.), Contemporary debates in childhood education and development (pp. 65 – 72). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mendelsohn, A. L., Huberman, H. S., Berkule, S. B., Brockmeyer, C. A., Morrow, L. M., & Dreyer, B. P. (2011). Primary care strategies for promoting parent-child interactions and school readiness in at-risk families: The Bellevue Project for Early Language, Literacy, and Education Success. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 165 (1), 33 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.254</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19 – 35). Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. <ulink href="http://www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.html">http://www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Government Printing Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman, S. B., Celano, D., & Fischer, R. (1996). The children's literature hour: A social-constructivist approach to family literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 28 (4), 499 – 523. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969609547938</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman, S. B., & Dwyer, J. (2009). Missing in action: Vocabulary instruction in pre‐K. The Reading Teacher, 62 (5), 384 – 392. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.5.2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (Eds.). (2002). Language and literacy in bilingual children (Vol. 2). Multilingual Matters.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (1), 23 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Gonzalez, J. E., Simmons, D. C., Kwok, O., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., Kim, M., & Simmons, L. (2011). The effects of an intensive shared book-reading intervention for preschool children at risk for vocabulary delay. Exceptional Children, 77 (2), 161 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (1), 54 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.54</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickinson, W. J. (1964). Management and the worker: An account of a research program conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago, by F. J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, with the assistance and collaboration of Harold A. Wright. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19 (4), 572 – 594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805278067</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roskos, K., Ergul, C., Bryan, T., Burstein, K., Christie, J., & Han, M. (2008). Who's learning what words and how fast? Preschoolers' vocabulary growth in an early literacy program. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22 (3), 275 – 290. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540809594627</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roth, F. (2002). Vocabulary instruction for young children with language impairments. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 9 (3), 3 – 7. https://doi.org/10.1044/lle9.3.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers' acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 24 (1), 123 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000996003005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2001). Storybook reading and parent teaching: Links to language and literacy development. In P. R. Britto & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), New directions in child development: No. 92. The role of family literacy environments in promoting young children's emerging literacy skills (pp. 39 – 52). Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M., & Cornell, E. H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 28 (4), 360 – 374. https://doi.org/10.2307/747933</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children's reading skill: A five‐year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73 (2), 445 – 460. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M., Lefevre, J.-A., Thomas, E. M., & Daley, K. E. (1998). Differential effects of home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 33 (1), 96 – 116. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.1.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. A. (1995). Individual differences in 4-year-old children's acquisition of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (2), 218 – 229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shahaeian, A., Wang, C., Tucker-Drob, E., Geiger, V., Bus, A., & Harrison, L. (2018). Early shared reading, socioeconomic status, and children's cognitive and school competencies: Six years of longitudinal evidence. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22 (6), 485 – 502. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1482901</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sim, S., Berthelsen, D., Walker, S., Nicholson, J. M., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2014). A shared reading intervention with parents to enhance young children's early literacy skills. Early Child Development and Care, 184 (11), 1531 – 1549. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2013.862532</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, S. W., Daunic, A. P., & Taylor, G. G. (2007). Treatment fidelity in applied educational research: Expanding the adoption and application of measures to ensure evidence-based practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 30 (4), 121 – 134. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2007.0033</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stahl, S. A. (2003). Vocabulary and readability: How knowing word meanings affects comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 23 (3), 241 – 247. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200307000-00009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The Effects of Vocabulary Instruction: A Model-Based Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56 (1), 72 – 110. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543056001072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). The literacy teaching series. Teaching word meanings. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teepe, R. C., Molenaar, I., Oostdam, R., Fukkink, R., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). Helping parents enhance vocabulary development in preschool children: Effects of a family literacy program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 48, 226 – 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trivette, C. M., Simkus, A., Dunst, C. J., & Hamby, D. W. (2012). Repeated book reading and preschoolers' early literacy development. Center for Early Literacy Learning, 5 (5), 1 – 13. <ulink href="http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews%5fv5%5fn5.pdf">http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews%5fv5%5fn5.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education Early Childhood – Head Start Task Force. (2002). Teaching our youngest: A guide for preschool teachers and child care and family providers. <ulink href="http://ww2ed.gov/teachers/how/early/teachingouryoungest/index.html">http://ww2ed.gov/teachers/how/early/teachingouryoungest/index.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Administration for children & families [Income eligibility for enrollment in Head Start and Early Head Start programs]. <ulink href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/html">http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaahtoranta, E., Suggate, S., Jachmann, C., Lenhart, J., & Lenhard, W. (2018). Can explaining less be more? Enhancing vocabulary through explicit versus elaborative storytelling. First Language, 38 (2), 198 – 217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723717737452</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1992). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: A systematic extension to Mexican day care. Developmental Psychology, 28 (6), 1106 – 1114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.1106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Bysterveldt, A. K., Gillon, G. T., & Moran, C. (2006). Enhancing phonological awareness and letter knowledge in preschool children with Down syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 53 (3), 301 – 329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120600847706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, B. A., Rose, K. K., Sanchez, C., & Burnham, M. M. (2012). Exploration of how Spanish and English noneliciting questions affect the novel vocabulary acquisition of Hispanic dual language learners enrolled in Head Start. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39 (6), 383 – 390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-011-0483-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wasik, B. A., Hindman, A. H., & Snell, E. K. (2016). Book reading and vocabulary development: A systematic review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37 (4), 39 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinberger, J. (1996). Literacy goes to school: The parents' role in young children's literacy learning. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Heinemann Educational Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from prereaders to readers. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickenson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 11 – 29). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30 (5), 679 – 689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.5.679</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24 (4), 552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.552</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mary Kathryn Requa; Yi-Jui Iva Chen; Robin Irey and Anne E. Cunningham</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref161"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1326222
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teaching Parents of At-Risk Preschoolers to Employ Elaborated and Non-Elaborated Vocabulary Instruction during Shared Storybook Reading
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Requa%2C+Mary+Kathryn%22">Requa, Mary Kathryn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chen%2C+Yi-Jui+Iva%22">Chen, Yi-Jui Iva</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9845-5764">0000-0001-9845-5764</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Irey%2C+Robin%22">Irey, Robin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cunningham%2C+Anne+E%2E%22">Cunningham, Anne E.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Childhood+Education%22"><i>Journal of Research in Childhood Education</i></searchLink>. 2022 36(1):159-182.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 24
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Workshops%22">Parent Workshops</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Story+Reading%22">Story Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parents+as+Teachers%22">Parents as Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22At+Risk+Persons%22">At Risk Persons</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Environment%22">Family Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intelligence+Tests%22">Intelligence Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Verbal+Ability%22">Verbal Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary%22">Vocabulary</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Programs%22">Federal Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disadvantaged+Youth%22">Disadvantaged Youth</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22California%22">California</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Peabody+Picture+Vocabulary+Test%22">Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Expressive+One+Word+Picture+Vocabulary+Test%22">Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02568543.2021.1931579
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0256-8543
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examines the influence of a parent workshop intervention on vocabulary acquisition of at-risk preschool children during parent-child shared storybook reading. Sixty-nine parents were randomly assigned to either treatment or control group. In the treatment condition, parents were taught to implement elaborated vocabulary instruction (definitions, synonyms, and examples) and non-elaborated vocabulary instruction (simple definitions only) during shared storybook reading (SSR). In the control group (stories only), parents read the same storybooks as the treatment families but did not provide direct vocabulary instruction. Children's vocabulary learning was assessed using a researcher-designed assessment, Big Words for Little People (BWLP), at three time points during the study: before, after, and 14 days following the end of the intervention. The results suggest that meaningful explanations of unfamiliar words during parent-child shared storybook reading may be a viable strategy for fostering vocabulary learning, which is critical for later reading achievement.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1326222
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1326222
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02568543.2021.1931579
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 24
        StartPage: 159
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Parent Workshops
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Story Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parents as Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: At Risk Persons
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intelligence Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Verbal Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disadvantaged Youth
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: California
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teaching Parents of At-Risk Preschoolers to Employ Elaborated and Non-Elaborated Vocabulary Instruction during Shared Storybook Reading
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Requa, Mary Kathryn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chen, Yi-Jui Iva
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Irey, Robin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cunningham, Anne E.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0256-8543
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 36
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Childhood Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1