OBLIGACIONES ANUALES

adult might recall with the child a time he/she got lost in a department store. These prompts are the hallmarks of dialogic reading and comprise what separates dialogic reading from other forms of shared reading described above. All of Whitehurst’s strategies are used by The Storytime Project along with additional ones, twenty-three strategies in all (see Table 2.7). Robin Alexander (2003) has added to Whitehurst’s list of dialogic strategies. He lists children’s dialogic strategies as follows: Children narrate, explain, instruct, ask different kinds of questions, receive, act and build upon answers, analyse and solve problems, speculate and imagine, explore and evaluate ideas, discuss, argue, reason and justify and negotiate (Alexander, p.38).

It is sometimes difficult to separate and to assess studies on dialogic reading and other forms of shared reading because it is not always clear what exactly is happening in the adult- child interactions. For example, in the meta-analysis by Mol, Bus & de Jong (2009), the

95 authors state that the included studies did not provide enough details to grasp exactly what happened during the interactive reading sessions. What does emerge in the research literature, however, is that the method with the most interactivity, is the method most likely to

demonstrate positive outcomes. (Trivette & Dunst, 2007).Bojczyk, Davis & Rana, (2016) write that “in high-quality shared reading interactions, children show greater gains in language development compared to when adults simply read the book to the child (Britto, Brooks-Gunn, & Griffin, 2006; Phillips & Lonigan, 2009; Zevenbergen &Whitehurst, 2003)”.

Review of the Research on Dialogic Reading

Dialogic story-reading has been extensively researched and there are meta-analyses available as well as individual studies that variously describe its effectiveness and the factors that may impinge on its effectiveness. Dialogic story-reading is widely held to have positive effects on child outcomes in the domain of oral language (e.g. Mol, Bus, De Jong & Smeets, 2008; Swanson,Vaughn, Wanzek, Petscher, Heckert, Cavanaugh, Kraft &Tackett, 2011; Trivette & Dunst, 2007). Dialogic reading causes children to use more words, speak in longer sentences, score higher on vocabulary tests and demonstrate overall improvement in expressive language skills (Harris, Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, (2011). Dialogic reading enhances expressive language and emergent literacy skills in children from all socio- economic groups, even after relatively brief (four week) interventions (McKeown & Beck, 2006. p.283). The improvement in both spheres – language and emergent literacy - supports the thesis that language and literacy are inextricably linked and that success in one area leads to success in the other.

The first published study relating to dialogic reading is by Whitehurst, Falco, Lonigan, Fischel, DeBaryshe, Valdez-Menchaca & Caulfield, (1988) in a study called

96 ‘Accelerating language development through picture book reading’. This study used a control group and an experimental group. Parents in the experimental group were tutored to ask open-ended questions of their children, to help their children expand on their comments and to answer children’s questions. The children in the experimental group scored significantly higher in post-tests than the children in the control group.

Research carried out by Swanson, Vaughn, Wanzek, Petscher, Heckert, Cavanaugh, Kraft & Tackett, (2011) indicates that the quality of studies on shared reading has increased in recent years -

Previous syntheses of storybook reading have indicated a lack of high-quality

research, qualifying the findings and decreasing the ability to make robust statements regarding the effects of read alouds on literacy outcomes for children (Blok, 1999; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). Our synthesis of the current literature indicates the amount of high-quality research has increased (p.271).

In examining the effect of dialogic story-reading, Swanson et al’s (2011) meta-analysis of eighteen studies found moderate to large mean effect sizes for dialogic reading interventions on child outcomes of phonological awareness, print concepts, reading comprehension, and vocabulary. The study focused on children aged three to eight years who were considered to be at risk of reading difficulty. The interventions were conducted by teachers.

A study on vocabulary growth using read alouds by Silverman, Crandell and Carlis (2013) claimed that there is little emphasis on explicit vocabulary instruction in the dialogic reading approach. This claim is supported by Wasik, Hindman and Snell (2016). They found that the dialogic story-reading studies they examined as part of a larger review on book reading practices did not focus on specific target words during the book reading. This may be a disadvantage to children who are considered to have low vocabulary knowledge relative to

97 their peers. Silverman and Crandall, (2010) found that children benefitted from a

differentiated approach to vocabulary learning: Those children with richer vocabulary benefitted from the practice of defining and contextualizing words, whereas children with lower vocabulary knowledge “tended to benefit more from nonverbal instructional practices such as acting out and illustrating words” (Silverman et al., 2013, p.102). Proponents of a dialogic-story reading approach might argue that vocabulary expansion can occur as part of the ‘wh’ (who, what, why) prompts. It could be said that what the research really highlights is that any method is only as good as the implementer’s ability to tailor the method to the needs of the children receiving the intervention.

The efficacy of dialogic reading is affected by children’s age.

The meta-analysis conducted by Mol, Bus, De Jong & Smeets, (2008) used sixteen studies and 626 parent-child dyads. The synthesis revealed that a 4% variance in vocabulary growth amongst studies was explained by the additional effects of Whitehurst's (Whitehurst, Falco, Lonigan, & Fischel, 1988) "dialogic reading" technique (Mol, Bus, and De Jong, 2009). This research points towards the greater efficacy of dialogic reading as a technique to improve vocabulary over other types of story-reading to children. Mol, Bus, de Jong and Smeets’ (2008) meta-analysis also found that there were moderate effects in terms of

improvements in children’s expressive vocabulary. Improvements were significantly greater for expressive than receptive vocabulary. Younger children, 2-3 year olds, benefitted more from dialogic story-reading than did 4-5 year olds. This finding was also made by the NELP (2008) report. The authors speculated that this could be because parents might not have modified their dialogic teaching strategies for older children (p.21) Older children often like to hear a story told without interruption and do not need constant mediation on the part of the adult to keep them ‘on track’ with the story. The implication of this finding is that CPD should clearly differentiate between dialogic reading strategies for 2-3 year old children and

98 4-5 year old children. Whitehurst (2002) recommends differentiating dialogic reading

strategies for younger children. He recommends the PEER (prompt, evaluate, expand and repeat) sequence for very young children, and more sophisticated strategies are proposed in the CROWD (completion prompts, recall prompts, open-ended prompts, What, why, where prompts, that is, questioning and distancing prompts).

The shared reading method with the most interactivity produced the best outcomes.

Trivette and Dunst, (2007) conducted a secondary analysis of three research syntheses produced by the What Works Clearinghouse on the effectiveness of reading instruction with preschool children. They compared three types of reading methods: dialogic reading,

interactive shared reading and shared book reading. Table 2.8 defines the three reading methods –

Table 2.8 Reading Practices Analysed by Trivette & Dunst (2007)

Dialogic Reading During the shared reading practice, the adult and child switch roles so that the child learns to become the

storyteller with the assistance of the adult who functions as an active listener and questioner.

Interactive Shared Book Reading Interactive shared book reading involves an adult reading a book to a child or a small group of children and using a variety of techniques to engage children in the text. Shared Book Reading Shared book reading involves an adult reading a book to

one child or a small group of children without requiring extensive interactions from them.

Sources: What Works Clearinghouse (2006a; 2006b; 2007)

They found that the method with the most interactivity was the method most likely to demonstrate positive outcomes. Specifically they found that dialogic reading was related to significant improvements in linguistic processing25 _{and interactive shared book reading was}

25 _{The ability to attach meaning to language or the cognitive processes involved in producing and understanding}

linguistic communication; (www.freedictionary.com)

99 related to significant improvements in print-related knowledge. The outcomes of the meta- analysis studied indicate that dialogic story-reading produces beneficial outcomes to varying degrees for children.

High fidelity to reading programmes had a beneficial effect on outcomes.

Mol, de Bus and Jong’s (2009) meta-analysis of 31 studies showed a moderate effect for oral language. They found that shared reading programmes that evidenced high fidelity to the modus operandi of their programme were more effective in developing the oral language of participants than programmes that had no information in relation to programme fidelity. Fidelity to the implementation of interactive reading strategies, quality interactions in the control group and frequency of book reading episodes contributed to the success of interventions. Mol et al (2009) also found that interventions led by researchers had better outcomes for children than those led by teachers. Interactive reading scored better than dialogic reading but when dialogic reading was implemented by researchers, there was no statistically significant difference between the effectiveness of interactive reading versus dialogic reading. In their study on vocabulary growth using read alouds in twenty-six early years’ settings with four year old children, Siverman et al., (2013) found that fidelity to the intervention protocol was associated with gains in word learning.

Irish Studies

Prevention and Early Intervention Network (PEIN).

PEIN “is a network of evidence-based practice, advocacy and research organisations across the Republic of Ireland that share a commitment to improving outcomes for children, young people, and their communities” (http://www.pein.ie/about/ ). The network includes intervention projects to support children, young people, and their economically disadvantaged

100 communities. It receives its funding substantially from Atlantic Philanthropies26 and also from the Irish Government and some non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Some of PEIN’s projects are loosely connected to achieving literacy objectives but no study relates specifically to dialogic reading. See appendix Z for details on these initiatives. The Tallaght

West Childhood Development Initiative (CDI) and The Young Ballymun group are affiliated

to PEIN. They have run a series of intervention programmes in their respective Dublin districts, both of which are identified areas of socio-economic disadvantage. These initiatives have run successful literacy initiatives such as the Doodle Den after school literacy

programme by CDI and Young Ballymun’s Write-Minded Literacy Strategy which aims to improve literacy practices for children from four to eighteen years’ old in schools and in the community.

Doodle Den is an after school literacy project for 5-6 year olds in Tallaght, Dublin.

Based on the Balanced Literacy framework. The programme involves 90 minute sessions, three times a week, after school, for 32 weeks over a school year. Each session covers key literacy learning objectives that are taught through games, arts and crafts activities, drama and PE (Rafferty & Colgan, 2013). It is not a dialogic story-reading initiative.

Write-Minded is one of a suite of services and strategies that constitute

youngballymun (SQW, 2012). Within the Write-Minded Literacy Strategy,(2005), the focus

on community and parents is realised through three initiatives: Breakfast Buddies, Story

Sacks and Incredible Book Club. These initiatives support parents to read stories to their

children and to make story sacks which contain resources to help bring stories to life for the children. The initiative closest in practice to dialogic story-reading within the Write-minded

26_{Atlantic Philanthropies is an international organisation that gives grants to support people}

and communitieswho are disadvantaged. (http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/about- atlantic).

101

Literacy Strategy is the Incredible Book Club, so called because it is linked to a socio-

emotional development initiative for children targeting teachers, parents and children, called

Incredible Years. The Incredible Book Club is a shared story-reading initiative that targets

children aged three to eight years. Of all the literacy initiatives currently running in Ireland,

The Incredible Book Club arguably bears the closest resemblence to The Storytime Project.

For that reason it merits closer scrutiny. Training for parents takes place over four weeks for thirty minutes a week. Each week parents receive an Incredible Book Club pack which includes a story book and literacy activities related to the book. Literacy activities in the packs include a list of words for parents to act out with their children; questions to prompt discussion; a book review sheet asking children to say what they thought about the book and activity sheets to support language acquisition. Parents take the activity pack home each week, and complete the activity sheets together with their children. Each thirty minute training session includes review of the previous week’s activities.The work of the Incredible

Book Club is based on the Balanced Literacy Framework, which requires that equal emphasis

is placed on each of these four aspects of literacy instruction - word knowledge, reading, fluency, reading comprehension and writing (SQW, 2012, p.8). Some of the differences between the Incredible Book Club and The Storytime Project include the following: There is a singular focus on dialogic story-reading in The Storytime Project. The induction workshop focus on the 23 strategies, including Whitehurst’s PEER and CROWD strategies. The PEER and CROWD strategies are not consciously employed in the approach taken by The

Incredible Book Club, though some dialogic strategies are used. The focus of The Incredible

Book Club is more dispersed, including as it does, an activity pack for parents and children

which facilitate the development of word knowledge, reading, fluency, reading

comprehension and writing (SQW, 2012, p.8). There is no mention of the child taking over control of the story in The Incredible Book Club. This is one of the hallmarks of dialogic

102 story-reading. The connection with the local library is a feature of The Storytime Project but not a feature of the Ballymun project. There is no ceremony with a presentation of certificates to parents at the end of four week Incredible Book Club shared reading project. The

Incredible Book Club is part of a suite of literacy initiatives under the umbrella of the Write

Minded Literacy Strategy, The Storytime Project is a stand-alone project with an emphasis on

continuity through local libraries. A process evaluation of the youngballymun project

conducted in 2012, which includes an evaluation of The Incredible Book Club, identifies it as a successful and worthwhile initiative. Its research-based shared story-reading project is similar in many ways to dialogic story-reading but its focus is broader.

Other Irish literacy initiatives include the Better Reading Partners in the Tolka Area Partnership, Dublin (2008) – a paired reading project evaluated in 2010; Wizards of Words (2012) a paired literacy improvement programme commissioned by Barnardos for children in first and second class in primary school, and involving older volunteers from the

community; and the Write to Read project (2011) in Dublin, an intervention to improve literacy skills of children in first and second class in primary school. The project also focused on professional development for teachers and creating professional learning communities. Appendix Z contains a list of all the PEIN projects that have had research carried out on them. None of them are dialogic story-reading initiatives.

NEYAI: National Early Years Access Initiative

The National Early Years Access Initiative was set up to improve the quality of the early years sector in order to improve, in turn, educational outcomes for young children (aged 0-6) in economically disadvantaged areas in Ireland (Mc Keown, 2014). Eleven projects were set up to variously support children’s learning by training and mentoring early years practitioners. The duration of the initiative was three years, 2011 to 2014. The eleven

103 projects, many of them specifically focusing on oral language development, were seen as demonstration projects that would be evaluated and then, depending on outcomes, could be adopted as best practice in the sector. The initiative was managed by Pobal, a government agency that manages social inclusion interventions and was funded by Atlantic

Philanthropies, Mount Street Club Trust, Department of Children & Youth Affairs, Department of Education & Skills, and Pobal. Each initiative received approximately

€100,000 per annum over the three years. Table 2.9 lists the projects undertaken by NEYAI.

Table 2.9 List of Projects in the National Early Years Access Initiative

ID Location Name Lead Agency Core Activities

BC Ballyfermot/ Chapelizod Early Years Language and Learning Initiative The Ballyfermot/ Chapelizod Partnership Company Ltd.

Train and mentor early years staff in Hanen Programme to:

(i) Improve the child’s language development

(ii) Support parents to encourage the child’s language development CC Canal Communities Canal Communities Family Welfare Initiative – Bringing it all Back Home Daughters of Charity Child and Family Service

Train and mentor early years staff in Marte Meo Programme and Incredible Years Programme to:

(i) Improve the child and parent outcomes

(ii) Intensive outreach with children and their parents

CK Cork Happy Talk Cork City Partnership Limited

Improve the language skills of children aged 0-6 years in The Glen and Mayfield areas of Cork City through parent training

programmes and working with teachers and early years providers

CN Clondalkin Addressing Gaps Between Training and Practice South Dublin County Partnership Ltd

Mentor early years staff to improve outcomes for children and their parents

DD Dublin Docklands Early Learning Initiative National College of Ireland

Train and mentor early years staff in numeracy skills to deliver:

(i) Improve the child’s numeracy skills (ii) Support parents to encourage the child’s numeracy development DL Donegal The Professional Pedagogy Project (PPP) Donegal County Childcare Committee

Train and mentor early years staff to improve outcomes for children

104 FL Fingal Fingal Parents

Initiative The Fingal County Childcare Committee Ltd

Train early years staff to deliver: (i) Parents Together (6-Week Parenting Course)

(ii) Parents Plus Early Years (12-Week Parenting Course)

LK Limerick Start Right Limerick

PAUL Partnership Ltd

Train and support early years staff to: (i) meet Síolta standards

(ii) do intensive outreach with children and their parents

LD Longford Tús Nua Project Longford County Childcare Committee

Train and mentor early years staff to improve outcomes for children

Mc Keown, 2014, p.8. Evaluation of the Learning Community in the National Early Years Access Initiative. Main Report.

Oral language development features in the description of the NEYAI initiative but it is based on the Hanen programme, which is a research–based language programme for parents of children with language delays. Dialogic story-reading is not listed as a feature of any of these interventions.

Kelleher’s (2005) study, the pre-cursor to The Storytime Project, was a shared story-