1. Explicit and Intentional Vocabulary and Early Literacy Interventions in Preschool NASP, 2011
Lisa H. Stewart
Minnesota State University Moorhead
Ruth Kaminski
Dynamic Measurement Group, Center for RTI in Early Childhood
Kate Horst
PreK Minnesota Reading Corps Coordinator and Trainer
Scott McConnell
Univ. of Minnesota, Center for RTI in Early Childhood

2. Minnesota State University Moorhead
Increasing Vocabulary Knowledge in Preschoolers through Repeated Read Alouds
Dr. Lisa H. Stewart, Sara Heimdahl, Tara Hanson, Jessica Remhoff, & Lyndsey Roy
Minnesota State University Moorhead
NASP, February 2011

3. Why study repeated read alouds?
Vocabulary is important! Even before Kindergarten children’s vocabulary growth varies greatly by SES and exposure (Hart & Risely, 1995).
Repeated Reading of the same book across multiple days using dialogic reading techniques may be an effective way of teaching new vocabulary to preschoolers (McGee & Schickedanz, 2007)
Existing research on repeated read-alouds and vocabulary has been done primarily with school-aged children and the type and amount of vocabulary enrichment has not been systematically examined, especially in preschool.

4. Hypotheses
Repeated read-alouds will lead to gains in story-specific vocabulary in at-risk preschoolers, including ESL children.
Children will benefit more from repeated read-alouds with added vocabulary enrichment compared to typical repeated read alouds.
Vocabulary gains made will be retained over time

5. Setting & Participants
½ day Head Start Classrooms
Already used repeated read alouds in small groups in Tier 1 four days a week (M-H)
69 preschoolers ages ages 3-5 (40 boys, 29 girls, n=18 ESL), low SES families
5 classrooms, 10 Read Aloud Groups, 9 teachers
5 lead teachers , 3 asst teachers, 1 Minn. Reading Corps community members
All had SEEDS training and used a (modified 4-day) MRC repeated read aloud checklist
Response rate was 74/85 (89%) and 72/85 (85%) gave permission

6. Repeated Read Aloud “lesson plan”
Note: Minnesota Reading Corps
version, modified to 4 day lesson plan for setting in this study

7. Materials
3 Children’s picture books chosen with the help of the Head Start teachers:
Sheep in a Shop, We’re Going on a Bear Hunt, Dragon Dance
One per week, read Monday-Thursday
ALL teachers were told which 8 words to target
Examiner-made vocabulary tests
Clip art pictures of 15 words per book (n=45 total words)
Words typically unknown by preschoolers, but not too difficult
Standardized directions, prompting and scoring
Similar to the IGDIs Picture Naming Fluency task but with some prompts and no time cut off

8. Procedure Two repeated read aloud (RRA) groups
5 Typical (Moderately Enriched) RRA groups
5 Highly Enriched RRA groups with training and focus on extra vocabulary enrichment
Training= One minute session with examples, role playing, discussion
Enrichment= Increased intentionality and emphasis on the 8 target words across all 4 days of read aloud
Goal = 4 “enrichment” activities per word per day

9. Vocabulary Enrichment Training
Teacher-Led Modeling
Point to it in Illustrations/Picture/Objects
Use a Synonym
Elaborate on Meaning: Explanations/Definitions- can “embed” these just like they are part of the story
Use it in a Sentence; Connect to everyday life with examples
Talk about things that are similar but aren’t the target word and how they are the same and different
Gestures/ “acting” it out
Pausing/emphasizing/repeating
Preview before starting story
Review after story is over

10. Vocabulary Enrichment Training, Cont’d
More Interactive with Kids…
Discussions, Questions, ThinkPairShare
Illustration challenge/ Use of Props
Interactive Word play/comparing word meanings, sounds, etc
Chime in/choral story telling/pronunciation practice
Kids act out words/Draw/Write the pictures and/or words
Preview (What is it? bag, how many words can you remember, show picture/act out, write/say)
Review (Tell me about, story vocab retell, etc)

11. Procedure, Cont’d Vocabulary pre-test (approx 45 terms)
8 target vocabulary terms from each of the three books (lowest number of correct responses on pre-test)
Three weeks of repeated read-aloud
Small groups (approx 6-9 kids)
Typical or with extra vocabulary enrichment
ALL teachers given the 8 target words each week, difference was training and intentional emphasis on increasing vocab enrichment
Each teacher was videotaped once per week
Vocabulary post-test (same as pre-test)
Delayed test at end of the year (4 weeks later)

12. Target Vocabulary

13. Results: All RRA Combined
Overall M=49.6 target word enrichment activities per book, range = Good level of enrichment even in the “typical” groups.
Significant pre-post gains in target vocabulary, t (68)=9.924, p<.001). Average gain was 3.61 target words.
Book by book analysis indicated statistically significant gains in target vocabulary for each of the three books, showing the results were more likely due to the technique used and were not book or vocabulary specific.
Gains were maintained on delayed post-test.
Overall these results indicate repeated read alouds can have a positive impact on children’s vocabulary.
Limited, pre-post, no-control group design

14. Nontarget words average gain =1.3 words (but ceiling effect too)

15. Example Classroom Pre Post by Kid (Note: 1 Typical and 1 Enriched in this Room)
Arrow is a somewhat “typical” scenario…went from 7 to 11.

16. ESL Results
ESL students made significant gains on target vocabulary from pre (M=4.89, range 0-13) to post (M=7.78, range=0-17) testing, t (17)=4.312, p < Average gain =2.89 words.
Although the ESL children did have lower pre and post test scores compared to non-ESL peers, they benefited from the repeated read alouds.
Reinforces earlier research indicating even children with limited English skills can benefit from a high quality read aloud and there does not appear to be a certain level of English needed before the children can pick up information about the words in the books.

17. Pre Post Target Vocabulary Gains by ESL Status

18. Did extra vocabulary enrichment make a difference?
Originally 5 groups in each condition (typical, enriched)
Video data indicated 1 teacher in the enriched condition was substantially lower on enrichment activities than the others and 1 teacher in the typical condition was substantially higher than the others in that condition
Removed these 2 from the analysis for a more clear test of the hypothesis, leaving 4 groups in each condition

19. Note: T1 taught both AM and PM read aloud

20. Results by Group
Gains range from -3 to 10
* Total represents all 10 Repeated Read Aloud Groups and 69 participants. Group results represent the 4 Highest Enriched Groups compared to the lowest 4 Typical (Moderately Enriched) Groups

21. Typical vs. Enriched Group Results
Using an ANCOVA with pre-test scores as the covariate, the main effect for extra vocabulary enrichment was significant F(1,54)=4.522, p=.038
Typical=3.1 words gained
Enriched= 4.8 words gained
Partial eta squared = .080

23. Bottom Line 1
We don’t know if repeated read alouds are better or worse than other ways to teach vocabulary
BUT
Good repeated read alouds meant good things for at-risk preschool kid vocabulary growth in Tier 1!

24. Bottom Line 2
Providing a small amount of additional training and emphasis on vocabulary enrichment increased vocabulary gains even more
Note: 1 Teacher out of 5 did not show as high of a level of Enrichment after Training

25. Some thoughts…
RRA could also be used in Tier 2 to teach and reinforce early literacy skills including vocab
doing this in PreK and K right now in PreK Minn Rdg Corps
How typical was the typical repeated read aloud?
All teachers were provided the target words and knew this was a vocabulary study
All teachers had had SEEDS early literacy training
Did not script or manipulate specific types of vocab enrichment (e.g., embedded vs. extended, Text Talk)- Pro and con?
Did not use RRA as part of a classroom theme
Did the extra vocab enrichment come at the expense of other early literacy activities?