Nevertheless, some limitations of this study have implications for future research in this area. First, this study reflected the size of the problem in the middle- and upper-middle class sample with children who were referred on the basis of low-performance in academic achievement test in English. Neither can we determine whether the gains in oral reading fluency are typical of struggling EFL learners who received GBGT instruction because the number of children in our study is too small for a reliable analysis. If we obtain a larger sample, we hope to address whether the GBGT design may be useful for fostering oral reading fluency among young EFL learners and other groups of children with limited English
proficiency. Additional work is needed to evaluate the GBGT with larger groups of intermediate and upper elementary children to consider the effect of including more children from diverse backgrounds in the sample.
As researchers have noted, intervention projects should anticipate that some children will take longer than one year to make greater gains or read grade level (Juel, 1996; Slavin et al., 1990). The GBGT program, which was implemented within one semester, was not able to offer yearlong or even two-year (continued support to help slower progressing children). Approximately 8 percent of GBGT children require an additional semester or year of tutoring to made significant reading gains, and some of them may need continued support to help them meet grade-level expectations. Future research in this area had better target the sample with increased intervention time to verify if the GBGT instruction used here indeed result in increased achievement for young struggling EFL learners.
Further, the repeated interactive read-alouds used in GBGT was carefully designed and supervised, which highlighted the importance of teacher investment in implementing the intervention. The GBGT cannot be generalized to programs that use teachers without training in reading instruction or that allow teachers to design their own instructional program. Moreover, school teachers would provide their struggling children time to read aloud with individualized support. Given the school teachers’ time to help with the struggling EFL learners, this implementation was likely to increase the effectiveness of the repeated interactive read-alouds used in GBGT. In the ongoing research, we may well focus on how to provide sustained professional development and support for teachers as they implement literature-based instructional approaches.
In a related way, work needs to be conducted on issues surrounding the assessment of oral reading fluency of elementary children. At present, a normative framework of acceptable reading rates by grade or developmental level has not yet been established. No fluency norms are available to determine whether the EFL children made suitable progress in their fluency. Information about reading rates by grade or developmental level would serve an important practical function to determine which students make adequate progress or require special intervention (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006). Additional work is needed to build a database to identify acceptable rates of fluency at different grade levels and specify the ways by which EFL children process text.
CONCLUSION
We assumed that how teachers structured and implemented the reading instruction would make a difference in how the struggling EFL learners learned to read in the after-school program, and how these children learned to read would influence the level of oral reading fluency they attained at the end of the intervention. The study confirmed this expectation. The GBGT program comprising systematically structured read-aloud sessions were designed to support interactive read-alouds and independent reading among EFL children with low reading potential. We have presented findings from this study that demonstrates the potential value, and usability of repeated interactive read-alouds instruction with EFL learners at risk for reading. The preliminary analyses show that GBGT can help struggling young EFL learners to improve their oral reading fluency. If we attempt to foster struggling EFLs’ reading development, a critical first step would
at least offer well-structured reading instruction that centers on children’s learning needs. Moreover, simply offering grade-appropriate readers will not be sufficient;
we will need to ensure that struggling learners read aloud as often as possible and that they read as much as they can.
Allington (1994) cautioned us not to confuse lack of experience with lack of ability. Ensuring that children who are less experienced with read-alouds in English obtain that experience appropriately was an instructional priority of the GBGT program. Traditionally, early literacy intervention for EFL learners is typified by phonological processing, phonics and word recognition instruction. Instead, the GBGT program sought to engage young learners in picture book readings with multiple types of read-alouds while retaining a research-based premise. Moreover, educators can never be too careful to identify the low-performing EFL learners as disabled readers. Well-structured read-alouds that occur during the additional instructional time can provide potential opportunities to allow extended time for struggling EFL children to read in English and boost their confidence in oral reading fluency. The gains the children made demonstrate that the children were able to learn to read.
In Leo the Late Bloomer, written by Robert Kraus and illustrated by José Aruego (1994), Leo the tiger cub lags behind his animal friends in reading, writing, talking, and other skills. His father keeps worrying about Leo, and Leo's mother asks his father to have patience with Leo,
“Are you sure Leo’s a bloomer?”
asked Leo’s father.
“Patience,” said Leo’s mother,
“A watched bloomer doesn’t bloom.”
Given sufficient quality reading instruction, some slow-progressing children will bloom in their own good time, catching up to their more accomplished partners.
Despite its limitations and other challenges, this study suggests the value of repeated interactive read-alouds and highlights the need for continued research and development in the service of improving English literacy and learning outcomes for young struggling children. After-school Alternative Program was launched in 2006.
Six years after the program was carried out and many studies later, it seems a good time to consider how much corroborating evidence is needed before school leaders and educators feel compelled to require research-based forms of GBGT as a fluency-oriented approach to reading.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was sponsored by a grant from the National Science Council (NSC 100-2410-H-133-008). The author is indebted to two school principals and staff for their administrative support, to teachers and students for their participation in the project. The author is also thankful to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that greatly contributed to improving the final version of the paper.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L. (1979). Word identification abilities of severely disabled readers:
A comparison in isolation and context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10(4), 409-416.
Allington, R. L. (1994). The schools we have. The schools we need. The Reading Teacher, 48, 14-28.
Allington, R. L. (2012). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55(1), 10-20.
Bellon, M., & Ogletree, B. (2000). Repeated storybook reading as an instructional method. Intervention in School & Clinic, 36(2), 75-81.
Bellon-Harn, M., & Harn, W. (2008). Scaffolding strategies during repeated storybook reading: An extension using a voice output communication aid.
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 23(2), 112-124.
Bortnem, G. (2008). Teacher use of interactive read alouds: Using nonfiction in early childhood classrooms. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5(12), 29-44.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). The making of a reader. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Copenhaver, J. (2001). Running out of time: Rushed read-alouds in a primary classroom. Language Arts, 79(2), 148.
Cunningham, A. E. and K. E. Stanovich. (1998). What reading does for the mind.
American Educator, 22(1-2), 8-15.
Cunningham, P. (2005). Struggling readers: "If they don't read much, how they ever gonna get good?" The Reading Teacher, 59(1), 88-90.
Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading.
Exceptional Children, 49 (1), 36–45.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative.
Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
Department of Education, Taipei City Government (DOE Taipei) (2010).
Curriculum guidelines of elementary English language teaching and learning.
Retrieved July 31, 2013, from
http://etweb.tp.edu.tw/Fdt/D03/share/soushow.aspx?CDE=RSB201012131824 33OIA&RESCDE=RES20100920142037OUP
DiCamilla, F. J. & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygotskian perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 53(4), 609-633.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.
Ganske, K, Monroe, J. K., & Strickland, D. S. (2003). Questions teachers ask about struggling readers and writers. The Reading Teacher, 57(2), 118-128.
Goldstone, B. (2001/2002). Whaz up with our books? Changing picture book codes and teaching implications. The Reading Teacher, 55(4), 362-70.
Gormley, S., & Ruhl, K. (2005). Dialogic shared storybook reading: An instructional technique for use with young students in inclusive settings.
Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 21(3), 307-313.
Greenawalt, L. (2010). Repeated interactive read-alouds using non-fiction. Ohio Journal of English Language Arts, 50(1), 15-21.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral Reading Fluency Norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.
Hill, S. & Feely, J. (2004). AlphaAssess. Australia: Horwitz Education.
Homan, S., Klesius J. & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of repeated readings and nonrepetitive strategies on students’ fluency and comprehension. Journal of Educational Research 87(2), 94-99.
Jenkins, J.R., Fuchs, L.S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S.L. (2003).
Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719-729.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 268-288.
Justice, L, and Ezell, H. K. (2002). Use of storybook reading to increase print awareness in at-risk children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 17-29.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2004). Print referencing: An emergent literacy enhancement strategy and its clinical applications. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 185-193.
Koeller, S. (1981). 25 years advocating children’s literature in the reading program.
The Reading Teacher, 34, 552-556.
Kraus, R. & Aruego, J. (1994). Leo the late bloomer. New York: HarperCollins.
Kuhn, M. R. & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3-21.
Kuhn, M.R., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. Eds.(2008). Fluency in the classroom. New York: Guilford Press.
Larrick, N. (1987). Illiteracy starts too soon. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 184-189.
McGee, L., & Schickedanz, J. (2007). Repeated interactive read-alouds in preschool and kindergarten. The Reading Teacher, 60(8), 742-751.
Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan, ROC (2008). Grades 1-9 curriculum guidelines for English language learning. Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://140.111.34.54/EJE/content.aspx?site_content_sn=15326
Moyer, S. B. (1982). Repeated reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15(10), 619-623.
Ortiz, A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 321-332.
Pantaleo, S. (2007). Interthinking: Young children using language to think collectively during interactive read-alouds. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(6), 439-447.
Pikulski, J. & Chard, D. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58.6(2005), 510-519.
Rasinski, T. V. (2010). The fluent reader: Oral & silent reading strategies for building fluency, word recognition & comprehension. New York: Scholastic.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403-408.
Sheu, H. C. (2006). The challenges of using English picture storybooks with primary school students in Taiwan. English Teaching & Learning. Special Issue (1): 39-59.
Sipe, L. (2000). The construction of literary understanding by first and second graders in oral response to picture storybook read-alouds. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 252.
Slavin, R., Madden, N., Karweit, N. Livermon, B., & Dolan, L. (1990). Success for all: First-year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming urban education. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 255-278.
Sloan, G. (2003). The child as critic. 4th ed. New York: Columbia University.
Spache, G. (1953). Spache readability formula. Retrieved December 20, 2011, from http://www.readabilityformulas.com/spache-readability-formula.php
Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189(1/2), 23-55.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.
Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N. & Angell, A. L. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30, 679-683.
Appendix
Types of Picture Books, Titles, Themes, and Language Focuses for GBGT
picture storybooks with sparse texts
Title Theme Language Focus
There Is a Town household chores (setting the table)
There + be
There is some soy sauce./ There aren’t any spoons.
Is there any soy sauce?/ Yes, there is/ No, there isn’t.
Are there any spoons? Yes, there are./ No, there aren’t.
asking questions What’s that? It’s Robert’s radio.
Is that Robert’s video game?
informational books
Title Theme Language Focus
Season seasons What’s your favorite season?
Is it ___ in ___?
Waste nature and
environment
What can we do to save the Earth?
We can ___.
picture storybooks with dynamic word-and-image interactions
Title Theme Language Focus
Gorilla activities/ past tense
Did you ___ last night?
What did you do last night?
Five Little Monkeys with Nothing to Do
household chores He has to wash the dishes.
Does he have to wash the dishes? Yes, he does.
This is the Way We Go to School
transportation/
getting around/
I usually walk to school.
How do you get to school? I usually walk.
Green Eggs and Ham preferences What ___ do you like?
Do you like ___?
“Good Books, Good Times”: Using Picture Book Read-Alouds in the After-school Alternative Program
Lichung Yang*
Abstract
“Good Books, Good Times” (GBGT) was designed and implemented as a 12-week, literature-based intervention program which employed different types of picture books in order to improve struggling EFL children’s oral reading fluency (ORF) in English as well as to understand those children’s performances in oral reading fluency, comprehension (via retelling) and isolated word reading . A repeated interactive read-aloud instructional approach was conducted to stress fluent reading and automatic word recognition. Forty struggling EFL children were invited to participate in the study; 26 participants were randomly designated as experimental and 14 as comparison. The comparison group used only the textbook as the reading materials in class, but the experimental group read both the textbook and selected instructional-level picture books each week. When the comparison group reviewed lessons with pattern drill practices, games or role-plays, the experimental group received the interactive read-aloud instruction 30 minutes each week. The results of the study indicate that both groups made progress in the posttest; and that the experimental group outperformed the comparison group in oral reading fluency and comprehension (via retelling), and showed relatively moderate advantage of their training over isolated word reading than over
*Associate Professor, Department of English Instruction, University of Taipei.
connected text reading from the picture books. Large reading gains were also observed among the lower-achieving readers among the GBGT children.
Correlational analyses of pre-post gains scores showed that words correct per minute (WCPM) gain was strongly associated with weekly reading probes and frequency of individual reading practice throughout the intervention.
Keywords: Picture Books, Read Aloud, Oral Reading Fluency, Intervention, Teaching English Language Learners in Elementary Schools