「好書，好時光」：圖畫書朗讀 對於國小課後輔導班學童英語閱讀的影響

「好書，好時光」：圖畫書朗讀

對於國小課後輔導班學童英語閱讀的影響

摘要

「好書，好時光」（Good Books, Good Times or GBGT），是一項提供英語

暢度及閱讀理解的表現，實驗組內相對低成就學童的後測表現有明顯進步。此 外，相關性分析顯示，實驗組學童每分鐘閱讀正確字數（WCPM）的進步表 現與其每週朗讀練習頻率顯著相關。

INTRODUCTION

Recent concerns about school children’s English proficiency have led to

efforts to expand school programs designed as intervention efforts for children with

poor academic performance. Early literacy interventions for our EFL children

become an essential part of the "Collaboration Plan: After-School Alternative

Program," which Ministry of Education launched in 2006. An important goal of the

government-funded program is to offset the myriad developmental risks associated with disability and poverty by improving children’s readiness for schooling and, by extension, their short- and long-term academic success. Since intervention

programs were put into practice in a wide range of school communities, however,

questions have been coming in thick and fast (Ganske, Monroe, & Strickland,

2003). One of the key questions educators have attempted to answer is what kinds

of additional instruction or intervention are likely to help because they are not part

of the regular school reading instruction.

Having conducted site visits to after-school programs carried out in the past

two years, the researcher observed that some intervention or after-school programs

focused primarily on homework completion and tutoring. Educational activities,

including homework, were central elements of the after-school program for

children. It is indeed important to enable at-risk children to be successful in

academic outcomes to help build their confidence as English-language learners.

Given the concerns over ensuring fundamental English skills, however, it is

questionable whether sufficient reading opportunities are provided for children who

instruction to process grade-level material that is challenging for them. If the

After-school Alternative Program targets mainly on homework completion and

tutoring, there is still something not found, something that seems to be the implicit

and explicit instruction of reading. For at-risk children in reading, the potential

opportunities to allow extended time for them to read may be even more limited.

Particularly for those children who lack exposure to English literacy, a combination

of grade-level reading material that is challenging and practices focusing on

spellings and pattern drills seems to limit their opportunities to learn to read and

build their confidence to process English texts.

For decades, educators have recognized the limitations of basal readers in the

development of literacy (Koeller, 1981; Larrick, 1987; Sloan, 2003). Marilyn

Cochran-Smith, writer of the classic The Making of a Reader (1984), has suggested

that reading is more than decoding and encoding the print, and that early literacy

involves more than preparation for breaking the codes. Children need to learn ways

to use and understand the written word while learning the mechanical skills of

encoding and decoding print. In their longitudinal study of the correlation between

reading volume and reading competence, Cunningham and Stanovich (1998) suggested that we must ensure, on the one hand, that children’s decoding and word recognition abilities are progressing solidly. On the other, we should provide all

As far as reading experience and reading volume are concerned, young

struggling EFL learners here obviously need more models, explanations, and

demonstrations of how reading in English is accomplished, not more assignments

without any instruction-level reading material, not more study skills without EFL

reading instruction. Elementary school children are now offered English courses

with two (or three or more) forty-minute periods per week in the regular EFL

classroom. However, becoming proficient in a foreign language is a complex and

demanding process that involves learning multiple dimensions of a language. If

their attention is focused primarily on remembering what they have read rather than

facilitating or evaluating their reading development, many low-performing children

have significantly fewer opportunities to develop automatic decoding skills and are

less likely to engage in meaningful English literacy related experiences. While

some children enter school with hundreds of hours of read-aloud experience and

familiarity with a wide array of English books, other children are completely

without those experiences. If a normal child who is receiving the regular

English-language instruction lacks grade-level English skills, then additional

instructional time may be used to provide robust EFL reading instruction in the

context of literacy activities that promote reading experience rather than remediates

study skills.

PURPOSE

In an effort to capture that often-absent reading experience as well as reading

instruction in EFL classroom, “Good Books, Good Times” (GBGT) was designed

of the After-School Alternative Program. We hope well-structured read-alouds that

occur during the additional instructional time can provide potential opportunities to

foster reading experience and to allow extended time for children to sit and read

while obtaining support from educators to approach more English texts. "Good

Books, Good Times" is named after a famous poem by Lee Bennet Hopkins

(1938– ), noted poet and anthologist in the United States. The reading project is

named for the fact that that Hopkins dedicated himself to bringing children and

books together, and that his most famous poem is "Good Books, Good Times."

The study reported here is an initial investigation into the potential

effectiveness of GBGT with intermediate and upper grade children who

participated in the After-School Alternative Program. The specific research

questions were as follows:

1)Do the instructional methods used in GBGT have an effect on the reading performance of children who participated in the After-School Alternative Program?

2) Is the effect of the instructional methods used in GBGT significantly greater than that of homework assistance methods on the reading performance of children who participated in the After-School Alternative Program?

GBGT FOR STRUGGLING EFL CHILDREN

with children. Four techniques that have emerged as particularly compelling

approaches to read-aloud are dialogic reading (Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein, &

Ezell, 2002, 2004) and repeated interactive read-alouds (McGee & Schickedanz,

2007). In dialogic reading, teachers encourage the child to become an active learner

during book reading. The emphasis is on asking “what” questions, following

answers with questions, repeating what the child says, and providing help and

praise. During the read-alouds, specific types of prompts are implemented to

sustain meaningful interactions between teacher and children (Whitehurst, Arnold,

Epstein, & Angell, 1994). Text talk, developed by Beck and McKeown and their

colleagues (2001) is a read-aloud strategy that focuses on vocabulary development

most typically used with English-speaking children at the elementary level. By

engaging children in meaningful discussions about books, teachers use text talk

read-alouds to provide a context for teaching new words. Print referencing refers to

the verbal and non-verbal cues, teachers use to call children’s attention to important

aspects of the book, including its forms, features, and functions (Justice & Ezell,

2004). But Justice and Ezell (2004) cautioned that too much print referencing during reading can detract from children’s enjoyment. With regard to interactive read-alouds, McGee and Schickedanz (2007) argued that merely inviting children

to talk during read-alouds is not sufficient to accelerate their literacy development.

Instead, growth is related to how frequently they engage in analytic talk. They

asserted that effective interactive read-alouds include a systematic approach that incorporates teachers’ modeling of reading, prompting children to recall a story in some way within reasonable time frame, and reading a single book repeatedly and

reading books related by topic.

Taken together, read-aloud methods mentioned above provide compelling

four methods, however, the format of repeated interactive read-aloud, seems to be

most suitable to the GBGT which aims at providing young struggling EFL learners

with more read-aloud opportunities. First, repetition has been seen to play an

important role in studies of EFL language acquisition (Bellon & Ogletree, 2000;

Bellon-Harn & Harn, 2008; DiCamilla & Anton, 1997). Repeated readings (or

multiple oral readings) have also been effective with at-risk children (Kuhn & Stahl,

2003; Samuels, 1979). Second, several researchers have discussed the multiple

benefits of using an interactive format when reading aloud to children (Copenhaver,

2001; Gormley & Ruhl, 2005; Pantaleo, 2007; Sipe, 2000). McGee and

Schickedanz (2007) also emphasized the significant role interactions between

teacher and children play in read-alouds. If the repeated readings were helpful in

building fluency, confidence, and comprehension in children (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003;

Samuels, 1979), the researcher hypothesized that a similar framework would work

well with the EFL children in the after-school program.

However, the repeated interactive read-alouds designed by McGee and

Schickedanz was not designed to aim at developing quality read-aloud methods

with low-performing EFL children or present substantial evidence to prove itself as

a significant pathway to reading proficiency. Although it targeted helping children

with reading comprehension, this instruction has been conducted mainly with the

English-speaking children, with little mention of the EFL learners. Here in Taiwan

the language learning environment is different for young ELLs, and their reading

difficulties can be attributed to a variety of factors (Ortiz, 1997). Considerably

more work must be done with EFL learners to develop appropriate instructional

Modifications are evidently needed when read-alouds featuring repetition and

interaction are to be used with these children to improve their reading performance.

Program Design

When put into the EFL context, we began our GBGT program by reviewing

Grades 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines for English Language Learning ((MOE, 2008) and Curriculum Guidelines of Elementary English Language Teaching and

Learning (DOE Taipei, 2010). We found that vocabulary has been identified not merely as one of the essential components of reading instruction, but also as the top

competence index in the curriculum guidelines promulgated by the Ministry of

Education in Taiwan. When completing the first stage of the compulsory education

in grades 3 through 6, the guidelines indicate, a young English language learner

must be able to say a minimum of 300 English words, and spell 180 words of them

for communication purposes; and when completing the second stage of the

compulsory education in grades 7 through 9, an English language learner needs to

be able to master 1,200 basic words listed in the guidelines, and use them for

communication purposes (MOE, 2008). The underlying presumption of the

guidelines is that EFL children's English proficiency is highly associated with the

number of words they are able to use. However, learning English as a foreign

language cannot be reduced only to learning vocabulary, and vocabulary cannot

always be learned in isolation. In elementary reading, for example, the guidelines

dictate that a young learner must be able to read aloud dialogues and stories in the

textbooks, to read and comprehend simple stories and children's drama with the aid

text with the aid of pictures, headings, and title (MOE, 2008). Therefore,

elementary school children are expected to be able to read aloud and comprehend

simple narratives with the aid of pictures or other signs.

In the pilot study, the researcher met children with diverse needs, stemming

from differences in their literacy experiences, learning abilities, and home

languages. There were children who were not able to read grade-level texts; had

difficulty writing a sentence; were reluctant to engage in the learning process.

There were also children whose experiences had caused them to turn off and tune

out, or those who had not yet been excited by English learning. Above all, many of

the children seemed to manifest difficulties in reading aloud fluently that appear to

contribute to their overall struggles in reading (Stanovich, 2008).

To develop children’s oral reading fluency and set the stage for their personal confidence building that takes place as they read the text, a fluency-oriented GBGT

program was thus designed. Although definitions of oral reading fluency vary, it

has generally been defined as the ability to read text or passage quickly, accurately,

with proper phrasing or expression, thereby reflecting the ability to decode and

comprehend simultaneously (Deno, Mirkin, and Chiang, 1982; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp,

& Jenkins, 2001; Kuhn & Schwanenflugel, 2008; Pikulski & Chard, 2005). Oral

reading fluency (or passage reading fluency) has been seen in the recent decade as

a robust indicator of overall reading competence. Deno, Mirkin, and Chiang (1982)

identified passage reading fluency as a key curriculum-based measurement (CBM)

task, showing that its strong correlations with reading comprehension. Fuchs,

Fuchs, Hosp, and Jenkins (2001) conducted a theoretical, empirical, and historical

children to simultaneously integrate the various skills such as decoding, sight word

recognition, vocabulary knowledge, comprehension, etc. Pikulski and Chard (2005)

saw oral reading fluency as part of a developmental process of building decoding

skills, a bridge between vocabulary and reading comprehension. Kuhn and

Schwanenflugel (2008) also offered distinct approaches to oral reading instruction

that were grounded in empirical research.

METHOD

Participants and Setting

This study was conducted in two public elementary schools in Taipei in the

spring semester of 2012. The schools were located in predominantly middle-class

communities. The school leaders and teachers were well aware that the pedagogical

goals of the GBGT program were to improve reading performance of young

struggling EFL learners. As a result, they were inclined to get the children to

participate in the program. The result was that a total of 40 children participated in

this study: 9 from grade 6, 15 from grade 5, and 16 from grade 4, and the average

age of these children was 10.8. Sixty percent of them started learning English when

they were in the second grade, and others started earlier in kindergarten. About

25% of the participants were simultaneously going to other English lessons outside

school when the study was conducted. Approximately 70% of children were

officially classified as struggling EFL learners whose English test scores were at or

below the 35th percentile of the intact class. They were required by the Ministry of

Education to take an online placement test at the beginning and the end of the

The participants were randomly assigned into the experimental (GBGT)

group (n = 26) and comparison group (n=14) based on the order of referral by the

teachers. Although the researcher took care to obtain children similar to those who

received GBGT, the comparison group should not be seen as a comparison group in

the customary sense of the term. In the best experimental designs, a comparison

group differs from an experimental group on only one factor and, if differences

occur, inferences are made that the single factor is the cause of the difference. In

this intervention study, the comparison group differed from the GBGT group in

three ways. First, the GBGT group received extra time in read-aloud instruction

every week, but no additional read-aloud instruction was offered for the

comparison group; second, they had ready access to more picture books and

reading material than the comparison group. Finally, all the children received core

literacy instruction with grade-leveled basal readers in the after-school program, so

any gains among GBGT children are the result of both core literacy instruction and

GBGT practices.

Parental consent and student assent were obtained prior to the start of the

study. All the sessions were conducted in regular classrooms equipped with

computers and overhead projectors. Each session was audiotaped or videotaped to

allow for the assessment of procedural integrity and inter-scorer agreement.

Teacher Training

Four teachers hired for the After-School Alternative Program were invited to

help with the GBGT project. All of them had some previous experience working

who provided the GBGT reading instruction were graduate students studying

TESOL (Teaching English as Second Language). All of them were informed of the

basics of the reading project prior to the intervention. In one month before the

intervention, the teachers of the GBGT group also received 12 hours of training on

teaching read-alouds, selection of picture books, and motivating struggling

children.

As a means of promoting procedural integrity, teachers who provided the

GBGT instruction were provided with a procedural checklist to follow while

implementing the interventions. The procedural checklist included step-by-step

directions they were to use when providing children with directions.

The GBGT and comparison groups were each scheduled once a week,

approximately 30 minutes each session, for 12 weeks during the additional

instruction time of the After-School Alternative Program. On Monday Teacher 1

worked with one GBGT group of 9 upper graders, and Teacher 2 worked with one

GBGT group of 5 intermediate graders. On Thursday, Teacher 1 worked with the

other GBGT group of 7 upper graders, and Teacher 2 worked with the other GBGT

group of 5 intermediate graders. Teacher 3 had 8 upper graders in one comparison

group, and Teacher 4 had 6 intermediate-graders in the other comparison group.

Reading Materials

The GBGT program features the following components: (1) types of picture

books and reading material; (2) types of read-alouds; and (3) individual practice. To

offer the children more opportunities to familiarize themselves with the units they

but also for their compatibility with the reading themes emphasized in the school

curriculum. Moreover, we incorporated into the GBGT three types of picture books:

picture storybooks with sparse texts, informational books, and sophisticated picture

books with dynamic word-and-image interactions in order to engage children in the

read-alouds (Bortnem, 2008; Goldstone, 2001/2002; Greenawalt, 2010). When a

focus on picture book read-alouds is often limited during school (Sheu, 2006), we

hoped that these at-risk EFL learners could get access to different types of picture

books to read for pleasure in the after-school program. Above all, if the verbal text

of the picture books were lengthy or challenging for the struggling EFL learners,

reading materials were adapted from the picture books by the research team. They were made at children’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) so that what they were expected to read was just beyond what they could read

independently, which would help to reduce the chance of frustration in class.

The verbal text of each picture book were also retyped or abridged into a

reading script for children to read aloud in class as well as a minibook for children’s individual practice. Following each book talk, the reading script was used with types of read-alouds. The average length of each minibook was 50-95

words. The comparatively short text and familiar subject matter was ideal for the

struggling EFL learners to read orally in the program. The readability of the reading

passages was determined through the use of Spache Readability Formula. By

Spache Readability Formula, the readability of the minibook was approximately

between 1st grade and 2nd grade English native speaker levels. In addition, audio

Instruction Procedure

The after-school instruction contained two main sessions, each of which

would take approximately 30 minutes. In the first session, the teachers in the GBGT and comparison groups would check children’s work and help review the key vocabulary and sentence structures in the textbook. In the second session, the

teacher would provide the comparison group with more review practices in the

format of games or role plays. In the GBGT group, however, the second session

was devoted to picture book read-alouds. Children in the GBGT group received an

approximately 30 minute session of extra reading instruction, once a week for a

period of 12 consecutive weeks. In other words, GBGT children spent

approximately 50 percent of their instructional time reading passages and

discussing or responding to questions about the print materials they read. By way

of contrast, the comparison group spent roughly as much time on the activities,

with word identification, spelling, speaking activities occupying half of lesson time

on a weekly basis.

Regardless of read-aloud type, the teacher would begin each GBGT session

using the same procedure: first, 20-minute read-alouds, and then individual

readings. In the GBGT framework, the teacher would read one picture book with

the children three times (Table 1). The first read-aloud would begin with book

introduction, which included modeling reading, vocabulary support techniques,

analytical comments and questions. Instruction techniques would be carefully

selected to help children build a stronger first understanding of the book, including

invite the children to read the book or its adaptation with him or her simultaneously.

At the end of the session, the teacher would ask each child to read the minibook

aloud independently, and provide assistance and praise.

Second read-aloud would occur a week after first read. The purpose was to

familiarize children with key words and sentence structure and provide

opportunities for them to engage in choral readings. During the second read, the

teacher would remind children that they have read the same book before and that

they usually remembered some things from the book. The teacher also would

continue to highlight key words and sentence structure, and repeat them verbally.

The teacher would continue modeling fluent, expressive, slow readings, and ask

children to practice types of choral readings. Like first read, the teacher would end

second read by asking each child to take turns reading the minibook aloud

independently, and giving corrective feedback in the form of phrase drill error

correction or syllable segmenting and blending.

Third read occurred another week after the second read when the reading

text should still be fresh in children’s minds. And the third read would differ from first and second read-alouds because the teacher would first review the lesson by

inviting children to listen to the best individual read-alouds or the audio CD on a

computer. After the review, the class would practice dialogical reading or reader’s

theater with teacher guidance by having each child play a role or read with one unique voice. The third read would end with each child’s reading the minibook one more time to demonstrate mastery of the book.

In each cycle of GBGT, types of read-alouds, including modeling, choral

incorporated in the program (Rasinski, 2010). It is true that repetition has been seen

to play an important role in studies of EFL language acquisition (Bellon & Ogletree,

2000; Bellon-Harn & Harn, 2008; DiCamilla & Anton, 1997). But repeated

readings may be boring or tedious for school children whose thinking capabilities

are advanced compared with their English proficiency at the same age (Moyer,

1982). The different types of read-alouds were thus implemented to avoid the

boredom often associated with repeated reading as a single intervention. Teachers

modeled good reading with expression, using choral reading and antiphonal

reading and facilitating social interactions between teacher and children, between

group members in read-alouds (Rasinski, 2010).

Table 1

GBGT Instruction Procedure

1st read 2nd read 3rd read

 Book introduction  Echo choral reading  Individual reading  Modeling reading  Choral reading  Individual reading  Modeling reading  Dialogical reading or readers’ theater  Individual reading

Measures

Instruments for Pre- and Post- Tests. The quantitative data for this study

was collected through the use of a high-frequency word recognition list, and a

Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) using a benchmark book at emergent level

from AlphaAssess, an individualized English-language assessment developed by

Hill and Feely (2004). The word recognition word list contains 50 high-frequency

child can recognize and sound out the words of context quickly. The raw score for

word recognition section is on a scale from 0 to 50.

The emergent-level benchmark book used for this study features a simple

story with 92 words, range of punctuation, familiar sentence structures, and direct

match between words and pictures. Readability level was estimated approximately

at first grade English native speaker level by Spache Readability Formula. The benchmark book was used to assess children’s oral reading fluency, as measured on a CBM by words correct per minute (WCPM), calculated by taking the total

number of words read in one minute and subtracting the number of errors (Deno,

1985).

Comprehension performance was based on an unprompted story-retelling of

the benchmark book read. A retelling rubric, modeled on Homan (1993), was used

to rate the participants’ comprehension on setting, characters, and main events they

were able to retell in Chinese after reading. There are 20 items, and a total of 20

points could be earned for the story retelling.

Weekly Reading Logs. Two GBGT teachers were given direct and written

instructions on passage administration protocols and on CBM procedures used in this study. Children’ s independent readings were taped and their WCPM were well-documented throughout the intervention period to capture their reading

development.

Administration and Scoring. Each participant’s performances in the pre-

and post-tests were tape recorded for later analysis. These data were scored

independently by the researcher and the research assistants. Two undergraduate and

procedures. Following a training session, two raters scored the participants’ taped readings and retellings separately. Inter-scorer agreement and procedural integrity

were assessed by having a second examiner review all of the audiotaped or

videotaped sessions, independently score each passage read by the participant.

Discrepancies between the scorings were minimal but agreement was reached in all cases after repeated listening. Participant’s performance was scored as correct only if there was agreement between the print and observed responses.

RESULTS

A series of independent-samples t-test was conducted to see if the GBGT and

comparison groups differed on the receptive posttest. The two groups were nearly

equivalent or similar with regard to English performance in word recognition,

WCPM, and comprehension in the pretest. Table 2 displays the mean WCPM, raw

score means, standard deviations, and average percentile ranking of both groups on

the Word Recognition and a benchmark book from AlphaAssess in the pre- and

posttests. The data are presented in terms of both level of performance and change

in performance. The descriptive analysis of Table 2 illustrates that both

intervention conditions generally improved. After 12-week of intervention, the two

groups resulted in greater performance on the measures of word recognition,

WCPM and comprehension via re-telling in the posttest than did the pretest.

When changes in word recognition are considered, the observed gains were

slightly greater for the GBGT group from the pretest (M=56.27) to the posttest

(M=70.58) when compared with the comparison group from the pretest (M=49.14)

children by 4 percentage point difference on high-frequency word recognition

posttest. Although improvement was made in high-frequency word recognition, a

minor difference (p > .05) was detected between the two groups in terms of change

in scores from the pretest to posttest.

However, an examination of the WCPM data indicated that there was a statistically significant (p<.05) growth in the GBGT group from the pretest (M=29.82) to the posttest (M=49.26), and a minor change in the WCPM of the comparison group from the pretest (M=28.07) to the posttest (40.36). Children in the GBGT group made gains of an average of 19.42 words per minute, significantly different from the average gain of 12.28 words made by the comparison group in this study.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for GBGT and comparison Oral Reading Performances, and Average Gains in Word Recognition, Words Correct per Minute (WCPM), and Re-telling

GBGT Group (n = 26) Comparison Group (n = 14) p

Word

Recognition raw percentile raw percentile

W 0 28.13 (12.69) 56.27 (25.36) 24.57 (13.01) 49.14 (26.00) W 13 35.28 (9.86) 70.58 (19.72) 29.68 (13.32) 59.36 (26.62) Change 7.15 (6.80) 14.31( 13.16) 5.11 (3.45) 10.22 (6.90) 0.20 Passage Reading WCPM WCPM W 0 29.82 (21.26) 28.07 (20.01) W 13 49.26 (21.83) 40.36 (23.98) Change 19.42 (9.89) 12.28 (6.81) 0.01*

Re-telling raw Percentile raw percentile

W 0 7.12 (5.03) 35.58 (25.15) 5.42 (4.01) 27.14 (20.07)

W 13 11.96 (4.04) 59.81 (20.22) 7.79 (3.83) 38.93 (19.13)

Change 4.85 (2.48) 24.23 (12.38) 2.36 (3.37) 11.79 (16.83) 0.02*

 Word recognition score: on a scale from 0 to 50; Passage Reading: WCPM; Retelling Score: on a scale from 0 to 20.

 Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses.  *

p < 0.05

DISCUSSION

Quantitative Data

The results of the this study indicate that the impressive gains GBGT

children made in oral reading fluency and comprehension did not transfer more

strongly into word recognition. There are reasonable hypotheses for why GBGT

children showed relatively moderate advantage of their training over isolated word

reading than over connected text reading from the picture books. For one thing, the

the context. Rather, they were trained to focus their attention primarily on grouping

words as well as matching words and pictures to help them gain meaning from

what they read. They were frequently taught to make connections among the ideas

in a text and between these ideas and their background knowledge. In other words,

children in the GBGT group were taught to recognize words and comprehend at the

same time. Thus, GBGT children presumably spent more time and energy studying

the words in context than the comparison children did, because all their training

when not working on the basal reader encouraged this kind of strategy. Moreover, repeated oral readings, as Moyer (1982) stated, provide “the highest possible level of redundancy, exact repetition of a linguistic whole” (p.622). The redundancy of

rereading may help children learn to derive word meanings from the context. It

stands to reason that the reading words in context would encourage more transfer

of the reading comprehension techniques to the benchmark book test.

Studies have also suggested moderate correlation between word recognition

in isolation and in context. In a detailed analysis of individual performances of a

group of severely disabled readers, Allington (1979) found that some poor readers

are able to employ contextual information to identify words, whereas others can

identify words in isolation but fail to recognize identical stimuli embedded in

context. By the data he had available, he argued that word recognition and reading

are separate processes and require different models to account for each. Fuchs at al.

(2001) combed the relevant studies, indicating that when measuring reading

comprehension, reading isolated word lists may represent a similarly good

indicator of reading competence compared to oral reading fluency. To buttress this

criterion validity of fluency scores when children read words in isolation or in

context. Jenkins et al. (2003) pointed out that the observed behaviors in word list

fluency and text fluency are virtually identical; by contrast, text fluency and word

list fluency are different in their contribution to reading comprehension. They

measured 113 4th-grade children to probe the contributions of context-free and

context reading skill to reading comprehension, and found that relative to list

fluency, context fluency was a stronger predictor of comprehension. These findings

can be said to offer an empirical and theoretical account of the reason why GBGT

children showed relatively moderate advantage of their training over isolated word

reading than over connected text reading from the picture books.

Of equal greater interest, the results of the study also indicate that the GBGT

intervention improved oral reading fluency and comprehension (via retelling)

among young EFL learners who received instruction for a 12-week period. The

findings of the present study find support in recent studies that regard oral reading

fluency as a potentially powerful indicator of reading competence (Fuchs, Fuchs,

Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Kuhn & Schwanenflugel, 2008; Pikulski & Chard, 2005).

They also add to the accumulating evidence that reading fluency is a strong

predictor of comprehension (Jenkins at al, 2003).

However, an important question that simultaneously remains unanswered is

whether the improvement was made by higher-achieving children rather than their

lower-achieving peers. The raw data showed that within group differences were

obvious in GBGT children, so were the individual gains they made in the posttest.

To probe their reading development, children in the GBGT condition were broken

percentile of the GBGT group on the variable measures of the posttest) and

lower-achieving reader (performing below the 50th percentile).

As seen in Table 3, children’ performance in the measures of the pretest did

not have a significant or direct impact on their ability to make gains in word

recognition, WCPM, and comprehension via retelling. For one thing, the mean

score of the gains on the word recognition posttest in the higher-achieving

sub-group was 8.93%, but the mean score of the lower-achieving sub-group was

21.64%. The lower-achieving readers made average gains of approximately twice

as much as their higher-achieving peers. Ten of 11 lower-achieving readers

(including 2 sixth-graders, 1 fifth-grader, and 7 fourth-graders) made average gains

of 15 percent or more on the word recognition posttest.

Table 3 also indicates that higher-achieving readers made an average gain of

17.40 words per minute, but lower-achieving readers were able to make gains of an

average of 20.68 words per minute. Although 2 of the lower-achieving readers

(including 1 fifth-grader and 1 fourth grader) did not make substantial progress,

and yet 11 of 16 children (including 5 sixth-graders and 6 fourth-graders) made

average gains of 20 words per minute or more. In a similar way, higher-achieving

readers increased their comprehension by 20 percent, whereas lower-achieving

readers made average gains of 27 percent or more on the comprehension posttest.

Eleven of 15 lower-performing readers (5 sixth-graders, 1 fifth-grader, and 5

fourth-graders) made gains of 20 percent or more on the comprehension posttest.

In this study, larger reading gains were observed among the lower-achieving

readers than their higher-achieving peers in the measures of the posttest. Perhaps

improved reading achievement because almost all the lower-achieving readers

(except one) were not participating in other English classes outside school.

Table 3

Comparison of WR Gains, WCPM Gains, and Retelling Gains by Performance Level in the GBGT group

Designation Mean SD t/p-value

Word Recognition (percentile) higher-achiever 8.93 6.87 lower-achiever 21.64 16.26 0.05/0.01* Passage Reading (WCPM) higher-achiever 17.40 11.34 lower-achiever 20.68 9.02 0.09/0.18 Comprehension (via re-telling) higher-achiever 20.00 10.25 lower-achiever 27.33 13.21 0.007/0.14 *_{p < 0.05}

To investigate why some higher-achievers made less progress, the weekly

reading probes were computed. Sixty percent of GBGT children also reported that

they would listen to the audio CD at home or read aloud to the school teachers. The

impressive gains in oral reading fluency made by children in the GBGT group may

have been caused by the fact that 60% of the children would do additional readings

during school or at home. Along with a 30-minute GBGT session for weekly

reading in the after-school program, these children would read aloud following the

audio CD or meet with their school teachers to read the minibooks aloud for 5-10

minutes once a week. The additional readings underscore the value of allocating

time for children to engage in passage reading. Correlational analyses of pre-post

gains scores indicated that WCPM gain was strongly associated with weekly

intervention, and that gains in word recognition or re-telling were not strongly

associated with age or grade, suggesting that individual or weekly reading probes were a potential indicator of GBGT children’s development in oral reading fluency (Table 4).

Table 4

Correlation between age, weekly readings, gains in word recognition, WCPM, and comprehension via re-telling

age weekly

readings gain in WR gain in PR

gain in re-telling age 1 - weekly readings 0.286 - gain in WR -0.129 -0.373 - gain in PR (WCPM) 0.245 0.562 ** -0.401* - gain in re-telling 0.269 0.100 0.328 0.138 - * p < 0.05；**p < 0.01

Questionnaires and Qualitative Data

Although children in the comparison group did not make as much progress

as GBGT children in the measures of the posttest, they appeared to enjoy the

activities they engaged as part of the intervention. Similar to GBGT children, most

of the children in the comparison group believed that they made progress in word

recognition or became more familiar with major sentence structures during the

intervention. They liked their teachers and the incentives they received during the

The teacher was nice and kind. (Eric, 5th grade) It’s fun to play games. (Ryan, Nick & Cindy, 5th

grade) I liked to do role plays (Maggie & Wilson, 5th grade)

The teacher gave us small gifts to encourage us. (Grace, 4th grade)

All that I had been doing was review the words I learned in my class. (Adam, 4th grade)

I liked to watch the movie. (Andy, 4th grade)

Reading Materials

sophisticated pictures were new attempts with the older children, and they had some of the same appeal that picture storybooks with sparse text had for intermediate-grade children. Upper elementary children preferred the picture books which were intellectually challenging enough for them to explore or learn something new. For one thing, informational picture books were appealing to upper elementary children when they found that they were able to learn new things in English. Although most of the sixth-graders showed a slight decline for their overall weekly reading probes, and yet they loved Anthony Browne’s picture storybook Gorilla, which features dynamic word-and-picture relationships. Other responses are translated from Chinese as follows:

It’s interesting to read books with pictures inside. (Cindy, 4th

grade) Reading picture books is more interesting. (Kelly, 4th grade)

Waste is my favorite book. I learned how to recycle to save the Earth (Ella, 5th grade) I loved the story in Gorilla. The gorilla looks cute, too. (Jessy, 6th grade)

Types of Read-Alouds

We find it encouraging that the GBGT sessions, which offered opportunities

for teacher and children to share the content of the book in a socially interactive

environment, may have been motivating and facilitating their reading

comprehension. Eighty percent or more of GBGT children loved to talk about the

picture books during the intervention. Additional read-alouds also exposed children

to the model of fluent reading that in turn developed in them a knowledge of fluent

reading. When using types of read-alouds in each read, the teachers read with

reading material. In the process of repeated read-alouds, three of them felt bored,

and would like to read more new books. However, 90 percent or more of GBGT

children claimed that they would try to read aloud each word or even to read with

expressions when they were asked to read aloud alone or with their peers. Some

responses are translated from Chinese as follows:

I was able to catch up and say the words when the teacher read slowly (Ai, 4th grade). It was interesting that the teacher varied his voice to read the book aloud. (Michelle, 6th grade)

I liked to read aloud together with the classmates (Roy, 6th grade) It's fun to read the book aloud in different ways. (Cindy, 4th grade)

I felt a little tense when I was asked to read aloud in class. (Albert, 5th grade)

I like to do individual readings. It’s more effective for me to learn English. (Tina, 6th grade)

Confidence /Sense of Achievement

A third advantage of the GBGT program was that monitoring student

progress in reading fluency can be motivating to children. In one-to-one readings, timing and keeping records of children’s progress provided strong motivation for continued practice. Repeated independent readings following the read-alouds were

beneficial for GBGT children, enabling them to gain more confidence in their

readings. In the 2nd or 3rd reads, the teachers would show the children a chart

showing the gains they made. The results of the questionnaire also suggest that this

practice effect was at work for GBGT children. Ninety percent or more of GBGT

children believed they were able to read the same passage much better after

read a short text in English helped children feel confident is consistent with the

success that researchers found in the use of short texts in conjunction with fluency

development (Rasinksi, 2010). Some sample responses are as follows:

It’s easy to read the minibook aloud. (Sarah) I can read in English more fluently. (Jessy) I think I have improved my English. (Jay)

I learned new words and new sentences from read-alouds. (Joey)

The results of the questionnaire as well as the qualitative data reveal that

children responded to the reading material and types of read-alouds in a way

suggesting the potential of this GBGT to affect their perception of the reading

instruction to improve reading competence.

Limitations and Implications

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

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

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

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,

“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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, David! action

words/present continuous tense

What’s (he/it) she doing? (He/ It)She’s singing.

From Head to Toe action words / modal verbs

(I /He/ She) It can jump. (I /He/ She) It can’t fly.

What Time Is It, Mr. Crocodile?

time What time is it? It’s 7 o’clock in the morning.

What’s That Noise, Mr. Croc?

asking questions What’s that? It’s Robert’s radio. Is that Robert’s video game?

Yes, it is. /No, it isn’t. It’s Emily’s video game.

Hippo Has a Hat clothes What’s he wearing? He’s wearing shorts and

sneakers.

How do You Feel? feelings Are you afraid? No, I am not.

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?

“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

*

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,