Enhancing parent–child shared book reading interactions: Promoting references to the book's plot and socio-cognitive themes

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 111–122

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Enhancing parent–child shared book reading interactions: Promoting references to the book’s plot and socio-cognitive themes Dorit Aram a,∗ , Yaara Fine b , Margalit Ziv c a b c

Tel Aviv University, Israel Oranim Academic College, Israel AlQasemi Academic Teachers’ College and Tel Aviv University, Israel

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 28 November 2010 Received in revised form 14 March 2012 Accepted 26 March 2012 Keywords: Parent–child share book reading Early home intervention Social cognition Low socioeconomic status Preschool children Vocabulary Book’s plot

a b s t r a c t The study examined the efficacy of an intervention designed to promote parents’ and preschoolers’ references to storybooks’ plot and socio-cognitive themes during shared reading within a sample of 58 families from low-SES background. All parents were given four books, one new book weekly, and were instructed to read each book four times per week to their children. Parents in the control group were given no further guidance, whereas parents in the intervention group were guided in reading the books interactively with their children using Bruner’s (1986) structure of the complete storybook reading experience. These parents were taught a four-reading model that guided them to first focus on the book’s plot aspects (vocabulary, sequence of events, story structure) and then move on to its socio-cognitive aspects (mental terms, mental causality, references to the child’s life). After the intervention, parents and children in the intervention group referred more than their control counterparts to both the book’s plot and its socio-cognitive themes. The advantages of the intervention were maintained beyond effects of parental education and of children’s gender, vocabulary, and social cognition level. The study revealed the importance of direct guidance of parents and the potential of shared reading contexts for eliciting rich conversations between parents and children. Discussion emphasized the importance of encouraging parents to refer to both the book’s plot and its socio-cognitive themes. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Understanding of stories and acquiring rich vocabulary are important components of childhood literacy (Snow, Tabors, & Dickinson, 2001; van Kleeck, 2008). Likewise, understanding that people’s behaviors and interactions derive from their desires, beliefs, intentions, and emotions is a central component of young children’s social cognition (Meltzoff, 2011). Bruner (1986) presented a dual “landscape” model of the storybook reading experience that integrates both of these components. Bruner’s first “landscape” of the story refers to the action level, which involves the plot and focuses on characters’ behaviors. The second “landscape” refers to the consciousness level, which involves the thoughts, beliefs, desires, emotions, and intentions that underlie characters’ behaviors. Young children are capable of understanding a character’s actions before they can relate to a character’s thoughts or consciousness (Curenton, 2010; Pelletier & Astington, 2004). Similarly, children’s ability to tell stories that refer to the action level precedes their ability to refer to the consciousness level (Curenton, 2004).

In line with Bruner’s (1986) model, the current study examined the effectiveness of an intervention designed to enrich parent–child shared reading interactions within a sample of parents and preschoolers (four to five year olds) from a low-SES (socioeconomic status) background. We decided to focus on preschoolers because they are at a sensitive age for the development of both plot comprehension (e.g., Dickinson & Porche, 2011) and social cognition (e.g., Wellman & Liu, 2004). We presented an intervention group of parents with structured guidance for performing four consecutive readings of a story over a one-week period, for each of four books. This four-reading model for each book directed parents to refer first to the plot (what happened in the story) and then to socio-cognitive themes that the plot raised (the characters’ thoughts, intentions, emotions, beliefs, etc.). We also directed parents to help children connect the story to personal social experiences. We compared the characteristics of these dyads’ discourse during book reading to that of a control group, where parents also received books weekly and were instructed to read them to their children four times per week, but without further guidance. 1. Parent–child shared book reading interactions

∗ Corresponding author at: School of Education, Tel Aviv University, 69907, Israel. Tel.: +972 3 6341318; fax: +972 3 6341318. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Aram). 0885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.03.005

Shared book reading has mostly been studied within the context of literacy development (van Kleeck & Stahl, 2003). Frequency

112

D. Aram et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 111–122

of storybook reading has been consistently linked to children’s early literacy, mostly to their vocabulary (e.g., Bus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Collins, 2010; Mol, Bus, & de Jong, 2009; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994; Sénéchal, 2006). However, it is important to consider: Does the contribution of storybook reading to children’s literacy depend merely on the volume of shared reading or also on the manner of reading? Two meta-analyses (Mol et al., 2009; Mol, Bus, de Jong, & Smeets, 2008) emphasized the effectiveness of rich storybook reading interactions for promoting children’s literacy. These analyses showed that engaging children in conversations on the text enhanced children’s vocabulary and alphabetic knowledge progress more than merely reading the text. Several studies investigated the nature of parent–child discourse during repeated readings of storybooks (McArthur, Adamson, & Deckner, 2005; McDonnell, Friel-Patti, & Rollins, 2003; Phillips & McNaughton, 1990). They reported that during a book’s first reading, adults mainly clarified and explained the text. During the following readings, adults referred more to the prediction of future events in the story and asked more questions about the plot. Additionally, children became more active participants in the discourse as the book was more familiar. In addition to promoting literacy, shared book reading can serve as a natural context for parent–child discourse on socialcognitive events. Interpersonal relationships and references to the motives underlying the characters’ behavior are an integral part of children’s literature (Cassidy et al., 1998; Dyer, Shatz, & Wellman, 2000). Many storybooks discuss friendships, disputes, loneliness, envy, collaborations, and so forth. Yet, only recently have studies begun to look into the development of children’s social cognition within the context of storybook reading (e.g., Adrian, Clemente, & Villanueva, 2007; Aram & Aviram, 2009; Curenton & Craig, 2011; Farver, Xu, Eppe, & Lonigan, 2006; Symons, Peterson, Slaughter, Roche, & Doyle, 2005). Storybooks frequently offer opportunities to expose children to social situations and often refer to the characters’ emotions, thoughts, intentions, beliefs, and desires. Dyer et al. (2000) investigated the frequency of mental terms (e.g., happy, thinks, remembered, envy) in children’s books and found, on average, one mental term every three sentences. But is mere exposure to social situations and mental terms in a story sufficient to promote children’s social cognition? Peskin (1996) found that even though three-year-old children listened to stories, they did not understand the stories’ depictions of pretense and deceitfulness and therefore were unable to predict how the characters would act. Moreover, Peskin and Astington (2004) found that preschoolers who heard stories containing many mental terms did employ a larger and more varied number of mental terms when retelling the story compared to their peers who heard the same books without mental terms, but they did not show a greater understanding of these terms. Although books offer rich exposure to social situations, young children’s understanding of the characters’ thoughts, emotions, intentions, and desires is incomplete, requiring adults’ scaffolding. There is evidence that direct references to, and discussions of stories’ social circumstances contribute to children’s social cognition (e.g., LaBounty, Wellman, Olson, Lagattuta, & Liu, 2008; Le Sourn-Bissaoui & HoogeLespagnol, 2006; Ornaghi, Brockmeier, & Grazzani Gavazzi, 2011; Symons et al., 2005). To promote children’s social cognition during shared reading interactions, it is especially important for adults to highlight and discuss incidents representing differences in the characters’ points of view (Clancy, Kay, Lambert, & Williams, 1998; Peskin, 1996; Ratner & Olver, 1998), as well as inner causes of characters’ behavior (Garner, Jones, Gaddy, & Rennie, 1997; Slaughter, Peterson, & Mackintosh, 2007). Adults should include conversation about the

child’s own emotions and thoughts, in addition to discussing those of the characters (Whitehurst et al., 1994). 2. Parent–child shared book reading interactions within families from a low-SES background Policy makers and educators have attempted to increase the awareness of parents from a low-SES background regarding the significance of storybook reading and to encourage them to read more to their children (e.g., Lonigan, 2004). It seems that some changes have begun to occur. In Israel in the 1980s, families from a low-SES background reported owning an average of fewer than five children’s books (Feitelson & Goldstein, 1986), whereas at the beginning of the 21st century such families reported owning about 51 children’s books (Korat & Levin, 2001). In the U.S., Storch Bracken and Fischel’s (2008) investigation of reading practices in families from a low-SES background found that book reading was a frequent activity for most families. A comparable picture was drawn by Raikes et al. (2006), who studied a sample of 2581 children from Early Head Start programs at the ages of 14, 24, and 36 months. Most of the children had access to children’s books from the age of 14 months, and about half of the mothers reported reading daily to their children. Although awareness appears to be growing with regard to the importance of shared reading, research thus far seems to call into question whether parents from a low-SES background make use of the opportunity afforded by reading interactions to discuss and expand conversations with their children. Maternal education has been clearly linked to the nature of mother–child discourse (e.g., Curenton & Justice, 2008; Roberts, Jurgens, & Burchinal, 2005). Dickinson, DeTemple, Hirschler, and Smith (1992) reported that mothers from a low-SES background rarely engaged their preschoolers in intellectually challenging talk during shared reading. Likewise, Sonnenschein and Munsterman (2002) found that when reading a book to their children, these mothers usually referred only to the plot. Korat, Ron, and Klein (2008) and Korat, Klein, and Segal-Drori (2007) compared the nature of shared reading interactions between parents from middle-SES versus low-SES backgrounds. They reported that parents from a low-SES background presented a lower level of cognitive mediation than parents from a middle-SES background. The former group seldom elaborated beyond the book’s text and when they did, they mainly paraphrased the text. Studies that have investigated discussion of social situations and reference to socio-cognitive themes during mother–child shared reading have included participants from middle- to upper-SES backgrounds (e.g., Adrian et al., 2007; Adrian, Clemente, Villanueva, & Rieffe, 2005; Ruffman, Slade, & Crowe, 2002; Slaughter et al., 2007) or participants from mixed backgrounds (e.g., Symons et al., 2005; Taumoepeau & Ruffman, 2006, 2008). Acknowledging the relation between the family’s SES and children’s social cognition (e.g., Cutting & Dunn, 1999), we aimed to increase the use of parents’ references to both the book’s plot and its socio-cognitive themes during shared reading in families from low-SES backgrounds, thereby hopefully promoting these children’s social cognition. 3. Promoting the nature of shared book reading interactions A few studies have analyzed changes in mother–child verbal exchanges during reading, after training that taught mothers from a middle-SES background to read books more dialogically, that is, encouraging children to be active in the conversation. In general, after these interventions, mothers’ use of dialogue strategies increased, such as using more completion, recall, open-ended,

D. Aram et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 111–122

and wh- prompts (Blom-Hoffman, O’Neil-Pirozzi, Volpe, Cutting, & Bissinger, 2007; Briesch, Chafouleas, Lebel, & Blom-Hoffman, 2008; Huebner, 2000; Huebner & Meltzoff, 2005; Whitehurst et al., 1988). In addition, children in the intervention groups used more and longer utterances and larger vocabulary during the interactions (Huebner, 2000; Huebner & Meltzoff, 2005). Regarding families from low-SES backgrounds, Levin and Aram (2012) coached mothers in reading books to their children over seven weeks. Mothers were guided to ask open-ended questions focusing on the plot, word meaning, story grammar, and print. After the intervention, mothers tripled the number of dialogues they initiated and used more elaborations, praises, and corrections. Meanwhile, children increased their number of questions and clarifications. Despite the importance of social cognition, to the best of our knowledge, no study thus far has examined the effectiveness of an intervention aimed at improving parent–child discourse regarding books’ sociocognitive themes during shared reading among families from a low-SES background. 4. Potential moderators of parent–child shared reading Children’s vocabulary has been linked to the frequency and the nature of parent–child shared reading interactions (e.g., Mol et al., 2009). Children’s social cognition has been related to the frequency and nature of parent–child verbal interactions (e.g., Brown, Donelan-McCall, & Dunn, 1996; Ensor & Hughes, 2008). Evidence has been mixed regarding the links between children’s gender and the nature of shared reading (e.g., Anderson, Anderson, Lynch, & Shapiro, 2004; Curenton & Craig, 2011; Meagher, Arnold, Doctoroff, & Baker, 2008). For example, Meagher et al. (2008) found gender differences on two out of eight shared-reading behaviors: Mothers asked more specific questions of girls than of boys, and girls showed higher levels of engagement than boys. However, other researchers found that parents elaborated more on some specific aspects of emotions when reading with boys than with girls (Bird & Reese, 2006; Curenton & Craig, 2011). We assessed the benefits of the intervention for parents’ and children’s discourse during shared reading, beyond parents’ education and children’s vocabulary, social cognition, and gender. We had two main research questions: First, is repeated reading enough to promote parent–child discourse during shared reading among families from a low-SES background, or do parents need direct guidance in how to read the books to improve the nature of these interactions? Second, to what extent does parents’ training focused on references to the plot and to socio-cognitive themes advance parents’ and children’s references to these aspects during shared reading, compared to repeated readings without such

113

guidance? We expected that after the intervention: (1) Parents in the intervention group would more often elaborate beyond the book’s text and refer to both the book’s plot and its socio-cognitive themes compared to parents in the control group; (2) Children in the intervention group would more often contribute to the discourse and refer to the book’s plot and socio-cognitive themes compared to children in the control group. 5. Method 5.1. Participants Participants were 58 parent–child dyads recruited from lowSES neighborhoods in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. The Tel Aviv District Supervisor in the Ministry of Education referred us to five preschools serving children from low-SES neighborhoods (according to their zip code). Teachers in these preschools invited the parents to participate in the intervention. Parents who volunteered were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Both mothers and fathers were invited to participate, but 56 mothers and only two fathers volunteered (one in the intervention and one in the control group). The study began with 60 families. One family dropped out of the control group at the beginning of the study, and another was excluded from analyses because the videotape of their joint reading was inaccessible. This attrition rate (2/60) is considered low. The intervention group comprised 30 children, and the control group comprised 28 children. Children’s mean age was 53.47 months, SD = 6.77 (range: 40–65 months). No child diagnosed as having special education needs was included. All of the children were Hebrew speakers born in Israel, and all mother–child book interactions were conducted in Hebrew. SES of children in Israel is officially measured primarily by parental educational and professional levels, and these measures are often used in Israeli research (Strauss, 2007). Parents’ education was measured on a six-point scale, as follows: high school unfinished (1); vocational high school diploma (2); academic high school diploma (3); post high school vocational training (4); bachelor’s degree (5); master’s degree (6). The majority of the parents in the study had finished high school (37.2%) or had some vocational training (29.2%). Only 17.2% of the parents were university graduates (held a bachelor’s or master’s degree). This education level is low by Israeli standards, where 32% of Israelis in these age cohorts are university graduates (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2006). As to occupation, interviews revealed that 70.7% of the mothers and 66.7% of the fathers in the study held non-professional occupations (e.g., driver, plumber, cleaner, typist, baker, childcare aide).

Table 1 Means (and SDs) of demographic group characteristics, compared statistically by t-test or Chi-square analysis. Group

Statistics

Intervention (n = 30) M (SD)

Control (n = 28) M (SD)

Child’s age (in mos.) Birth order Mother’s age (in yrs.) Father’s age (in yrs.) No. children in the family Mother’s educationa Father’s educationa

54.97 (6.77) 2.13 (1.07) 32.47 (4.38) 35.93 (5.67) 2.67 (1.06) 3.33 (1.45) 2.76 (1.50)

51.86 (6.51) 1.89 (0.83) 34.43 (5.44) 37.07 (6.28) 2.29 (0.66) 2.96 (1.64) 2.92 (1.72)

No. of girls/boys % of non-professional mothers % of non-professional fathers % of intact families

18/12 69.00 70.00 93.00

15/13 71.40 64.00 86.00

t (2, 56), ns 1.78 0.95 1.52 0.72 1.63 0.91 0.38 2 (1), ns 0.05 0.05 0.57 1.92

a Six-point parents’ education measure: high school unfinished (1); vocational high school diploma (2); academic high school diploma (3); post high school vocational training (4); bachelor’s degree (5); master’s degree (6).

114

D. Aram et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 111–122

These percentages of non-professionals are high by Israeli standards, where only 56.5% of female age cohorts and 59.7% of male age cohorts have not studied a profession (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Most of the families were intact. A high percent of intact families is typical for populations from a low-SES background in Israel (Korat et al., 2007). Table 1 presents the two groups’ demographic information (child’s age; birth order; number of children in the family; percentage of intact families; mothers’ and fathers’ age, education, and profession) and shows that the groups did not differ statistically from each other on any demographic parameter. 5.2. The intervention group procedure Four illustrated children’s books were chosen for the intervention, one per week. The presentation sequence was as follows: Van Genechten (2003); Peles (1994); Elliott (1981); Elkivity (1997). All books included a central theme centering on the understanding of social situations and different viewpoints. For example, in the book Oscar’s Rotten Birthday (Elliott, 1981), Bert and Ernie prepare a surprise party for Oscar who lives in the trash can on Sesame Street and hates parties. He hears about it, and is upset. But his friends know him and prepare a party just as he likes with mud cake and dirty, broken gifts. Four master’s-degree-level educational counselors who are experts in early child development agreed that the books were age-appropriate for preschoolers based on their theme, clarity, illustrations, and length. Though these books are not commonly known, we confirmed with the parents and the preschool teachers that the children were not previously familiar with them. The workshop. The intervention started with an evening workshop at the preschool lasting one and one half hours, administered by the researchers only for parents in the intervention group. Two identical workshops were offered in two successive weeks, and each parent in the intervention group chose one. The workshops (15 parents each) included the following four steps: First, we presented the principles underlying high-quality parental guidance in general. We discussed the importance of parental sensitivity to the child’s perspective, attention span, and zone of proximal development (Feuerstein, 1998). Second, parents were taught about the importance of reading books to children – to enrich their vocabulary, develop their language, help them understand events, and improve their knowledge of the world. Third, parents learned about the importance of social cognition in children’s development and wellbeing. Fourth, we presented the intervention program. We explained that for the following four weeks, the parents would receive a new book each week and would have to read it to their children four times a week according to detailed guidelines and then complete a relevant assignment with their child after each reading. The four readings of the first book were then demonstrated and discussed. The four-reading model. The intervention was based on a fixed, structured model comprising four repeated readings per book. This model implements and combines effective practices from studies on early literacy (e.g., Aram, 2006; Levin & Aram, 2012) and on social cognition (e.g., Pelletier & Astington, 2004; Ruffman et al., 2002; Symons et al., 2005). The model is hierarchical, namely, each reading relies upon the previous one. The Appendix A presents the guidelines for one of the four books – Oscar’s Rotten Birthday (Elliott, 1981). Task guidelines for the different books were similar in structure so that parents could assimilate the variety of possible activities while reading books and apply them later when reading spontaneously with their children. Parents were aware of the purpose of each reading (e.g., understanding the plot or discussing the socio-cognitive themes) and were guided to explicitly reveal it to the child at the beginning of each session. Each reading was accompanied by a relevant assignment that the child had to complete with the parent’s guidance. These four tasks were part of the

intervention and also served as an indicator of whether the story was indeed read four times. First reading – the book’s plot. In their first reading of the book, parents were instructed to read the book’s title and the author’s name. They were asked to tell their child that it is important to be attentive and make sure that they understand the sequence of events along the story and how the characters cope in different situations. Parents were asked to read the story through and to stop and explain four selected vocabulary words that were essential for understanding the plot but were considered less well known at preschool age (according to educational counselor experts in early child development). After the initial reading of the book, parents were asked to look, together with the child, at the book’s illustrations while briefly retelling the plot and explaining the main points that we defined as important for plot comprehension. Last, to ensure that the parent and child had discussed the plot and that the child had understood it, parents presented their child with five pictures depicting the plot (provided by the coach in advance) and asked the child to arrange the pictures in the correct order. The child glued the pictures sequentially and described the plot verbally, and the parent wrote the child’s descriptive words beneath each picture. Second reading – socio-cognitive themes. In the second reading, parents were asked to focus on the socio-cognitive themes that the story raised. They were instructed to tell their child that during this reading, they would refer to the characters’ feelings, thoughts, intentions, and desires. They were asked to stop reading at certain pre-designated points and discuss the social interactions among the characters. Parents were specifically guided to ask the child about the characters’ main beliefs, intentions, desires, and emotions. We sought to make parents aware that it was important to expand the child’s understanding of the characters’ mental states in order to achieve full understanding of the story. Then, to assure that the parent had discussed the socio-cognitive themes with the child and that the child had achieved an understanding of these themes, the parent presented the child with four pairs of pictures (provided in advance). In each pair, one of the pictures showed the characters’ thoughts, desires, intentions, or emotions regarding an event in the story, and the other picture showed what actually happened in the story. Children were asked to match the pairs and discuss them, and parents were instructed to indicate the children’s matches on a given written form. Third reading – correspondence to the child’s life experiences. In the third reading, parents were directed to tell their child that during this reading, they would read the story and see how the child would feel if something similar to what happened to the story’s characters happened to him/her. They were instructed to read the story, stop at certain pre-designated points, and discuss how the story’s events could relate to the child personally. For example, parents were guided to explain how the character felt in a certain situation and to ask the child how he/she would feel or act if he/she experienced similar events? We demonstrated to the parents how story events are frequently close to the child’s own experience, and we elucidated the importance of highlighting this personal link to the child in order to enhance the child’s participation in the reading interaction as well as the parent’s participation in the child’s everyday experiences. At the end of this session, the child drew a picture related to his/her own experiences, linked to the story (e.g., the child’s fears or dreams). Fourth reading – child retells the story. The last reading served to summarize the previous readings by reviewing the main points from the prior three reading sessions. In line with dialogic reading principles (Whitehurst et al., 1988), the parent became the listener, the questioner, and the audience for the child and helped the child become the storyteller. We instructed the parents that after reading the book to their child, the child should be given an opportunity to

D. Aram et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 111–122

retell the story and that the parents needed to lead the child by asking several questions about the plot, the relations between the characters, and the characters’ emotions, intentions, desires, and thoughts. The parents wrote down the child’s story verbatim. Weekly home visits. After the parent workshop, each family was assigned one coach (MA student) who conducted the entire intervention procedure with that family. The same coach visited the family at home once a week for four weeks to talk with the parent about the previous book and introduce the next one. The visits followed the same sequence: the coach collected the four assignment products (e.g., pictures glued in sequence, drawings, transcripts of children’s retold stories). Reviewing each reading’s product, she inquired about each of the four readings asking the parents questions regarding the various steps, discussing any difficulties that may have arisen, and ascertaining whether parents had complied with instructions. Next, the coach presented the new book (except in the last visit), read it with the parent, gave the detailed written instructions and task materials for the week’s four readings, and discussed them with the parent. The instructions were explicit in order to clarify parents’ expected interactions with their child and to avoid the need for parental planning during the actual readings (see Appendix A). Based on those interviews, parents did follow instructions in the vast majority of cases. 5.3. The control group procedure In the control group, the same coach visited each family at home once a week for four weeks to talk with the parent about the previous book and to present the new book. She gave the parents the same books as those received by parents in the intervention group but only asked parents to read each book to their child four times during the week, with no further guidelines. Each time they met, for fidelity purposes, the coach held a brief conversation with the parent that included questions regarding how many times they had read the book with their child and whether the dyad had enjoyed it. In the vast majority of cases parents reported that they had read the book to their children four times during the week and that the experience of shared reading was enjoyable for both children and parents. 5.4. Coaches’ training and supervision Coaches were four female master’s students in education who underwent specific training either in the intervention or the control procedure prior to and during the study period and who were blind to the other procedure. Two coaches worked with the intervention group, and two coaches worked with the control group. Each family was assigned one coach who conducted the entire six-week procedure (either intervention or control) with that family. Each coach met with the researchers for an individual weekly meeting to report about that week’s visit with each family and to discuss questions or difficulties. 5.5. Assessment The whole study, from the pretest through posttest assessment, lasted about six weeks. Two books that were not included in the intervention were used to assess parent–child storybook discourse at the pretest and posttest intervals. The books were Frog Is Frog (pretest) and Frog on a Very Special Day (posttest). The books were drawn from a Dutch series translated into Hebrew (Velthuijs, 2000a, 2000b). Both books describe the same characters, Frog and his friends, as they experience a variety of social situations together. These books were selected because they were age-appropriate, well matched to each other (22 pages each, sharing author, illustrator, protagonists, and number of mental terms), and unfamiliar to all

115

of the preschoolers and parents. In both books, the central theme revolved around a knowledge gap between the main character and his friends. In Frog Is Frog, the main character Frog is frustrated because he cannot do things that his friends can do (e.g., fly) and he explores their points of view about capabilities and talents (Velthuijs, 2000a). In A Very Special Day, Frog has a mistaken belief about his friends’ absence, not knowing that they are preparing a surprise birthday party for him (Velthuijs, 2000b). In both the pretest and posttest assessments, all parents (in both the intervention and control groups) received the test book one week before a videotaped assessment session and were asked to read the book four times to their children during that week. Assessments took place in afternoon hours at home. We asked the parent to read the book to the child and videotaped the interactions. The pretest and posttest videotapes were transcribed and coded using a key developed for the present study, based on criteria from previous studies (Adrian et al., 2007; Ruffman et al., 2002; Symons et al., 2005; Taumoepeau & Ruffman, 2008). Only parents’ and children’s elaborations beyond the book’s original text were coded. Talk about issues irrelevant to the dyadic activity was not included (e.g., “I want an apple”). The basic coding unit was an utterance – an intonation unit identified by grammatical completeness or separated from the rest of the text by a speech pause before and after it (Chafe, 1994). For example, when the parent said “Frog cried sadly,” it was analyzed as one utterance, whereas when the parent said “Frog was sad, he cried with tears,” it was analyzed as two utterances. 5.6. Coding of the shared reading discourse References to book’s plot. We counted all of the parents’ and the children’s utterances that included references to vocabulary, story structure, and sequence of events. Vocabulary assessed references to the meanings of words. For example, the parent said, “To sob is to cry a lot;” or the child asked, “What is a pillowcase?”; Story structure referred to the story’s organization or buildup of suspense. For example, the parent said, “Let’s see what’s going to happen now.”; and Sequence of events assessed references to the story’s events and characters’ actions. For example, the parent said, “See, he is walking to Pig’s house now,” or the child said, “Look how high the frog is jumping!” To reduce the number of variables for later analyses, we created two composite scores. The mean Z score of parental utterances that referred to vocabulary, story structure, and event sequence yielded the parents’ Reference to Book’s Plot (pretest: ˛ = .54; posttest: ˛ = .76). Likewise, the mean Z score of children’s utterances that referred to these aspects yielded the children’s Reference to Book’s Plot (pretest: ˛ = .58; posttest: ˛ = .85). We assume that the alphas are relatively higher on the posttest because parents rarely referred to vocabulary at the pretest. Reference to socio-cognitive themes. We counted all of the parents’ and the children’s utterances that included mental terms and reference to mental causality and to the child’s personal experiences, as well as the children’s utterances that included mental terms while retelling the story. Note that physical expressions of emotions, like “laughed” or “cried,” were not counted as mental terms. Mental terms included utterances relating to emotions (e.g., angry, surprised), desires (e.g., want, need), intentions (e.g., intend to, plan to), as well as cognitive verbs (e.g., know, think, remember). For example, the parent said: “He did not know that they were waiting at his house.”; Mental causality referred to mental states (e.g., thought) that were used to explain particular behaviors. For example, the parent said: “Frog cried because he thought that his friends went without him.” (Note: Utterances were not coded as referring to mental terms when they referred to mental causality. Utterances could not be counted concurrently for both mental terms and mental causality; the two categories were mutually exclusive.);

116

D. Aram et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 111–122

Correspondence to the child’s own experiences referred to relating story events to the child’s personal life. For example, the child said: “When I was a baby that happened to me; my friend didn’t invite me to his party and I was sad.” Here again, we created two composite scores. The mean Z score of parental utterances that referred to mental terms, mental causality, and the child’s experiences yielded the parents’ Reference to Socio-cognitive Themes (pretest: ˛ = .88; posttest: ˛ = .89). Likewise, the mean Z score of children’s utterances that referred to these aspects of the book yielded the children’s Reference to Socio-cognitive Themes (pretest: ˛ = .63; posttest: ˛ = .85). Child’s use of mental terms while retelling the story. After the parent finished reading the pretest or posttest book to the child, the coach gave the book to the child and asked him/her to narrate it while looking at the pictures. Narratives are a recommended method for testing language skills of children from a low-SES background because such methods are known to have low socioeconomic bias (Curenton, 2004). The child was instructed to tell “what happened in the story and also what Frog and his friends thought and felt.” The child’s retelling of the book was transcribed. We calculated the percentage of utterances that included a mental term out of the total number of utterances in the retold story. Only genuine mentions of story characters’ mental states were counted. For example, the child’s general expressions directed toward the parent (e.g., “Do you know. . ..”) were not counted. To assess reliability, two independent coders analyzed 10% of the pretest and 10% of the posttest protocols (half from the intervention group and half from the control group). Coders were blind to any information concerning the dyads. First, coders sorted all utterances as the parent’s or the child’s. Then, each utterance was coded as belonging to one of six categories: vocabulary, story structure, sequence of events, mental terms, mental causality, and correspondence to the child’s own experiences. Item-by-item comparisons were made for each of the categories to determine scoring agreement. Cohen’s kappa was 0.81, indicating adequate agreement between raters. Children’s controlled measures. Children’s receptive vocabulary and social cognition were assessed individually in a quiet room in the preschool before the intervention by a trained master’s student. Receptive vocabulary (PPVT). The Peabody Vocabulary Test (3rd edition) adapted to Hebrew (Solberg & Nevo, 1979) was used to assess children’s vocabulary. Children were asked to choose the appropriate drawing for a spoken lexical item. Children were presented with 50 items in accordance with their age group, and the score was the number of items answered correctly. Cronbach’s alpha for the Hebrew version was .82, and split-half reliability was .90 (Solberg & Nevo, 1979). Social cognition. We tested children’s social cognition using three tasks: (a) affective perspective taking task (Denham, 1986) – children’s understanding that someone else’s emotions may differ from the norm and from their own emotions; (b) false belief task (Wellman & Liu, 2004) – children’s understanding of a protagonist’s false beliefs regarding an object’s change of location during the protagonist’s absence; and (c) real and apparent emotions (Harris, Donnelly, Guz, & Pitt-Watson, 1986) – children’s ability to distinguish between what a protagonist really feels and what emotion the protagonist’s facial expression reveals. In each type of task, children listened to two short stories and then were asked one or two control questions to ensure that they remembered and understood the story. As common in ToM studies (Symons et al., 2005; Wellman & Liu, 2004), little dolls and toy objects were used to enact the stories. Next, the children were asked one forced-choice test question about each of the six stories. Children chose one out of two possible answers for each question, thus

yielding a binary score (1/0) for each test question. For all six stories, the child could therefore obtain a maximum raw score of six. 6. Results We first present the descriptive statistics for both groups’ pretest and posttest measures and the results of preliminary analyses, examining pretest differences between the intervention and control groups. Second, we present the findings for the first hypothesis, regarding the intervention’s effects on parents’ elaborations during shared reading, beyond their elaborations at pretest, as well as beyond their education level and their children’s gender, vocabulary, and social cognition levels. Third, we present the findings for the second hypothesis, regarding the intervention’s effects on children’s elaborations during the shared reading interactions, beyond the volume and nature of their elaborations at the pretest, as well as beyond their gender, vocabulary, and social cognition levels and their parents’ education. 6.1. Descriptive statistics and preliminary analyses Table 2 describes all of the parents’ and the children’s sharedreading measures at the pretest and posttest for both groups (intervention and control). Prior to conducting the main analyses that assessed the intervention’s effects, preliminary analyses were conducted to determine if the intervention and control groups statistically differed with respect to parents’ and children’s shared reading measures before the intervention. Parental behaviors during habitual shared reading are known to vary substantially across parents (e.g., Curenton, Craig, & Flanigan, 2008; Kang, Kim, & Pan, 2009). Because of the large standard deviations that were found across all measures, the preliminary analyses were performed on logarithmic transformations of the variables based on the following equation (Howell, 2010): Value = log 10(variable + 1). To protect against inflating Type I error, we used a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) that examined group (intervention/control) as the independent variable, with the six parental shared reading measures and the seven child measures at pretest (see Table 2) as dependent variables. Wilks’ lambda for the MANOVA showed no statistically significant group differences before the study, F (13, 44) = 0.90, p = .56, 2 = .21. Follow-up univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) for each dependent variable indicated no significant differences at the pretest between the two groups on any of the assessed measures (12 variables), with one exception. Children in the intervention group revealed slightly more utterances that referred to mental causality (M = 0.13, SD = 0.34), compared to children in the control group (M = 0.00, SD = 0.00), F (1, 56) = 4.16, p = .046, 2 = .07. In both groups, children’s number of references to mental causality at the pretest was almost null. Prior to the intervention, parents and children in both groups referred less to the socio-cognitive themes than to the plot. We assured via t-tests that there were no significant differences between the intervention and the control groups on the two controlled child measures: vocabulary and social cognition. Children’s vocabulary scores (intervention group: M = 38.63, SD = 5.89; control group: M = 36.17, SD = 5.58) were similar to those found previously in age-matched children from a low-SES background (e.g., Aram, 2006) with no significant differences between the two groups, t (56) = 0.27, p = 0.79. As to the social cognition tasks, here again, no differences emerged between the intervention and the control groups (intervention: M = 2.04, SD = 1.54; control: M = 2.30, SD = 1.36), t (56) = −1.33, p = 0.19. These mean scores reflected a low percentage

D. Aram et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 111–122

117

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for parents’ and children’s pretest and posttest shared reading elaboration measures (n = 58). Intervention (n = 30)

Parent References to book’s plot Vocabulary Story structure Sequence of events References to socio-cognitive themes Mental terms Mental causality Child’s experiences Child References to book’s plot Vocabulary Story structure Sequence of events References to socio-cognitive themes Mental terms Mental causality Child’s experiences Mental terms while retellinga a

Control (n = 28)

Pre M (SD)

Post M (SD)

Pre M (SD)

Post M (SD)

1.43 (3.32) 7.40 (10.56) 19.90 (20.03)

7.60 (9.65) 17.20 (13.50) 36.90 (28.49)

0.43 (1.14) 4.57 (6.98) 11.18 (14.16)

1.71 (3.65) 6.00 (9.60) 12.39 (13.79)

3.07 (4.10) 0.40 (0.67) 1.60 (3.19)

22.93 (18.79) 2.40 (2.75) 11.70 (14.54)

1.61 (3.23) 0.21 (0.79) 1.39 (2.35)

5.57 (15.49) 0.36 (1.52) 2.61 (5.74)

0.63 (1.70) 5.57 (10.37) 10.60 (10.59)

2.57 (2.85) 14.60 (16.03) 26.33 (19.27)

0.21 (0.50) 3.00 (4.88) 6.07 (9.23)

0.61 (1.93) 3.36 (5.65) 6.21 (8.22)

1.13 (1.83) 0.13 (0.35) 1.47 (3.38) 13.30 (8.64)

7.53 (7.50) 0.53 (0.94) 4.00 (4.79) 18.83 (14.77)

0.68 (1.54) 0.00 (0.00) 0.54 (1.26) 13.66 (10.21)

0.82 (1.91) 0.00 (0.00) 0.79 (1.77) 11.94 (7.49)

Percentages from the total number of utterances.

of correct responses on the various tasks among children in both groups. Whereas Holmes, Black, and Miller (1996) found that 48% of children from a low-SES background succeeded on false belief tasks at the age of four years, in our sample the percentage of correct responses was 25%. Moreover, previous research showed that more than 30% of children from an upper-middle-SES background succeeded on apparent/real emotion identification between the ages of four to five years (Wellman & Liu, 2004), whereas only 18% of the children in the current sample succeeded on this task. 6.2. The intervention’s effects on parental elaborations during shared reading To examine the intervention’s effects on parents’ elaborations, we compared the two groups (intervention/control) regarding the parents’ references to the books’ plot and socio-cognitive themes during shared reading in the posttest, while controlling for their elaborations in the pretest, their education level, and their children’s vocabulary, social cognition, and gender. A MANCOVA examined group (intervention/control) as the independent variable, with two parental posttest measures (references to the book’s plot and references to the socio-cognitive themes) as the dependent variables. Parents’ references to the book’s plot and to socio-cognitive themes at pretest, as well as their education and

their children’s vocabulary, social cognition, and gender, served as covariates. Wilks’ lambda for the MANCOVA showed a significant effect for group, F (2, 49) = 8.94, p < .001, 2 = .27. According to Ellis (2010, p. 32), 2 > .14 is considered strong. None of the covariates’ effects reached significance. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs conducted for each dependent variable (see Table 3) revealed significant group differences for both parental shared reading composite scores. After the intervention, controlling for all the covariates, parents who participated in the intervention referred more to both the book’s plot (vocabulary, story structure, and sequence of events) and to socio-cognitive themes (references to mental terms, mental causality, and the child’s personal experiences) than parents in the control group. These ANOVAS did not reveal statistically significant effects for any of the entered covariates (see Table 3). 6.3. The intervention’s effects on children’s elaborations during shared reading and retelling of the book To examine the intervention’s effects on the children’s verbal input to the shared reading discourse, we compared the two groups (intervention/control) regarding the children’s references to the book’s plot and to socio-cognitive themes during

Table 3 Results of univariate follow-up tests for the effects of group and the pretest covariates on parental elaborations during shared reading at the posttest. Effect

Parental elaborations during shared reading at the posttest

F (1, 50)

2

Group

Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes

15.38*** 10.85*** 2.52 0.00 3.61 2.75 1.71 3.50 0.08 0.02 0.31 0.08 2.21 1.20

.24 .18 .05 .00 .07 .05 .03 .07 .00 .00 .01 .00 .04 .03

References to book’s plot at pretest References to socio-cognitive themes at pretest Child’s gender Child’s vocabulary Child’s social cognition Parental education ***

p < .001.

118

D. Aram et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 111–122

Table 4 Results of univariate follow-up tests for effects of group and pretest covariates on children’s elaborations during shared reading at the posttest. Effect

Children’s elaborations during shared reading at the posttest

F (1, 49)

2

Group

Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Use of mental termsa Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Use of mental termsa Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Use of mental termsa Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Use of mental termsa Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Use of mental termsa Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Use of mental termsa Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Use of mental termsa Book’s plot Socio-cognitive themes Use of mental termsa

16.63*** 14.33*** 4.20* 19.82*** 0.57 2.51 0.30 0.73 1.25 2.39 1.80 0.35 2.57 3.97ˆ 2.91 0.32 1.42 0.61 0.03 0.01 1.05 1.93 0.05 0.09

.25 .23 .08 .29 .01 .05 .01 .02 .03 .05 .04 .01 .05 .08 .06 .01 .03 .01 .00 .00 .02 .04 .00 .00

References to the book’s plot at the pretest

References to social cognition themes at the pretest

References to mental terms while retelling the story at the pretest

Child’s gender

Child’s vocabulary

Child’s social cognition

Parental education

a ˆ * ***

All child elaborations were measured during shared storybook reading, except use of mental terms, which was measured during child’s book retelling. p = .05. p < .05. p < .001.

shared reading in the posttest, as well as the nature of their retelling of the book, while controlling for their elaborations in the pretest, their retelling of the story at the pretest, their vocabulary, social cognition, and gender, and their parents’ education level. A MANCOVA examined group (intervention/control) as the independent variable, with three posttest measures of children’s behavior as the dependent variables (references to the book’s plot, references to socio-cognitive themes, and use of mental terms while retelling the story). Children’s references to the book’s plot and to socio-cognitive themes and their use of mental terms while retelling the book at pretest, as well as their vocabulary, social cognition, and gender and their parents’ education, served as covariates. The MANCOVA showed significant multivariate effects for group, Wilks’ lambda F (3, 47) = 8.29, p < .001, 2 = .35, and for the book’s plot composite score at pretest, Wilks’ lambda F (3, 47) = 9.23, p < .001, 2 = .36. The effect sizes for both group and book’s plot were strong (Ellis, 2010, p. 32). Follow-up univariate ANOVAs conducted for each dependent variable (see Table 4) revealed significant group differences for all three children’s measures. After the intervention, controlling for aforementioned covariates, children in the intervention group referred more than children in the control group both to the book’s plot (vocabulary, story structure, and sequence of events) and to socio-cognitive themes (mental terms, mental causality, and the child’s experiences). When retelling the book, children in the intervention group used a higher percentage of mental terms compared to children in the control group. These ANOVAS also revealed statistically significant effects for the children’s reference to book’s plot at the pretest and for gender (see Table 4). Beyond other measures, children who referred more to the book’s plot while reading the story at pretest were more likely to refer to the book’s plot while reading the story at posttest. With regard to child’s gender, beyond other measures, boys referred more than girls to socio-cognitive themes at the posttest (Z scores – Boys: M = 0.23, SD = 1.07; Girls: M = −0.31, SD = 0.35).

7. Discussion The current study on families from a low-SES background assessed the efficacy of an intervention aimed at promoting parents’ and preschool children’s references to books’ plot and socio-cognitive themes during shared storybook reading. In line with our hypotheses, following the program, both parents and children in the intervention group referred more often to the book’s plot and to its socio-cognitive themes, compared to parents and children in the control group. These results were obtained while controlling for the parents’ and children’s pretest references to the books’ plot and socio-cognitive themes as well as for the parents’ education and the children’s gender, vocabulary, and social cognition level. 7.1. Benefits of systematic training in enhancing shared reading We expected that systematic training would improve the parent–child discourse during shared reading more than repeated unguided readings. Results coincided with our expectations. As in previous studies on shared reading among families from a low-SES background (e.g., Hontz Hockenberger, Goldstein, & Sirianni Haas, 1999; Korat et al., 2007), during the pretest assessment, many parents read the book to their child with few elaborations beyond the text. Our findings indicated that guiding parents systematically in how to read books to their children was productive, as it enhanced their references to the book’s plot and socio-cognitive themes and promoted participation of their children in the discourse. Our results are consistent with the few studies that showed that within families from a low-SES background, parent–child shared reading interactions can be promoted by training parents (Hontz Hockenberger et al., 1999; Levin & Aram, 2012). The present study supports the stance that in order to affect the nature of shared reading within families from a low-SES background, parents must be guided directly. Merely encouraging parents to read more to their children (control group) had no effect on the parents’ or children’s elaborations during shared reading.

D. Aram et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 111–122

7.2. Enhancing parents’ and children’s elaborations during shared reading Our aim was to guide the parents in conducting comprehensive shared reading interactions with their children. In line with Bruner’s (1986) storybook reading model, we taught parents in the intervention group to refer first to the book’s plot (action level) and then to its socio-cognitive themes (consciousness level). Enhancing references to the books’ plot. Following the intervention and beyond the controlled measures, parents and children in the intervention group referred more than their counterparts in the control group to the book’s plot (vocabulary, events’ sequence, and story structure). Promoting parents’ and children’s reference to the book’s plot is important. Previous studies have shown that references to books’ vocabulary and plot are related to children’s vocabulary (e.g., Bus, 2003; De Temple & Snow, 2003). In a recent study, Dickinson and Porche (2011) discuss the importance of rich conversations that include sophisticated vocabulary with preschoolers from a low-SES background. They found that rich language experiences in preschool predicted children’s reading comprehension in fourth grade. In addition, Mol et al. (2008) found in a meta-analysis that reading experiences that engaged children in discourse surrounding the plot enhanced children’s vocabulary more than straightforward reading. As to the benefits of references to story structure, in a literature review, Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, and Baker (2001) showed that understanding the structure of stories improves narrative-comprehension and recall. They claimed that when children know the structure of a narrative they recognize which events are closely related, and this knowledge helps them discern what is likely to be most relevant for understanding the story. Enhancing references to socio-cognitive themes. In line with our expectations, after the intervention and beyond the controlled measures, parents and children in the intervention group referred more often than their counterparts in the control group to the book’s socio-cognitive themes (mental terms, mental causality, and the child’s personal experiences). The focus on the books’ sociocognitive themes during parent–child conversation appeared to meet children’s need for explanations regarding social situations and characters’ inner world, thus perhaps helping bridge the gap between how adults and children understand a story (Peskin, 1996; Szarkowicz, 2000). Parents and children who participated in the intervention group learned how to better discuss these social and cognitive themes, compared to the control participants. This type of conversation has been linked with children’s emotional and social understanding (Adrian et al., 2005; Denham, Zoller, & Couchoud, 1994; Garner et al., 1997; Symons et al., 2005). Another way in which the guided focus on socio-cognitive themes seemed to help enrich the shared reading interactions was the dyads’ increased ability to relate these children’s stories to the preschoolers’ own life experiences, compared to the control group dyads. Relating a story character’s mental states (emotions, desires, beliefs and intentions) to the child’s personal experiences can improve the child’s understanding of mental states and social situations because they are discussed in a context relevant to the child (Dever & Burts, 2002). The current intervention guided parents to read effectively to their four- to five-year-old children, while referring first to the book’s plot (action level) and then to its socio-cognitive themes (consciousness level). The positive results of the study are promising, and we encourage researchers and educators to try and adapt this model to children across a larger age range. Reese, Sparks, and Leyva (2010) reviewed parent–child shared reading interventions for children ranging in age between 24 and 60 months. They reported that many studies had adapted the “dialogic reading” that Whitehurst and his colleagues developed initially for toddlers

119

(Whitehurst et al., 1988), to preschoolers (e.g., Chow & McBrideChang, 2003) and to kindergartners (e.g., Chow, McBride-Chang, Cheung, & Chow, 2008). We suggest that generalizing our model to children in different age groups should focus on specific adaptations regarding discourse on the plot and on social cognition themes. 7.3. The contribution of the controlled measures The intervention’s impact on parents’ and children’s references to both book’s plot and socio-cognitive themes went beyond the effects of the parent–child shared reading interactions at pretest, of parental education, and of children’s gender, vocabulary and social cognition. Nonetheless, children’s references to the book’s plot in the pretest did have a unique impact on their references to the book’s plot in the posttest. This result expands the claim of stability in the nature of parental behaviors during shared book reading (Reese, Cox, Harte, & McAnally, 2003) by presenting stability in children’s reference to the plot. It seems that Israeli preschoolers from a low-SES background are more familiar with deciphering books’ plots than deciphering socio-cognitive themes. This explains why only their reference to book’s plot in the pre-test and not reference to socio-cognitive themes predicted their reference to the book’s plot at the post-test. Importantly, the parents in the intervention group, not their children, were guided directly in shared reading practices. Indeed, their shared reading behaviors changed so that their pretest behaviors did not predict their posttest scores. Among the three intrinsic child measures (gender, vocabulary, and social cognition), only children’s gender had a unique impact on the shared reading discourse. In the post-test, boys referred more than girls to socio-cognitive themes. We suggest that these results may be related to the topic of the posttest book – Frog’s frustration and anger when he thought his friends were cheating him. Some literature suggests that parents tend to talk more about anger and fear (Bird & Reese, 2006) or use more evaluative judgments during shared reading (Curenton & Craig, 2011) with boys than with girls. 7.4. Limitations and suggestions for future research The study’s findings and conclusions should be considered in line with its limitations. First, future studies need to examine the longevity of the intervention effects. The nature of shared reading improved substantially, but the maintenance of this improvement over time remains to be investigated. Future studies should repeat the present intervention in other ages as well as other ethnic and SES groups and follow up on changes in the nature of shared reading. Second, in reference to our study design, the control group in the present study received books and weekly visits to assure that they read the given books, but they did not participate in a workshop. To control for this difference, future research should expose the control group to a workshop unrelated to shared-reading (e.g., practicing fine motor skills with children). Moreover, we found that guiding parents from a low-SES background enhances the nature of parent–child shared reading, but future study should further investigate the most efficient intervention structure (e.g., how many weeks of practice are optimal?). Also, full or partial videotaping of the parent–child shared reading interactions throughout the intervention, though technically difficult, would help trace the ongoing changes in parents’ and children’s behavior during the interactions. Third, the generalization afforded by this intervention must be studied. Will parents and children after such intervention talk more about socio-cognitive themes in situations that invite such discourse outside shared reading? For example, will they refer more to feelings, thoughts, and their consequences when discussing their children’s interactions with friends in preschool or with their

120

D. Aram et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 111–122

siblings? Furthermore, beyond the nature of parent–child discourse, will children’s literacy and social-cognition be promoted? To conclude, our study showed that encouraging parents to read to children is not sufficient in order to raise the parent–child discourse level. Professionals should also directly guide parents in how to read to their children. Furthermore, repeated storybook reading alone is not enough to enhance the nature of the shared reading interaction among families from a low-SES background, but direct guidance appears to be very fruitful. It can affect the patterns of shared reading discourse and can enrich the conversations. The substantial improvement in parents’ and children’s references to both the book’s plot and its socio-cognitive themes after participating in the intervention group is promising because previous research pointed out the importance of both components to children’s cognitive development. Whereas most interventions focus on the importance of shared book reading for promoting children’s literacy (Mol et al., 2008; Reese et al., 2010), shared book reading also offers opportunities to discuss social situations and mental and emotional states. Parents as well as educators should be encouraged to acknowledge this potential and use the context of shared reading for conversations on both books’ plots and socio-cognitive issues. Author note The authors extend their thanks to the Israeli Ministry of Education for supporting this study and to Dee Ankonina for her editorial assistance. Appendix A. Guidelines given to intervention group parents for the four readings of “Oscar’s Rotten Birthday” (Elliott, 1981) Please read Oscar’s Rotten Birthday to your child four times over the next week, using the following guidelines. First Reading: The Book’s Plot 1. Call your child’s attention to the book’s title and the author’s name. Tell your child the aim of today’s reading: “Now we’ll read the story and explain the difficult words. We’ll pay attention to the story’s plot and make sure we understand what happened.” 2. Read the entire story to your child, stopping to explain the following difficult1 words as you encounter them: “odious” = rotten and smelly; conversing = talking; filth = mud, dirt; stench = bad smell. 3. Review the plot while showing the pictures, referring to each of the following key points: - Oscar lives in a trash can on Sesame Street. Oscar likes things that others usually don’t like (mud and rotten eggs), and Oscar hates things that others usually like (beautiful flowers and ice cream). - Oscar heard Bert and Ernie getting ready for a surprise party. Oscar remembered his birthday was coming soon, but he doesn’t like parties or presents. - Everyone on Sesame Street got ready for Oscar’s birthday and prepared gifts. Oscar hid in his trash can and put on earphones so he couldn’t hear his friends. - Everyone came and began singing to Oscar about his rotten birthday. Oscar liked the song, and he also liked all the dirty and broken gifts his friends brought him. - Oscar enjoyed his birthday very much and was sorry when it was over.

1

These words are uncommon in everyday conversations in Hebrew.

4. Perform a related activity with your child – Ask the child to arrange and glue the following five pictures in sequence: Oscar talking to Bert and Ernie; Grover picking flowers in the grove; Oscar hanging a sign; Oscar getting a gift from Grover; Oscar getting a mud cake. Write your child’s description of the picture beneath each picture. Second Reading: Socio-Cognitive Themes 1. Call your child’s attention to the book’s title and author’s name. Tell your child the aim of today’s reading: “Today we’ll read the story and pay attention to what Oscar and the other characters are feeling and thinking.” 2. Read the entire story while referring to the following: • Oscar likes mud and rotten eggs. These are things people usually don’t like. Oscar doesn’t like beautiful flowers and ice cream. These are things people usually like. • Oscar says “oh no” when he realizes the party being planned is for him. Why doesn’t Oscar want a birthday party? He thinks he won’t like the gifts he’ll get or the songs and games at the party. • Oscar hides from his friends: What is Oscar thinking? Does he think his friends know what things he likes, or not? - If the answer is that he thinks his friends know what things he likes, go on to ask: So why is he hiding from his friends? - If Oscar’s friends don’t know what he likes, what kind of gifts would they bring him? (new and good toys) • Oscar says this was the rottenest birthday he ever had. Do you think Oscar enjoyed his birthday? 3. Perform a related activity with your child – Ask the child to match and glue the following pairs of pictures indicating what Oscar thinks will happen with what actually happens: • Thinks: His friends will sing “Happy Birthday to you.” Truth: His friends sing “Rotten Birthday to you.” • Thinks: His friends will bring him beautiful flowers. Truth: His friends bring him smelly flowers. • Thinks: His friends will bring him nice toys. Truth: His friends bring him broken toys. • Thinks: His friends will bring him a beautiful cake. Truth: His friends bring him a smelly mud cake. Third Reading: Relating the Story to Your Child’s Own Experiences 1. Call your child’s attention to the book’s title and author’s name. Tell your child the aim of today’s reading: “Today we’ll read the story and see how you would feel if something similar happened to you.” 2. Read the entire story while referring to the following points: • Oscar likes things that are dirty, smelly, and broken and hates things that are cute and beautiful. What do you like and what do you hate? • Oscar hides in the trash can because he thinks he won’t enjoy the party. Did you ever not want to go somewhere because you thought you wouldn’t enjoy yourself, and later you had a very good time? (You can remind your child about some relevant incident.) • Oscar’s friends brought him broken and smelly gifts. Why did they do that? Answer: Because they knew him and knew what he would like. • If you were Oscar’s friend, what kind of gift would you bring him? (If your child does not answer in accordance with Oscar’s preferences, review the things that he likes again until your child suggests a gift Oscar would like.)

D. Aram et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 111–122

• What kinds of gifts would you like to receive for your birthday? Do you think Oscar would be happy to receive gifts like those? 3. Perform a related activity with your child – Ask the child to draw a picture showing how Oscar would feel if he received the kind of gifts you’d like for your birthday. Fourth Reading: Your Child Retells the Story 1. Read the story together and then ask your child the following questions: • Oscar likes filth. What is filth? • How does Oscar feel when he hears his friends planning to make a birthday party for him? • What does Oscar think his friends will bring him for his birthday? • How does Oscar feel when he gets his birthday gifts? • How would you feel if you got the same gifts that Oscar got? 2. Write down your child’s answer to the following question: Let’s look at the pictures in the book, and you tell me the story. References Adrian, J. E., Clemente, R. A., & Villanueva, L. (2007). Mothers’ use of cognitive state verbs in picture-book reading and the development of children’s understanding of mind: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 78, 1052–1067. Adrian, J. E., Clemente, R. A., Villanueva, L., & Rieffe, C. (2005). Parent–child picturebook reading, mothers’ mental state language and children’s theory of mind. Journal of Child Language, 32, 673–686. Anderson, J., Anderson, A., Lynch, J., & Shapiro, J. (2004). Examining the effects of gender and genre on interactions in shared book reading. Literacy Research and Instruction, 43, 1–20. Aram, D. (2006). Early literacy interventions among low SES preschoolers: The relative roles of storybook reading and alphabetic skills activities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 489–515. Aram, D., & Aviram, S. (2009). Mothers’ storybook reading and kindergartners’ socioemotional and literacy development. Reading Psychology, 30, 175–194. Bird, A., & Reese, E. (2006). Emotional reminiscing and the development of an autobiographical self. Developmental Psychology, 42, 613–626. Blom-Hoffman, J., O’Neil-Pirozzi, T., Volpe, R., Cutting, J., & Bissinger, E. (2007). Instructing parents to use dialogic reading strategies with preschool children: Impact of a video-based training program on caregiver reading behaviors and children’s related verbalizations. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23, 117–131. Briesch, A. M., Chafouleas, S. M., Lebel, T. J., & Blom-Hoffman, J. A. (2008). Impact of videotaped instruction in dialogic reading strategies: An investigation of caregiver implementation integrity. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 978–993. Brown, J. R., Donelan-McCall, N., & Dunn, J. (1996). Why talk about mental states? The significance of children’s conversations with friends, siblings, and mothers. Child Development, 67, 836–849. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bus, A. G. (2003). Social emotional requisites for learning to read. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 3–15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bus, A. G., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1–21. Cassidy, K. L., Ball, L., Rourke, S., Werner, R., Feeny, N., Chu, J. Y., et al. (1998). Theory of mind concepts in children’s literature. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 463–470. Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Chow, B. W. Y., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Promoting language and literacy development through parent–child reading in Hong Kong preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 14, 233–248. Chow, B. W. Y., McBride-Chang, C., Cheung, H., & Chow, C. S. L. (2008). Dialogic reading and morphological training in Chinese children: Effects on language and literacy. Developmental Psychology, 44, 233–244. Clancy, S., Kay, R., Lambert, B., & Williams, P. (1998). Peeling back the layers: A study of children’s thinking competencies within a story context. Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 1–14. Collins, M. F. (2010). ELL preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition from storybook reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 84–97. Curenton, S. M. (2004). The association between narratives and theory of mind for low-income preschoolers. Early Education & Development, 15, 121–145. Curenton, S. M. (2010). Understanding the landscapes of stories: The association between preschoolers’ narrative comprehension and production skills and cognitive abilities. Early Child Development and Care, 181, 791–808.

121

Curenton, S. M., & Craig, M. J. (2011). Shared-reading versus oral storytelling: Associations with preschoolers’ prosocial skills and problem behaviours. Early Child Development and Care, 1, 123–146. Curenton, S. M., Craig, M. J., & Flanigan, N. (2008). Use of decontextualized talk across story contexts: How oral storytelling and emergent reading can scaffold children’s development. Early Education and Development, 19, 161–187. Curenton, S. M., & Justice, L. M. (2008). Children’s preliteracy skills: Influence of maternal education and mothers’ beliefs about shared-reading interactions. Early Education and Development, 19, 261–283. Cutting, A. L., & Dunn, J. (1999). Theory of mind, emotion understanding, language and family background: Individual differences and interrelations. Child Development, 70, 853–865. Denham, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior and emotions in preschoolers: Contextual validation. Child Development, 57, 194–201. Denham, S. A., Zoller, D., & Couchoud, E. A. (1994). Socialization of preschoolers’ emotion understanding. Developmental Psychology, 30, 928–936. De Temple, J., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Learning words from books. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 16–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dever, M. T., & Burts, D. C. (2002). An evaluation of family literacy bags as a vehicle for parent involvement. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 359–370. Dickinson, D. K., DeTemple, J. M., Hirschler, J., & Smith, M. W. (1992). Book reading with preschoolers: Co-construction of text at home and at school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 323–346. Dickinson, D. K., & Porche, M. V. (2011). Relation between language experiences in preschool classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities. Child Development, 82, 870–886. Dyer, J. R., Shatz, M., & Wellman, H. M. (2000). Young children’s storybooks as a source of mental state information. Cognitive Development, 15, 17–37. Elkivity, L. (1997). (Fly’s day out on the beach) Zvuv holex layam. Or Yehuda, Israel: Kinneret. Elliott, D. (1981). (Oscar’s rotten birthday) Yom huledet masriax leoskar. Ben Shemen, Israel: Modan. Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ensor, R., & Hughes, C. (2008). Content or connectedness? Mother–child talk and early social understanding. Child Development, 79, 210–216. Farver, J. A. M., Xu, Y., Eppe, S., & Lonigan, C. J. (2006). Home environments and young Latino children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 196–212. Feitelson, D., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Patterns of book ownership and reading to young children in Israeli school-oriented and nonschool-oriented families. Reading Teacher, 39, 924–930. Feuerstein, R. (1998). (The human as a modifiable being: The theory of mediated learning experience) Haadam keyeshut mishtana: Al torat halimida hametavechet. Tel Aviv, Israel: Ministry of Defense. Garner, P. W., Jones, D. C., Gaddy, G., & Rennie, K. M. (1997). Low-income mothers’ conversations about emotions and their children’s emotional competence. Social Development, 6, 37–52. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320. Harris, P. L., Donnelly, K., Guz, G. R., & Pitt-Watson, R. (1986). Children’s understanding of the distinction between real and apparent emotion. Child Development, 57, 895–909. Holmes, H. A., Black, C., & Miller, S. A. (1996). A cross-task comparison of falsebelief understanding in a head start population. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 263–285. Hontz Hockenberger, E., Goldstein, H., & Sirianni Haas, L. (1999). Effects of commenting during joint book reading by mothers with low SES. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 15–27. Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Wadsworth. Huebner, C. E. (2000). Promoting toddlers’ language development through community-based intervention. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 513–535. Huebner, C. E., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2005). Intervention to change parent–child reading style: A comparison of instructional methods. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 296–313. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS). (2006). Social survey. Retrieved from http://surveys.cbs.gov.il/Survey/surveyE.htm Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS). (2010). The conversion of the Israeli classification of occupations to the international standard classification of occupations (ISCO-88). Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.il/publications10/ conver10/pdf/h print.pdf Kang, J. Y., Kim, Y. S., & Pan, B. A. (2009). Five-year-olds’ book talk and story retelling: Contributions of mother–child joint bookreading. First Language, 29, 243–265. Korat, O., Klein, P., & Segal-Drori, O. (2007). Maternal mediation in book reading, home literacy environment, and children’s emergent literacy: A comparison between two social groups. Reading and Writing, 20, 361–398. Korat, O., & Levin, I. (2001). Maternal beliefs, mother–child interaction, and child’s literacy: Comparison of independent and collaborative text writing between two social groups. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 397–420.

122

D. Aram et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 111–122

Korat, O., Ron, R., & Klein, P. (2008). Cognitive mediation and emotional support of fathers and mothers to their children during shared book-reading in two different SES groups. Journal of Cognitive Development and Education, 7, 223–247. LaBounty, J., Wellman, H. M., Olson, S., Lagattuta, K., & Liu, D. (2008). Mothers’ and fathers’ use of internal state talk with their young children. Social Development, 17, 757–775. Le Sourn-Bissaoui, S., & Hooge-Lespagnol, F. (2006). Maternal discourse, children’s language and development of theory of mind. Psychology of Language and Communication, 10, 6–19. Levin, I., & Aram, D. (2012). Mother–child joint writing and storybook reading and their effects on kindergartners’ literacy: An intervention study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 217–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145010-9254-y Lonigan, C. J. (2004). Emergent literacy skills and family literacy. In B. H. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. McArthur, D., Adamson, M. L. B., & Deckner, D. F. (2005). As stories become familiar: Mother–child conversations during shared reading. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 23, 389–406. McDonnell, S. A., Friel-Patti, S., & Rollins, P. R. (2003). Patterns of change in maternal-child discourse behaviors across repeated storybook reading. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 323–341. Meagher, S. M., Arnold, D., Doctoroff, G. L., & Baker, C. N. (2008). The relationship between maternal beliefs and behavior during shared reading. Early Education and Development, 19, 139–161. Meltzoff, A. N. (2011). Social cognition and the origins of imitation, empathy, and theory of mind. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 49–75). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M. T. (2009). Interactive book reading in early education: A tool to stimulate print knowledge as well as oral language. Review of Educational Research, 79, 979–1008. Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., de Jong, M. T., & Smeets, D. J. H. (2008). Added value of dialogic mother–child book reading: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19, 7–26. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for interventions. [Report of the National Early Literacy Panel]. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf Ornaghi, V., Brockmeier, J., & Grazzani Gavazzi, I. (2011). The role of language games in children’s understanding of mental states: A training study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 12, 239–259. Peles, R. (1994). (An invitation for dinner) Hazmana learuxa. Tel Aviv, Israel: Sefer Lakol. Pelletier, J., & Astington, J. W. (2004). Action, consciousness and theory of mind: Children’s ability to coordinate story characters’ actions and thoughts. Early Education and Development, 15, 5–22. Peskin, J. (1996). Guise and guile: Children’s understanding of narratives in which the purpose of pretense is deception. Child Development, 67, 1735–1751. Peskin, J., & Astington, J. W. (2004). The effects of adding metacognitive language to story text. Cognitive Development, 19, 253–273. Phillips, G., & McNaughton, S. (1990). The practice of storybook reading to preschool children in mainstream New Zealand families. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 196–212. Raikes, H. H., Pan, B., Luze, G., Tamis-LeMonda, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Constantine, J., et al. (2006). Mother–child bookreading in low-income families: Correlates and outcomes during the first three years of life. Child Development, 77, 924–953. Ratner, N. K., & Olver, R. R. (1998). Reading a tale of deception, learning a theory of mind? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 219–239. Reese, E., Cox, A., Harte, D., & McAnally, H. (2003). Diversity in adults’ styles of reading books to children. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children (pp. 37–57). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Reese, E., Sparks, A., & Leyva, D. (2010). A review of parent interventions for preschool children’s language and emergent literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10, 97–117.

Roberts, J. E., Jurgens, J., & Burchinal, M. (2005). The role of home literacy practices in preschool children’s language and emergent literacy skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 345–359. Ruffman, T., Slade, L., & Crowe, E. (2002). The relation between children’s and mothers’ mental state: Language and theory of mind understanding. Child Development, 73, 734–751. Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficiency of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245–302. Sénéchal, M. (2006). Testing the home literacy model: Mother involvement in kindergarten is differentially related to grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency, spelling, and reading for pleasure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 59–87. Slaughter, V., Peterson, C. C., & Mackintosh, E. (2007). Mind what mother says: Narrative input and theory of mind in typical children and those on the autism spectrum. Child Development, 78, 839–858. Snow, C. E., Tabors, P. O., & Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Language development in the preschool years. In D. K. Dickinson, & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school (pp. 1–26). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Solberg, S., & Nevo, B. (1979). Tseadim rishonim betiknun Israeli shel mivxan pibodi [Preliminary steps towards an Israeli standardization of the Peabody Test]. Megamoth, 3, 407–413. Sonnenschein, S., & Munsterman, K. (2002). The influence of home-based reading interactions on 5-year-olds’ reading motivations and early literacy development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 318–337. Storch Bracken, S., & Fischel, J. E. (2008). Family reading behavior and early literacy skills in preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Education and Development, 19, 45–67. Strauss, S. (2007). Hashinui beshitat hahaktsaa shel shaot hahora?a lebatej hasefer hajesodjim [The committee report on establishing an index of support and a model for allocating teaching hours in elementary schools]. Report submitted to the Director General by the Chief Scientist. Jerusalem, Israel: Israeli Ministry of Education. Symons, K. S., Peterson, C. C., Slaughter, V., Roche, J., & Doyle, E. (2005). Theory of mind and mental state discourse during book reading and story-telling tasks. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 81–102. Szarkowicz, D. L. (2000). “When they wash him they’ll know he’ll be Harry:” Young children’s thinking about thinking within a story context. International Journal of Early Years Education, 8, 71–81. Taumoepeau, M., & Ruffman, T. (2006). Mother and infant talk about mental states relates to desire language and emotion understanding. Child Development, 77, 465–481. Taumoepeau, M., & Ruffman, T. (2008). Stepping stones to others’ minds: Maternal talk relates to children’s mental state language and emotion understanding at 15, 24, and 33 months. Child Development, 78, 284–302. Van Genechten, G. (2003). Jonnie [Hebrew translation]. Or Yehuda, Israel: Kinneret. van Kleeck, A. (2008). Providing preschool foundations for later reading comprehension: The importance of and ideas for targeting inferencing in storybook-sharing interventions. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 627–643. van Kleeck, A., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Preface. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. Bauer (Eds.), On reading to children: Parents and teachers (pp. vii–xiii). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Velthuijs, M. (2000a). (Frog is frog) Tsfardea hu tsfardea. Tel Aviv, Israel: Zmora-Bitan. Velthuijs, M. (2000b). (Frog on a very special day) Tsfardea beyom meyuchad meod. Tel Aviv, Israel: Zmora-Bitan. Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory of mind tasks. Child Development, 75, 523–541. Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30, 679–689. Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischer, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., ValdezMenchaca, M. C., et al. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24, 552–559.