Dialogic Reading

Guide to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth

DIALOGIC READING

OVERVIEW

Dialogic reading is an interactive method of reading picture books with children. When reading dialogically, adults encourage children to become actively involved in the reading process – asking questions and allowing children opportunities to be storytellers.

Multiple random assignment studies have examined the impact of training parents and teachers to engage in dialogic reading. In these studies, children exposed to dialogic reading have been found to perform better than unexposed children on some measures of expressive vocabulary and verbal fluency. Impacts have been found for children from a diversity of backgrounds – lower-class and upper-class, English-speaking and Spanish-speaking – and with a diversity of pre-existing language skills. Dialogic reading has been found to have an impact whether it is practiced in the school or in the home. The strategy can be effectively taught to adults via direct training sessions or videotape.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: pre-literate children

Dialogic reading is an interactive method of reading picture books with young children. This method of reading involves a shift in roles. Whereas adults typically read and children listen, in dialogic reading, children learn to become storytellers. Children are encouraged to describe what they see going on in the books they are presented with and adults assume the role of active listeners – asking questions, adding information, and prompting children to increase the sophistication of their descriptions.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield M. (1988). Accelerating Language Development Through Picture Book Reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552-559.

Evaluated population: 29 children and their families served as the population of interest for this investigation. At baseline, the children ranged in age from 21 months to 35 months. All children were of normal developmental and linguistic status and came from intact, middle-class households on Long Island.

Approach: Children were randomly assigned to the treatment group or to the control group. All children were pre-tested on three measures of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Treatment and control children did not differ significantly on any pre-test measures.

Parents of both treatment and control children were alerted to the potential importance of picture book reading in children’s language development. All parents were instructed to audiotape their reading sessions with their children 3-4 times each week for four weeks.

Parents of children in the control group received no special instructions on how to read to their children; they were simply asked to read in their customary fashion. Parents (primarily mothers) of children in the treatment group participated in two 30-minute training sessions in dialogic reading methods. Training consisted of a verbal explanation of the reading strategy, an example of the strategy in action, and a chance to participate in role-plays of the strategy. The first training session took place at the beginning of the four-week intervention period and the second took place mid-way through.

After four weeks, children were administered three tests of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Children were tested again on these measures nine months later. Tapes of parents reading to their children were also analyzed.

Results: After the four-week intervention period, children assigned to the treatment group performed significantly better than children assigned to the control group on two measures of expressive vocabulary (the expressive subscale of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities and on the Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test). Scores of children in the treatment group were 6 to 8.5 months ahead of those of children in the control group. Differences on a measure of receptive vocabulary (the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised) favored the treatment group, but were only marginally significant. Nine months later, the size of the between-group difference in expressive vocabulary skills persisted, but, due to the departure of 7 children from the study sample, the difference was only marginally significant. Between-group differences in receptive vocabulary skills were non-existent at this time point.

Analysis of audiotapes revealed that children in the treatment group engaged in more substantial dialogue with their parents during reading sessions than did children in the control group. Treatment group children were significantly more likely to speak in multi-word phrases and, during the second half of the intervention, had significantly a significantly greater mean length of utterance.

Throughout the intervention, parents of children in the treatment group were significantly more likely to repeat their children’s utterances and were significantly less likely to read without asking for responses from their children, to ask their children yes/no questions, and to request non-verbal action from their children. During the second half of the intervention, treatment parents were significantly more likely to praise their children during reading sessions, to expand upon their children’s comments, and to ask open-ended questions of their children.

Valdez-Menchaca, M. C. & Whitehurst, G. J. (1992). Accelerating Language Development Through Picture Book Reading: A Systematic Extension to Mexican Day Care. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1106-1114.

Evaluated population: 20 children from Tepic, Mexico served as the population of interest for this study. At baseline, children ranged in age from 27 months to 35 months. All were Spanish speakers and attended public day care. The children all had literate, working class parents. Parents reported reading to their children only rarely and only 10% had children’s books in the home. All the children were developing normally, but they were evaluated at baseline as having low linguistic abilities.

Approach: All children were pre-tested on three measures of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Children were then matched on the basis of test scores and demographics and were randomly assigned to the treatment group or to the control group.

Children assigned to the treatment group took part in one-on-one dialogic reading sessions with a graduate student for 10-12 minutes a day, over the course of 30 days. Children assigned to the control group took part in one-on-one art activities with a graduate student for 10-12 minutes a day, over the course of 30 days. No specific language stimulation was provided during these sessions; the graduate student only engaged in regular conversation with the children.

As was convention at the day care center the children attended, no language activities took place beyond those provided for treatment students as part of the intervention. Stories were never read to the children and no books were available in the day care center.

After the 30-day intervention, children were administered three tests of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Each child was also asked to read a book with an unfamiliar adult. Children’s verbal productions during these reading sessions were analyzed.

Results: Following the 30-day intervention, students in the treatment group scored significantly higher than students in the control group on measures of expressive and receptive vocabulary (the expressive subscale of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, the Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test, and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised). Scores of children in the treatment group were 3.3 to 8.2 months ahead of those of children in the control group.

In analyzing children’s verbal production during post-test reading sessions, researchers found that, compared with children from the control group, children from the treatment group spoke more often and produced longer, more complex sentences when they spoke. These children used a greater variety of words and were more likely to appropriate respond to prompts from the adult with whom they read.

Arnold, D. H., Lonigan, C. J., Whitehurst, G. J., & Epstein, J. N. (1994). Accelerating Language Development Through Picture Book Reading: Replication and Extension to a Videotape Training Format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 235-243.

Evaluated population: 64 children and their mothers served as the population of interest for this investigation. At baseline, children ranged in age from 24 months to 34 months and had average or above-average expressive and receptive language skills. Children came from middle- and upper-class families and their parents reported reading to them often.

Approach: Children were randomly assigned to the control group or to one of two treatment groups: a direct-training group and a video-training group. All children were pre-tested on two measures of expressive and receptive vocabulary. The three groups did not differ significantly from one another on any measures.

For the first week of the intervention, all parents were asked to read with their children at least four times a week. They were provided with audiotapes and were asked to record their reading sessions. No specific instructions were provided on how parents should read with their children.

For the remaining four weeks of the intervention, mothers in the treatment group were asked to engage in dialogic reading with their children. Mothers in the direct-training group took part in two training sessions, identical to those described above in the Whitehurst, et al. 1988 study. Mothers in the video-training group did not train with an actual person. Instead, they were provided with a videotape that instructed them on the principles of dialogic reading. This tape consisted of two segments – one 20 minutes long, the other 15 minutes long – that had comparable content to that of the direct-training sessions. Because the video could not provide mothers with role-plays to participate in, it provided them with opportunities to watch on-screen mothers make mistakes in implementing the dialogic reading strategy and then asked viewers what the on-screen mother should have done differently. Mothers in the control group continued to read with their children in their traditional manners.

After the five-week intervention, children were administered two tests of expressive vocabulary, one test of receptive vocabulary, and one test of grammatical understanding.

Results: Following the five-week intervention, children whose parents were trained in dialogic reading via videotape outperformed control children on measures of expressive vocabulary by 3.9 to 5.1 months. This constituted a significant difference. Children of videotape-trained parents outperformed control children on a measure of receptive vocabulary by 3.3 months, but this difference was only marginally significant.

Children whose parents were trained in dialogic reading via direct training outperformed control children on one measure of expressive vocabulary (the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities). These children did not outperform control children on the other measure of expressive vocabulary or the measure of receptive vocabulary.

Children whose parents were trained via videotape performed significantly better than children whose parents were trained via direct training on two of the three post-test measures (one expressive and one receptive). On the remaining expressive measure, the two treatment groups did not perform significantly differently. This serves as confirmation of the fact that cost-effective video-based training in dialogic reading strategies is no less successful direct training.

Whitehurst, G.J., Arnold, D.S., Epstein, J.N., Angell, A.L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J.E. (1994). A Picture Book Reading Intervention in Day Care and Home for Children From Low Income Families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679-689.

Evaluated population: 73 three-year-olds from low-income families constituted the study sample for this investigation. These children were drawn from five day-care centers in Suffolk County, New York. The children were 22% white, 55% black, and 23% Hispanic. 90% of the children’s mothers were native speakers of English. At baseline, the children’s vocabulary and expressive skills in standard English were significantly below average, as measured by standardized tests.

Approach: At baseline, all children were subjected to four standardized tests of language ability. They were then randomly assigned, by classroom, to one of three conditions: a school reading treatment, a school plus home reading treatment, or an activity and attention control.

Children assigned to the school reading treatment engaged in dialogic book reading with a teacher or aide and no more than five other children. These shared reading sessions occurred daily, for about ten minutes a day. Books were selected on the basis of having illustrations that could serve to introduce new vocabulary to children and could support a story narrative through illustrations alone.

Children assigned to the school plus home reading treatment engaged in small-group dialogic reading at school under the same conditions as the school reading treatment students. Additionally, a parent or primary caretaker of each child was trained in dialogic reading and was given three books. Parents/caretakers were encouraged to engage in dialogic reading with their children daily.

Children assigned to the control condition engaged in play activities with a teacher or aide and no more than five other children. These sessions occurred daily, for about ten minutes a day. During these sessions, children were provided with access to new toys and were encouraged to engage in cooperative, creative play.

Children were reassessed on measures of language ability immediately after the six week intervention, and again, six months later.

Training in dialogic reading took place during two sessions, spaced out over three weeks. The first training was approximately 30 minutes long; the second was 20 minutes long. Trainees viewed a videotape that included lessons on the rules of dialogic reading and a series of vignettes depicting inappropriate adult-child book reading. Trainees were asked to criticize the readers in the vignettes and describe how they could have done better. Trainees also engaged in role-plays with a trainer and received feedback on their use of the dialogic reading rules. Teacher training was identical to parent training, except in so far as the teacher training discussed reading to groups of children and the parent training discussed reading to individual children.

Results: Immediately after the intervention, on a measure of expressive vocabulary (the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised), treatment group children preformed significantly better than control group children. Additionally, children in the school plus home reading condition performed significantly better than children in the school reading condition. On a separate measure of expressive vocabulary (Our Word), treatment group children preformed significantly better than control group children, but no significant difference emerged between the two treatment conditions. On a measure of receptive vocabulary (the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised), treatment group children preformed marginally better than control group children. And on a measure of verbal fluency in describing common objects (the expressive subscale of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities), no significant differences emerged between treatment children and control children.

At the six-month follow-up, the treatment group continued to perform significantly better than the control group on the One-Word test of expressive vocabulary. No other significant differences existed at this point.

Lonigan, C.J. & Whitehurst, G.J. (1998). Relative Efficacy of Parent and Teacher Involvement in a Shared-Reading Intervention for Preschool Children from Low-Income Backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(2), 263-290.

Evaluated population: 114 three- and four-year-old children from low-income families were selected to participate in this study. These children were drawn from four child care centers in metropolitan Nashville, Tennessee. 23 children left the center they were attending prior to completing the post-test for this investigation, so the final study sample included only 91 children. The 23 children who left the study did not differ significantly from the 91 children who remained in the study on any pre-test variables.

The children were 91% black. All of the children were from English-speaking homes. At baseline, the children’s vocabulary and expressive skills in standard English were significantly below average, as measured by standardized tests.

Approach: At baseline, all children were subjected to three standardized tests of oral language ability. They were then randomly assigned, by classroom, to one of four conditions: a school reading treatment, a home reading treatment, a school plus home reading treatment, or a no treatment control.

Parents of children assigned to a home reading treatment were asked to attend two dialogic reading training sessions. All of these parents attended the first session and only two missed the second session. Teachers and aides also attended two dialogic reading training sessions. Training in this study was identical to the training described for the previous study.

Each child assigned to a treatment that involved school reading engaged in dialogic book reading with a teacher or aide and no more than five other children. These shared reading sessions occurred daily, for about ten minutes a day. Books were selected on the basis of having illustrations that could serve to introduce new vocabulary to children and could support a story narrative through illustrations alone.

Parent of children assigned to a treatment that involved home reading were encouraged to engage in dialogic reading with their children daily. These parents were given three books to read with their children.

No specific instructions or activities were provided for control group children.

Children were reassessed on standardized measures of oral language ability immediately after the six week intervention. A subset of the children (n=66) also had their verbal productions assessed during a semi-structured book-reading wherein they read a familiar book and an unfamiliar book with a familiar adult.

Results: Immediately after the intervention, on a measure of expressive vocabulary (the expressive subscale of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities), treatment group children performed significantly better than control group children. Scores for children assigned to the home reading treatment were significantly higher than scores for school reading treatment children and school plus home reading treatment children.

On a different measure of expressive vocabulary (the One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test), treatment children from child care centers that scored high on a measure of compliance with study protocol did significantly better than control group children at these centers. Treatment children from centers that scored low on this measure of compliance did not perform better than control children. In fact, children in the school reading treatment group at these low-compliance centers scored significantly worse than the home reading treatment group, the school plus home reading treatment group, and the control group.

On a measure of receptive vocabulary (the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised), treatment children’s scores were not significantly different from control children’s scores.

During the semi-structured book-reading assessment with an unfamiliar book, treatment children from high-compliance centers produced longer utterances, more words, more adjectives, and a greater diversity of words than did control children from these centers. The verbal production of treatment children from low-compliance centers did not differ significantly from the verbal production of control children from these centers.

During the semi-structured book-reading assessment with a familiar book, treatment children from high-compliance centers used more words, a higher diversity of words, and more verbs than did control children from these centers. The verbal production of treatment children from the low-compliance centers did not differ significantly from the verbal production of control children from these centers.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

Several dialogic reading training programs exist. The following website is one of many that offer access to training materials:

http://www.pearsonearlylearning.com/products/curriculum/rttt/rttt_learnMore.html

References:

Program categorized in this guide according to the following:

Evaluated participant ages: 2-4

Evaluated participant grades: pre-school

Program age ranges in the guide: early childhood

Program components: child care/early childhood education, parent or family component

Measured outcomes: education & cognitive development

Program information last updated on 12/20/07.