UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Buddy reading from a multi-dimensional perspective Grimm, Kathleen Anne 1998

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1998-345262.pdf [ 9.36MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0078177.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078177-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078177-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078177-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078177-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078177-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078177-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

BUDDY READING FROM A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL PERSPECTIVE by KATHLEEN ANNE GRIMM B.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 1975 M. Ed., The University of British Columbia, 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Language Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to ttje^required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1998 © Kathleen Anne Grimm, 1998 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date ^ j. DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Buddy Reading From a Multi-Dimensional Perspective Buddy Reading, a literacy event that pairs two students as they share the reading of a book, was investigated from cultural, textual and social stances. Using a sample of 10 pairs of students from grades one and three, this study explored 1) the influences of school culture and classroom conventions that effected Buddy Reading, 2) the interaction between Grade 1 early readers as they read with more proficient Grade 3 buddies, and 3) student and teacher perceptions of Buddy Reading. Data collection involved four phases and included classroom observation, video recording students as they read together, photographic interviews of students and standard interviews of teachers. Findings indicated that student and teacher perceptions paralleled classroom practice, with the exception of students' perception of the type of decoding skills used. Although half of the proficient readers reported that they encouraged their younger partners to 'sound out words', they usually corrected oral reading errors by 'telling' or 'pronouncing' the word for their buddy. Students did not use scaffolding dialogue as they read with their buddies, and it was concluded that Buddy Reading could not be used as an alternative for reading practice with an adult. Social interaction between students was observed and discussed. School culture, tradition and rituals had a significant effect on the organization of the Buddy Reading Program and classroom practice. Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables v Acknowledgments vi CHAPTER I Research Problem Introduction 1 Research Perspective 5 Statement of the Problem 7 Research Questions 9 Significance of the Study 10 Purpose 11 Limitations 13 Chapter Summary 14 CHAPTER II Literature Review Reading Aloud 16 Precocious Readers 28 Cross Age Tutoring 37 Family Literacy Programs 38 Literacy as a Social Act 43 School Cultural & Literacy 47 Perceptions of Reading 49 Summary 55 CHAPTER III Research Methodology The School 58 The Subjects 61 The Students 62 The Teachers 63 The Classrooms 64 iv Stages in the Data Collection Process 66 Classroom Observations 71 Video Taping Students During Buddy Reading . . . . . 77 Student Interviews 81 Teacher Interviews 84 Data Analysis 85 C H A P T E R IV Results Buddy Reading and the School Culture 91 Teachers' Purpose for Buddy Reading 93 Students'Purpose for Buddy Reading 94 Expectations for Reading Buddies 96 Teacher Responsibilities 97 Initial Instructions 98 Pairing Classes 100 Selecting a Buddy 102 Buddies are Friends 105 Building Anticipation and Excitement 106 Selecting Books to Reading With a Buddy 109 Reading Together 111 Summary of Findings 120 C H A P T E R V D i s c u s s i o n , C o n c l u s i o n s & Implications Discussion of Results 125 Questions for Further Research 139 Concluding Statement 144 Bibl iography 151 Appendix 1 Teacher & Student Interview Questions 167 Appendix 2 Reading Log - Video Session #1 168 Appendix 3 Catalogue of Video Clips 169 Appendix 4 Interview Protocol for Teachers 170 Appendix 5 Video Session #1 172 Appendix 6 Interview Questions for Pairs of Buddies 173 Appendix 7 Student Interview Responses 174 Appendix 8 Teacher Interview Responses 185 V L I S T O F T A B L E S Page Figure 1 Conceptual Framework for a Study of Buddy Reading 10 Figure 2 Oral Reading vs. Silent Reading 21 Figure 3 Number of Studies & Journal Articles Related to Reading Aloud from 1976 to 1996 31 Figure 4 ABC Elementary School - Ground Level 60 Figure 5 ABC Elementary School - Upper Level 60 Figure 6 Paired Classes 61 Figure 7 Stages in the Data Collection Process 67 Figure 8 Data Collection Methods 69 Figure 9 Sample of Anecdotal Comments - Session 1 80 vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As this dissertation nears completion, I would like to express my gratitude to all those who offered their professional and personal support through the planning and prepatory stages, the implementation of the research design and the writing of this paper. I wish to extend a special thank you to my advisors, Dr. J. Shapiro and Dr. K. Slade, for their guidance and assistance, as well as committee members, Dr. L. Gunderson and Dr. R. Goldman-Segall. I am particularly grateful for the support of the administrators and parents, and the cooperation of the teachers and students who participated in this study. While it is not possible to make mention of their names, without their cooperation and patience this dissertation would not have been possible. Finally, to the administration and staff at SC and ND, my family and friends, I thank you for your silent support and encouragement to see this project through to its completion. Kathy Grimm August, 1998. 1 Chapter I RESEARCH PROBLEM Introduction The daily lives of school-aged children are filled with "literacy events" or activities that require their active engagement with print to receive, interpret and generate messages to others (Harris & Hodges, 1995). Buddy Reading is an example of a "literacy event" that pairs two students as they share the reading of a book. In a Buddy Reading program students from a primary class of early readers are matched with buddies from a class of more advanced readers. Students select materials to read aloud to each other, or to read together. Books may be from a classroom collection, the school library, the public library or from home. Teachers may suggest stories, poems or passages as optional readings for students. Cooperatively, teachers schedule regular Buddy Reading sessions when their classes have the opportunity to meet and buddies interact with each other. Buddy Reading should not be confused with cross-age tutoring, which couples middle, high school or college students with primary-age or "at-risk" readers for the purpose of providing direct one-to-one instruction and remediation (Samway, Whang & Pippitt, 1995; Juel, 1991; Labbo & Teale, 1990). Cross-age tutors are provided with explicit instructions from teachers sponsoring the programs (Johnston, Juel & Invernizzi, 1995; Caserta-Henry, 1996) and may even follow teacher developed lesson plans. Tutors are often required to keep a log or diary of 2 activities undertaken and may receive course credits for "peer tutoring". The organizers of cross-age tutoring programs may hold debriefing sessions for tutors and instruct them on more efficient teaching methods. Teachers may also share their observations of tutor and tutee interaction (Samway et al., 1995; Post, 1997). Nor should Buddy Reading be confused with paired reading, "a procedure that uses nonprofessional tutors" (Harrison, 1995, p.230) or parents to work with children to develop their reading skills. As Harrison (1995) explains, "in paired reading, both the tutor and tutee read aloud simultaneously from the same book, with the tutor gradually taking a less active role as the tutee becomes more confident" (Harrison, 1995, p. 230). The tutor chooses the reading material which the tutor and tutee read aloud together at the tutee's pace. The tutor follows a prescribed correction procedure for misread words or offers praise for correct reading. Non-verbal signals are used by the tutee to signal when they wish to read alone. If a significant number of oral reading errors are made, the tutor resumes reading aloud with the tutee (Topping & Lindsay, 1992). In contrast, reading buddies, as defined in this study, are simply partners who read books together with a minimum amount of teacher direction and interaction. The purpose of Buddy Reading is to share and enjoy the reading of a favorite book with another student, not to provide direct, explicit, reading instruction for corrective or remedial purposes. All students in participating classes have a reading buddy, regardless of their reading ability. Reading buddies are not usually in the same grade, but they are students within the same school. Teachers facilitate this "literacy event" by structuring class timetables so that there is a 3 regularly scheduled, common meeting time for the students, at least once per week, for the school year. Teachers also make arrangements for students to meet in a place where they can interact without interference by others, and make sure that each child has a buddy. Teachers consider Buddy Reading to be a worth-while activity for several reasons. Within the parameters of a Buddy Reading program, teachers create a positive, non-threatening environment where students share the reading of a story with another child. In this environment, teachers encourage early readers to develop their literacy skills as they select books to share with their buddies, practice reading aloud to another student, and have fluent reading modeled by a more proficient reader (Samway et al., 1995). The teachers who participated in this study report that students who take part in Buddy Reading activities develop oral reading fluency, grow in self-confidence as they successfully read to another student, form positive attitudes towards reading and develop personal images of themselves as competent readers. Of secondary importance are the indirect social benefits that accrue as a result of the Buddy Reading program. The teachers contend that as students cultivate friendships with children from other classes, supervisors observe more positive interaction between younger and older buddies on the playground. On the playing field, there are fewer arguments and there is less fighting between groups of students who are reading buddies than is observed among the general student body. 4 Focusing on classroom management and control issues when two classes of students meet in a confined area, the teachers who participated in this study appear to have little opportunity to closely observe the interaction between individual pairs of students as they read to each other. They assume that the older students model fluent oral reading, the use of accurate decoding skills and appropriate comprehension monitoring strategies for their younger buddies. The teachers also make the assumption that all students benefit from the Buddy Reading experience and that the reading ability of beginning readers will develop simply because of the opportunity to practice reading aloud. However, many teacher assumptions about the quality and type of student interactions that take place during Buddy Reading sessions appear to be based on teacher intuition, or a tacit "common sense" knowledge, rather than systematic observation. In fact, there is very little research data to either support or disprove the teachers' intuitive assumptions about the nature and type of student interactions as they read together. To enhance our understanding of everyday "literacy events" such as Buddy Reading, to refute or validate teacher assumptions, to determine what actually happens when two students read aloud to each other and to investigate teacher and student perceptions of Buddy Reading, further research and investigation of this topic is required. 5 Research Perspective Richard Beach (1994) suggests that literacy researchers need to adopt a range of disciplinary perspectives or orientations to understand "literacy events" such as Buddy Reading. Beach refers to these perspectives as "stances". A "stance" is defined as: ... an orientation or perspective that focuses a researcher's attention on particular aspects of a literacy event. Adopting a particular stance, therefore, means selectively focusing on, attending to, or foregrounding certain features of a literacy event, (p. 1203) Beach identifies four perspectives towards literary research; the textual, social, cultural and field stances. Briefly, research from the textual stance focuses "on readers' or writers' knowledge of text, literary or genre conventions." (p.93) Knowledge of text and genre conventions is described as "a tacit, 'knowing-how1 procedural knowledge, rather than declarative knowledge" (p.94). The social perspective is based on the belief that "literacy is a social act' and is grounded in the theories of the social interactionists and constructivists, who "focus on the ways in which social motives, goals, roles, attitudes and conventions constitute the meaning of literacy events" (p.97). From the cultural stance, researchers study readers' identity within the cultural institutions of the school, the family and home. Literacy practices within the context of a subject area or a specific realm, domain or 6 discipline (i.e. Medicine or Law) are investigated by those who adopt a field stance towards literacy research. To better understand "literacy events", Beach argues that "adopting only one stance provides an insufficient understanding of literacy development" and "adopting combinations of these stances yields a fuller insight into literacy development" (p.93). When multiple stances are adopted and meshed, researchers are able to investigate literacy in more complex ways. As the cultural perspective is meshed with the social and textual stances, the relationships between the stances are illuminated for the researcher. For example, studying a literacy event such as Buddy Reading from the cultural stance helps one to focus on the classroom and school rituals, the procedures and traditions that constitute the setting, or the contextual background, as youngsters read together. When one views the same event from a social stance, the researcher then incorporates additional information gleaned from observation of buddies and student / teacher interactions with previously gathered information about the setting. Data gathered from a textual stance further focuses ones' attention on the students' actions while reading, and the manner in which students interact with the text to understand the author's message. Investigating literacy events, such as Buddy Reading, from the cultural, social and textual stances allows one to build richly detailed descriptions of student behavior, and develop a fuller understanding of the factors that influence buddies as they read together. Although these descriptions may not be considered "thick descriptions" (Geertz, 1973) because they are compiled from the observations of a 7 single researcher, they are none the less broader and encompass more information than would literacy research from a single perspective or stance. Statement of the Problem While there is a great body of research that supports the premise that beginning readers benefit from reading aloud with parents (Durkin, 1966; Durkin, 1977; Hewison & Tizard, 1980; Topping, 1986; Topping & Lindsay, 1992), with adults (Heckelman, 1986; Larking, 1988;) and with tutors (Waters, 1974; Topping & Whiteley, 1990; Leland & Fitzpatrick, 1994) and that oral reading practice results in improved reading performance (Tizard, 1982; Caserta-Henry, 1996), few researchers have investigated the social interaction that takes place between pairs of primary aged students as they read aloud to each other within the parameters of a Buddy Reading program. Little research has focused on the ways that student partners help each other understand the written text when they read together as buddies. Additionally, there are no research studies that investigate the culture of the elementary school and classroom rituals that support Buddy Reading programs. After talking with numerous teachers, it appears that many teacher beliefs about Buddy Reading programs are based on intuitive assumptions rather than research based information. For example, from a textual stance, teachers seem to believe that as buddies read together, the older, more capable reader, 8 automatically models fluent reading, uses accurate decoding skills and discusses the story with their partner. When younger buddies read and stumble over words, teachers assume that their older buddies encourage the use of phonics to sound out the words or the use of contextual clues to bring meaning to unknown words. From a social stance, the assumption is made that buddies provide an engaged, interactive audience for each other. It also appears that teachers presume that once behavioral expectations have been outlined, their students require little adult intervention to successfully interact with their reading partners. From a cultural stance, the teachers in the school involved in this research project were not consciously aware of the strength of the traditions and the classroom rituals that formed the contextual background for their reading program. While Buddy Reading had been introduced in many schools in the district in the early 1980s, few schools had perpetuated the practice, on a school wide basis, for such a long period of time. Week after week, the teachers brought their students together to share reading books, yet little thought was given to question and ask why the program continued virtually unchanged and uninterrupted for over 15 years. Nor were the reasons for the longevity of this particular Buddy Reading program sought by the teachers involved, the administration or school district staff. As research literature that examines Buddy Reading is limited, this investigation seeks to gather information about teachers' intuitive beliefs and assumptions about their Buddy Reading program, the quality and type of interactions that occur between students as younger children read with more proficient readers, students' perceptions of Buddy Reading, and the school 9 traditions and classroom rituals that constitute the cultural background for Buddy Reading. Research Questions Assuming a multi-dimensional perspective that incorporates cultural, social and textual stances towards literacy research, three primary research questions are addressed in this study (See Figure 1). From the textual stance, to investigate the type and nature of the interactions between students, what actually happens when two students share the reading of a book within a Buddy Reading program? Second, from the social stance, to determine the participants' point of view, what are the teachers' and students' perceptions of this "literacy event"? Finally, from the cultural stance, to define the contextual setting for budding reading, what role expectations, classroom rituals and other aspects of school culture effect students as they read aloud together? These three primary research questions were the foundation upon which all research activity was based. From the question, "What happens when buddies read together?", came the focus for classroom observation of individual pairs of students as they read together. Similarly from the question, "What are the cultural influences and classroom conventions that effect Buddy Reading?", was derived the central point of focus for the observation of teachers and classes as they prepared for Buddy Reading sessions, read with their partners and then returned to 10 their respective classrooms when the activity ceased. Finally, the third question, "What do teachers and students think happens when buddies read together?", was the underlying foundation upon which all structured interview queries were based. Figure 1 Conceptual Framework for a Study of Buddy Reading Cultural Stance What are the cultural influences and classroom conventions that effect Buddy Reading? Textual Stance What actually happens when buddies read together ? Buddy A o Buddy B Social Stance What do teachers and students think happens when buddies read together? Teachers' Perspectives Students' Perspectives 1 1 Significance of the Study This study of Buddy Reading is significant for several reasons. First, the results of this study add to the body of research information about children's textual and social interactions as they read together, within the context of a Buddy Reading program. Information in this area is needed because teachers currently make many assumptions about the quality and type of student interactions that take place during Buddy Reading sessions based on intuitive beliefs rather than systematic observation. Validating teachers' intuitive assumptions and beliefs about Buddy Reading, and disproving inaccuracies, may provide encouragement for more educators to facilitate similar literacy events for the students in their classrooms. Second, this investigation seeks to elicit students' and teachers' perceptions of Buddy Reading allowing a comparison of what actually happens when students read together with what teachers and students think happens. This comparison serves to point out inconsistencies between the classroom reality and the participants' perceptions. While some inconsistencies may be tolerated, this comparison may allow teachers to address differences in points of view to enhance communication and promote common goals. Third, investigating the school traditions, classroom conventions and rituals associated with this literacy event facilitates a greater understanding of the school culture that supports activities such as Buddy Reading. Enhanced understanding of the relationship between school culture and literacy may aid in the further development of supportive learning environments. 12 Purpose This study examines what happens when an early reader is paired with a more proficient reader to share the reading of familiar poems and story books as reading buddies. Student and teacher perceptions of Buddy Reading are also elicited, and then compared to the actual classroom events. This comparison is made to determine if there are significant differences or inconsistencies between the participants' perceptions and actual classroom practice. To facilitate understanding the contextual setting for Buddy Reading within the classroom and school, the traditions and rituals associated with Buddy Reading are examined and discussed. While previous researchers investigated situations when oral reading occurred as early readers listened and read to parents (Durkin, 1963; Hewison & Tizard, 1980; Baghban, 1984; Topping, 1986) and adults or tutors (Topping, 1985; Nickse, 1988; Trelease, 1989; Topping & Lindsay, 1992; Leland & Fitzpatrick, 1994; Post, 1997), primary aged students, reading together as buddies for the purpose of enjoying familiar poetry and stories, have not been studied in detail (Caserta-Henry, 1996). Similarly, studies of student perceptions of reading focused on reading 'per se' (Edwards, 1958; Denny& Weintraub, 1963; Downing, 1969; Johns, 1970, 1972, 1974; Borko & Eisenhard, 1986; Michel, 1988; Hillerich 1990), and not on perceptions of Buddy Reading. In addition, previous studies only focused on student and teachers perceptions. Researchers did not attempt to 13 compare what the subjects thought took place with what actually happened as students read. Since the focus of previous studies was not on Buddy Reading but other types of oral reading programs, the nature of the social and textual interaction between students and the participants perceptions of Buddy Reading is not well understood. Similarly, the contextual setting for Buddy Reading, within the traditions and rituals of an elementary school, has not been studied or discussed in the research literature. In conclusion, the purpose of this study is to examine Buddy Reading as a common literacy activity that encompasses the social and textual interaction between pairs of primary aged students. Consideration has also been made for differing student and teacher perceptions of Buddy Reading, as well as the influences of classroom ritual and school customs as the tradition of Buddy Reading continues over an extended period of time. Limitations While there is little reference to Buddy Reading in the research literature, and this in itself is justification for studying this type of "literacy event", there are limitations to the findings of this study. First, findings may be limited to students from a similar population. That is, findings may be limited to Grade 1 readers who have Grade 3 buddies, to students who are "average" readers and to pairs of children with reading partners of the same gender. Second, the findings of this 14 study may be limited to Buddy Reading programs whose primary purpose is to provide a non-threatening environment and an opportunity for students to enjoy the reading of a book. This is in contrast to paired reading, peer tutoring or cross aged tutoring programs where remediation and correction of reading difficulties is the focus. Third, results may differ from Buddy Reading programs that are teacher directed and encompass a great deal of teacher intervention. Fourth, the findings may also be limited to primary classrooms where teachers use similar "balanced literacy instruction" (Metsala, 1997) integrating the use of literature based materials, trade books, and student generated stories with the explicit teaching of letter knowledge and phonics skills. Fifth, a environment that is rich in print materials and books for students to access freely would also be required if an attempt was made to be replicate these findings. These findings may be limited to classrooms where students have similar accessibility to a large number of print materials. Chapter Summary In summary, the purpose of this study was to investigate Buddy Reading from a multi-dimensional perspective incorporating the cultural, textual and social stances towards literacy. Research activities and corresponding methodology were based on three primary questions: What actually happens when buddies read together? What do teachers and students think happens when buddies read 15 together? What are the cultural influences and classroom conventions that effect Buddy Reading? The results and interpretation of the data collected in this study of Buddy Reading may be found in the subsequent chapters of this paper. Chapter Two contains a review of the literature that focuses on relevant background information. The remainder of the literature review is organized from a cultural, social and textual stance, conforming to the three perspectives assumed for the development of the research questions and data collection. A detailed description of the research methodology, as well as the justification for investigative and recording procedures, may be found in Chapter Three. Chapter Four is a reporting of the results of the study and contains observations and responses to the three primary research questions. Recommendations for further research and conclusions may be found in Chapter Five. Chapter II 16 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Reading Aloud to Others Oral reading, or reading aloud to others, has served many functions. From a historical perspective, early methods of reading instruction were tied to the view that oral reading was "an expressive art" (Robinson et al., 1990, p.9). The term "reading" was synonymous with reading aloud, and the process of learning to read a passage or story was considered "incomplete unless it culminated in expressive reading" (Robinson, p. 10). It has been suggested that oral reading played an important role in the development of American society from the colonial period (Monaghan, 1991; Smith, 1965) through to the early 1900s when reading aloud was considered to be "a part of the American culture" (Tinsley & Kaestle, 1991, p. 231). In pioneer and colonial homes, reading the Bible aloud during times of prayer and reading books aloud when the family gathered was an important part of the daily household routine (Robinson, 1977). Diaries of early colonists such as Cotton Mather (1663-1728), a graduate of Harvard College in 1678 and a minister of Boston's North Church, have provided an insight into family literacy "as a communal activity". Monaghan (1991) elaborated: 17 The servants were there for the oral reading from the Scriptures at family prayers. Within the nuclear family setting, although religion and - presumably - meals were the most potent forces in gathering the family into one place, reading also played a part. Family members came together for several group reading activities. Whether it was Liza and Sammy reading, in turn, one paragraph at a time,... or all the children listening to their father read the Scriptures, oral reading was an activity that family members engaged in communally, (p.365) Robinson (1977) explained the importance of oral reading in colonial times when he stated, "Oral reading was promoted as the reading procedure for social and religious needs. The reader in the family read to other family members from what was probably the one piece of reading material in the home, the Bible" (p.46). Oral reading was also used as a means of communicating information to the community at large. The generally illiterate population listened attentively to skilled oral readers as they met in town halls and churches for public meetings. After 1776, nationalism was an important topic, and texts read aloud at community meetings played an important part in the political and cultural development of American self-determination (Smith, 1965; Robinson, 1977). Tinsley and Kaestle (1991), in their article Autobiographies and the History of Reading, excerpt passages from diaries and autobiographies of authors who reminisced about their lives prior to 1900. Many of these passages offered insight into the importance of skilful oral reading, not only as a means of obtaining information, but also as a source of entertainment. A middle aged author described 18 the 1880s visits of her grandmother, when she was a young child living in the American mid-west. "When Grandma came for a visit, she always read aloud by the hour to the assembled family. She read beautifully, and neither her patience nor her throat ever seemed to tire" (p. 122-123). Recalling that the wife of a minister was a skilled oral reader, a contemporary described how "a gift for reading aloud was always in great demand at every kind of social function, church or other" (p.231). Of the Canadian homesteading experience, Mary Morrison (in Robertson, 1974) described life during the long prairie winter and how books were read aloud, studied and discussed. Life was very monotonous in the winter, and very lonely. One year there were seven months that they never saw a woman or girl, outside their own family circle. At times the loneliness grew almost unbearable to the girls. Every book that was interesting was read over and over again... The girls enjoyed very much when they read of the Peninsular War (circa 1815) which is so graphically described in it, and they asked their mother so many questions. (Robertson, 1974, p.66) The period from 1650 to 1850 was considered a time when the "common man" lived in a highly oral society. Although not an "oral culture" in the sense that "values, attitudes and beliefs [were] transmitted through the oral language" (Harris & Hodges, 1981) exclusively without benefit of a written history, low levels of literacy, the scarcity of reading material and the prohibitive cost of book ownership necessitated the oral transmission of information. The process of reading aloud to 19 others was important as a means of passing values and information from generation to generation. Accepted social practices and the prevailing class structure were perpetuated as passages from novels, short stories and poetry were read aloud for the entertainment of family and acquaintances at social gatherings. Nationalism was bolstered by patriotic materials "intended to instill within the young a love for their country... awaken within children an appreciation of the talent in their own country... and acquaint children with the history of America and European so far as it had effected America and American policies" (Smith, 1965, p.41). Methods of reading instruction reflected the importance of reading aloud in a highly oral culture. While many methods of teaching reading became popular and then waned before the end of the nineteenth century (Robinson et al., 1990, p.59-60), one common aspect of teaching methods was emphasis on the development of skilful oral readers. Reading was defined almost exclusively in terms of oral expression or rhetorical reading, and instructional emphasis was placed on correct pronunciation, crisp elocution and the use of an expressive tone of voice. "Developing eloquent oral reading was determined to be one of the central goals of classroom reading instruction" (Reutzel, Hollingsworth & Eldredge, 1994, p.41). From 1850 to 1900 may be considered a period of transition when the world of the "common man" evolved from a highly oral culture to a written culture. During this period of transition, literacy levels increased and the widespread distribution of inexpensive books made affordable reading material available to larger numbers of people. The importance of reading aloud and expressive reading diminished as more people were able to read, and writing transcended reading aloud as the 20 primary means of perpetuating moral values, social conventions and culturally based beliefs (Kaestle, 1991). From 1880 to 1925, educators such as Colonel Francis Parker (1883), Edmund Huey (1908, 1968) and William S. Gray (1917) advocated the use of silent reading for meaning rather than oral expressive reading. They saw silent reading as a way of meeting the needs of society to develop literate citizens. Dr. Huey (1908) explained: Reading as a school experience has almost always been thought of as reading aloud, in spite of the obvious fact that reading in actual life is to be mainly silent reading. The consequent attention to reading as an exercise in speaking, and it has usually been a rather bad exercise in speaking at that, has been heavily at the expense of reading as the act of thought getting and thought manipulating, (p.359) H.G. Wheat (1923) visually presented his arguments for the change to silent reading in his book The Teaching of Reading (See Figure 2). Wheat argued that written rather than oral communication was almost exclusively used in everyday life, so instructional methods should stress silent reading rather oral expressive reading. 21 Figure 2 Oral Reading vs. Silent Reading T H E FORMER N E E D F O R EXPRESSIVE O R A L R E A D I N G T H E PRESENT N E E D FOR E F F E C T I V E RAPID SILENT R E A D I N G 1. Reading material was scarce. 2. Only a few were able to read. 1. Reading material is abundant. 2. Reading is universal; only a few are 3. Communication was very slow. 4. Spoken language was the chief means of communication. unable to read. 3. Communication is rapid. 4. Written language is the chief means of communication. (Wheat, 1923, p.6) The public also clamored for improvements in reading instruction after World War I when it was discovered that many soldiers lacked the functional skills to read printed military instructions (Smith, 1965). By 1920, concepts of reading had been redefined and the emphasis on expressive oral reading was replaced by thoughtful silent reading. As Reutzel (1994) and his colleagues explained: As the availability of reading materials and access to educational opportunity increased, the act of reading became largely redefined as silent reading. This shifted the focus from eloquent oral and public elocution to efficiently processing print for private and personal purposes, (p.41) After 1910, scientific investigation in reading expanded rapidly. Research studies comparing the effectiveness of oral and silent reading, and investigating 22 the fluency and speed of silent reading were conducted by Pinter (1913), Mead (1917) and Harrelson (1923). Standardized reading tests were developed to measure silent reading ability, growth in silent reading and areas of strength and weakness. New readers and materials were developed to facilitate the teaching of silent reading in the classroom. In the Preface from The Silent Study Readers. Sherman, Reid and MacKenzie (1926) explained: Within the last decade a great deal of scientific research work has been carried on the field of Reading processes. The outcome of such scientific investigation has been the recognition of the value and necessity of Silent Reading instruction, and the rapid development of a technique of Silent Reading instruction to supplement the Oral Reading instruction of the primary grades... Teachers have now fully decided that more importance should be attached to Silent Reading by the pupils, (p. vii - viii) While there were some school authorities and educators who argued that oral reading should not be taught at all (McDade, 1944) and Gray's (1932-1960) investigations of adult readers suggested that "fewer than five percent read aloud on other than very infrequent occasions" (Smith, 1965, p.200), instruction in expressive oral reading continued. Reading aloud, however, was considered to be only one of several types of reading and a thorough understanding of the reading material was considered to be a prerequisite for successful oral reading (Smith, 1965). In a study of adult readers, Smith reported that in early investigations the three main purposes for oral reading were to 1) "inform or entertain others in 23 private or public", 2) "to increase one's understanding and appreciation of materials read" and 3)" to entertain children or interest them in reading" (Smith, p.200) As in many states and provinces, oral reading continued to be taught in British Columbia schools as part of the prescribed curriculum. In the Programme of Studies for the Elementary Schools of British Columbia (Revised): Grades I to VI (1941) which consolidated Bulletins I, II and III from the Department of Education, "work-type" and "recreational type" oral reading was included as part of the curriculum. Work-type oral reading included the development of skills "essential for informing others, giving announcements, reading minutes or news items and proving points" (p. 132). Oral reading skills were considered "essential for social recreation, dramatics and personal enjoyment" (p. 133). Instruction in oral reading included clear enunciation, accurate pronunciation, the use of appropriate facial expressions and gestures and "a sympathetic regard for the listener" (p. 130). When reading aloud to others, students were expected to be able to exercise "habits of intelligent interpretation" (p. 130) and "condense or cut the article to give salient points when time does not permit full reading" (p. 133). Oral reading was considered to be part of general oral language development which was allocated from 100 to 125 minutes of class time per week in Grades I through VI (p.23). The relationship between oral and silent reading was clearly stated. "... it is recognized that oral reading is less important than intelligent silent reading" (p. 130). Oral expressive reading continued to be included in formal curricula but its importance waned with the passing years. Reading aloud was used for instructional and assessment purposes in classrooms with varied degrees of 24 success. Instructional practices such as "round robin reading" (each student reads a short paragraph) and "barbershop reading" (each student reads one line as readers follow one another in rapid succession) were highly criticized. These practices were condemned as a "blight upon the practices of oral reading" (Logan et al., 1972, p.397) because students were embarrassed or humiliated when unable to pronounce the words correctly, or if they lost their place. Round robin reading was also criticized because students were given inadequate preparation to read orally, and poor readers often modeled inappropriate reading habits (Karlin, 1971). Many readers developed negative attitudes towards oral reading after experiencing failure and / or humiliation. Karlin (1971) summarized: What is evident is the utter uselessness of the practice of merely having children take turns reading aloud and requiring others to read along and sit in judgment of them. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons oral reading fell into disrepute was that it was often conducted badly, (p.326) Oral reading was also used for assessment purposes. As students read orally to their classes, teachers made mental notes about the type of errors that were made and areas that required remediation. Morrow (1963) described the way oral reading was used for diagnostic purposes. Mrs. Turner uses oral reading diagnostically. She watches Tommy hurdle words that seek to throw him, and makes a mental note to give more drill in word attack; she notes Alice's plodding approach and methodically attempts to make strange words sound familiar and knows 25 that here is a child who concentrates on letters, who does not see words as a whole. (Morrow, 1963, p.395) More structured methods of using oral reading for assessment included the use of the Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) and the Miscue Reading Inventory (MRI). Informal inventories were described by Betts (1940) as the observation of an individual as (s)he reads at successively higher levels of readability. During each directed reading activity, the teacher noted both reading levels and the student's needs. Early inventories were teacher constructed from classroom reading materials but concerns regarding the readability, passage content, length of passages, choice of questions, scoring criteria and amount of time required to construct an inventory led to the development of several commercially published inventories (e.g. Botel, 1961; McCracken, 1966; Johns, 1978 & Silvaroli, 1982). Research reports addressed the validity of the informal inventories (Botel et al., 1970; McCracken & Mullen, 1970; Powell, 1971), questioned the criteria for the reading levels (Sipay, 1964; Powell, 1970; Hays, 1975) and investigated the types of errors made by students as they read aloud (Christenson, 1969; Packman, 1972; Ekwall, 1974). The results of informal inventories and standardized reading tests were compared and the correlations between the two types of tests were found to be in the .70 to .85 range (Johns et al., 1977, p.23). Miscue analysis (Goodman, 1965) was an outgrowth of the psycholinguist view of reading and was considered an alternate method of assessing students as they read. The Miscue Reading Inventory (MRI) was developed by Yetta Goodman 26 and Carolyn Burke (1972) and was based on the transactional model of reading. One of the principles that the test was based upon was that oral reading errors or "miscues are never random but are attempts by the reader to make sense of the text" (Harris & Hodges, 1995, p. 155). Formal analysis of students unexpected responses, or miscues, enabled the examiner to "determine the strengths and weaknesses in the background experiences and language skills of students as they read" (Harris & Hodges, p. 155). In Goodman's words, miscue analysis helped "explain what people do when they use language and what makes it possible for them to do so" (Goodman & Goodman, 1994, p. 122). Research conducted using the Miscue Reading Analysis has shifted in its focus over the years. Initial studies sought to validate the procedure (Goodman, K.S., 1965; Goodman, Y.M., 1967; Goodman & Burke, 1972; Clay, 1969; Irwin, 1969; Nurss, 1969), establish the procedure with different aged students (Page, 1970; Weber, 1970; Ohaver, 1971; Dank, 1976), compare the miscues of good, average and poor readers (Coomber, 1971; Davey, 1971; Jensen, 1972) and compare the accuracy and type of miscues of second language learners and nontraditional students (Romatowski, 1972; Buck, 1973; Nieratka, 1973). Diagnostic information obtained from the Reading Miscue Reading Inventory was compared with results of informal reading inventories or standardized tests (Williamson & Young, 1974; Page & Barr, 1975; Paterra, 1976; Zinck, 1977; Centurion, 1985). Some studies reported on implications for the classroom teacher (Shafer, 1977; Kamil & Pearson, 1978) and remedial teachers (Miller, 1977; Maring, 1978; Worsnop, 1980). Later research studies used the 27 Miscue Reading Analysis as an evaluative measure or "as an established procedure for close examination of reading while studying other issues" (Brown et al., 1996, p. viii). Although oral reading was used for instructional purposes in elementary classrooms and for assessment purposes by teachers, reasons for developing expressive and oral reading skills were obscured by educators' focus on rapid silent reading, accurate comprehension and vocabulary development as the primary areas for reading instruction. A renewed interest in reading aloud did not develop until the late 1950s as "the launching of Sputnik threw education into the task of upgrading its traditional curricula" (Robinson et al., 1990, p.71). Surveys of college and high school students (1955) reported sharp declines in book reading rates and newspaper reading rates (Damon-Moore & Kaestle, 1991, p. 193). Educators and researchers sought to improve reading instruction and student performance, and so they investigated all aspects and variables related to reading instruction, including the teaching of oral reading. Bliesmer (1963) summarized the sentiments of the time: The last few years have seen what is supposedly a recurrence of, or an increase in, emphasis on oral reading. There frequently seems to be implied the notion that our children are not having enough oral reading in school and that this is the reason some children are poor readers, (p.400) 28 Precocious Readers The importance of oral reading in the home and parental involvement in the acquisition of reading skills was brought to educators' attention with the publication of the preliminary results of Durkin's (1963) study of precocious readers. Curiosity about "precocious readers", children who started Grade 1 already reading, led Durkin to investigate the "value of learning to read early" and to identify "what accounts for preschool ability in reading". In 1958 Durkin initiated a study of beginning first grade students. From a population of approximately 5,100 students in a California community, Durkin identified 29 girls and 20 boys who learned to read at home before entering school. The students were all administered the Gates Primary & Advanced Word Recognition Tests, the Gates Primary and Advanced Paragraph Reading Tests and the Revised Stanford Binet Scale. The parents, teachers and the students were then interviewed. The results of the study indicated that success in early reading was not highly correlated with socio-economic status, level of intelligence as measured by the Stanford Binet Scale, or the following school year's reading achievement. Durkin discovered that early readers had parents who encouraged reading and older siblings who liked to "play school". These results were surprising because early reading was not encouraged by educators. As Durkin (1977) explained: At that time, reading for children younger than six was hardly being encouraged. Instead, both professional educators and society as a whole openly frowned upon this type of preciousness and predicted 29 nothing but problems for early readers once school instruction began... One consequence was frequent warnings to parents not to teach their preschoolers to read; another was school policies that explicitly forbade reading instruction during kindergarten. (Durkin, 1977, p.1) Durkin's initial study was expanded into a second study of early readers and the results of the six year longitudinal study replicated her earlier findings. From her studies, Durkin developed a profile or a list of characteristics of "precocious" readers. Children who were early readers came from homes where parents were readers, and read on a regular basis to their children. Early readers often began to ask questions and show an interest in written language around the age of four, and their parents took time to answer their questions. Parents of early readers did not make deliberate attempts to teach their children how to read or to initiate school type of instruction, but rather they supplied their children with a wide variety of trade books, pencils, paper, crayons and small chalkboards. Often an older sibling who liked to "play school" encouraged and modeled reading, imitating their classroom teacher. Parent and child interactions were positive, stimulating and enjoyable, and parents frequently took their children to interesting places. Parents and children talked about their outings which provided opportunities for questioning, extension activities and language development. Durkin's longitudinal study has been seen by many as a seminal work because it pointed out 1) the important role that parents and families play in language development and early reading, 2) the importance of a supportive 30 enriched environment and 3) the interest children have in learning to read before they first come to school. Durkin's study provided the empirical basis for further research, the development of new classroom instructional practices and the initiation of family literacy programs that sought to imitate the supportive parental behaviors she had documented. Specifically, Durkin's study "revalued" reading aloud by suggesting that parents play an important role in teaching and encouraging their children to read when they share books with them on a regular basis. The research initiated by Durkin's findings was fueled in the United States by the educational research grants made available by the federal government after 1965 (Kaestle et al., 1991). From 1976 to 1996 some 554 related studies and journal articles were added to the research literature on the topic "reading aloud". While ERIC listings are not all inclusive, the numbers of citations added annually indicate a growing and sustained interest in reading aloud during the last twenty year period. (See Figure 3). Similar results to those reported in Durkin's study of early readers were obtained by Clark (1976) in a study of skilled readers from Glasgow, Scotland. Clark also noted that early readers came from a variety of backgrounds and had an interested adult who talked and listened to them and who read to them at a stage when they were interested in reading" (Teale, 1980, p.7). 31 Figure 3 Number of Studies & Journal Articles Related to Reading Aloud from 1976 to 1996 Hewison and Tizard (1980), in a study of the relationship between home factors and reading ability, found that the background factor that was most strongly related to reading achievement was whether or not the students' mothers regularly heard them read. In an experiment which investigated the effects of parental involvement in the teaching of reading, Tizard (1982) also found that children, who were aged 6 to 9 years old, showed significant gains if they received extra practice at home and listened to their parents read aloud as compared to control groups who received extra help at school. 32 Subsequent research focused on what happened as adults read with their preschool children. Parents were observed reading to their infants by Ninio & Bruner (1978), Baghban (1984) and Lamme & Packer (1986). Lamme and Packer (1986) found that infants from 9 months to 1 year old were actively involved in the book reading process, babbled along with the story reader, made appropriate animal sounds and followed the picture of a character from page to page, when reading familiar books. These reading experiences of young children have been called "lapreading". Klesius & Griffith (1996) described "lapreading" as follows: While reading, the parent comments about the story, and the child spontaneously comments, ask questions or shares experiences. The story readings resemble conversations, and although they consist of text reading, the reading is continually 'broken apart and intertwined with talk'... the dialogue has a turn-taking structure, (p.553) Parent conversation that supports early reading has been called "scaffolding dialogue" (Ninio & Bruner, 1978). "Scaffolds provide support for learners that can be taken down and removed as learners are able to demonstrate strategic behaviors in their own learning activities" (Harris & Hodges, 1995, p.226). The goal is independence and so "as the child grows in competence, the parent encourages the child to assume more and more of the responsibility for completing the task of performance" (Beed, Hawkins & Roller, 1991, p.649). 33 Children's "reading-like" behavior was described by Teale (1978), Holdaway (1979) and Doake (1981). These researchers observed that children were able to reproduce larger portions of predictable stories with each re-reading by their parents. Doake (1981) identified four strategies used by children as they became more familiar with the stories that were read by their parents. Children would first start to "mumble read" or "use an indecipherable mumble in their attempts to read along with the reader." (Doake, 1985, p.86) The mumble reading would become clearer with each re-reading of the story, with key words becoming more comprehensible. Eventually, Doake described how the child and parent read cooperatively or in unison. The third stage took place when one voice was slightly ahead of the other, and finally one voice reproduced the story alone. Sometimes children would complete a sentence started by their parents or echo read, repeating the sentence or phrase that their parents had just finished reading. As children began to pay more attention to the visual aspects of print, Doake listed behaviors that indicated a movement from reading-like behavior to beginning reading. Print awareness, finger pointing to specific words they recognized, asking parents, "What does this, say?" and trying to match "what they are saying with what they are seeing" were behaviors observed in beginning readers (Doake, 1985). Attempts by educators to replicate and imitate the way parents read aloud to their children, used scaffolding in conversations and provided a positive environment, resulted in the development of new instructional strategies and oral reading programs. As Rosenhouse and colleagues (1997) explained; "studies of 34 the benefits of parents reading stories to their children led to the transfer of this activity from the home to formal educational institutions" (p. 168). Holdaway's (1979) Shared Book Experience was a direct educational adaptation of the lapreading and bedtime reading experienced by many preschoolers (Strickland & Morrow, 1989). Holdaway maintained that "children must be able to see the print, receive guidance and support through the print and participate in oral reading to properly benefit from sharing books" (Reutzel et al, 1994). Oversized books or "big books" with predictable patterned language were developed so that small groups of students could see the text and read along with the teacher. Adams (1990) explained: Big books are the classroom version of bedtime stories, and, like bedtime stories they are meant to be read over and over, as often as they are enchanting... Teachers can use these books to share print with a whole group of children as visibly and interactively as they might share a normal-sized book with just a few. (p.69) Slaughter (1983), Brown (1986), and Cowley (1991) investigated and reported on the use of big books and the Shared Book Experience (SBE), and expressed support for Holdaway's program. Reutzel, Hollingsworth and Eldredge (1994) compared the Shared Book Experience with an Oral Recitation Lesson (Hoffman, 1985) with Grade Two students from two elementary schools, and reported that "the SBE routine appeared to be... the better overall oral reading instructional routine for delivering oral reading instruction in larger groups..." 35 (Reutzel et al., p.54). Anderson (1995) used a case study approach to investigate the use of big books in two Grade 1 classrooms. Eldridge (1996) compared the effectiveness of "round robin reading" and the Shared Book Experience and found SBE to be superior in improving fluency and comprehension as well as in reducing oral reading errors. Reading aloud to children was championed by Jim Trealese, author of The New Read-Aloud Handbook (1989), who stated that "teaching children how to read is not enough; we must also teach them to want to read" (p.205). Trealese maintained that "reading aloud is the most effective advertisement for the pleasures of reading" (p.201). Hoffman, Roser and Battle (1993) surveyed and identified "model" or common classroom read-aloud practices and compared these practices to "model" story time characteristics. The authors made several suggestions including regularly scheduled read-alouds and the use of quality pieces of literature connected by genre, theme or topic. Hoffman and Roser (1993) also suggested that opportunities should be provided for discussion, response and extension activities and selected pieces should be reread to promote a deeper understanding of the stories. Recent research has focused on "interactive read-alouds" where students interact with the teacher and other peers during story reading (Klesius & Griffith, 1996; Rosenhouse et al., 1997). The list of teacher behaviors observed by Klesius & Griffin (1996, p.559) during interactive storybook reading were similar to parent scaffolding behaviors identified by Ninio & Bruner (1978), Doake (1981), Holdaway (1979) and Clay (1982). Rosenhouse and colleagues (1997) investigated the use 36 of interactive story reading with Grade 1 students in Israel. Findings indicated that "exposing beginning readers to read-aloud sessions in a early stage of reading acquisition improved their reading skills... there is a basis to assume that voluntary reading has a unique impact on reading decoding, reading comprehension and storytelling abilities" (p. 180-181). As children are exposed to oral reading through parental involvement in lapreading, bed time reading and home reading programs, and listen as teachers read aloud from Big Books and a variety of children's literature, preferences for certain types of stories develop. With familiarity, children amass a treasury of favorite stories that they like to read, reread and share with others. Martinez and Teale, (1988), in a study of Kindergarten children, found that early readers chose very familiar books three times as often as unfamiliar books. There was a difference between children's responses as they read familiar and unfamiliar story books at home and at school. Martinez and Roser (1985) discovered that with each re-reading children 1) talked more about familiar stories; 2) made more comments and asked less questions; 3) focused on more details and 4) showed a greater depth of understanding (p.783). The researchers presented the argument that re-reading stories was a natural activity for children. As preschoolers practice oral language, stack blocks, fill and dump their toy boxes, or repeatedly turn the pages of a favorite book, they appear to be attempting to gain mastery of their world. When adult observers consider how children structure their own experiences, it makes sense that returning to a story again and again is simply following an existing 37 pattern (Martinez and Roser, 1985, p.783). Samuels (1997) suggested that repeated oral readings of a story helped develop fluency and increase comprehension, while Anderson, Hiebert, Scott and Wilkinson (1985) saw re-reading stories "as an alternative to the conventional practice of having children read aloud new material every day" (p.54). Cross Age Tutoring To provide students with additional opportunities to re-read stories, and to be read to in a one-to-one setting, many teachers established cross-age tutoring programs in their schools. Leland and Fitzpatrick (1994) paired Kindergarten and Grade 6 students for weekly 45 minute sessions. Findings indicated that both younger and older students benefited from the experience and developed positive attitudes towards reading as they connected reading skills and strategies to real life experiences (p.300). Caserta-Henry (1996) paired Grade 1 students "who were at risk of failure in reading" with high school reading buddies. The Grade 1 students "had a more positive attitude towards reading and felt better about themselves as readers" and the "tutors used this experience to determine if they might want to be teachers" (p.501). Juel (1991) paired student-athletes and "at risk" Grade 1 students. University students were involved in a "Book Buddies" program for 8 and 9 year olds (Bromley, Winters, Schlimmer, 1994). Future teachers in university level reading courses were paired with elementary aged students "to observe 38 theory in practice, to record, reflect and draw conclusions about developing literacy" (Post, 1997). Juel (1996) observed that both the tutors and the students they were tutoring improved their reading ability, and that the relationship between tutors and tutees was mutually beneficial to both participants. Family Literacy Programs Research studies investigating the role of parents as they read aloud to their children have heightened the awareness of the power and importance of reading to children at home. In 1984, in the report of the Commission on Reading, Becoming a Nation of Readers, the authors stated: The principle that children learn to read by being taught to read is as true at home as it is in school. The most effective mode for instruction in the home, however, may take a different form than it does at school... The single most important activity for building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading is reading aloud to children (p.23). In an effort to enhance the literacy skills of young children many programs have been undertaken to teach, assist and encourage parents to read aloud at home. In Great Britain, Hewison and Tizard (1980) studied the relationship between home background factors and reading achievement and found that the strongest related factor was whether or not mothers regularly listened to their 39 children read. Tizard (1982) followed with an experiment that assessed the effects of parental involvement in home reading practice and found that children who read to their parents and listened to oral reading showed significant gains over children in a control group who did not have the benefit of extra practice. There was no comparable improvement, however, of children who practiced reading at home and students who received extra help at school. Responding to research that found "parents were more likely to react to errors and showed less widespread concern for children's understanding" (Topping, 1987, p.608), Topping trained parents and children to read together using a step by step process. Parents were also trained to provide positive feedback and correction when errors were made (Topping, 1985, 1986 & 1992). Waterland (1985) initiated an "apprenticeship" program linking classroom and home reading activities. Waterland (1985) explained: ... we want school and home to be united, each offering a unique contribution to reading development... the home can offer time, individual attention, consistent support and loving concern; the school can offer expertise, suitable texts and understanding of progression, (p.22) Parents attended information sessions where the concept of reading apprenticeship and the four stages of reading development were explained. Students took books home daily to read with their parents. Teachers offered support by encouraging parents, offered suggestions for enrichment and extension 40 activities, initiated communication with the home via a record book and scheduled student-parent-teacher conferences to discuss progress. In the United States, federally funded intergenerational literacy research was conducted by Nickse, Speicher & Buchek (1988), Enriquez (1990) and Paratore (1993) who addressed the relationship between low adult literacy levels and "the lack of parental reading models, in-school reading problems, and poor attitudes toward reading and education in general" (Nickse, et al. 1988, p.635). Nickse, Speicher & Buckek (1988) summarized the problem when they stated: Reading aloud to children is the single most important factor in preparing them to read... yet millions of parents with poor reading skills cannot engage in this effort because of their own reading deficiencies, and millions of others have neither the knowledge of its importance nor the skills to read to their children, (p.635) In response to the problem of intergenerational literacy problems, many "family literacy projects" have been funded through federal, state and local initiatives. In 1966, the Reading is Fundamental (RIF) organization was formed to promote children's reading through the distribution of quality books at a low cost to the participants, and by organizing motivational events and promotions. The Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy and the National Centre for Family Literacy were developed in 1989, and in 1991 the International Reading Association established a Family Literacy Commission (Morrow, 1995). The purpose of these organizations and commissions was to bring attention to the issue 41 of family literacy and establish support programs designed to "guide and support parents in their roles as their children's first teachers" (Morrow, 1995, p.5). Morrow and Paratore (1993) described three areas addressed by family literacy initiatives; "(1) home school partnership programs, (2) intergenerational literacy programs, and (3) research that explores uses of literacy within families" (p. 196). Home school programs often followed the Kenan Family Literacy Model which included the following components: parent literacy and early childhood education, parent support groups and planned opportunities for parents and children to interact. Morrow, Tracey & Maxwell (1995) surveyed family literacy projects in the United States, listing parent involvement programs, intergenerational programs, research on naturally occurring family literacy and agencies and associations dealing with family literacy. From a historical perspective, the practice of reading aloud has served many functions. Before the importance of teaching of silent reading surpassed the teaching of oral expressive reading in the early 1900s, reading aloud was valued as a means of transmitting moral values, communicating information, perpetuating social practices and entertaining listeners. However, as literacy levels increased and affordable books were widely distributed, the need for public oral reading diminished and mastery of "intelligent", personal, silent reading became the focus of instruction. Oral reading remained part of the formal curriculum but as an expressive art and a means of assessing reading ability rather than the primary means of communicating an author's written message. With the recognition that parents reading aloud played an important role in the development of preschoolers 42 literacy skills, in the 1960s oral reading was "revalued". From the early 1960s until the present, publication of quantitative, observational and ethnographic research studies has supported the importance of parents reading aloud at home to their children. Classroom instructional practices such as the Shared Book Experience, big books, read-alouds, repeated reading, cross-age tutors and reading buddies may be seen as a way of replicating and extending successful parent-child reading experiences into the classroom. To encourage reading at home in all families, family literacy organizations, programs and projects were established. This growing movement received monetary support from federal, state, provincial and local agencies signaling general societal acceptance of the importance of parents sharing books with young children at home, and the role of parents in the acquisition of literacy. Literacy as a Social Act The social stance or perspective of literacy finds its roots in the writing of social constructivists and the translations of the works of Vygotsky (1978, 1996). Relevant to this study are Vygotsky's theories about social interaction, language acquisition, and the Zone of Proximal Development. Vygotsky believed that learning and social interaction between individuals was closely tied. Vygotsky stated: Every function in the child's cultural development appears twice, first 43 on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first between people and then inside the child ... All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals (Vygotsky, 1978, p.57). In Thought and Language, Vygotsky (1996) discussed the acquisition of speech and written language and the functional use of culturally derived tools and symbols. Vygotsky's description of the acquisition of speech followed three stages. First, the child used vocalization and speech to express simple emotions and thoughts to draw attention to themselves and control the behavior of others. As Luria explained: "in no way is this speech related to intellect or thinking." (Luria, 1982). This first stage of speech was considered as an interaction between people on a social level. The second stage of speech moved from the social to the individual level of development and was sometimes referred to as "egocentric speech". In this stage children's verbalizations were audible as they used language to guide their own behavior. The second level of development was compared to a "bridge" between the early social vocalizations and the highly developed, soundless, inner speech of the third stage. Vygotsky postulated that the third level of speech was used by adults and older children and allowed one to engage in higher forms of mental functions which included problem solving, reading and writing. A integral part of Vygotsky's (1978) theories of social interaction and language development was his concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) defined as: 44 ... the distance between a child's actual developmental level as determined through independent problem solving and [his or her] potential development [level] as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or a collaboration with more capable peers. (Harris & Hodges, 1995, p.288) McGlynn-Stewart (1996) offered a simple explanation of the Zone of Proximal Development when she stated: "the lower level of one's zone is set by what one can understand or accomplish on one's own. The upper limit is what one can understand or accomplish with the aid of a teacher or more accomplished peer" (p.69). Tharp & Gallimore (1988, p.35) presented a four stage model of the Zone of Proximal Development. In the first stage, "assistance was provided by more capable others" including parents, teachers, experts, coaches and peers. Assistance included modeling and a gradual transfer of learning and activity to the learner. In the second stage, the activity was internalized, "assistance is provided by the self and the capacity to learn the task was developed. Stages One and Two conform to Vygotsky's model of ZPD but Tharp and Gallimore added two further stages to the process. The third stage involved "internalization, automatization and fossilization" or processing information to the point when the learner no longer had to consciously think about his / her actions. Stage four involved "de-automatization" through the process of forgetting or failing to practice leaned skills, and required "recursiveness" or review by going back to previous stages and relearning. 45 While Vygotsky laid the theoretical groundwork to form a basis for understanding the relationship between thought and language acquisition and made references to the role of the school, he did not provide directions for instructional practice. He did not apply his theories about speech and language learning to the process of learning to read. (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The proponents of Vygotsky's theories have extended his philosophy into the realm of the classroom (e.g.; Cole et ai. 1971, Rogoff & Westsch, 1984; Moll, 1990; Berk & Spuhl, 1995) and so one sees frequent reference to "Vygotskian perspectives" in the research literature. For example, from a "Vygotskian perspective" Cazden & Starfield (1994) investigated socially acquired language, Green & Dixon (1993) discussed literate action as social accomplishment and Doake (1985) identified early reading behaviors as children read with their parents. McCarthey & Raphael (1992) identified three basic social constructivist assumptions based on Vygotsky's theories. They were as follows: (1) knowledge is constructed through the individual's interaction with the sociocultural environment; (2) higher mental functions, including reading and writing, are social and cultural in nature; and (3) knowledgeable members of a culture can help others (McCarthey & Raphael, 1992, p. 16). Also embedded within the social constructivist perspective were the assumptions that literacy learning was a naturally occurring social act that was created within the culture of the family, the classroom and the school and society. Learners acted and reacted to each other, within a social context, using language (Bloome, Egan-Roberson, 1993). Social constructivist literature and Vygotskian perspectives were germane to this study of Buddy Reading because students and teachers were being observed as they interacted with each other in a social setting and constructed individual perceptions of the processes and organization of the Buddy Reading activity and role expectations for younger and older buddies. Students and teachers also constructed individual interpretations of the reader and listener relationship based on the social interaction between reading partners. From a social constructivist perspective, information about some of the relationships between participants in this study was sought by soliciting answers to the questions: What do teachers and students think happens during Buddy Reading? What actually happens during Buddy Reading? How do students interact with each other? In what ways do more proficient readers help their little buddies? School Culture & Literacy The influence of school culture and classroom conventions that effected Buddy Reading necessitated the investigation of role expectations and classroom rituals. While there was little background research that addressed the "culture of readers" or role expectations during Buddy Reading, Mullis and Fincher (1996) investigated the use of rituals as a means of defining the school community. Moore and Myerhoff (1977) defined a ritual as a set of behaviors given special meaning and set apart from ordinary daily life. Within this definition, bedtime story reading, 47 lap reading and Buddy Reading may be seen as rituals that have special meaning for children. Bennett at al. (1988) called these events patterned interactions or patterned routines and explained that they developed over time and were not initiated with the conscious intention of establishing a ritualized activity. Patterned interactions are the type of ritual most often enacted in the family; they are not consciously planned but tend to develop spontaneously over time. (Mullis & Fincher, 1996, p.245) Rituals are important in the life of a child. Children create their own games and rules as they play, often times modeling the adults around them. "Rituals provide children with an outlet for feelings, a place to rehearse skills..." (Mullis & Fincher, 1996, p.245) School rituals help "initiate students into the school community", "instruct them in school values" and "foster a positive academic atmosphere" (p.246). Not all school routines are rituals. Myerhoff (1977) suggested that a ritual had to have a symbolic meaning beyond the experience itself. Buddy Reading may be seen as a ritualistic event that over time symbolically initiated students into the "culture of readers". Van Gennep (1960) identified three stages common to all rituals. Preparations which set the scene for the ritual and imparted basic knowledge constituted the Separation Stage. As participants experienced or took part in the ritual, they were considered to be in the Transitional Stage. The Incorporation Stage took place after the ritualized event and involved "reconnecting with their 48 community, bearing new status and bringing with them new information and awareness" (Mullis & Fincher, 1996, p.244). Planning all three stages of the ritual was seen as important for participants, "because meaningful experiences are better remembered" (p.250). The preparation for ritual events was as important as the actual performance of the ritual. The authors cautioned that teachers should explain and discuss the event with their classes during the preparation period. Rituals have a powerful effect on children because they "involve participants in activities that instruct through the cognitive and affective channels simultaneously" (p.244). Roberts (1988) stated: "rituals... speak not about roles, rules, relationships ... but in roles, relationships [and] rules" (p. 12). Buddy Reading may be described as a classroom ritual that followed a patterned routine. Twice a week students read together and followed the same organizational format. The separation, transitional and incorporation stages were observed each time younger and older buddies met, and as teachers and students routinely interacted with each other. Perceptions of Reading Children's perceptions of reading have been investigated by many researchers and this literature formed the basis of the background for the second 49 primary research question, "What do students and teachers think happens when buddies read together?" One of the earliest researchers in this field was D. Lewis Edwards (1958) who believed that there was a strong link between the child's perceived approach to reading and actual reading behaviors. In Edwards' words," teaching would be simplified if we had some means of looking inside a child's head and finding out what his idea is in his approach to reading" (p.239). Edwards suggested that there were two simple methods to determine a student's perceptions of reading. One could listen to a child read, or one could "ask the child directly what he thinks good reading is" (p.239). Edwards and subsequent researchers employed the latter method. Following the initial publication of Edwards' studies (1958, 1961), many other researchers investigated the nature of children's perceptions of reading . Using batteries of interview questions, some investigated good and poor readers perceptions to see if their approach to reading differed (Johns, 1974; Heim, 1983; Borko & Eisenhart, 1986), while others concentrated on the language used by children and teachers to determine how well children understood the terminology associated with the teaching of reading (Reid, 1966; Downing, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1975; Johns, 1982). Reader self-concept, or how children viewed their role or that of their peers as readers, was the basis of studies by Meyers and Paris (1978), Borko and Eisenhart (1986) and Hillerich (1990). Some educators examined children's perceptions and suggested that they be used as the foundation of methods and procedures for teaching beginning and advanced readers (Denny & 50 Weintraub, 1963; Tc-vey, 1976; Johns, 1974; Robinson, Lazarus and Costello, 1983). Other investigators attempted to determine the extent of cultural influences (Downing, Ollila & Oliver, 1975), socio-economic status (Downing, Ollila & Oliver, 1977) and gender differences on children's approaches to reading (Downing & Thomson, 1977; Shapiro & White, 1991). Methods of eliciting and recording perceptions varied among research projects. While the favored method of obtaining data was through the use of an 'open-ended' interview, some researchers combined the interviews with observation of reading lessons in classrooms (Borko & Eisenhart, 1986). Most interviews were based on direct questioning, but in some instances students were asked to react to the description of a situation (Hiebert, 1983; Moore, 1983; Bruinsma, 1990). In Edward's (1958) study, students were asked their perceptions based on remembrances of early reading experiences. The development of a standardized paper and pencil test to measure student perceptions was attempted by Muskof (1962), but the reliability of the instrument was questioned. Wixson, Bosky & Yochum (1984) published a standardized protocol to examine children's perceptions of reading and reading related strategies. While the open-ended interview was the most commonly used method to elicit responses from students, interview protocols varied greatly from study to study. In some studies, students were only asked one question (Denny & Weintraub, 1963; Johns, 1970) while in other studies, students were asked in excess of 15 questions (Meyers & Paris, 1978; Moore, 1983). 51 Researchers also used a great variety of questions within the interview format. In a selected review of 21 studies where interviews were used as a major component of the research methodology, approximately 100 different questions were asked students. Difficulties were noted with the use of very general questions such as, "What is reading?" As many of the interviews were conducted with young or beginning readers who were inexperienced in responding to interview questions, researchers found that in some cases over 50 percent of the students responded, "I don't know." Many of the researchers believed that young children viewed reading as a decoding rather than a meaning making process and so it was not surprising that in 8 of the 21, or in 38 percent of the studies, children were asked, "What do you do if you don't know a word or come to a new word?" or "What do you do or think you do when you read?" Interview protocols were only replicated in three studies. Downing (1969) replicated Reid's (1966) interview protocol, and Mason (1983) used Meyer and Paris' (1978) protocol and added an 'exchange interview. Cairney (1988) used seven of the questions from Wixson's (1984) Reading Comprehension Interview. Only Downing attempted to improve on Reid's interview and it appeared that little effort was make to improve on existing interview protocols. Most prevalent was the practice of creating entirely new interview questions and protocols. Little effort was made to tie students' perceptions to practice through the use of observation. Most observation was used to verify the accuracy of children's interview responses rather than as a primary source of information (Johns, 1986). 52 For example, Downing (1970, 1973), in his studies of words, sounds and phonemes, hypothesized that many beginning readers did not understand these concepts because they could not define the terms when interviewed. After observation in a controlled experiment, Downing concluded that students were not able to verbalize definitions of literacy terms, but they were familiar with the concepts because they were able to identify when sounds, phonemes and when words began and ended. Downing did not observe in the classroom to see if students could identify sounds and words by watching as the children read or decoded unfamiliar words. Early research on children's perceptions of reading not only investigated children's perceptions but also evaluated whether the perceptions were "correct". It was hypothesized that reading failure might be associated with incorrect perceptions of reading or that reading difficulties were caused by "cognitive confusion in the mind of the beginning reader" (Downing, 1969, 1973; Ollila & Quorn, 1976). Reading success was aligned with a clear, well developed concept of the "functions and tasks involved in reading" (Robinson, Lazarus & Costello, 1983). The clarity of children's perceptions of reading were judged and evaluated according to an adult researchers' perceptions, which were assumed to be the it correct" view. If congruence did not exist between the adults' and children's points of view, then the children's perceptions were assumed to be unclear, poorly developed and incorrect. With movement from a transmission and translation model to a transactional framework of reading (Rosenblatt, 1994), more recent research has focused on the 53 many different ways that children perceive reading, and the importance of interaction between teachers, students and their peers when engaged in literacy activities. Bondy (1984) investigated students' definitions of reading as a social construction, while Borko and Eisenhart (1986) tied students' perceptions with their school experiences and classroom instruction. Michel (1988) suggested that It children's perceptions were colored by instructional tasks" (p. 106) and concluded that "children have rich and valid understandings of reading" (p. 106). Differences in reading attitudes of children in traditional and nontraditional classes were explored by Shaprio and White (1991) who found that children's perceptions of the reading process were effected by the type of instruction and the grade level, but not necessarily by gender. In reviewing the research literature, there were few studies that attempted to determine teachers' perceptions of reading and even fewer studies used a structured interview similar to that used with students. Book (1988) included four similar interview questions for both teachers and students as she examined the relationship between teachers' concepts and the reading concepts that they communicated during instruction. Yochum & Miller (1993) investigated parents' and students' perceptions of the nature of the children's reading problems, but not of the process of reading itself. More prevalent in the literature were articles that linked teachers' views about instruction and grouping with student perceptions about reading (Smith & Feathers, 1983; Hiebert, 1983; Moore, 1985; Cairney, 1988; Book, 1988; Wing, 1989). 54 As there were no research studies that solicited teachers' and students' perceptions of Buddy Reading, this appears to be an area requiring further investigation. In addition, few research studies have linked student perceptions with the classroom reality and combined student interviews and classroom observation as data sources. Future studies need to address discrepancies between behaviors that students and teachers exhibit in the classroom and their perceptions of these same events. Employing interview methods that circumvent "I don't know" responses appears to be a challenge. Finally, paradigmatic shifts in our definition of reading and in our understanding of the reading process may necessitate adopting a more non-judgmental point of view. This may be necessary to avoid labeling student perceptions as "correct" or "incorrect", a tendency found in previous research which may limit understanding of individual perceptions by categorizing responses rather than seeking the underlying reasoning. Summary Reading aloud has been used for many purposes. Before the mid nineteenth century when books were scare and illiteracy rates were high, skilful oral readers perpetuated moral values and cultural conventions, disseminated information, and entertained as they read aloud. With the increased availability of schooling and the widespread distribution of inexpensive books, "intelligent" silent reading replaced fluent oral reading as the goal of reading instruction. The world 55 of the "common man" changed from a highly oral culture to a written one. After 1920, while oral reading remained a part of the curriculum, reading instruction focused almost exclusively on silent reading. Oral reading was used by teachers for assessment purposes as informal reading inventories and miscue analyses were developed. After Durkin's (1966) studies of "precocious readers", reading aloud was "revalued" and the importance of parents reading aloud to their young children was recognized. The scaffolding strategies used by parents were the basis for school programs and instructional strategies that included, "read-alouds", the shared book experience, "Big Books", cross-age tutoring and reading buddies. Family literacy programs, supported by public funding, were initiated to encourage all parents to read aloud to their children and to provide access to quality children's literature. The focus of research topics changed as reading instruction evolved and educators sought to meet society's need for a literate population. In the 1920s, the era when scientific investigation of reading started, researchers championed the benefits of silent reading instruction over the development of skilful oral readers. Society demanded that schools produce a literate population that could read "intelligently" and follow written instructions. Later research saw oral reading used as a means of assessing students' reading ability. Informal reading inventories and later miscue analyses were developed, compared to standardized tests and refined. During the 1960s, after the publication of Durkin's (1966) studies of early readers, there was a significant increase in the research that investigated reading aloud and the role of parents in the acquisition of literacy skills. Also investigated 56 were school programs and instructional strategies designed to replicate and extend the early reading experiences of children. Family literacy programs, their development and degree of effectiveness provided many opportunities for the extension of read aloud research. The investigation of oral reading among early readers, research exploring the benefits of reading aloud to children and of having children read aloud to an adult or peer audience continues to the present day. 57 Chapter III METHODOLOGY Investigation of Buddy Reading from social, textual and cultural stances necessitated using a variety of qualitative research methods to address the three primary research questions. What actually happens when buddies read together? What do teachers and students think happens when buddies read together? What are the cultural influences and classroom conventions that effect Buddy Reading? Classes and their teachers were observed as they interacted with each other before, during and after Buddy Reading sessions. Participating dyads were video taped, in a natural classroom setting, during their regular, twice weekly sessions. Students were interviewed about their perceptions of Buddy Reading after they watched a video of themselves sharing the reading a book. Finally, teachers were interviewed to determine their perceptions, and to elicit information about their motivation for organizing a Buddy Reading program for their students. The School The research site was an elementary school located in a suburban area of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. At the beginning of the 1996-97 58 academic year, a school district reorganization shifted Grades 6 and 7 to another facility, resulting in a smaller student body that included Kindergarten through Grade 5. The school, of approximately 350, was located in a lower middle class to lower class socio-economic area and met the criteria for "inner-city school" financial aid. This resulted in the organization of daily lunch and snack programs for all students, and the assignment of a youth worker to address problems between home and school. The school building was one of the oldest in the district, but had undergone extensive renovations which included the addition of six classrooms. The school building was shaped like an upside-down U, with the school office, staff room, washrooms and boiler room in the center area on the ground floor, and the library, computer room and special education rooms in the center area on the upper floor. (See Figures 4 and 5). The two classroom wings formed the legs of the U. The one storey classroom wing, on the left side of the school, was commonly known as the Primary Wing and housed two Kindergarten classrooms, two Grade 1 rooms, washrooms for the primary students and storage rooms. The entrance to the gymnasium was situated at one end of the Primary Wing while the exterior door to the playground was at the other end. The two storey classroom wing, on the right side of the U, housed the Music Room, a Learning Assistance classroom and four classrooms on the ground floor and the Grade 3, 4 and 5 classrooms on the upper floor. The intermediate classes that participated in this study traversed the length of the school, moving from the top floor of the right wing where their classrooms were located, through the center block, and down the stairs to the Primary Wing on the other side of the school, each time they met with their younger buddies. Figure 4 ABC Elementary School - Ground Level Wasrooms 8 Boiler Room MS. B's Grade 1 Classroom Figure 5 ABC Elementary School - Upper Level ESL I Room ConiputBr Resource Urs.Ts Gracte3 Class room i HSD way I Onto 4 Clsssroom j Grade 5 ClassroomI Grades Classroom | Exterior Stairs 60 The Subjects The subjects for the study were from two first grade classes and two third grade classes that had been paired for the Buddy Reading program, and their respective teachers. All classes were located in one elementary school, although the Grade 1 and Grade 3 classroom were in different wings of the same building. Each Grade 1 class was paired with a Grade 3 class (See Figure 6). Individual teachers negotiated and made arrangements to pair classes based on personal friendships and the common philosophical beliefs of teachers. Grade 1 students were paired with Grade 3 students as reading partners or buddies. If there were insufficient numbers of students for one-to-one reading because of absences, two younger buddies would read with one older student. This was a temporary situation until a student's regular buddy returned after an illness or extended holiday. Students who were out of the room during Buddy Reading because they attended English Second Language (ESL) or Learning Assistance classes during that timetable block were not included in the study. Figure 6 Paired Classes Grade 1 Classes Grade 3 Classes Ms. B Ms. T. Ms. R + Ms. M. 61 The Students From the four classes, 10 pairs of reading buddies or dyads were selected to be videotaped and interviewed. Each dyad consisted of one Grade 1 student and one Grade 3 student. All participating students returned "Informed Consent" forms signed by their parents and indicated that they wished to be included in the study. Pairs of students were identified at the beginning of the study as being "average" readers by their classroom teachers. Grade 1 students who were "average" readers had not experienced difficulty in Kindergarten learning letter names and were considered to be "emergent" or "early" readers. Grade 3 students who were considered to be "average" readers were not enrolled in Learning Assistance classes, nor did their teachers observe them experience difficulty when reading aloud or silently. For purpose of this study "average readers" were considered to be the majority of students in the classes, excluding only those students whose reading ability was greatly advanced as compared to their peers, or those students who visibly struggled with the simplest reading task. For example, one student who was reading Grade 4 level books at the beginning of Grade 1 was excluded from subject selection, as was another first grade child who was frequently absent for medical reasons and was not able to name the most common consonants. The sample consisted of five female dyads and five male dyads. While dyads were composed of either female or male students, as opposed to having 62 mixed dyads with one male and one female participant, the gender of the dyads was not a variable that was controlled as part of the research design. Grade 1 and Grade 3 students of the same gender were not placed together by the researcher for purposes of the study, but rather students selected their reading buddies or classroom teachers paired students on the basis of existing friendships and reading ability. Students seemed to prefer reading buddies of the same gender and so the vast majority of dyads were either pairs of male or female students. The Teachers The teachers taking part in the study worked in the same school for 3 or more years, and were well acquainted with each other. Teachers were experienced professionals having taught from 3 to more than 20 years in the primary grades, and all held bachelor degrees in Education. The two Grade 1 instructors worked together to plan their Language Arts program and shared many of the same materials and activities. While teachers chose a peer to work with and a class from which buddies could be selected based on the philosophical similarities and friendship ties between staff members, the relationship between the teachers was professional in nature. All four teachers used a multi-faceted Language Arts program in their classrooms incorporating explicit language arts instruction with thematically 63 organized literature based reading activities, daily journal writing, repeated readings of class composed stories, class recitation of poetry and rhymes, library research activities and a school initiated home reading program. The instructors also provided students with a variety of experiences and activities to augment the standard Language Arts program. For example, one of the Grade 1 classes had a class pet, a dwarf rabbit. The care of their pet, the impending birth of two baby bunnies, naming the new additions, as well as documenting and describing the growth of the young rabbits stimulated class discussion and oral language development. The Grade 1's pets were the inspiration for numerous "class composed" chart stories, provided daily journal topics for individual students and necessitated student research at both the school and public libraries. The first grade students achieved notoriety and "expert status" as other classes came to visit and observe the rabbit family. Often the Grade 1s were called upon to explain the habits of their class pets and share their observations. The educators who took part in this project offered their classrooms as possible research sites knowing that Buddy Reading was the topic of investigation. Familiarity with the author of the project was one of the reasons for voluntary participation. While the teachers and students were cooperative and eager to participate in this study, it should be noted that their Buddy Reading activities during the year of observation and information gathering did not differ from programs that were run in previous years. 64 The Classrooms The four classrooms where students were observed were "print rich" environments with walls covered with class made charts and posters in visible locations. Pictures and visual organizers that encouraged reading and writing were strategically placed throughout the room. An inventory of visuals in one classroom included math charts, a chart with the school rules, a homework graph, a poem titled Footprints, an outline of the rules for good listening and large discs labeled with colour words, all on the front wall. On the East wall were large charts of the alphabet, a story about the class pet, the story of the Gingerbread Boy, classroom rules, a pocket chart for new words, the class calendar, a poem for the month of February poem (above the calendar), 12 cake-shaped decorations personalized with the students' birth dates, and a large weather chart. The opposite wall was decorated with charts of sentence starters, SH words, a list of special days for Division 11 (planned field trips, concerts and special events), suggestions for rainy day activities, and several dinner plate-sized clocks which displayed important times of the day - 9:00 AM, recess time, lunch, 1:00 PM and dismissal. Each class had access to large numbers of books, placed on racks, with their covers attractively displayed to entice readers. Some of the themed book collections were from the school library, but all four teachers had incorporated their personal collection of children's literature into the class library to share with students. Including the collection of books available for the home reading 65 program, each of the Grade 1 classrooms housed in excess of 1,000 books for student use. Three of the four classrooms had quiet corners for leisure reading. Ms. M. tried to make the reading corner in her classroom comfortable by bringing an area carpet, comfortable tub chairs and a low table from home. Ms. B. used bookcases to create a smaller, cozy space and placed a small table with a couple of student chairs and a rocking chair in the area. Ms. R. created her quiet corner with a bookcase and provided several large floor pillows that students could sit on, stack or arrange into a comfortable seating area. Students were seated at individual desks that were organized in rows along the width or length of the classroom, or in groups of four or six. The physical organization of the classroom was dependent upon the type of activity that was taking place. When students were required to work cooperatively, they moved their desks into groups. When students were working independently, desks were either left in groups or separated into rows. During Buddy Reading sessions in Ms. B.'s classroom, students moved their desks back into rows with enough separation between the desks to allow visiting buddies room to place an additional chair. In Ms. R's classroom, students were more evenly disbursed through the room. When buddies wanted to sit side by side, the older buddy simply sat in an empty seat adjacent to their buddy's desk or moved to another area of room where there was space to sit side by side. 66 Stages in the Data Collection Process To address each of the three primary research questions, data were gathered in four distinct information collection phases, during one school year (See Figure 7). Figure 7 Stages in the Data Collection Process Stage Activity September'96 March'97 May'97 June'97 Stage 1 Classroom Observation Stage 2 Videotape Buddies | Reading Together | Stage 3 Interviews with 1 Students 1 Stage 4 Teacher Interviews The first stage of the data collection process, from September to March, comprised twice weekly classroom observation sessions. These observations formed the basis of the investigation into the cultural influences and classroom 67 conventions that formed the contextual background for the Buddy Reading program in the school. This investigation included examining the class rituals that were associated with Buddy Reading and the assumptions made by teachers and students about the program. Inquiries were made about the process used to pair students as buddies, and the way that classroom teachers found another class with which to be partners. Interactions were observed as students were assigned or selected buddies, as classes prepared for Buddy Reading, as buddies read to each other, and as the sessions ended and the students returned to their regular routines. Role expectations during Buddy Reading and gender differences between male and female buddies were also explored. During the observation stage data were collected in the form of field notes. By the end of March, Stage Two of data collection was initiated. At that time parental, student and administrative permission was sought to video tape pairs of students as they read to each other. Ten pairs of average readers, five male and five female dyads, were selected to take part in the second phase of the data collection procedure. From March through June, at least two Buddy Reading sessions were video taped for each pair of students. Video recordings were used as a means of collecting information to investigate Buddy Reading from a textual stance. Video data were gathered to address the question, what actually happens when buddies read together? From a social stance, to determine student perceptions of Buddy Reading and to find out what students think happens during Buddy Reading, interviews 68 were conducted after pairs of students had been video taped for a second time. These interviews constituted Stage Three of the data collection. Buddies were interviewed using a modified version of Tucker's (1994) "photo interviewing" technique. Students watched a short video of themselves recorded during a previous Buddy Reading session, and then answered approximately ten questions (See Appendix 1) about their experiences and their perceptions of the events. Students were asked how they thought they helped their buddies decode words, correct oral reading errors and understand the author's message. They were asked to describe Buddy Reading, and tell what they liked best about the program. Students were video taped as the interviews were conducted. The four teachers of the students taking part in the study were interviewed in Stage Four of data collection. Teachers' perceptions were elicited and participants were interviewed using a set of questions similar to those used with the students (See Appendix 1). At the request of the teachers, their interviews were not video taped, but point form notes were made of their responses. Four, rather than one or two data collections methods were chosen because of the diversity of the research questions (See Figure 8). For example, it seemed most appropriate to study the cultural influences and classroom conventions that effected Buddy Reading by observing students and teachers as they interacted during Buddy Reading sessions. Making field notes while observing permitted data to be collected without disturbing the regular classroom activities. 69 Similarly, to determine what actually happened when buddies read together, observing a pair of students as they read for an entire Buddy Reading session provided pertinent information. To permit individual Buddy Reading sessions to be viewed repeatedly and to provide video images for the students' photographic interviews, the decision was made to video record the observation of dyads as they read together on two occasions. Figure 8 Data Collection Methods Stance Research Question Data Collection Activity Method of Recording Data Cultural What are the cultural influences and classroom conventions that effect Buddy Reading? Observation in classrooms as Gr. lsand Gr. 3s met for Buddy Reading Field Notes Textual What happens when buddies read together? Observation of dyads as Buddies read together Video Recording Social What do teachers and students think happens when buddies read together? Teachers -Standard Interview Transcription of Interview Students -Photographic Interview Videotape of Interview & Transcription 70 While the use of a video camera in the classroom setting has its disadvantages, in this situation the ability to revisit students' reading sessions out weighed the obstacle of student self-consciousness. Introduction of the video camera in the classroom prior to taping Buddy Reading sessions, allowed students to view others through the eye of the camera and then watch themselves "on TV". This helped them become comfortable in front of the camera lens. Although some of the teachers were apprehensive about having their interviews video taped, all pairs of students consented to have their interviews conducted in front of the camera. Consequently, teacher interview responses were written down and transcribed while student responses were video taped and transcribed. Throughout the data collection stages, the role of the researcher changed from that of an observer, to video camera operator, to interviewer. With changing roles, the degree of researcher interaction with the subjects of the study also varied. Researcher and subject interaction was intentionally limited in the initial observation stages until students were familiar and comfortable with both the visitor to their classroom and the video camera. Once the majority of Buddy Reading sessions had been recorded, students and teachers developed a familiarity with the researcher and showed no reluctance answering the interview questions. 71 Classroom Observations To investigate what happens when children read together and to determine the aspects of classroom culture and rituals associated with Buddy Reading, students were observed in the natural setting of their classrooms. As Michel (1988) explained: By listening carefully to what children say and observing what they do, adults can understand things about reading that we can learn in no other way... Reading can best be understood when we look at the interplay between how people come to define reading in the specific context in which they find themselves, (p.4) During Buddy Reading, the researcher assumed the position of a silent observer in the classroom; listening and watching as students interacted with each other. At times, it was difficult not to become involved in the classroom routines and activities and become an active participant. Fearing that active participation would prevent one from observing the broad range of activities taking place around the room necessitated that the researcher stay on the periphery of the activity, cultivate a sense of openness and maintain a vigilant watch. As Ayers (1989) stated: The educational ethnographer must make a special effort to bracket the common sense, to suspend the known, to be open to surprise, to perceive the familiar in an unfamiliar way, to see the everyday with 72 eyes wide open. (p. 14) Observation sessions in each Grade 1 classroom were approximately one and a half hours in length, every Tuesday and Friday morning. On each school visit, the time before recess (9:00 to 10:30 AM) was spent in Ms. B's Grade 1 classroom, and the time after recess (10:45 to 12:00 AM ) was spent in Ms. R's first grade classroom, corresponding to the time of the day when Buddy Reading was held in the respective rooms. On Friday, the schedule varied because Ms. R. and Ms. M. occasionally scheduled Buddy Reading during the 2:00 to 2:50 time slot in the afternoon. In Ms. B's room, the actual Buddy Reading sessions started at 10:00 AM and finished at 10:30, when the bell for recess rang. From 9:00 to 10:00 students took part in school opening exercises. Upon entering the classroom, students took a book from their desk and began to read, or they selected a new book from the classroom library. When all students were finished in the coat room and were sitting in their desks reading, the student helper was announced, daily attendance was taken, and notes from home and messages were forwarded to the School Office. With the help of a student pointing to the words, the children read the teacher's morning message that was written on the blackboard. A typical message from Ms. B. would include the date, a greeting, a schedule of the mornings activities and a reminder that Buddy Reading was at 10:00 AM. An example follows: 73 November 12th,1996. G o o d morning! I hope that you had a good holiday yesterday ! Practice reading your Fall poems. A t 10:00 A M w e have Buddy Reading. Today w e go to the Library after recess. After reading the morning message, the students moved to the area close to the calendar and weather chart where they counted the days of the month and then looked outside and recorded the weather on their monthly chart. Upcoming events were written on the class calendar, and birthdays were acknowledged with a song by the group. When the opening exercises were finished, students returned to their desks where they worked on their daily journal writing until approximately 9:55. At that time, students began preparing for the arrival of their reading buddies, and Ms. B. gave her class a few short verbal instructions similar to the ones that follow. November 22nd, 1996. Turn your journals upside down and put away your pencils. (Pause) The buddies will be here soon so w e need to get ready. (Pause) Get out your Chime In Book so you can read your Fall poems. (Pause) If you have a book in your desk take it out. If its too hard get another o n e ! 74 At 10:00 AM, Ms. T. and the Grade 3 buddies arrived at Ms. B.'s room. Upon entry, the Grade 3s said hello to their reading partner. Then they immediately walked to the far side of the classroom, got a blue bucket chair from the stack and returned to sit beside their buddies' desks. With the initial greeting between buddies and the movement of students and chairs, the noise level in the classroom was very loud. When all the students were seated, settled down and relatively quiet, Ms. B. would read her second blackboard message of the morning to the entire group. November 15th, 1996. Buddy Reading Please practice reading "Ten Little Squirrels" 3 times. Practice 3 other Chime Ins. Read to your big buddy. Read a hard story to your little buddy. When Ms. B. was finished, the buddies began reading to each other. While some students quickly read poems from their Chime In books and then moved onto favorite story books, other students needed a reminder to practice reading their weekly Chime In poem and stay focused on the reading activity. As 20 pairs of students read aloud with expression and excitement, the atmosphere in Ms. B.'s classroom was lively and boisterous, only calming with the ringing of the recess bell. 75 While the students were reading, Ms. B. and Ms. T. circulated around the room and answered the students' questions, refocused students who were off task, mediated minor disagreements and helped students find books on topics of interest. Two or three pairs of students had their hands raised at any one time. It appeared that the teachers were engaged in organizational and supervisory rather than observational tasks as their students read together. Buddy Reading in Ms. R.'s classroom was also held on Tuesday morning, but occasionally their second session of the week was held on Friday afternoon. The Tuesday morning sessions took place immediately after recess, and the Grade 1 students quickly prepared for the arrival of their buddies as soon as they returned to their classroom from the playground. Excitement built quickly in the room as the younger buddies prepared for the arrival of the Grade 3s. Ms. R. also included Buddy Reading in her Tuesday morning message to her students but did not prepare written instructions for the buddies. She preferred to give fewer oral directions than Ms. B. and allowed her students more freedom to choose where they wanted to read with their buddies. Students from Ms. R.'s class read in the hallway outside the classroom, in the coat room, in the reading corner, at their desks or as they lay on the carpeted floor. Dispersing the students over a larger area seemed to lessen the problem of excessive noise, but made it more difficult for the teachers to circulate through the areas and offer assistance or refocus students who were not on task. The time allocated to the Buddy Reading program in Ms. R.'s classroom was 10 to 15 minutes longer than in Ms. B.'s room and students did not appear to be as rushed to finish reading 76 their books and Chime In poems. The Grade 1 and 3 students under Ms. R.'s direction were free to choose their own partners and were encouraged to select a new partner every 6 to 8 weeks. Friday afternoon sessions differed from the ones held on Tuesday mornings, and were a combination of Buddy Reading and a second activity which allowed the older students to explore other subject areas with their younger partners. Approximately half the time on Friday was spent reading. During the remainder of the block, other shared activities for the Grade 1 s and Grade 3s included working with Math manipulatives, conducting simple science experiments, participating in cooperative PE games in the gymnasium, playing together on the adventure playground or completing seasonal arts and crafts projects. While observing through the morning in the two Grade 1 classrooms, and during some of the Friday afternoon buddy sessions in Ms. R.'s room, brief field notes were made and general impressions were recorded. Occasionally, pairs of reading buddies and the researcher would informally discuss events to clarify students' actions. Pertinent comments made by the teachers after observation sessions or at lunch were also recorded in the field notes. Information from the field notes was extracted, dated, and roughly sorted by topic. This process enabled the researcher to form general impressions of the students, the teachers, the classrooms and the procedures that were repeated when students met for Buddy Reading sessions. 77 Video Taping Students During Buddy Reading From the end of March through the middle of June, pairs of reading buddies were video taped as they read together. The video data were used to answer the question, "What actually happens when buddies read together?" To facilitate video taping, students were allowed to use their two homeroom classrooms and the adjacent hallways for Buddy Reading, spreading the students over a larger area. Students read together in their classroom, sitting in the reading corner, at their desks, in the hallway or wherever they could find a space to read. Each set of dyads was video taped for at least two Buddy Reading sessions. Taping sessions of students from Ms. B.'s class were approximately 25 minutes long, while sessions with Ms. R.'s students were from 30 to 40 minutes long. Written permission from parents was obtained to video tape their children, but permission from each student was also requested before each taping session. Students were asked, "Do you mind if I sit with you as you read to each other today?" or "Do you mind if I use my video camera today?" If the students refused, their wishes were respected. There were no students who consistently refused to be video taped. Of the more than 20 video taping sessions, there were only three occasions when students did not want to be video taped when permission was requested. Two of the students who refused stated that they were not feeling well and the third student did not give a reason. On most occasions, however, students wanted to be taped and typically each day several 78 students would ask, "Do I get to be on your camera today?" or "When are you going to video tape me?" To familiarize students with the use of video technology, the camera was introduced into the classroom approximately two months before the pairs of students were video taped. Some special classroom events were taped and the students were able to watch themselves on the television monitor and take turns looking through the lens of the camera. Backwards Day, when staff and students wore clothing, hats and outerwear back to front, desks were turned to the back of the class, books were read front the back cover to front, and the end of the day announcements were read at 9:00 AM, was an event that the students enjoyed viewing after it was taped with the video camera. Most students were anxious to model their outfits in front of the camera and see how silly others looked. By the time students were video taped reading with their buddies, they were familiar with the workings of the video camera and showed little resistance or self consciousness as they were taped. The type of camera used was a small "High 8" hand-held unit. At times the running camera was placed on a desk adjacent to the students or balanced on the knee of the researcher who was sitting opposite the two students. If students looked up when reading, they were able to maintain eye contact with the researcher. Natural lighting was used and students were not asked to wear microphones. Although the sound quality suffered somewhat using the built-in camera microphone, video taping was less inhibited and unconstrained by the equipment than if a clip-on microphone had been used. To minimize distractions 79 for the students, written notes of observations were not made during the course of the video taping sessions. During video taped sessions, the students quickly relaxed as soon as they started reading with their buddies. While all pairs of reading buddies were conscious of the camera at the beginning of the taping sessions, as buddies began to read to each other, most students became engaged in sharing their book or story and were oblivious to the activity around them until they finished reading. So engrossed were some of the students as they read, they actually seemed to forget that their actions were being observed and recorded. Some students seemed surprised when they looked up from their books and realized that they had been taped. However, they quickly recovered their composure, selected another book and continued reading. Brief anecdotal notes were taken as the video tape of individual Buddy Reading sessions was reviewed. While compiling anecdotal notes of dyads reading, a Reading Log listing the names of the reading selections and the sequence in which they were read was also completed (See Appendix 2). This log was used to determine if the same stories were read and re-read at different sittings and to record the order in which younger and older buddies read. Point form anecdotal notes were used to document the sequence of events and descriptions of behavior and interactions between the buddies. The following notes, (See Figure 9) made while viewing the video tape of Natasha helping her younger buddy Kathy, were typical of this type of documentation. 80 Figure 9 Sample of Anecdotal Comments - Session I Video Session #1 Grade 1 student - Kathy Grade 3 student - Natasha • pick Chime In story together - Walk to School • K picks book from desk • take turns reading • K reads book from desk • N turns to first pages in book • N lets K try to sound words • gives word if K can't figure out • N waits approx. IO seconds before giving word • N corrects K • N covers mouth with hand • N whispers very quietly • K looks at N - wants her to tell words • K can't hear N say words - whispering too softly • N hand covers mouth when giving words • N hides face in long hair when giving words • abandon book - too hard for K • K picks Caroline, Sweet Caroline for N to read • K follows as N reads • K observed • listening • stretching • watching book • looking up • yawning • K not following along with story • problems reading along? A catalogue of video clips was made for each taping session to compile a record of sections of video tape that contained representative scenes of targeted behaviors (See Appendix 3). The names of the students, the starting and ending times of the clips and short descriptions were entered on the data sheet. 81 Student Interviews To gather information pertaining to the third research question, what do students think is happening during Buddy Reading, students were interviewed and asked to share their perceptions of the event. Although open ended questions in a structured interview format were the basis of previous studies of children's perceptions of reading (Downing, 1969; Clarke, 1976; Johns, 1970, 1972, 1974, 1976; Johns & Ellis, 1976: Michel, 1988; Hillerich, 1990), difficulty verbalizing knowledge about reading (Downing, 1973), taking others perspectives and the lack of reflection time for respondents suggested that a modification of this method of information gathering may be warranted. Hatch (1990), in his article Young Children as Informants in Classroom Studies, addressed problems that threatened the quality of interviews with young children and suggested that researchers: 1) take time to establish a rapport with the children; 2) conduct semi-formal and formal interviews in the natural setting of the classroom; 3) ask children to explain their actions immediately after their occurrence; 4) ask short simple questions and 5) reduce levels of abstraction by providing concrete artifacts from the classroom. Hatch (1990) recommended the use of photographs or videotapes taken in the classroom to lessen the degree of abstraction. Hatch stated: Another device that reduces the abstract nature of formal interviews is to provide photographs or videotapes of classroom activity. Showing a classroom scene and asking children to discuss the meaning of actions so 82 they can observe directly is a far more effective strategy than asking them to recall the situation or prompting them with a verbal description, (p.262) Having established a rapport with the students after observing for six months and video taping students in the classroom setting for a further two months, students were cooperative and willing to answer interview questions. Interviews were conducted during Buddy Reading time and during lunch hours in a classroom used for viewing multimedia resources and storing audiovisual equipment. During each interview session, one pair of buddies ate their lunch together as they sat on a large sofa and watched themselves on the TV monitor. Using a 'photo-interviewing technique' (Dempsey & Tucker, 1994), students viewed from five to ten minutes of their own video footage before they were interviewed. Footage of students reading continuously without disruptions or stoppages was selected for use as part of the photo-interview. Video footage was representative of activity that took place during Buddy Reading sessions as students read a book together. As Dempsey & Tucker explained, photographs trigger recall, prompt reflection, and "appear to act as both as stimuli and verifiers of perception" (p. 56). Most students were self-conscious as they watched the videos of themselves, giggling and laughing because their voices sounded different than anticipated. Students commented on changes in their physical appearance and seasonal clothing. When the reading sessions were taped some students were 8 3 in winter clothes and at the time of the viewing many were in summer togs. Some students changed hair styles or grew during the interval between taping session. Students commented on the favorite stories that were chosen as readings. Robby reiterated that 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar1 was his most favorite book and retold how he made his own 'Hungry Caterpillar" book when he was in Kindergarten. After students watched their video, they were asked to respond to nine open-ended questions. First one student would respond and then the other student would either give their own answer, add to their buddy's response or simply agree without adding any further information. When questions six through eight were posed, dealing with the manner in which buddies figured out unknown words, the older students would respond for the pair. Two additional questions - "Why do you do Buddy Reading?" and "What would you do if your buddy wasn't a friend?" - were added as supplementary questions to the protocol for the last five interviews. The additions were made to probe students' understanding of the purpose for the Buddy Reading program and learn about the relative importance of friendship in the buddy relationship. Student interviews were video taped to avoid having to write down responses which tended to slow the natural flow of the interview as students waited for the researcher to finishing jotting down their answers. The taping of the student interviews was a relatively simple process. The camera was placed on small table, the focus was adjusted as students sat on the sofa, and the camera was turned on and left to run. Questions were asked and responses 84 given at the pace of a leisurely conversation. When interviews were conducted during the students' lunch time, the length of the interviews were confined to a 40 minute length. Interviews conducted during class time had no time constraints, but did not exceed the 40 minute time frame used during the lunchtime interviews. Teacher Interviews In the final stage of data collection, teachers were individually interviewed to assess their personal thoughts about Buddy Reading. Hammersley and Atkinson (1990) stated: "people interpret stimuli, and these interpretations, continually under revision as events unfold, shape their actions. The same physical stimulus can mean different things to different people and , indeed, to the same person at different times" (p.7). It was important to interview both students and teachers to obtain a more complete understanding of both the students' and teachers' perceptions of Buddy Reading. Many of the questions asked the teachers were similar to those used with the students. For example, students were asked, "Tell me all about Buddy Reading ?" Teachers were asked, "Tell me about your Buddy Reading program ?" Students were asked, "When your buddy doesn't know a word, what do you do ?" Teachers were asked, "When students encounter words that they don't know, what do they do ?" Queries were also made about the instructors' reasons 85 for establishing a Buddy Reading program, as well as their expectations for younger and older buddies. While student interviews were slightly less than 40 minutes, on the average, the individual teacher's interviews were approximately one hour long. One of the reasons for the longer meeting was because teachers' responses were hand written by the researcher (See Appendix 4). Teacher replies were recorded in "point form" with an attempt to retain as much of the respondents original language as possible. This was necessary because unlike the student interviews, the teachers' interviews were not videotaped. Not all participants were comfortable in front of the camera, and It was not possible to obtain permission from all educators to videotape their interviews. Data Analysis Data for this study were collected in the form of field notes of classroom observations, video footage of students reading together, video taped responses to student interview protocols, transcriptions of student interview responses and point form documenting of responses to teacher interviews. Information collected about pairs of reading buddies, after reviewing video tape of students reading together, was compiled on two data matrices or master spreadsheets, one for each video session. Inter and intra-dyad comparisons were made, searching for common patterns of behavior between and among reading partners (See Appendix 5). Responses from the student and teacher interviews were sorted as they pertained to each of the interview questions. Data matrices and displays were constructed to organize interview replies. Data were sorted and reviewed forming self-generated categories and subcategories after the interview responses had been collated. For each recording session, video data was analyzed using a data matrix or master spreadsheet. (See Appendix 5). On each matrix were the names of all the children, and checks were placed in the appropriate column when a particular behavior was observed. The tape for each session was replayed from four to six times paying attention to the physical setting, the way students positioned themselves in relation to their buddy and the sequence of events. In reviewing the video, data were recorded in reference to the number of chairs the buddies used, how close buddies sat to each other, who read first, the volume of the students' reading voices, the volume of the students' voices as they helped decode unfamiliar words, where students focused their attention, and how buddies assisted each other as they read (i.e. finger pointing, turning pages or holding large books). From a textual stance, the decoding and oral reading strategies used were also noted and documented. Special attention was paid to the ways students helped each other figure out unfamiliar words. Did buddies simply ignore their partners' problems, or did they encourage each other to sound out words? Did buddies divide words into syllables or 'pronounce' the words for their partner? 87 With what frequency were buddies simply told the unknown word? This information was also recorded on the master spreadsheet. The purpose of the data matrix was to provide a means by which a large number of pieces of information could be viewed at a glance. All information on a particular behavior was contained on one page, and use of the spreadsheet facilitated the formation of impressions and the summarization of results. Comparisons between the behavior of older and younger students was also made easier with the use of the one page visual display. Conclusions were drawn after categorizing and subcategorizing data, noting patterns, and developing themes using the data matrix. Quotations from transcripts or portions of video footage that were representative of typical or unusual behavior were noted and marked for future reference to form a catalogue of video clips (See Appendix 3). Student conversations from the video footage were extracted and added to anecdotal notes, as were occurrences of specific behaviors which were noted and described. The sequence in which stories were read was written in a Reading Log (See Appendix 2). Each of the video tapes of the student interviews were viewed from three to five times. Interview responses for each pair of students were transcribed by hand onto a legal sized sheet of paper (See Appendix 6). The page was divided in half and the responses from the Grade 1 buddy were on left hand side and the Grade 3 buddy's responses appeared on the opposite side. 88 Data displays were also constructed from the information gathered during the interview process. Once all interviews were completed and responses for each dyad transcribed, the replies were collated so that all the answers to a question appeared on a single page (See Appendix 7). Categories of similar responses for each question were also developed. For example, there were three responses given for the question, "How did your class and Ms. 's class buddy up?" While some students responded that they "didn't know", other students indicated that friendship between either the students or the teachers was a major consideration. A third category of response revolved around the concept of age; that younger children should be paired with older buddies. Recording all responses for a single question on one page also facilitated comparing the replies of the Grade 1 and Grade 3 students. Similarly, when the four teachers had been interviewed, their responses were transferred to single page data displays, one for each question, for ease of comparison (See Appendix 8). Responses were scanned, looking for similarities and differences between the Grade 1 and Grade 3 teachers' replies. For example, both Grade 3 teachers felt that Buddy Reading was organized by the Grade 1 teachers, and they functioned more as assistants rather than as equal partners in the process. Differences between the responses for the two pairs of teachers were also noted. Ms. R., for example, considered her Buddy Reading program to be 'rather laid back' and she let students 'do their own thing', while Ms. B stated that the "teacher provides the format to follow and a sense of direction." She further suggested that "format prevents behavior problems". 89 Attempts to validate the findings of this study were made by triangulating data from the various sources and collection methods. As Mathieson (1988) explained: Data triangulation refers simply to using several data sources, the obvious example being the inclusion of more than one individual as a source of data. ... Denzin expands the notion of data triangulation to include time and space based on the assumption that understanding a social phenomenon requires its examination under a variety of conditions, (p. 14) In this study of Buddy Reading information from two sources, the teachers and students, contributed to the process of data triangulation. The validity of the results was also enhanced as numerous samples were collected over an extended period of time. Observations were made of dyads reading over a period of 10 months and students were video taped on two occasions with approximately one month between sessions. The use of multiple methods of information gathering further contributed to the validity of the results as interview responses were augmented with information from direct observation and the video footage of students reading. Teacher feedback and comments on the descriptions of student interaction was also solicited as a check on the accuracy of the reporting of classroom events by the researcher. As stated by Michel (1988), "validity, in this type of study, refers to whether or not the researcher has represented the social world of the participants as they themselves see it" (p.26). Teachers were encouraged to 90 comment on the results and conclusions, note inconsistencies, and provide feedback to validate the findings. In summary, detailed descriptions of Buddy Reading were created by collecting data from Grade 1 and 3 students, and their respective teachers, using qualitative research methods. A variety of information gathering methods and tools were used during the course of the school year. Data gathering activities included classroom observation, interviews of teachers and students, video taping buddies as they read together and video recording student interviews. Data were collected in the form of field notes, anecdotal notes of general impressions, video footage of buddies as they read together, transcribed responses to interview questions and video tape of student interviews. Once collected, information was sorted, coded, grouped and compared to determine patterns of responses and behavior. Data were displayed using checklists and hand constructed data matrices. From the data displays which were used to group information according to self-generated categories, themes were developed and later conclusions drawn. 91 Chapter IV RESULTS Buddy Reading was a significant event in the weekly timetable and an important component of the school culture, not only for the children who participated in this study, but for the entire student body. First, Buddy Reading was important because it was one of the few regular activities that involved participation by all students and staff in the school. Every student had a reading buddy, every teacher had a peer partner and every class was paired with another group of students. Second, the Buddy Reading Program transcended the primary and intermediate division that characterized many of the other regularly organized school activities. Buddy Reading transcended the division that was created when separate monthly primary and intermediate assemblies were held to recognize student achievements, when the student body was assigned different primary and intermediate days on the adventure playground and when the school sports teams were organized for the intermediate students. Third, as described by the present and previous administration, there was a long history of participation in Buddy Reading programs at the school. Buddy Reading and the School Culture When the four teachers involved in this study were individually interviewed and asked why they organized a Buddy Reading program for their students, three 92 of the four indicated that "Buddy Reading was a tradition." One teacher responded, "I was told that you were supposed to when I first came to this school." Another teacher answered, "It's a school wide policy to have reading buddies." Upon further questioning, it was learned that the introduction of the Buddy Reading program had preceded all four teachers' assignments to the school, and that no "school policy", written or verbal, required teachers and their students to participate in the Buddy Reading program. While the teachers guessed that the program had been running from 10 to 15 years, no one was able to indicate who started the program or provide historical information about its beginnings. As the teacher with the longest service had been at the school for 14 years, and had seen the arrival and departure of three principals, one may hypothesize that Buddy Reading was an integral part of the school culture. From the participating teachers' reports it appears that the practice endured as expectations and customs were passed down from older buddies to their younger partners, the organizational procedure was passed down from teacher to teacher, and administrative approval was subsumed by successive principals who embraced the Buddy Reading program because of its apparent educational validity. Buddy Reading, as part of the school culture, may be considered a classroom ritual. As one watched in the classrooms, week after week, predictable routines manifested themselves as classes prepared for their Buddy Reading sessions. Every time buddies were to meet, the older students went downstairs to the Grade 1 classrooms from the upper wing of the building. Once 93 in the classroom, the students greeted each other and read the teacher's directions on the blackboard as they prepared to read together. First, students read their weekly "Chime In" poem or chant that the teacher introduced and the class practiced reading orally. Then big and little buddies read books they selected from the class collection. When the time was up, the buddies put away the materials they used, the shared activity ended and visiting students returned to their respective classrooms. The ritualistic nature of this activity was most evident on occasions when the regular classroom teacher was absent for the day and students automatically followed the Buddy Reading "routine" with little teacher intervention. Teachers' Purpose for Buddy Reading Teachers organized Buddy Reading sessions for their students because they believed that both Grade 1 and Grade 3 students benefited from the experience. Teachers felt the Buddy Reading sessions gave students an opportunity to practice reading. As Ms. B. said, "it gives students practice reading out loud... A number of kids don't have the opportunity to read at home." While it was assumed by all involved that the primary beneficiaries were the younger students. Ms. T., a Grade 3 teacher, stressed that "there are some Grade 3s who are not strong readers." Reading an easy book, one-to-one, with an interested listener "makes them feel successful." Ms. T. also explained that 94 the younger children, not being good readers themselves, tended to be less critical of their buddies when errors were made. Big buddies benefited from the reading practice as much, if not more, than the younger children. Ms. B. also suggested that Buddy Reading was a positive experience for "a number of students who don't have the opportunity to read at home." She further suggested that practicing reading in front of an audience, or a student who was actively listening, helped solidify students' images of themselves as successful readers and develop a sense of pride and positive self-esteem. Teachers saw the benefits of Buddy Reading overlap into other areas. Buddy Reading was described as an "opportunity to develop interpersonal relationships and social skills... When students know each other, they go out and play together at recess and lunch... [This] helps with playground skills" (Ms. B.). Buddy Reading was a way "to get different age children to cooperate", reported Ms. T. Students' Purpose for Buddy Reading Students from both Grade 1 and Grade 3 approached their Buddy Reading sessions with anticipation. When asked what they liked best about buddy sessions, students responded that they liked reading and the sessions were enjoyable. Lynn's interview response was typical of many. She said, "It's fun! You get to read to your buddy and make new friends. I've never had a friend 95 bigger than me before." Matt reiterated when he said, "The best is if your buddy is the best reader. You can read the hard books. It's fun to read with a buddy." While Buddy Reading was considered to be pleasurable by all the students, there was also an underlying understanding that the purpose for the activity was to improve one's reading ability. When interviewed, students were asked, "Why do you do Buddy Reading?" Drew, a Grade 1 student, responded," 'Cause we need to get good at reading. You get good at doing words. If they're hard, you get good at practicing." Anna, in Grade 1 explained, "The Grade 1 s need to learn how to read. They will get to Grade 3 and can't read." Rina (Grade 3) elaborated, "Because if they get stuck on a word, maybe we can help them with it. One day when they get that word again, they won't get stuck on it." Students who were asked this question answered that the purpose of Buddy Reading was to learn to read better, or to learn more words. Student understanding of the purpose for Buddy Reading was insightful because none of their four teachers was observed explicitly outlining their reasons for organizing the shared reading time. Students seemed to intuitively understand the purpose and the anticipated effect of the practice reading sessions. When students were asked, "What did your teachers tell you about Buddy Reading?" Lynn answered, "They told us that it would help us learn to read and it would help (pause). I think she would say that (pause). She never really told us." Rina added to Lynn's response and said, "Not really; she said it would be fun and that we might have a party at the end of the year." Kathy 96 remembered that her teacher told her they would switch buddies. Kerri (Grade 3) explained that her teacher told them "not to fight and have fun with your buddy." Expectations for Reading Buddies Both Grade 1 and 3 teachers had high expectations for the older buddies to act as role models for their younger partners. Older buddies were not only expected to help their younger friends develop effective reading strategies, but were also expected to behave appropriately, exercise control over the environment and provide positive feedback. Ms. B., one of the Grade 1 teachers, commented that she felt that the "older buddies were accountable for their young buddies." Ms. R., the other Grade 1 teacher stated that she expected older buddies "to set a good example behavior-wise and reading-wise." The Grade 1 teachers expected the older buddies "to create a positive environment", "to act properly", "to make it a Grade 1 focus", "to stay on task" and "to understand that students were there to be friends and help in other capacities." Student expectations of their buddies were more task related. Little buddies expected their older buddies to encourage them to become better readers by helping them find appropriate books to read, listening to their oral reading, correcting their reading errors and helping to decode unfamiliar words. As Denny explained,"... because, like (pause), Grade 3s are like teachers 9 7 teaching us words." Big buddies expected their younger partners to display appropriate behavior, listen to the stories as they were read, try to read the books that they jointly selected and participate in non-reading types of buddy activities. Teacher Responsibilities When interviewed and asked about preparations for Buddy Reading, the Grade 3 teachers explained, "I don't do any from week to week" (Ms. T.), and Ms. M. explained that she simply told her class, "We are going to join Ms. R.'s class for Buddy Reading." The responsibility for preparing the blackboard message, verbal instructions and directions for the older buddies was assumed by the Grade 1 teachers. As Ms. T. explained, "The Grade 1 teacher gives directions to the students and sets the expectations. The Grade 3 teacher has no input into the directions." The Buddy Reading ritual was directed by the Grade 1 teachers with the Grade 3 teachers assisting by "circulating and making sure that older buddies are on task" (Ms. T.). Although the reason for this was not clear, both Grade 1 and Grade 3 teachers accepted their respective roles as "directors" and "assistants" without question, cooperating with each other as they focused on encouraging students and maintaining order in the classroom. The acceptance of the role of director by the Grade 1 teachers and the role of assistant by the Grade 3 teachers, may be related to the teachers' familiarity with each other and their willingness to cooperate with a similarly 98 minded individual. Consider, for example, the teachers' responses to the question, "How did you choose a class to partner up with?" Three of the four teachers explained that they choose to buddy with another teacher who held similar views. Ms. T. was approached by Ms. B. (Grade 1 teacher), who explained, "We have similar thoughts on educational matters", and "I like how Ms. T. runs her class." Ms. R., the other Grade 1 teacher said, "I chose a personal friend who I enjoyed spending time twice a week with." Ms. M. simply stated, "We are friends. We get along together." Initial Instructions When the teachers were asked what directions they provided for students before they began the Buddy Reading program, Ms. B., one of the Grade 1 teachers, responded that she put her message for the students on the blackboard each session. Ms. R., the other Grade 1 teacher, explained that she talked to her students about expectations, "where they can read; for example, in the hall, the coatroom, or in the classroom" and she gave "examples of things to read and where they can find books." Ms. M. related her initial instructions to her Grade 1 class and modeled her instructions. She told her class, "We are going to join Ms. R.'s class. Tuesday we will spend time doing Buddy Reading. On Fridays, we will read and then spend some time playing." Ms. T. described how she talked 99 with students "about the process before the first time" and "helped individuals with expectations." Initial directions, given to students before their first Buddy Reading session, focused on behavioral expectations, being kind to the younger children, staying on task and being a good listener. Classroom directions were not used as a means of teaching students how to read with each other, or as a method of instructing big buddies how to respond to oral reading errors. Even though it was the Grade 3s first year as the older partner in a dyad, their teachers' instructions were brief. Older students were not told how to help their younger buddies decode unfamiliar words, how to help each other understand the author's message, or how to select appropriate reading material for their buddy. It appeared that all four teachers assumed that their students would be able to help each other and model appropriate decoding and comprehension strategies without adult intervention. When Ms. R. and Ms. M. were asked about the explicit decoding instructions they provided for the buddies, they both responded that they had not discussed decoding strategies as they prepared students to meet with each other. When a small group of Grade 1 students was questioned about their initial introduction to Buddy Reading, they answered that the Kindergarten teacher was the person who told them all about Buddy Reading. When they were in Kindergarten they "learned how to be little buddies and all about being a big buddy." During a lunchtime conversation, the Kindergarten teacher explained that she spent a considerable amount of time talking to her students about Buddy 100 Reading, but was surprised by her previous students' comments. She did not realize the importance of her initial explanation and the lasting impression that remained with her former students. Pairing Classes The Grade 1 teachers approached their peers to inquire about pairing Grade 1 and Grade 3 classes. Teachers chose to pair particular classes, not on the basis of class composition, but on the basis of the students' age. Three of the four teachers stated that pairing Grade 1 s with Grade 3s was appropriate in terms of the students' age. Ms. B. explained that the Grade 5s used to be paired with the Grade 1 children. Now that the school enrolled only Kindergarten to Grade 5 students, Grade 1s were paired with the Grade 3s, Grade 4s were with the Grade 2s and Grade 5s were with the Kindergarten students. Ms. T., her partner, "felt that it was a good age spread" and that "Grade 3s are not too old that they can't identify with the Grade 1s." Ms. M. explained "Grade 1s are a good match with Grade 3s" and that the "age levels for Grade 1 and 2 are too close to be good reading buddies." A second criterion for the selection of partners was to look for a teacher who shared a common vision of children's literacy learning. As Ms. B. said, "Pick someone with the same philosophy." Ms. B. also stated that she and her partner "have similar thoughts on educational matters." 1 Friendship was an important criterion when teachers selected a class for Buddy Reading. Not only the students, but also the teachers wanted to have a positive relationship. Ms. R. expressed her choice of partners by saying, "I chose a personal friend who I enjoyed spending time twice a week with." Friendship between the teachers was also recognized by the students. When students were asked the question, "How did your class and Ms. 's class buddy up?" students responded in one of three ways. Six students of the 20 responded that they did not know how the classes were paired. Eight students responded that the teachers were friends. Students described the relationship between the teachers saying they were "best friends", "good friends" or "very good friends". As Maggy explained, "Ms. M. asked Ms. R. if they could be buddies. They are really good friends." The remaining six students answered that the classes were paired because of the age of the students. Robby, a Grade 3 student explained, "Because we're supposed to have little buddies." Willy, another third grade student said, "So you can get to know people in another class. Higher grades are more responsible." Anna said, "If you're in Grade 3, you can look after the Grade 1s. The older kids can look after the Kindergarten students." Finally, Mike, a Grade 1, explained how his class and Ms. T.'s class became buddies, "By the teachers. [They] like to do different grades. [You] can't do people the same age." While students' and teachers' responses to the question, "How were classes paired?", reflected different levels of maturity, both students and teachers 102 acknowledged that friendship between the stakeholders and the age of the students were important factors to consider. Selecting A Buddy "How did you get your buddy?" Student responses reflected classroom practices. In Ms. B.'s Grade 1 room, the teachers assigned buddies. Ms. T. explained that she provided the Grade 1 teacher with an annotated class list and indicated who were good readers and who were responsible students. She felt that it was appropriate for the Grade 1 teacher to pair up the buddies because she "has already taught many of the Grade 1 s." Ms. B. paired the students taking into account siblings in the two classes, pre-existing friendships, personality & inter-family conflicts and students with behavior problems. As Natasha, a Grade 3 student explained, "Kathy told the teacher she knew me and Ms. B. arranged a lot." Lynn, a Grade 1 student stated, "The teachers picked. They had a list." Tony elaborated, "The teacher called out your names, and the little buddy put up their hand so you would know who they were." Individual needs and characteristics were also taken into consideration and attempts were made not to pair emergent Grade 1 readers with poor Grade 3 readers, and advanced Grade 1 readers with skilled Grade 3 students. Ms. B. explained, "I don't put low Grade 1 readers with low Grade 3s. There are too 1 many behavior problems... I may put a low-average Grade 3 with a good listener in Grade 1 to provide encouragement [for the older student]." Once assigned, Ms. B. & Ms. T.'s students kept their buddies for the balance of the year, unless one of the pair moved from the school, or it was observed that the match was not a good one and students complained. In Ms. R.'s Grade 1 classroom, students picked their own buddies. Teacher assistance was available if they were having difficulty choosing a partner. Buddies were switched once every four to six weeks and little buddies and big buddies alternated choosing partners. Ms. M., the Grade 3 teacher, explained that teachers provided some "ice-breaker" activities before initial buddy selections were made. The teachers made arrangements for the students from the two classes to meet and spend social time together playing and interacting at "learning centers". The third grade students went to the Grade 1 room because in Ms. M.'s words, "If the little buddies go to the big buddies room, they just stare at the big buddies and are very quiet and shy." According to Ms. R., "the older buddies get to choose the first time. Next time little buddies get to pick." Ms. R. also explained that older buddies were encouraged to pick "a little buddy that they already knew, or someone they would like to get to know." The teachers chose big buddies for the Grade 1 students who were at Learning Assistance or ESL classes. Students who had behavioral difficulties were paired by the teachers with "a steady kid who is good at focusing" (Ms. M.). Big and little buddies in Ms. R.'s and Ms. M.'s classes appeared to use different criteria to select their buddies. When the big buddies were allowed to 1 choose their partners, all students chose a partner of the same gender. All the older boys had male buddies and all the girls selected female partners. The Grade 3 students picked their buddies very quickly, scrambling around the room until all students were paired. For the Grade 3 boys, selecting a partner of the same gender was preferable, even if the choice was between a female student who was a good reader and a male student who was a poor reader and who had extreme behavioral difficulties. When the Grade 3 boys were asked why they picked someone as their buddy, they indicated that they played on the same soccer team, played together at recess or played together after school. When some of the Grade 3 boys were asked why they did not pick a girl buddy, they were slow to respond and quietly answered, "I don't know." It appeared that the Grade 3 boys had not seriously considered asking a girl to be their buddy. When some of the older girls were asked how they chose their buddy, they responded, "She looked at me." "She smiled at me." "She seemed friendly." When asked why they did not pick a boy for a buddy, several of the Grade 3 girls quickly responded, "The boys fool around too much!" "The boys get us into trouble." "The girls are better readers." In contrast, the Grade 1 students were not as concerned or as vocal about picking a partner of the same gender. Some of the Grade 1 students picked buddies who were of the opposite sex. When questioned, Grade 1 students explained that they knew the older child because they played together outside at recess, they walked to school in a group with their siblings and friends, or they 105 students explained that they knew the older child because they played together outside at recess, they walked to school in a group with their siblings and friends, or they lived in the same housing complex. Sandra and Maggy walked together to and from school every day. Their parents were friends, and the children played together as toddlers before they were enrolled in Kindergarten. Sandra described how she picked her buddy when she said, "I just looked at them when they were lining up around, and I looked at Maggy. Then she came." John, who was a little more assertive, explained, "If you like them, you go to them and ask them to be your buddy." His buddy Willy agreed and responded, "You go to a person and ask them, 'Do you want to be my buddy?'". It should be noted that the Grade 1s selected buddies during the "second round" of Buddy Reading and so they had more time to get to know the Grade 3s. In contrast, many of the Grade 3 students had little contact with the students in Ms. R.'s class during the earlier part of the year or when the Grade 1 students were in Kindergarten. Buddies are Friends While friendship was just one of the criteria for pairing Grade 1 students in Ms. B.'s classroom with the Grade 3 students from Ms. T.'s room, students rated friendship as one of the most important aspects of the Buddy Reading program. When some of the students stressed the importance of friendship in 106 their interview, they were asked if it was possible to have a buddy who was not a friend, and what they would do in such a situation. Students were usually quiet for a few seconds before they responded: I would just try to be friends. (Kerri) I'd ask, "Would you like to be my friend?" (Hanna) Try to cooperate with them; try to be their friend. (Rina) You could always change buddies or try to be their friend. (Joe) I'd be scared and sad. (Lynn) I would just say, "I don't want to be his buddy." (Mike) I don't pick people I don't like! (Willy) Overwhelmingly, students equated reading buddies with friends and friendship. Only one student questioned responded that he could have a buddy that was not a friend. Drew said, "Well, I'd just read with them anyway." Building Anticipation and Excitement In both Grade 1 classrooms, students prepared for Buddy Reading in similar ways. The Grade 1 teachers built anticipation and excitement for Buddy Reading by mentioning the activity in the "message" that was part of the opening exercises. In Ms. B.'s classroom, messages similar to the following were on the blackboard as students came in the room at 9:00 AM. 1 Apri l 22nd, 1997. G o o d morning everyone. We need to practice our "Storm" story. We go to the Library at 11:05 A M , then to Computers. First, w e have Buddy Reading at 10:00 A M . Ms. B. had her students read the message aloud as one student used the pointer to track along the line of print. After the opening exercises and the completion of the weather chart and calendar activities, the group of students gathered around the teacher and practiced reading their Chime In poem. Students then returned to their desks to work on their daily journals. When they were finished writing and illustrating their work, Ms. B. encouraged her students to get ready for Buddy Reading by tidying their desks, getting out their Chime In booklets and picking books from the classroom collection to read to their buddies. Five minutes before the arrival of the buddies, Ms. B. would announce to the class, ^Please clear your desk and get ready. Your buddies are going to be here soon!" While students were getting ready for the arrival of their buddies, Ms. B. put a second message on the board for the little and big buddies. Messages were similar to the one that follows: 1 November 12th, 1996. Buddy Reading Please practice Fall poems. Read to your Grade 3 Buddy. Read to your Grade 1 Buddy. When the big buddies arrived, they got a chair from the stack at the side of room and sat beside their little buddy's desk. Ms. B. would ask the students to be quiet and then read her instructions aloud for everyone. In Ms. R.'s Grade 1 classroom, anticipation for the buddies' arrival was developed in much the same way. Often times, messages for the students were written on the board early in the morning and the class would read the message together. Other times, Ms. R. simply reminded students to get their work finished before the arrival of their big buddies. Buddy Reading in Ms. R.'s classroom was scheduled after recess, and the morning break disrupted the preparation period. However, once the students returned to the classroom after recess there was a period of frantic preparation as students quickly cleared their desks and started selecting books. In Ms. R.'s room, specific written messages were not provided for buddies giving them directions or telling them what to read. Oral instructions were given to the little buddies to read their Chime In and select Big Books from the side of the room, picture books from the Reading Center at the back of the room or 1 stories from the tubs of books on the tables. As Ms. R. explained, "I let them do their thing without much guidance. It's rather 'laid back'." Both the third grade classes had to go downstairs to the "Primary Wing" for Buddy Reading, traversing the length of the school building before arriving at their destination. It was customary for the Grade 3s, to go down to the Grade 1 classrooms. For the Grade 3 students, anticipation for Buddy Reading was not built in the same way. The Grade 3 students went about their daily work, and at the appointed hour the teacher asked them to "line up" for Buddy Reading. They left their work on their desks and departed. The Grade 3 students did not bring any books with them, and so did not build anticipation for the event by going through the book selection process. The Grade 3 teachers' directions to their students focused on their expectation of quiet movement through the school building without disturbing those working in the Library or the Computer Room. Anticipation for Buddy Reading seemed to build as the Grade 3s left their classrooms and traveled towards the Primary Wing. Selecting Books to Read With A Buddy Immediately after the big buddies arrived in the Primary classrooms, students would greet each other, begin to converse and move towards the book displays or tubs of books located in various areas of the Grade 1 classroom. 110 Selecting books to read was both an individual and a shared activity. Sometimes the little buddies picked out books before their big buddies arrived and at times partners selected books together. Maggy described the book selection process as follows: "We look for them and we agree on the books. Sometimes I just let her pick and sometimes I pick." Similarly Kerri said, "I pick sometimes and we agree on it. Hanna picks first and then I pick." Some of the factors that were important in the selection of books to read together were the difficulty level, the length of the book, the inclusion of appealing pictures and illustrations and student familiarity with the story. When asked how he picked a book for his buddy to read, John answered, "You pick what your buddy likes and what you like." Robby responded, "We pick our favorite one," and his little buddy Denny answered, "At the first time we did this [went to the shelf and picked up the book], because I like that Very Hungry Caterpillar." Some of the younger students looked specifically for books that they could read and then picked another "harder book" for their older buddy. Kathy explained," Well, one book for little kids like me, and one book for Natasha, (pause) It might be a favorite book." Kelly examined the pictures and illustrations before selecting a book to read with her buddy. She explained, "You take a book, and you look in the book before you take it because you want to look at the pictures and stories." Students also assessed the difficulty level of the books before they made their selections. When students talked about picking a book that was "good for their buddy" they explained that a "good book" was one that contained words that your buddy could read and was not too long. 111 Sandra explained, "I look everywhere, and if I find a book I might be able to read, I pick it." Lynn stated, "Just pick a book that would be good for you to read." Her big buddy Rina added, "Ask if this ones good for them to read - not too long." The teachers' responses to the question, how do student select books to read to their buddies or for their buddies, echoed the students' selection criteria discussed previously. Ms. B., one of the first grade teachers, explained that students selected "books on the class theme", "picked books that interest them" and "picked a favorite book to read and reread." Ms. R., the other Grade 1 teacher, said, "Usually the little buddy chooses so that their interest is peaked and the book is at the little buddy's level." The Grade 3 teachers' responses were similar. "Seventy-five to eighty per cent had books they were already reading" and "would pick an easy book to read to their buddy' was Ms. T.'s explanation. Ms. M. felt that students "browse the shelves and choose books to read. [Students] may need some directions from the teacher." All the teachers described how students, primarily the little buddies, picked favorite books that were interesting and easy to read. Reading Together Once each student had picked out one or two books and buddies had agreed on the selections, they moved to the place where they were going to 112 read together. In Ms. B.'s classroom, this was usually the little buddy's desk. There were stacks of chairs at the side of the room for the big buddies. Big buddies would get a chair and sit beside their little buddy. The format in Ms. R.'s classroom for Buddy Reading was less structured than for Ms. B.'s class, and students were given more freedom to read in the hall, or the coat room. Buddy Reading time for Ms. R.'s and Ms. M.'s classes was approximately 40 minutes long and students were allowed to "do a fun activity" for the last 10 minutes, after they had finished reading together. Fun activities that students could choose included working on the class computer, sorting sets of math manipulatives, playing a board game, drawing together or completing some art work. It should be noted that fun activities were not considered to be a reward for good behavior while reading or even considered to be preferable to Buddy Reading. They were simply alternate activities for those students whose attention span was shorter. Many of the Grade 1 and 3 students sustained an intense focus on reading for approximately 30 minutes but could not concentrate on the Buddy Reading activity for the entire 40 minute period. Ms. R. and Ms. M. allowed these students to switch to another learning focused activity while the remainder of the class continued reading with their buddies, Students always sat beside each other, often with their chairs touching. Sometimes students would lie on the floor, side by side. No students were observed sitting facing each other. The student who was reading would often sit slightly in front of the listener, three to four inches in front of their buddy. Their 113 shoulders would overlap slightly. Big buddies would often look at the text and illustrations in the book over their little buddies' shoulder. When the younger children would make a mistake, their big buddy would simply turn their head to the side and whisper the correct word in their little buddy's ear. Sitting slightly behind the person reading facilitated input from the listener when unfamiliar words were encountered. This relative body position of listener and reader was assumed by both older and younger students. When the students would switch the roles of listener and reader, they would also change their relative positions with the reader in front and the listener behind. Sitting side by side, but slightly staggered, seemed to signal an acceptance and understanding of the dominant role of the reader and the passive role of the listener by the students who were working together cooperatively. In two instances, students did not seem to understand or accept their roles as reader and listener, or of big and little buddy. On occasion, these students would try to read the story in competition with each other. This should not be confused with choral or echo reading as these students interrupted each other as they tried to read louder or faster than their buddy. Students competing rather than working cooperatively were observed sitting side by side, directly in line with each other. Neither student wanted to be the listener. Both students wanted to assume the role of the reader. Interaction between these students was often loud and confrontational with minor displays of anger on occasion. As this was their first experience assuming the role of the older buddy, one may hypothesize that some of the younger or immature Grade 3 students 114 experienced difficulty making the transition from the role of little buddy to that of big buddy. In this situation, students were encouraged to work out their differences. The teachers monitored the situation, but they did not intervene unless other students were disturbed by the confrontation. Teachers did not instruct students and tell them how they should sit with their reading partner, nor did teachers explicitly direct listeners to whisper the correct words in their buddy's ear or help them pronounce words. When students were asked who taught them how to read with another student, big buddies responded that they were simply replicating the behavior that they had seen modeled when in Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2 by their older reading partners. When the third grade students were in younger grades they found it helpful to be told the correct words, and so as big buddies they used the same strategies when reading with younger students. Roles and behavioral expectations were passed down from big to little buddy. Appropriate tone of voice, mode of response to oral reading errors, relative seating position, and decoding strategies were modeled by the older children for their younger partners. When students finished making their book selections, they would read their Chime In poems and then begin to read the books that the younger buddies chose. Some students skipped the Chime In practice and moved directly to the story reading so Ms. B. and Ms. T. often circulated around the room reminding students to read their Chime In. With approximately 20 students reading aloud to their buddies, it was a very noisy room. 11 As buddies sat close together, they read to each other in a softer voice than would be used for regular conversation. When video taped, students started reading in a loud voice as if their reading was intended to be shared with both their buddy and the researcher. In most cases, after reading the first page of their story, students began to read in a much softer voice. If they were asked to read louder, students would oblige for a short period of time and then revert to a softer voice. The sharing of books, within the context of a Buddy Reading session may be described as a private interaction between two students and not a public reading for observation or others' entertainment. The lowered volume of the students' voices while reading may be seen as an indicator of the private nature of their interaction. When students were reading together and the reader encountered a word they did not know, or incorrectly read a word, their buddy would tell them the correct word. Most often, the word was whispered in the reader's ear almost immediately. Big buddies were observed offering correct responses without waiting for their little buddies to try to "sound out" or struggle to decode unknown words. It was not obvious whether the older buddies were simply impatient or whether they corrected oral reading errors swiftly to enhance comprehension, preventing long pauses that may potentially interrupt the flow of the story. When students were asked what they would do if their buddy did not know a word, approximately half the students said they would help their buddy sound out the word. As Maggy, a big buddy, explained, "I help her sound it out. If she can't sound the word, she starts and I help her." Rina, also a Grade 3 116 buddy, said, "Try to sound it out for them. Then she can get it." Steve responded, "I help him sound it out," and Matt, his younger partner, answered, "If I'm having a hard time, he helps me sound it out." Mike and Bob would resort to asking for the teacher's help when they were unable to decode a word. As Bob explained, "First, I try to sound out the word, and then put up my hand to ask the teacher. Then she tells us." Bob's little buddy Mike reiterated, "We put up our hand. We ask the teacher and she sounds it out and we try to guess the word and she says it right, so we know its right." The other half of the students said that they would tell their buddy the word. Ashley said, "I whisper it in her ear, or I just tell her", and Natasha explained, "I correct her. I tell her what word is the right word." Little buddies Denny and Kelly explained, "He whispers to me, and then I talk it out loud and then we begin our reading", and Kelly said, "She says it, and you say it, and continue on." Student responses to this interview question differed from actual observed classroom practice. Although half the students said that they would sound out the word for their buddies, only one dyad was observed sounding out a word, letter by letter. More often the older student would say the unfamiliar word slowly, making a slight pause between syllables. During the video taping sessions, older buddies were not observed asking or telling their partner to sound out the word." Willy explained that "you usually tell them the word or pronounce the word... [a compound word]. Put one finger over one word and read the first word. Then you read the other word and put it together." Willy's 11 description of "pronouncing words" may have been a more accurate way to illustrate the decoding strategies used by the older students than the term "sound out". When teachers were asked how they thought big and little buddies helped each other decode unfamiliar words, all four teachers responded that the students would simply tell each other the unknown words. The teachers felt that telling or pronouncing the correct word was the most commonly used strategy. Ms. T. reported that she "heard some kids saying 'sound it out' but more often the big buddy would tell their little buddy the unknown word." Ms. B. suggested that older buddies "may help sound out words ... may use decoding skills ... may use picture clues or do appropriate word substitution," and Ms. M. added that "teachers encourage the use of phonics and sounding." Studies of precocious Grade 1 readers suggested that scaffolding, or a running dialogue by a proficient reader, characterized the interaction between adults and children as they read together. However, buddies reading together seldom spoke, other than to read the text of their chosen story. The use of scaffolding was not evident during the classroom observation sessions nor during the video recorded readings. As students read together, there was little or no discussion about the plot of the story, the characters, the setting or the illustrations in the selected books. Occasionally, the child reading would stop and point to an illustration and the partners would laugh together at an aspect of the picture they found funny. For example, in one version of the tale of The Old Lady Who Swallowed a Flv. 118 students often stopped at the page depicting the old lady swallowing a dog. Grade 1 and Grade 3 students were amused by the illustration of a pedestrian walking along the sidewalk with a leash and empty dog collar trailing behind. They laughed together as they looked at the picture of the old lady growing ever fatter after she swallowed the pedestrian's pet. Gestures rather than words were a common form of communication during Buddy Reading sessions. Other than asking what book their buddy wanted to read next, there was little or no discussion between students as they read. In the interview, when buddies were asked how they helped each other understand the author's message, and what they would do if their buddy did not understand the story, most students hesitated before responding and looked rather puzzled. After some thought, a majority of the children responded that they would tell their buddy what was happening. Lynn said, "Just tell your buddy what's happening", and Bob responded, "I tell what the story's about. Like he says, 'I don't get it', so I tell him." Two students who were buddies responded that they would reread the story together. As Kerri explained, "Go over it with her again. Ask questions at the end." Five of the children explained that they did not have any trouble understanding the story because they always picked stories that were their "favorites". Maggy, speaking for herself and her big buddy explained, "It never happened to us before, so she doesn't know what to do. I always look at the stories to see which ones I understand. I know all the words." Joe, responding in a similar fashion said, "We always understand the story 'cause we understand 119 the words." His older buddy, Robby, added, "He always understands. He chooses his favorite books; ones he can read; easy ones." Kathy explained, '"Cause I always pick out books I know how to read. I know how to read them!" Many students selected the same books to read with their buddies on more than one occasion. Denny, for example, always liked to read the story The Very Hungry Caterpillar, because he made a caterpillar book when he was in Kindergarten. Matt liked to read the big book Brown Bear. Brown Bear (Martin, 1970). One day he read three slightly different versions because he liked the variety of illustrations in each rendering of the story. Many of the students liked to re-read the Chime In poem, Walk. Walk. Walk to School because it was the first one that was in their notebook, the first poem they learned in Grade 1, and the poem with which they were most familiar. Some of the books were so familiar that partners memorized the text. Under such conditions, one wonders if students felt it unnecessary to discuss the stories. Hence, the puzzled look when students were asked how they helped each other understand the stories they read. When the teachers were asked how the students helped each other understand the author's message, two of the four teachers responded that they "did not know." Ms. B., a Grade 1 teacher, responded that she "didn't suggest the students help each other understand the author's message." Sometimes i students were heard talking about the details of the story but not themes. The other Grade 1 teacher, Ms. R., explained, "We never talked about this." While one of the Grade 3 teachers was not aware of ways buddies helped each other 120 understand the author's message, the other teacher explained that sometimes "students laugh and talk about stories together" but "some kids may not say anything if they're just that kind of kid" (Ms. M.). Students were observed helping each other as they read. Aside from correcting oral reading errors or helping to decode unfamiliar words, listening buddies could be seen using their finger to track along the line of print if there was a tendency for the reader to lose their place on the page. Big buddies were also observed turning the pages of the book for their little buddies. When books were large and awkward, each buddy often held one side of the book. In addition to sounding out, pronouncing and telling unknown words, big buddies were seen pointing to illustrations as picture cues. This assistance was not acknowledged by either the students or the teachers when they were asked how buddies helped each other as they read. Summary of Research Findings In the school where the research data were collected, Buddy Reading was an important part of the school culture. All persons in the building were involved in either the organization of the program, or were active participants. Procedures and role expectations were passed down from class to class, and from grade to grade, as little buddies in the early primary grades became big buddies in Grade 3. The Buddy Reading program was considered to be one of 121 the school "traditions" and predated all current staff and administration in the school. New teachers to the school felt that were not free to choose whether they wanted to participate in the Buddy Reading program. They were told "you are supposed to" have reading buddies for your students. From a cultural stance, Buddy Reading was considered an important activity and was an integral aspect of the school culture and traditions. Procedures for the Buddy Reading sessions were ritualistic in nature. The older students always went to the Grade 1 classrooms, and the Grade 1 teachers assumed the responsibility for organizing the program. Anticipation for the literacy event was built by the teachers of the younger students. The Grade 1 teachers wrote messages on the first grade blackboards and directed the reading of the messages. The Grade 1 teachers paired students as buddies if the children were not allowed to choose their own buddy. Ms. B. and Ms. R. supplied copies of the Chime In poems and easy reading books for the buddies. Each time the students met, the Grade 1 teachers directed the activity and the Grade 3 teachers acted as their assistants, monitoring students' behavior. At the appointed hour, the Grade 3 students helped clean up the Grade 1 classroom, lined up when instructed by the teachers, and returned upstairs to their classrooms. After each Buddy Reading session, the Grade 3s either prepared for the recess or lunch break. Ms. T.'s Grade 3 students would collect their recess snack at 10:30 and go outside to play while Ms. M's students returned to their classroom at 11:40 to resume working on projects and 122 assignments that had been left sitting on their desks. Teacher and student roles were well defined and routines ritualistically repeated themselves twice weekly. Teachers held high expectations for big buddies, and it appears that they anticipated that the older students would model effective reading strategies, help younger buddies decode difficult words, stay on task and set a good example for appropriate behavior. Student expectations were more task oriented as younger students expected older buddies to help them become better readers. Students and their teachers held many common views and perceptions. Both students and teachers agreed that Buddy Reading should be an enjoyable activity, but that improvement of reading ability was also important. Student and teachers' perceptions of the procedures used to pair classes, select buddies, select reading materials, decode unfamiliar words and understand the author's message were similar. Teachers' instructions to students focused on behavioral expectations not on how to read with a partner. An assumption was made by the teachers that older students would be able to model appropriate reading behavior without explicit instruction. Teachers did not discuss the use of decoding or comprehension strategies prior to initiating the Buddy Reading Program. While teachers' and students' perceptions often matched the observed classroom practices, there was a discrepancy between the reported strategies used to decode unfamiliar words and authentic classroom activities. While approximately half of the 20 students responded that they would ask their 123 partner to sound out unfamiliar words, this practice was not observed. Typically, big buddies simply told their little buddies unknown words. As the students read together, patterns of behavior were observed. Students liked to sit beside each other when reading. They tended to read in a tone of voice that was lower than the volume used in a conversation. The listener or the big buddy would whisper corrections or tell the reader words that were difficult. Often times the big buddy would whisper directly in their little buddy's ear. When younger students lost their place on the page, their buddies would track along the line of text with their finger. Listeners would also help by turning pages, holding large books or pointing out picture cues for unknown words. Gestures rather than words were used by buddies as they read together and pointed out funny illustrations or humorous parts of the story. Little buddies selected books by looking for ones that were "good" for them. Not too difficult. Not too long. Sometimes the younger students would pick out easy books for themselves and harder books for their older buddies. Teachers assumed that big and little buddies would talk to each other as they read their Chime In poems and stories, and use scaffolding strategies to enhance comprehension and build knowledge of vocabulary. Observations of Grade 1 and Grade 3 students yielded the information that little or no scaffolding was taking place as students read. Unlike adults who often comment on vocabulary and clarify background information and story content, students did not engage in these types of "running commentaries" as they read to each other. 124 Students enjoyed reading the text of the stories to each other but did not engage in dialogue about the books they had read. Finally, friendship was one of the key social components of the Buddy Reading program. Teachers chose friends who held similar educational view and paired their classes for the Buddy Reading program. Students recognized and acknowledged that friendship was important between teachers and between the buddies. For the students, buddies were friends. In the minds of the students, children who were not friends could not be buddies. The friendships established between the children of different ages were transferred to the playground where students of differing ages played together. In conclusion, the research results seem to indicate that Buddy Reading was a important literacy event for the participants of this study. The program became an established part of the school culture and a twice weekly ritual, however, acceptance of the practice based on "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" may have lulled the organizers into a sense of complacency and effected their ability to view the program with a critical eye and make changes when necessary. As it stands, no procedures are in place to measure the effectiveness of the program or to insure that the perceived benefits accrue to the students. Nor has thought been given to the accuracy of assumptions made about the effectiveness and ability of the third graders to model appropriate reading skills. More attention to the initial instructions given students may cue buddies not only to teachers' anticipation of appropriate conduct, but illuminate teachers' expectations about modeling appropriate reading skills and behavior. 125 Chapter V DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION Discussion of Results Buddy Reading, as observed and video recorded in this study, was a literacy event that paired 20 students as they shared the reading of books in 10 pairs. Classroom teachers facilitated this type of event by teaming two classes, scheduling regular times for students to meet, reviewing behavioral expectations, and by monitoring "on task" behavior as buddies read together. Teachers reported that students benefited from participating in the Buddy Reading Program because their oral reading ability improved, students developed a positive attitude towards reading, pro-social skills evolved and friendships grew between students of different ages. Observation of the organizational procedures used by the teachers, and the events associated with the twice weekly reading sessions, yielded information about the cultural aspects of the Buddy Reading program. At the elementary school where the study took place, reading with a buddy was considered a "tradition", and three of the four teachers described it as such. Buddy Reading was firmly entrenched in the school culture. Neither teachers, nor administrators new to the school, questioned the existence of the program, the accepted procedures, or the relevance of the activity. 126 Mullis & Fincher (1996), in their article Using Rituals to Define the School Community, described several forms of rituals. One type of ritual was described as "patterned interactions or patterned routines." As the authors explained, these rituals were "not consciously planned but tended to develop spontaneously over time" (p.245). The Buddy Reading program appeared to be a "patterned routine" followed by all the teachers and students in the school, and sanctioned by the administration. This spontaneous development resulted in some minor differences in routine procedures between the two Grade 1 classes. While one first grade teacher allowed children to select their own buddies, the other teacher assigned partners. In one Grade 1 classroom new buddies were selected every four to six weeks while in the other room buddies were assigned for the balance of the year. Three distinct stages were evident in the Buddy Reading ritual. First, teachers helped build anticipation and excitement as students ceased their regular classroom activities, made preparations for their arrival of their buddies and waited in anticipation of the event. Second, when the third graders arrived in the Grade 1 classroom, buddies shared the reading of favorite books and poems. When the allocated time passed, students cleaned up, put all the books away, stacked their chairs and returned to their respective classrooms. After the buddies left the Grade 1 classroom, the third stage of the ritual commenced when the first grade students shared reactions and comments with their peers. For example, one day Hanna proudly explained that her buddy had brought stickers from home as a reward for good reading. Similarly, Denny told his 127 classmates how his big buddy had brought him a birthday card. Sandra received an invitation to her buddy's birthday celebration and boasted to all her class mates. Other students shared the titles of favorite books that had been read together, or plans to play together at recess or lunch. The observed stages during the Buddy Reading ritual were similar to the three stages described by Van Gennep (1960). The author discussed a "Separation" stage when "preparations were made, knowledge was passed on, and the scene was set for the ritual." The second stage was labeled the "Transitional" stage and occurred when "the participants experience and take part in the ritual events" (p.244). The third stage took place after the event concluded and was a time when "people reconnect with their community, bearing new status and bringing them new information and awareness," and was called the "Incorporation" (p.244). Little buddies who worked cooperatively with older students achieved elevated peer status as they received recognition for social acceptance by the older students. Some students also received a new social status as they were accepted into their buddy's playground group. This was particularly evident among the boys when team sports, like soccer, were played at recess and lunch. Finally, students received a new status as "good readers" when their oral reading skills improved with continued practice and an increased confidence in their abilities. It has been suggested that the "power of rituals lies in their involving participants in activities that instruct through cognitive and affective channels simultaneously" (Mullis & Fincher, 1996, p.244). Buddy Reading may be considered as an example of an activity that effectively utilized the cognitive and 128 affective domains to improve reading skills. The teachers who were involved in the study firmly believed that through participation in the Buddy Reading program, students' attitude towards reading, decoding skills, comprehension and reading fluency improved. While part of the improvement may be attributed to developmental growth over time, the supportive relationship between buddies, based upon friendship and cooperation, may also be seen as a contributing factor to students' increased reading skill and the growth of a positive attitude towards reading. Students recognized the importance of a positive relationship, and while some students reported that reading with buddies was fun, others said that the best thing was sharing stories with a friend. Many of the students appreciated the opportunity to read and have access to books. As Drew explained, "Its fun. That I get to read a lot, and I get to read all day. That I like my buddy helping me." While the relationship between some students was simply that of reader and listener, many of the buddies developed a close, "nurturing" type of relationship. In one classroom there was a large tub chair in the reading corner. Many of the children chose to sit together in the tub chair as they shared their books. One of the pair would often put an arm around their buddy's shoulder as they were reading. Students who had developed a nurturing relationship appeared to enjoy the closeness and intimacy of reading together. These students looked forward to their Buddy Reading sessions, and expressed concern when they could not meet because of scheduling conflicts with holidays and special school events. Reading buddies who shared a close relationship were sometimes observed singing rather than reading to their partner as they paged through books of 129 children's rhymes and poems. One book that was presented in this fashion by two pairs of reading buddies was the traditional rhyme, The Old Ladv Who Swallowed A Fly. Steve and Maggy, both big buddies, started singing and their younger partners Matt and Sandra joined them. Buddies who developed a close relationship with each other seemed to be willing to engage in more "risk taking" types of behaviors, like singing and chanting, than were students whose relationship was simply that of reader and listener. While the four teachers involved in the study observed improvements in students' reading and social skills, assumptions were made about the reasons for the improvements, and about the type of student interactions that took place during Buddy Reading sessions. One assumption made by the teachers was that older students entered into the buddy relationship knowing how to help their little buddies as they read together. It was assumed that big buddies would help decode unfamiliar words, check comprehension and keep their little buddies on task. The teachers who took part in the study assumed that older, more proficient readers were able to model appropriate decoding and comprehension skills, and so did not provide explicit or direct instructions in these areas. In the words of Ms. R., one of the Grade 1 teachers, "I don't know... We never talked about this." When the teachers were asked how students responded to oral reading errors and how buddies helped each other understand the author's message, Ms. T., a third grade teacher answered, "I don't know... maybe the Grade 1 teacher helps with this." Before the Grade 3 students met with their little buddies for the first time, their teachers reviewed behavioral expectations. Ms. T explained, "I go over the 130 expectations with the Grade 3s. It's their first time as older buddies." Ms. T. also told them that "older buddies are leaders,... work out problems... work quietly... no fooling around." The other Grade 3 teacher, Ms. M., told her students that "good listening is important" and that "it's OK to help each other read". Teachers assumed that students understood how to help another child as they read together, and that students understood the roles of little and big buddies. The Grade 3 teachers' instructions to students before the first session were a review of behavioral expectations and reinforcement of the Buddy Reading ritual, rather than an orientation for the uninitiated. The teachers were confident that the Grade 3 students could read with a younger student. However, they were not as confident that the older students would behave appropriately in a stimulating environment with two classes of students in one room. When students met for the first time, they automatically selected books and sat down to read. Very little teacher intervention was observed. It was as if students simply replicated previous Buddy Reading experiences. All students in the school had participated in the program as little buddies. Students experienced the modeling of appropriate big buddy behavior when they were in Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2. One may hypothesize that as students matured and moved into more responsible positions, they simply followed the example of the big buddies who came before them. Their big buddies told them the correct words, and so the Grade 3s told their little buddies the correct word when an error was made. Big buddies sat close and whispered softly into their ear, and so the third graders did the same with their little buddies. The ritualistic practices of Buddy Reading 131 continued through successive waves of little and big buddies without the need for extensive adult intervention. The roles of older buddies and younger buddies were dictated by the school culture and tradition, reviewed by the teachers before the first Buddy Reading session, and reinforced during the weekly Buddy Reading ritual. It was assumed that the parallel relationship between younger and older students would remain unaltered for the duration of the school year. All participants in the study were considered to be "average readers" at the beginning of the school year, but as the year progressed some of the Grade 1 students' reading skills developed rapidly. The gap between the ability level of the Grade 1 and Grade 3 readers narrowed. As the gap narrowed, the relationship between the effected students changed from that of big and little reading buddies, to that of equals or peers. In one of the first grade classrooms, the teacher assigned partners for the entire year, and so it was difficult for students to maintain the roles assigned to them. In the other Grade 1 classroom students were allowed to change buddies, and so were able to maintain the little buddy / big buddy relationship and avoid conflicts than might arise from the confusion of roles. Viewing the roles of the buddies from a social stance, the interaction between students was seen as a means of constructing knowledge about the reading process. Older students, who were more proficient readers assisted their younger partners as they read orally. The relationship between reading partners may be explained in terms of Vygotsky's (1978, 1989) concept of the "Zone of Proximal Development". McGlynn-Stewart (1996) explained that "the lower level of one's 132 zone is set by what one can understand or accomplish on one's own. The upper limit is what one can understand or accomplish with the aid of a teacher or more accomplished peer" (p.69). As some of the younger students' reading development progressed at a faster rate than that of their older buddies, their relationship changed and the Zone of Proximal Development narrowed. Accomplishment with the assistance of an older buddy did not differ greatly from independent accomplishments. This created an easiness in some relationships as the roles of big and little buddy were altered, or in one case reversed. When roles were altered, students appeared to become confused and were unsure of behavioral expectations, the appropriate way they should respond to their buddy, and the altered nature of the buddy relationship. For some students this confusion led to frustration and displays of inappropriate behavior during the Buddy Reading sessions. A second assumption made by the teachers was that Buddy Reading could be used as an alternative or substitute for a home reading program for students whose parents did not read or share literature with them. When asked why they organized a Buddy Reading for their students, Ms. B. responded, "A number of kids don't have the opportunity to read at home... [it] gives the students practice reading out loud." In studies of precocious readers, Durkin (1977) discovered that early readers had parents who encouraged reading and read to their children on a regular basis. Parents answered their children's questions and provided them with enriching experiences and a wide variety of educational materials. Parents also engaged 133 their children in conversations about the places they had visited as well as shared reading and extension activities. Ninio & Bruner (1978) described the parent conversation that supported early reading as "scaffolding dialogue". According to Harris & Hodges (1995), "scaffolds provide support for learners that can be taken down and removed as learners are able to demonstrate strategic behaviors in their own learning activities" (p.226). Rosenhouse and colleagues (1997) explained that "studies of the benefits of parents' reading stories to their children led to the transfer of this activity from the home to formal educational institutions" (p. 168). Student interactions during Buddy Reading were very different from the parent and child activities described by Doake (1981), Beed, Hawkins & Roller (1991), or Kelsius & Griffith's (1996) description of "lap reading". During the Buddy Reading sessions, students read, chanted, or sang the text of the stories and poems to each other. Big buddies did not engage in scaffolding dialogues with their younger partners, nor did they ask or answer questions about the stories they read. Occasionally, buddies might point to a humorous illustration, and once a buddy asked her partner to show her favorite picture in a book, but students did not deviate from the printed text of the book they had selected to read together. Beed, Hawkins & Roller (1991) also explained that the goal of scaffolding dialogue was to promote independence and so "as the child grows in competence, the parent encourages the child to assume more and more of the responsibility for completing the task of performance" (p.649). As scaffolding dialogue was not used by peers during the Buddy Reading sessions, there was no gradual transferring of responsibility for reading the selections from skilled to novice reader. 134 Children's reading-like behavior was described by Holdaway (1979) and Doake (1981). Doake (1981) described four stages used by children as they became familiar with stories that were read to them. First children would "mumble read" and then with each reading of the story the mumbling would become clearer. Mumble reading led to reading in unison, and finally the child would read the story on their own. During Buddy Reading, favorite stories were read and read, and so one would anticipate that the stages Doake (1981) described could be observed. As big buddies read to their younger partners, the younger children seemed to listen to the stories but did not attempt to mumble read. However, mumble reading was observed when the younger children read to their Grade 3 partners. Some lip movements and mumbling was observed as the third graders followed the text in the book. These students appeared to be following the text intently, and were poised to correct the oral reading errors of their Grade 1 buddies when a mistake was made. The reverse was not true as little buddies listened to their big buddies read. And so one may argue that reading books at home with a parent and sharing books within the Buddy Reading program, with a beginning reader and a proficient reader, were two different activities that could not be substituted one for the other. The Grade 3 buddies did not engage in scaffolding activities, nor did they participate in the Buddy Reading Program by gradually transferring responsibility and independence to their younger partners. Little buddies did not mumble read or read in unison as Doake (1981) predicted. Scaffolding dialogue, when adult and 135 child read together, appeared to differ greatly from little and big buddy mannerisms when reading. Research questions probing the social and textual stances towards Buddy Reading focused on students' and teachers' perceptions and the comparison of perceptions with observed events. What students and teachers thought happened was compared with what actually happened. When the respondents interview answers and notes of observations were compared, both similarities and discrepancies were noted between students' and teachers' perceptions of the events, and the observed events in the classroom. Reading buddies and their teachers held similar views of how classes were paired for Buddy Reading, and classroom practices closely followed the teachers' descriptions. In one of the Grade 1 classes, the selection of buddies was orchestrated by the teachers, and student perceptions accurately reflected actual practice. In the other first grade classroom students selected their own partners, and the teachers' and students' description of the practice was comparable. Similar perceptions were held by both teachers and students when they were asked how classes were paired for the Buddy Reading Program. Only six of the twenty students responded that they were not aware of the process that was used. The remainder of the students and the four teachers mentioned that friendship and the age of the students were important factors. Friendship between teachers was seen as important by half of the students and all four of the teachers. The appropriateness of the age spread between the first and third grade students was 136 mentioned by three of the four teachers, and students recognized that it was desirable to have buddies of differing ages. Congruence between teachers' perceptions, students' perceptions and classroom activity was also noted as the book selection process was described in the interviews and observed weekly in each classroom. Students often picked favorite books that were at an easy reading level, and teachers recognized this. On a rotating basis, the teachers replenished their classroom collections of books as they moved from theme to theme. New books on display were brought to the children's attention, and teachers often selected one of theses new books to read during "circle time" when the class would gather together, share news and important information and listen to the teacher read aloud. Observation of students as they selected favorite stories to read was similar to the findings of Martinez and Teale (1988) who found that early readers chose very familiar books three times as often as unfamiliar books. From a social stance or perspective, the Buddy Reading Program achieved many of the social goals described by the teachers in their interviews. The teachers saw Buddy Reading as an opportunity for students to improve their social skills and interact with children of different ages. Additionally, teachers felt that there was a positive effect on playground behavior as older and younger students associated and played together. Interestingly, when students were asked about the purpose for Buddy Reading, they did not list making new friends as one of the benefits of the program. Students felt that the primary purpose of the program was to help them improve 137 their reading ability. Students' responses lead one to believe that dyads held a narrower view of the purpose for organizing the Buddy Reading program, and that they were more task oriented in their perceptions than were their teachers, Another area where students and teachers held differing perceptions was their views of ways the listener could aid the reader as they decoded unfamiliar words and checked comprehension. Teachers reported that students would tell their buddies unknown words and explain the story if there was any confusion. While the teachers encouraged students to sound out words, during the interview the instructors responded that big buddies would tell their partner the word before they would make their little buddies sound it out. The teachers reported they listened to the older students say, "Sound it [the word] out", but this request was heard infrequently. In contrast to the teachers interview responses, only half of the students suggested that they would tell their buddy the word. The other half of the students reported that they would help their buddy with difficult words by helping them sound it out. There was a discrepancy between the student reports and classroom observations of buddies as they read. Only once, in all the hours of observation, was a big buddy see to sounded out a word, letter by letter, for their little buddy. The majority of the time, students were observed telling their partner the word or pronouncing the unknown word. When the students described the decoding strategies that they used, it was difficult to differentiate between pronouncing a word and telling the reader the word. Only once was a buddy observed sounding a word letter by letter for their partner, 138 yet half the students insisted that they used this strategy. One has to question whether developmentally the third graders were beyond sounding words letter by letter, and were able to divide the unknown words into phonograms or syllables, or whether the words in the familiar books were within their sight vocabulary and so it was not necessary to sound out any of the words. The more proficient readers knew almost all the words by sight, and so it was easier for them to correct oral reading errors and tell their buddy the unknown word. If both members of the dyad did not know a word, would they then sound it out letter by letter, or seek clarification from the teacher? This is a question for further investigation. In summary, teachers overestimated the ability of students to help each other decode words, decipher difficult vocabulary and understand the author's message. Inaccurate assumptions were made about the level of student competence, and so teachers did not give direct, explicit directions on how to use various comprehension and decoding strategies. As reported by the teachers, an assumption was also made that Buddy Reading could be used as a substitute form of reading practice for those students whose parents were unable to read with them. Students' understanding of the purpose for initiating the Buddy Reading Program was narrower and more task specific than their teachers, but it was not in conflict with their instructors point of view. "When your buddy doesn't know a word, what do you do?", was the question which proved most difficult for students and teachers to answer. The students' responses did not match classroom practice, nor were they consistent with the teachers' responses or observations. Lack of consensus when distinguishing the differences between sounding words out and pronouncing words 139 may account for differing responses between teachers and students. Familiarity with the text may also have accounted for part of the discrepancy as there were few unknown words to decode, and sounding out words letter by letter may have been unnecessary. Questions for Further Research From its inception, this study was designed to investigate what happened as students read together in the context of a Buddy Reading program, as well as teacher and student perceptions of the literacy event. Observation of students and interviews with the participants have raised many questions which may be suitable topics for further research. From a cultural perspective, the conventions and rituals associated with the Buddy Reading program helped perpetuate the custom as successive classes of students passed through the school, teachers moved to other jobs and new administrators were appointed. The longevity of the program may be attributed to adherence to the Buddy Reading tradition. However, it may be useful for stakeholders to investigate ways to enable Buddy Reading to evolve as the teachers' stated outcomes and students' needs change. Further classroom experimentation and research are necessary to prevent this literacy event from becoming constrained by the school culture and traditions and to maintain flexibility. Classroom and school based research that is focused on developing alternate ways 140 to pair classes, select buddies and communicate initial teacher instructions is needed. The teachers involved in the study stated that they felt that pairing first and third grade students provided an understanding, attentive audience because the older students were mature enough to stay on task, but young enough to be able to relate to their younger buddies as beginning readers. Observations of students as they read together suggested that the roles of big and little buddies became confused when the younger students developed their reading skills at a faster rate than their older partners. When the younger readers were able to read the same material more fluently and accurately than their buddies, confusion about the roles of little and big buddies was observed. This leads one to ask, what is the optimum age spread to have between reading buddies so that the proficient readers are able to maximize their influence and prevent role confusion? What are the best grades to pair in a Buddy Reading program? Do students always have to be in different grades? What benefits are there to having primary aged students paired with upper intermediate students? What are the similarities and differences in the social interaction when first and third graders, or students of other ages read together? Two different types of buddy selection processes were used by the Grade 1 teachers in this study. While one of the teachers assigned partners, the other teacher allowed her students to select their own buddy. Which method was most effective, assigning partners or self-selection? Which method produced more task oriented readers? Which method resulted in less conflict between partners and more positive social interaction? 141 One pair of first and third grade classes switched buddies every four to six weeks. The other classes kept their buddies for the entire year. Researchers may investigate switching buddies frequently as opposed to keeping the same partner for the entire year. What are the benefits of reading with the same partner for the entire year? What are the benefits of selecting new partners every four to six weeks? The interaction between buddies, as observed, was different from research reports of adults and beginning readers' behavior. Buddy Reading was characterized by a lack of scaffolding dialogue between students as they read. Students read the text of the story or poem and did not discuss the story plot, characters or setting. Occasionally, students would point to illustrations and use gestures to bring visual details to the attention of their buddy. Researchers may wish to investigate the nature of scaffolding dialogue between reading buddies. Is the use of scaffolding dialogue a learned skill that is consciously used, or is it a natural form of communication that is used intuitively? Is there an age at which scaffolding dialogue develops in young readers? How can scaffolding be encouraged and enhanced between buddies? When students tell their buddy unknown words, is this an age appropriate form of scaffolding? How do adults, or parents, develop sophisticated scaffolding dialogue? Although students reported that they helped their buddies by sounding out words, this strategy for decoding words was not observed as students read together. There was also a discrepancy between teachers and students' perceptions of the decoding strategies that were used. Building on previous 142 research that examined students' perceptions of reading, it may be of interest to determine the buddies' perception of sounding words and compare students' understanding of decoding skills at different ages. What does a child mean when they say they sound out a word? Do first grade students sound out words differently than third grade students? When would big buddies help by sounding out a word for their little buddy? Why do some proficient readers tell their buddy the word? What is the difference between sounding out a word, pronouncing a word and telling your partner the word? What are developmentally appropriate decoding skills for first and third grade students? Students preferred to read and reread books of easy stories that were not too long. They described these stories and poems as favorite books and students said that a book that was "good for you" was one that could be read easily by the individual. At times students each picked out one to two books to read, and at other times students made their selection together. Familiarity with the story line and the text was an important criterion in the selection process. One wonders how children would react if many of the books available for Buddy Reading sessions were new and unfamiliar stories. Would the children continue to select their favorites or would they elect to choose some of the other books? Would more scaffolding dialogue be evident as the new books were read? If the vocabulary in the new books was more difficult, would observers see more evidence of big buddies encouraging their partners to sound out words, or would the older children continue to pronounce and tell the unknown words? What strategies 143 would be used to help the younger students understand the events in the more difficult stories? How would comprehension be monitored by the big buddies? Friendship was one of the cornerstones of the Buddy Reading program. The teachers involved in the study were both colleagues and friends. Students made new friends through the Buddy Reading program and reinforced existing relationships. Students could not imagine having a buddy that was not a friend. For the children, being a buddy meant being a friend. When the teachers placed students in pairs, they considered existing friendships. But what of the student who had no friends, the student who was socially isolated from their peers? How were these students effected by reading with a buddy? What measures could be taken to insure that all students were paired appropriately? What instructions, if any, should be given students before they select their own buddy? What other options were available for students who were unable to work with a younger or older student? To better understand the cultural, social and textual aspects of Buddy Reading, more research needs to be conducted. Particularly important is observation of the social interaction that takes place as students read together. One wonders if Buddy Reading were observed in a different setting, without similar long standing traditions, would the interaction between the students and teachers would be similar? Would the weekly procedures be replicated as a ritual, or would a larger variety of behaviors be observed? What aspects of the influencing school culture would differ? What aspects of the influencing culture would be similar? Future research needs to address these questions as investigators observe students and teachers in other classrooms and schools. 144 From a methodological perspective, researchers investigating Buddy Reading may wish to initiate open discussions with students and teachers rather than use a set of structured interview questions. This may allow further probing of students' and teachers' perceptions and may reveal additional related topics for investigation. Continued video taping of open discussions is strongly recommended to allow multiple viewings of student and teacher responses. In this study, a modified photographic interview format was used when student perceptions of Buddy Reading were elicited. Students were shown 5 to 10 minute video clips of themselves as they read together before answering the structured interview questions. This type of interview seems to have promise because it allows students to base their perceptions on concrete images rather than abstract thoughts, and appears to help minimize the number of "I don't know" responses. Researchers need to experiment to further develop this methodology. For example, future researchers may use video recording as an interactive form of multimedia, stopping the tape at poignant spots and asking students to comment on, or explain their behaviors. Rather than respond to structured questions, the students could respond by commenting directly on the images before them or by explaining or commenting on their recorded actions. 145 Concluding Statement From the inception of this study, the researcher's purpose was to gain a greater understanding of common literacy events such as Buddy Reading. Approaching Buddy Reading from a multi-dimensional perspective, from the cultural, social and textual stances, provided a broad multi-faceted focus for this investigation. Examining the interaction between students and their perceptions of Buddy Reading highlighted the importance of social, friendship and cooperative skills in literacy activities. Investigation of the school culture associated with Buddy Reading foregrounded the influences beyond the classroom that effect beginning readers. Of particular interest was the influence of the school culture upon the ritualized procedures that were replayed twice weekly as the first and third grade students met. As a visitor to the school or casual observer, one failed to realize the effect of the school culture upon all aspects of learning and classroom activity. In this study of Buddy Reading, it was only after being in classrooms for several months as an observer, and after the teacher interviews were conducted, that the enormity of the cultural influence was recognized by the researcher. As active participants in the culture and the rituals, teachers were too closely involved to realize the effect of traditions upon their actions and decisions. The school culture and traditions were accepted because they appealed to the educators' "common sense" and appeared to have "face validity". Teachers felt compelled to adhere to the school traditions even if the underlying rationale had become obscured over 146 time. Ms. T. and Ms. M.'s responses to the question, "Why did you organize a Buddy Reading program for your students?", typified the effect of the school culture. Both educators responded, "I don't know, [pause] It's a tradition in the school." Both teachers had unquestioningly accepted the tradition of Buddy Reading. The longevity of the Buddy Reading Program and the assumption of acceptance by all previous teachers made it difficult to make changes to the general format. When a staff member who was not part of the study suggested that classes be paired "by pulling names out of a hat", no verbal response was given by staff members. No verbal response was needed. All who heard the suggestion in the staff room made eye contact with the speaker. The suggestion was then quickly withdrawn. On the other hand, the differences observed in the two first grade classrooms signaled that within the structure of the Buddy Reading program there was a place for inter-class differences. Mullis & Fincher's (1996) description of "patterned interactions or patterned routines" seemed to aptly describe Buddy Reading because in each classroom there was a slightly different pattern of events that fit within the broader tradition of Buddy Reading. Students were also deeply effected by the school culture and the traditions; from the "favorite" books they selected, to the relative positions that they assumed when reading with their buddy; from the tone of voice that they used, to their affirmations of friendship. Students first learned about reading buddies in Kindergarten, and each year the experience was replicated, first as little buddies and later as big buddies. 147 The roles of big and little buddies were also effected by the school culture and traditions. The more proficient readers were assumed to be the older students. Big buddies were also expected to posses and utilize leadership abilities. As Ms. M. stated, one of the expectations for the big buddies was to "make it a Grade 1 focus" and Ms. B. explained the "older buddies are accountable for younger buddies." Ms. R., a first grade teacher, thought that big buddies should "let the little kids choose the books they want to read." It was assumed that the Grade 1 students would be the primary beneficiaries of the opportunity for additional reading practice. That the third graders might benefit from extra practice was seen as an unexpected gain. The roles of the Grade 1 and Grade 3 teachers were also effected by the school culture and traditions. Clearly, the role of the first grade teachers was to direct the Buddy Reading activity, and the role of the third grade teachers was to be supportive assistants who monitored behavior and insured that students remained on task. The first grade teachers prepared for the arrival of their buddies by readying students, organizing books to read, and preparing materials for occasional non-reading buddy activities. The third grade teachers did not participate in the preparations and fulfilled expected duties by marshalling their students and arriving on time. The effect of school culture, traditions and classroom rituals was easily overlooked and difficult to recognize as a teacher or casual classroom visitor. Observation over a period of several months was needed to become aware of the pattern of recurring events. As time passed, the importance of the school culture as 148 a factor in the continued replication of classroom events became more evident as teachers made reference to Buddy Reading as a tradition in the school, and the ritualized Buddy Reading sessions were replicated, session after session, and week after week. From a social perspective or stance, the important role that friendship played in this literacy event was surprising. When students were reading together as buddies, working and learning cooperatively was not adequate. Students wanted to cultivate friendships, and making friends became an important social component of the Buddy Reading activity. For the vast majority of students, buddies had to be friends. If students were not friends initially, they attempted to gain the other students' confidence and win their approval in a bid to develop a sense of belonging and acceptance. When students were not successful as reading buddies, it was because they had failed to make friends with their partner. For the students, success or failure as a reading buddy was dependent upon social factors rather than upon reading competency. Further investigation is needed to better understand the social relationships between students as they read together. Video recording buddies as they shared the reading of a book confirmed some informal observations and inferences about student social and textual interaction as they read together, and provided some unexpected results. While students perception of Buddy Reading included activities such as singing, chanting or reading the text of a story, they did not include a discussion of the characters or salient features of the narrative. Scaffolding dialogue was not evident as students read together, and this was unexpected. One wonders if the students' inexperience 149 or level of reading aptitude were contributing factors? This question remains unanswered and future research needs to investigate the absence of scaffolding dialogue and story discussion. Students' and teachers' photographic interview responses indicated that they held realistic perceptions of Buddy Reading as they accurately described classroom events. Researcher observations corroborated information supplied by interview participants. What happened in classrooms was closely tied to teachers' and students' perceptions of Buddy Reading sessions. Generally, there was a high degree of congruence between the students' and teachers' perceptions and reality. One exception when students' interview responses departed from observed practices was their descriptions of sounding out words with their buddies. As observed, students told their partner the correct words when oral reading errors were made, and seldom sounded out or pronounced words. This discrepancy necessitates further investigation. In conclusion, three initial questions were posed as a framework for this research study. From a cultural stance or perspective, the study addressed the cultural influences and classroom conventions that effected Buddy Reading. Information was gathered during months of classroom observation as a participant observer. Further data was sought as students were video taped reading together, investigating Buddy Reading from a social / textual stance. Finally, from a social stance, students' and teachers' perceptions were elicited through the photographic interview procedure. Results indicated that students and teachers held many of the 150 same perceptions. Actual classroom events were closely aligned with most of the participants descriptions confirming and validating educators' assumptions. While the understanding of Buddy Reading has been enhanced, this study also served to raise questions for further research into the cultural, social and textual stances towards literacy development. The complex interaction between a beginning reader, the community of learners, the learning environment and the text must be studied to gain a more complete understanding of literacy development. Such information may help teachers understand, control and direct students' literacy learning, participate in the formation of classroom rituals and form a sound theoretical basis for classroom practice. 151 Bibliography Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Anderson, J. (1995). Sharing big books in two grade one classrooms: A case study. Reading Improvement, 32(4), 236-244. Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J .A, & Wilkinson, T.A. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Ayers, William. (1989). Saving lives: Being and teaching. The good preschool teacher: Six teachers reflect on their lives,(pp.1-21). New York: Routledge. Baghban, M.J. (1984). Our daughter learns to read and write: A case study from birth to three. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Barr, R., Kamil, M.L., Mosenthal, P., & Pearson, P.D. (Eds). (1991). The handbook of reading research: Volume II. New York: Longmans. Beach, R. (1994). Adopting multiple stances in conducting literacy research. In R.B. Ruddell, M. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4 th edition), (pp.1203-1219). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Beed, P.L., Hawkins, E.M., & Roller, C. (1991). Moving learners toward independence: The power of scaffolded instruction. The Reading Teacher. 44(9), 648-655. Bennett, L.A., Wolin, S.J., & McAvity, K.J. (1988). Family identity, ritual and myth: A cultural perspective on life cycle transitions. In C.J. Falicov (Ed.), Family transitions: Continuity and change over the life cycle, (pp.211 -234). New York: Guilford. Berk, L.E., & Spuhl, ST . (1995). Maternal interaction, private speech and task performance in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 10(2), 145-169. Betts, E.A. (1940). Reading problems a the intermediate grade level. Elementary School Journal, 15, 737-46. 152 Bliesmer, E.P. (1963). Toward more purposeful oral reading. In A.J. Harris (Ed.), Readings on Reading Instruction, (pp. 400- 404). New York: David McKay. Bloome, D., & Bailey, F. (1992). Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research. In Beach, J. Green, M.L. Kamil & T. Shanahan (Eds.) Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research, (pp.181-210). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly. 28(4), 304-333. Bondy, E. (1984). First graders' socially constructed definitions of reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. Bondy, E. (1990). Seeing it their way: What children's definitions of reading tell us about improving teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 41(5), 33-45. Book, C. (1988).Teachers' concepts of reading, reading concept communicated during instruction, and students' concepts of reading. East Lancing, Ml: Institute for Research on Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED296276). Borko, H. & Eisenhart, Margaret. (1986). Students' conceptions of reading and their reading experiences in school. The Elementary School Journal. 86(5). 589-611. Botel, M. (1961). The Botel reading inventory. Chicago, Illinois: Follett. Botel, M., Bradley, J. , & Kashuba, M. (1970). The validity of informal reading testing. In W.K. Durr (Ed.), Reading difficulties: Diagnosis, correction and remediation, (pp. 85-103) Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association. Bromley, K., Winters, D., & Schlimmer, K. (1994). Book buddies: Creating enthusiasm for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher. 47(5), 392-400. Brown, J., Goodman, K.S., & Marek, A.M. (1996). Studies in miscue analysis: An annotated bibliography. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Brown, M.H. (1986). Shared book experiences in kindergarten: Helping children come to literacy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 1(4), 397-405. 153 Bruinsma, R., (1990). Learning to ride a bike and learning to read: Children's conceptions of reading. Australian Journal of Reading. 13(2), 420-428. Buck, C. (1973). Miscues of non-native speakers of English. In K.S. Goodman (Ed.), Miscue analysis: Applications to reading instruction, (pp. 91-96). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. Cairney, Trevor. (1988). The purpose of basals: What children think. The Reading Teacher. 41(5), 420-428. Caserta-Henry, C. (1996). Reading buddies: A first grade intervention program. The Reading Teacher. 49(6), 500-501. Centurion, C E . (1985). The use of the informal reading inventory and miscue analysis to evaluate oral reading, reading comprehension and language inference/transfer in English as a second language students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&l University, Kingsville. (UMI No. ACC 85-27088) Christenson, A. (1969). Oral reading errors of intermediate grade children at their independent, instructional and frustrational reading levels. In J.A. Figurel (Ed.), Reading and Realism. Volume 13. Part 1. (pp. 674-677). Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association. Clark, M.M. (1976). Young fluent readers. London: Heinemann Educational Books. Clay, M. (1969). Reading errors and self-correction behavior. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 39(1), 47-56. Clay, M. (1982). Observing young readers: Collected papers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cole, M., and Others. (1971). Development of free recall learning in children. Developmental Psychology. 4(2), 109-123. Coomber, J.E. (1971). A psycholinguistic analysis of oral reading errors made by good, average and poor readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. (UMI No. AAC 72-18972) Cowley, J. (1991). Special section: Great big books! Instructor. 101(3). 19-22. 154 Kaestle, C.F., & Damon-Moore, H. (1991). Surveying American readers. In C.F. Kaestle, (Ed.) Literacy in the United States: Readers and reading since 1880. (pp. 180-203). New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Dank, M.E. (1976). A study of the relationship of miscues of the mode of formal reading instruction received by selected second graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. (ED 141 778, UMI No. AAC 76-14676). Davey, B. (1971). A psycholinguistic investigation of cognitive styles and oral reading strategies in achieving and underachieving 4 t h grade boys. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. (UMI NO. AAC 72-6282). Dempsey, J.V. & Tucker, S.A. (1994). Using photo-interviewing as a tool for research and evaluation. Educational Technology. April 1994, 55-62. Denny, T.P., & Weintraub, S. (1963). Exploring first-graders' concepts of reading. The Reading Teacher. 41(4), 420-428 Doake, D.B. (1981). Book experience and emergent reading behavior in preschool children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Doake, D.B. (1985). Reading-like behavior: Its role in learning to read. In A. Jaggar & M.T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Observing the language learner, (pp. 82-97). Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association. Downing, J. (1969). How children think about reading. The Reading Teacher, 23(3), 217-130. Downing, J. (1970). Children's concepts of language in learning how to read. Educational Research. 12(2), 106-112. Downing, J. (1973). The child's concepts of language. Eric Document No. ED094372 Microfilm. Downing, J. , Ollila, L, & Oliver, P. (1975). Cultural differences in children's concepts of reading and writing. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 45(3), 312-316. Downing, J. , Ollila, L. & Oliver, P. (1977). Concepts of language in children from differing socio-economic backgrounds. Journal of Educational Research. 70(5). 277-281. 155 Downing, J. , & Thomson, D. (1977). Sex role stereotypes in learning to read. Research in the Teaching of English. 11(2). 149-155. Durkin, D. (1963). Children who learned to read at home. In A.J. Harris, . (Ed.) Readings on Reading Instruction, (pp.72-76). New York: David McKay Co. Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early: Two longitudinal studies. New York: Teachers College Press. Durkin, D. (1977). Facts about pre-first grade reading. In L.O. Ollila (Ed.) The kindergarten child and reading, (pp. 1-12). Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association. Edwards, D.L. (1958). Reading from the child's point of view. Elementary English. 35(April, 1958), 239-241. Edwards, D.L. (1962). Teaching beginners the purpose of reading. Elementary English. 39(March, 1962), 194-195. Ekwall, E.E. (1974). Should repetitions be counted as errors? The Reading Teacher. 27(5), 365-367. Eldredge, J.L. (1996). Comparing the effectiveness of two oral reading practices: Round robin reading and the shared book experience. Journal of Literacy Research. 28(2), 210-225. Enriquez, B. et al. (1990). Family literacy for parents of preschoolers: A Title VII first year evaluation report. (ED 337 056) Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), Interpretation of Cultures (pp.3-30). New York: Basic Books. Goodman, K.S. (1965). A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary English. 42(6), 639-643. Goodman, Y.M. (1967). A psvcholinguistic description of observed oral reading phenomena in selected young beginning readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. (UMI No. AAC 68-9961) Goodman, Y.M., & Burke, C L . (1972). Reading miscue inventory manual: Procedure for diagnosis and evaluation. New York: Macmillan. 156 Goodman, Y.M., & Goodman, K.S. (1994). To err is human: Learning about language processes by analyzing miscues. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell and H. Singer (Eds.) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. 4 t h Edition, (pp. 104-123). Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association. Gray, W.S. (1917). The relationship of silent reading to economy in education. In G.M. Whipple (Ed.) Second report of the committee on minimal essential in elementary school subjects. Sixteenth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part 1, (pp. 17-32). Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Publishing, Green, J. (1992). Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research. In R. Beach, J. Green, M.L. Kamil & T. Shanahan (Eds.) Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research, (pp. 19-22). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English Green, J.L., & Dixon, C.N. (1993). Taking knowledge into being: Discursive and social practices in classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 5(3-4), 231-239. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1990). What is ethnography? Ethnography: Principles in practice, (pp. 3-26). New York: Tavistock. Harrelson, p.v. (1923). The effects of knowledge of results upon oral and silent reading. Peabodv Journal of Education, 1(1923), 78-85. Harris, T.L. & Hodges, R.E., (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Harrison, C. (1995). Family literacy practices in the United Kingdom - An international perspective. In L.M. Morrow (Ed.), Family literacy: Connections in schools and communities, (pp. 223-235). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Hatch, Amos J. (1990). Young children as informants in classroom studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 5(2), 251-264. Hays, W.S. (1975). Criteria for the instructional level of reading. (ED 117 665). Heckelman, R.G. (1986). N.I.M. revisited. Academic Therapy. 21(4), . 411-420. 157 Heim, K. (1983). Student perceptions of remedial reading. Reading World. 23(1), 54-59. Hewison, J. & Tizard, J. (1980). Parental involvement and reading attainment. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 50(3), 209-15. Hiebert, E.H. (1983). An examination of ability for grouping for reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly. 18(2), 231-55. Hillerich, R.L. (1990). First graders' perceptions of reading and writing. Illinois Reading Council Journal. 18(2), 12-18. Hoffman, J.V. (1985). The oral recitation lesson: A teacher's guide. Austin, Texas: Academic Research Consultants. Hoffman, J.V., Roser, N.L. & Battle, J. (1993). Reading aloud in classrooms: From the modal toward a "model". The Reading Teacher. 46(6). 496-503. Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic. Huey, E.B. (1908, 1968). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Irwin, J. (1969). An analysis of miscues in the oral reading of Canadian Indian children. Paper presented at the 14 t h Annual Convention of the International Reading Association, Kansas City, MO. (ED 033 828). Jensen, L.J. (1972). A psycholinguistic analysis of the oral reading behavior of selected proficient, average and weak readers reading the same material. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. (ED 079 669, UMI No. AAC 73-5408). Johns, J. (1970). Reading: A view from the child. The Reading Teacher. 23(7), 647-648. Johns, J. (1972). Children's concepts of reading and their reading achievement. Journal of Reading Behavior. 4, 56-57. Johns, J. (1974). Concepts of reading among good and poor readers. Education. 95(1), 58-60. Johns, J. (1976). Make reading sensible: Help students discover its essence. Eric Document: ED159645 Microfilm 158 Johns, J.J. (1978). Basic reading inventory. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Johns, J.J. (1982). Advanced reading inventory. Dubuque: Iowa: William C. Brown. Johns, J. (1986). Students' perceptions of reading: Thirty years of inquiry. In D.B. Yaden & S. Templeton (Eds.). Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy, (pp.31-40). Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann. Johns, J. & Ellis, D.W. (1976). Reading: Children tell it like it is. Reading World. 16(2). 115-128. Johnston, F., Juel, C. & Invernizzi, M. (1995). Guidelines for community volunteer reading tutors. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia. Juel, C. (1991). Cross-age tutoring between student athletes and at-risk children. The Reading Teacher. 45(3), 178-186. Juel; C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly. 31_(3), 268-289. Kaestle, C.F., Damon-Moors, H., Stedman, L.C., Tinsley, K., &Trollinger, W.V. (1991). Literacy in the United States: Readers and reading since 1880. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Kamil, E., & Pearson, P.D. (1978). Errors patterns in oral reading. Reading Improvement. 15(1), 33-35. Karlin, R. (1971). Teaching elementary reading. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Klesius, J.P. & Griffith, P.L. (1996). Interactive storybook reading for at-risk learners. The Reading Teacher. 49(7), 552-560. Labo, L.D. & Teale, W.H. (1990). Cross-age reading: A strategy for helping poor readers. The Reading Teacher. 43(6), 326-369. Lamme, L. & Packer, A. (1986). Bookreading behaviors of infants. The Reading Teacher. 39(6), 504-509. Leland, C. & Fitzpatrick, R. (1994). Cross-age interaction builds enthusiasm for reading and writing. The Reading Teacher. 47(4), 292-301. 159 Larking, L. (1988). Repeated readings to young children. Australian Journal of Reading. 11(1), 36-41. Logan, L.M., Logan, V.G., & Paterson, L. (1972). Creative communication: Teaching the language arts. Toronto, Ontario: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Luria, A.R. (1982). Language and cognition. New York: Wiley. MacGillivray, L. & Hawes, S. (1994). "I don't know what I'm doing - they all start with B": First graders negotiate peer reading interactions. The Reading Teacher, 48(3), 210-217. Maring, G.H. (1978). Matching remediation to miscues. The Reading Teacher. 3_1(8), 887-891. Martin, B. (1970). Brown bear, brown bear. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Martinez, M., & Roser, N. (1985). Read it again: The value of repeated readings during storytime. The Reading Teacher. 38(8). 782-786. Martinez, M., & Teale, W.H. (1988). Reading in a kindergarten classroom library. The Reading Teacher. 41(6), 568-572. Mathieson, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher. 17(2), 13-17. McCracken, R. A. (1966). A standard reading inventory. Bellingham, Washington: Pioneer Printing. McCracken, R.A., & Mullen, N.D. (1970). The validity of certain measures in an I.R.I. In W.K. Durr (Ed.), Reading difficulties: Diagnosis, correction and remediation, (pp. 104-110). Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association. McDade, J. (1944). Examination of a recent criticism of non-oral beginning reading. Elementary School Journal. 44, 766-772. McGlynn-Stewart, M. (1996). A language experience approach to elementary geometry. In Z. Donahue, M. Van Tassell,, & L. Patterson, (Eds.), Research in the Classroom: Talk, texts, and inguirv. (pp. 65-80). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Mead, C D . (1917). Results in silent versus oral reading. Journal of Educational Psychology. 8(June 1917), 367-368. 160 Meloth, M.S., Book, C , Putnam, J., & Sivan, E. (1989). Teachers' concepts of reading, reading instruction, and students' concepts of reading. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 33-39. Metsala, J.L. (1997). Effective primary-grade literacy instruction = Balanced literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher. 50(6), 518-521). Meyers, M., & Paris, S.G. (1978). Children's metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology. 70(5), 680-690. Michel, P.A. (1988). Children's perceptions of reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University: Syracuse, New York. Miles, MB . & Huberman, M.A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Miller, B.L. (1977). Assisted reading as a remedial reading technigue at the high school level: A psycholinguistic evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg. (UMI No AAC 78-07218). Moll, L.C. (Ed.). (1990). Vvootskv and education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Monaghan, E.J. (1991). Family literacy in early 18th-centrury Boston: Cotton Mather and his children. Reading Research Quarterly. 26(4), 342-370. Moore, P.J. (1983). Aspects of metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Research in Reading. 6(2), 120-128. Moore, Phillip. (1985). Beliefs about reading: Of authors, teachers and children. Australian Journal of Reading. 8(2), 3-13. Moore, S.F., & Myerhoff, B.G. (Eds.) (1977). Secular ritual. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Morrice, C , & Simmons, M. (1991). Beyond reading buddies: A whole language cross-age program. The Reading Teacher. 44(8). 572-577. Morrow, A.E. (1963). Moral: Go oral - some of the time. In A.J. Harris (Ed.) Readings on Reading Instruction, (pp. 394-400). New York: David McKay Co. Morrow, L.M. & Paratore, J. (1993). Family literacy: Perspective and practices. The Reading Teacher. 47(3), 194-200. 161 Morrow, L.M. (ed.) (1995). Family literacy: Connections in schools and communities. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Morrow, L.M., Tracey, D.H., & Maxwell, C M . (Eds.). (1995). A survey of family literacy in the United States. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Mullis, F. & Fincher, S.F. (1996). Using Rituals to define the school community. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling. 30(4), 243-251. Muskopf, A.F. (1962). The beginning reader's concept of reading as related to intelligence, reading achievement and the method of introducing reading. Unpublished master's thesis. Chicago: University of Chicago. Myerhoff, B.G. (1977). We don't wrap herring in a printed page: Fusion, frictions and continuity in secular ritual. In S/F/ Moore & B.G. Myerhoff (Eds.), Secular ritual, (pp. 199-224). Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Nickse, R.S., Speicher, A.M. & Buchek, P.C. (1988). An intergenerational adult literacy project: A family prevention model. Journal of Reading. 31(7), 634-642. Nieratka, E. R. (1973). Miscue analysis: A needed diagnostic dimension for non-traditional students. (ED 215 301) Ninio, A. & Bruner, J.S. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labeling. Journal of Child Language. 6(February 1978), 5-15. Nurss, J.R. (1969). Oral reading errors and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher. 22(6), 523-527. Ohaver, A.R. (1971). A comparison study of semantic and syntactic cueing by low reading performance college freshmen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico. (UMI No. AAC 71-28050). Ollila, L., & Quorn, K. (1976). The young child's view of reading. Manitoba Journal of Education. 11(1976), 11-14. Packman, L. (1972). Selected oral reading errors and levels of reading comprehension. In HA. Klein (Ed.), The guest for competency in teaching reading, (pp. 203-208) Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association. 162 Page, W.D. (1970). Environmental context: Key to a broader spectrum on the word recognition scene. The Michigan Reading Journal. 4, 17-20. Page, W.D., & Barr, R.C. (1975). Use of informal reading inventories. In W.D. Page (Ed.), Help for the reading teacher: New directions in research, (pp. 101-110). Urbana, Illinois: ERIC/CRCS. Paratore, J.R. (1993). An intergenerational approach to literacy: Effects on the literacy learning of adults and on the practice of family literacy. In D.J. Leu and C.K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, practice, Forty-second Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, (pp. 83-92). Chicago, Illinois: National Reading Conference. Parker, F.W. (1883). Talks on teaching. New York: Barnes. Paterra, M.E. (1976). A comparison of the Informal Reading Inventory and Reading Miscue Inventory. (ED 133 706) Pinter, R. (1913). Oral and silent reading of fourth grade pupils. Journal of Educational Psychology. 4(June, 1913), 333-337. Post, A.R. (1997). Reading buddies: Future teachers encounter kids. Reading Today. 14(6), 18. Powell, W.R. (1970). Reappraising the criteria for interpreting informal inventories. In D.L. DeBoer (Ed.), Reading diagnosis and evaluation, (pp. 100-109). Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association. Powell, W.R. (1971). The validity of instructional reading level. In R.E. Leibert (Ed), Diagnostic viewpoints in reading. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Programme of studies for the elementary schools of British Columbia: Grades I to VI. (1941). Victoria, British Columbia: Department of Education. Reid, J.F. (1966). Learning to think about reading. Educational Research. 9, 56-92. Reutzel, D.R., Hollingsworth, P.M. & Eldredge, J.L. (1994). Oral reading instruction: The impact on student reading development. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(1), 41-59. Roberts, J. (1988). Setting the frame: Definitions, functions and topography of rituals. In E. Imber-Black, J. Roberts, & R.A. Whiting (Eds.), Rituals in families and family therapy, (pp.3-45). New York: Norton. 163 Robertson, Heather. (1974). Salt of the earth. Toronto, Ontario: J. Lorimer. Robinson, H. A,, Lazarus, A , & Costello, G. (1983). Beginning readers' concept of reading: An international survey. Reading Canada Lecture. 2, 12-17. Robinson, H.A. (1977). Reading instruction and research: In historical perspective. In H.A. Robinson (Ed.), Reading and writing instruction in the United States: Historical trends, (pp. 44-58). Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association. Robinson, H.A, Faraone, V., Hittleman, D.R., & Unruth, E. (1990). In J. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Reading comprehension instruction 1783 -1987: A review of trends and research. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Rogoff, B., & Wertsch, J.V. (Eds.), (1984) Children's learning in the "zone of proximal development." San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Romatowski, J.A. (1972). A psycholinguistic description of miscues generated by selected bilingual subjects during the oral reading of instructional reading material as presented in Polish readers and English basal readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. (UMI No. AAC 73-12586). Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In Ruddell, R.B., Ruddell, M.R., & Singer, H. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4 t h edition), (pp. 1057-1092). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Rosenhouse, J., Feitelson, D., Bracha, K., & Goldstein, Z. (1997). Interactive reading aloud to Israeli first graders: Its contribution to literacy development. Reading Research Quarterly. 32(2), 168-182. Ruddell, R.B., Ruddell, M., & Singer, H.. (Eds.) (1994). Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th edition). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Samuels, S.J. (1997). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher. 50(5), 376-381. Samway, K., Whang, G. & Pippitt, M. (1995). Buddy reading. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann. Shafer, R.E. (1977). What teachers should know about psycholinguistics in reading and miscue analysis. English Quarterly. 10(1), 49-54. 164 Shapiro, J., & White, W. (1991). Reading attitudes and perceptions in traditional and non-traditional reading program. Reading Research and Instruction. 30(4), 52-66. Sherman, R.S., Reid, E.W., & MacKenzie, H.H. (1926). The silent study readers: BookV. Toronto, Ontario: J.M. Dent & Sons. Silvaroli, N.J. (1982). Classroom reading inventory. 4 t h edition. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown. Sipay, E.R. (1964). A comparison of standardized reading scores and functional reading levels. The Reading Teacher. 17(5), 265-268. Slaughter, J.P. (1983). Big books for little kids: Another fad or a new approach for teaching beginning reading? The Reading Teacher. 36(8). 758-762. Smith, F.R., & Feathers, K.M. (1983). Teacher and student perceptions of content area reading. Journal of Reading. 26(4), 348-54. Smith, N.B. (1965). American reading instruction. Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association. Smith, N.B. (1986). American reading instruction. (L. Courtney, prologue; H.A. Robinson, epilogue). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Strickland, D.S., & Morrow, L.M. (1989). Emerging literacy: Young children learn to read and write. Newark, Delaware: The International Reading Association. Teale, W.H. (1978). Positive environments for learning to read: What studies of early readers tell us. Language Arts. 55(Nov./Dec. 1978), 922-932. Teale, W.H. (1980). Early reading: An annotated bibliography. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tinsley, K., & Kaestle, C. (1991). Autobiographies and the history of reading: The meaning of literacy in individual lives. In C.F. Kaestle, (Ed.) Literacy in the United States: Readers and reading since 1880. (pp. 225-244). New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. 165 Tizard, J. ; and Others. (1982). Collaboration between teachers and parents in assisting children's reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 52(1), 1-15. Topping, K.J. (1985). Parental involvement in children's reading. New York: Nichols Publishing. Topping, K.J. (1986). Effective service delivery: Training parents as reading tutors. School Psychology International. 7(Oct./Dec. 1986). Topping, K.J. (1986). W.H.I.C.H. Parental involvement reading scheme? Reading. 20(3). 148-156. Topping, K.J. (1987). Paired reading: A powerful technique for parent use. The Reading Teacher. 40(7), 608-614. Topping, K.J. (1989). Peer tutoring and paired reading: Combining two powerful techniques. The Reading Teacher. 42(7), 488-94. Topping, K.J. & Lindsay, G.A. (1992). The structure and development of the paired reading technique. Journal of Research in Reading. 15(2), 120-136. Topping, K.J. & Whiteley, M. (1990). Participant evaluation of patent-tutored and peer-tutored projects. Educational Research. 32(1), 14-32. Tovey, D.R. (1976). Children's perceptions of reading. The Reading Teacher. 29(6), 536-540. Trelease, J. (1989). Jim Trelease speaks on reading aloud to children. The Reading Teacher. 43(3), 200-206. Trelease, J. (1989). The new read-aloud handbook. New York: Penguin. Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. (M.B. Vizedom & G.L. Caffee, Trans.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Vygotsky, L S . (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1996). Thought and language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Waterland, L. (1985). Read with me: An apprenticeship approach to reading (2 n d edition). Great Britain: Thimble Press. 166 Waters, F.R. (1974). Our buddy reading program really works! English Journal. 63(8), 89-80. Weber, R.M. (1970). A linguistic analysis of first grade reading errors. Reading Research Quarterly. 5(3), 427-451. Wheat, H.G. (1923). The teaching of reading. Ginn & Co. Williamson, L.E., & Young, F. (1974). The IRI and RMI diagnostic concepts should be synthesized. Journal of Reading Behavior. 6(2), 183-194. Wing, L.A. (1989). The influence of preschool teachers' beliefs on young children's conceptions of reading and writing. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 4(1), 61-74. Wixon, K.K., Bosky, A.B., Yochum, M.N. & Alvermann, D.E. (1984). An interview for assessing students' perceptions of classroom reading tasks. The Reading Teacher. 37(4), 346-52. Worsnop, C M . (1980). A procedure for using the technigue of the Reading Miscue Inventory as a remedial teaching tool with adolescents. Unpublished master's thesis, Queens' University, Kingston, Ontario. (ED 324 644) Yochum, N. & Miller, S.D. (1993). Parents', teachers', and children's views of reading problems. Reading Research and Instruction. 33(1), 59-71. Zinck, R.A. (1977). An investigation of semantic and syntactic language cues utilized during oral and silent reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens. (UMI No. ACC 77-30523). 167 Appendix 1 Interview Questions for Teachers 1. Tell me about your Buddy Reading program? 2. Why did you organize a Buddy Reading program for your students? 3. How did you choose a class to partner up with? 4. What preparations are necessary before you begin your Buddy Reading program? 5. What direction do you provide for students as they begin Buddy Reading? 6. How do students get a buddy? 7. What are your expectations for older buddies? 8. What materials do students read together? 9. How do students select books to read to their buddies / for their buddies? 10. When students encounter words that they don't know, what do they do? 11. When oral reading errors are made, how do students respond? 12. How do students help each other understand the author's message? Interview Questions for Pairs of Buddies 1. Tell me all about Buddy Reading. 2. What did your teachers tell you about Buddy Reading? 3. How did your class and Mrs. 's class "buddy-up". 4. How did you get your buddy? 5. How do you decide what book(s) to read with / for your buddy? 6. When your buddy doesn't know a word, what do you do? 7. When your buddy reads a word out loud and makes a mistake, what do you do? 8. When your buddy doesn't understand what is happening in the story, what do you do? 9. What do you like best about buddy reading? A. Why do you do Buddy Reading? B. What would you do if your buddy wasn't a friend? 168 o o m CD a> m c $ S m CO o o CO c o tfl v> a> CN W 5 8 a. _ < c? -I O) c a: c a w O CM o o CO. o x: ca O a> x : < T J a> $ o 1 CO a> E x: O T J O O O CO co o o m <D ca CQ 0} t o c t_ a> CQ co SZ o o c o tO E (0 2 0) TJ 3 * * CO CO T J e CD CO CO a> w a> E? o a> CD co a> > <D CO co c x: o c ! q ca O < c i 1 _CJ H to a> T J u> ">> £ B co ca * J= E o o , S «J o o CQ ca O a> 2 <D 2 CO O 0> E 'sz. O co CO CD ca cn o o O CD x : a> E x: O w CD 'i— O -•—' CO la S2 ca CC w to J5 O co ca e it: a> E xz O CD to o o CD > CD o o >-CD I*: o o O a. a. 3 CL 08 <D to 3 > a a ca co § sz to < 8> o CD o to CL CO c ^ f J= TO I— o co 3 o ct: c a> a to Q . CO o o o TO CO CD CO to CD "i_ o CO "co E c < CD CD CO T J tz co CD T J CD E 'sz O CD E x : O CD O CO 0 1 co > m e CO CO 169 (0 CL O CO <D * 2 T3 > C «*— Q) O | S < CO o CO O oi >» O) CD (0 (0 c « •o 3 *•« (O c o a •c o (0 a> Q 0) E •o c E 0) c o '55 (0 a> CO al O </> Q> E re c >» E o CM CO o o re (0 O) O) re S o i © a (0 in < CM CO o CM o CM (0 "S O o c (0 T3 re £ x: co o .c to c re a x U J CO l O o> CM CO CO o> CM CM CO 170 Appendix 4 Interview Protocol for Teachers LTell me about your Buddy Reading Program? 2. Why did you organize a Buddy Reading Program for your students? 3. How did you choose a class to partner up with? 4. What preparations are necessary before you begin your Buddy Reading Program? 5. What direction do you provide for students as they begin Buddy Reading? 6. How do students get a buddy? 171 7. What are your expectations for older buddies? 8. What materials do students read together? 9. How do students select books to read to their buddies or for their buddies? 10. When students encounter words that they don't know, what do they do? 11. When oral reading errors are made, how do students respond? 12. How do students help each other understand the author's message? «o c x .2 •5 <fl e <A S. CO < 8 > ading Voice Normal ading Voice Soft X X X X X X o Whisper X X X X X Divide / Syllables X /Vord Attac Sound out X Decoding / \ Tell word X X X X X X X X X X Decoding / \ Ignore Problem >> Turning pages X X X X X X Helps Finger pointing X X X X X X X X X Watching Buddy X X Attention Looking Elsewhere X X at bunnies On Bo X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ng Voice Normal X X X X X X X X X X X Readi Soft X X X X X X X X X X X X ionship Arm on Shoulder X cal Relat Side by Side X X X X X X X X Physi Overlap X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X of Buddy Far Proximity Close X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Sequence L-little B-big LLB LBLL _ J _ J —1 LBLL LBL LBL LBL BBBL CD CQ co CQ Number of Chairs CM Grade co CO - CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Student Name Kelly Anna Kathy Natasha Lynn Rina Maggy Ashley Drew Stanley Joe Tony Denny Robby Sandra Nisse George Steve John Willy T3 Q (N co i n CO r~ CO CO o 172 174 "O 3 CO O CD § o c TJ s or c c TJ TJ co co CD CD 0£ K TJ m cu E O to. + o C C TJ TJ S CO Cl) oc or O co I o ID cu i O T3 c cu s: CD TJ CO CU CO 8> - o CD CU 10 <o cm — Jn CB 21" »^ to !S 0 j B 1 c ca ~ to ~ i SJ 08 co E 8 3 - , CD I 2 <D CD o -a-° •a co x> a> ca O ID TJ ^ 5 8 5> J3 cu TJ CU 8 §. >- s TJ O o o> CO CD > CO x: a. o cu a. CM ts CO if CO TJ c (0 to CD to E o 8 § e js J2 cu co > a. 5 1a 1 « CD .-g CD § >, ca cu - w £ cu ' !§ - o 3 c o CO >> .e s CO £ 82 TJ i ? TJ E E J! 8 3 £ « CO gJ I* g ca to <o 3 M o cu « TJ SO o o <5B2 3 o co TJ CO a* TJ CO CU cu X TJ OJTJ c to ca jg 35 • 08 c .22 o c z Q •X o 3 iJ o CU >. sz TO x: CO < c CU Q XI o o CO § J ca c to o — x • to TJ CO g> to t ? " | J XI co CO CO Itrl CM CM CO CO m in Hi ca CO CO CO ca m co o> 175 <o c o CO © O © x H5 c © _ Q- © Q. +; < = c © •o 3 *» CO o> c TJ co •o 3 O XI CO 3 O > I 12 £ U co s 1_ 3 O >* •5 CO CN 41 XI E «- cu c E O (1) Q OH > CO x : d> OQ 0 CO c co TJ 3 CO d) TJ E 0) x: o CO 0 TJ L O a. T J CO co 0 $ >> CO T J O 8 I (U CO % CD 13 g H E S t j c co CO or •a <z cu £ to CU X I >. E CO "co x: CO x; CN to ft" CO CO CL o a> CD or CN o T J o CO T J c CO CL 3 CD C CO CM x: co cu no CD K_ sz <U J X ) <D AO "c o <D Q om .>. o -•—* CD >. pp c r 3 x> X I CO CO Re <D Re > — CO CD x: >N +^ •*-» "c "c CO 0 o 0 o >> E CO M— CD to O co (0 T J T J c 3 0 X I Q a: CO CO CO CD X I E CD Q £ CD to m CO co CD CO CD o CD x: CO a. CO * 3 ° ? 5 5 m in x: co CO T J C CO c CD XI ^ ^ 8 S i X I o CO T J CO c co <u x: co w £ O Q . | Z co CO c j z . CO 10 CO CO CO 1 <" ' " £ cd IS g-l £ T J co 8 II I - 3 T J X I . O * ; O 3 a> o "2 oJ ° J l l 0 ) o E <d o x: CO I— x : CO < CO CO <D X I E — <" c E O CO a CL §>i CO 1 c a> Q m 1= 0 co IZ 0 0 3 .fcl CO c to CO T J T J 3 X I CD x: * J +J 3 0 X I CO >. T J 3 "in 0 •*-» CO 3 T J T J K_ O CO -4—1 O •>< X I The CO x: 2 XI o or CO oq 00 T J CO CO O CL CL 3 CO <D i_ J - CO 2 ** O CD > - X I 2 o CO CO CO IZ T J CO CD •s T J O O C O +J CD O ) 3 O to ID JX. CO E ' CD ID C Q . CO CD K_ CO to c o a. to co > o 2 i f c CO w CO CO c CO ml loo I 176 I . U) a> r 08 Q) O >- 0) o >-+ iS o >-+ CD T J O 3 o >-cu 01 c 3 o (0 TJ C CD •c cu CO 2 O TJ S £ S2 CD SZ "> O TJ co £ CD .CD I— .p CO co 5 • o TJ s .i CD » cn co 5 CO o -o s s 5 O c c o D o-Q. 3 >. TJ TJ 3 X) CO (0 « o CD XI TJ 3 O o >s CD SZ +J H= " •i co* > TJ CD J £ CO . CO • O O) X) I CO 13 co £ 12 TJ C n w (0 re o o >. TJ TJ o X <D (A C £ | CO 8* c CO o CO C M CO CO J2 o c J2 CL O CD CL S CD g S b CO O o i f 1 C CD S i O CD >\ »— r . CO C9 > TJ ° PL ^ CD o .2>l Q I CD CO • 3 CO CO T 5 O CZ CD CD C Q Ifc TJ CD CO •5 CD1 CO CO _cg o CD sz •*-» TJ CD o 3 ST S i o CO CD > o c C D CO TJ c CD • c *»— TJ O 8* CD CD TJ CO £ > s CD 1(5 CD ^ i2 CD C TJ 0> CO TJ ••-» CO c — CD [ CD G , •s -CO <u TJ o c E CO o CB 5 CD X) > . CO C O CD TJ 2 c rrl co c co — TJ CD 2 • 3 o >> —. a= O c 0) TJ 3 C O CD TJ 2 e> TJ CO CD E* O CD C D CO c CO sz CO CO CO x: 2 c CO CO x: CO < CO 2 c CD Q o on CO CO I1 c CO •4-* CO CO 2 CO c c < CO CM CM on CO CO CO 10 10 m CD CQ CO CQ 00 00 CQ O) CQ 0 177 o o C CD CD U I I CO o CO cu o "o XZ O o z 2 CD sz u r- Q. TJ o->» X J X J 3 X I v-3 O S s *» 0) O) 3 o > X J X J 5 o X CD (A C o to c 0) X J 3 CO 0) X J 2 O CD SZ o CO CD I— * X J o CO Q. CD C 0) CO co E a co CO 0) £ -g C c CJ CO E <u 53 .J2 CO CO TJ TJ 5 co o o o o I i — CO 2 XJ c CO CO CJ CO co CO CO to c c c o o o a a a to to to co co CO k_ o O o z z z o DJ 3 o >. E co C O °> 5 T J O o K E * CO CD o CD CD CO CO TJ * 1 3 CO TJ 3 •§ o E £ o co ,11 CO o E > TJ P l N to to" co 3 1 Q. CO c ca JZ CO TJ CO 2 ™ _ to 2 CO CO CO c CO TJ CO CO l l CO TJ C CO CO CO TJ TJ 3 XJ k_ 3 CO O XJ co E x> CO o ec CO Q a . c o CO aj Q. E i ~ CO ca x: o o CO e J Z to OJ CO 5 <0 we CO co x: co 1 - 5 to 5 CO O CO x: to < CO 2 c CD a XI o or CO TJ CO u QJ 2 OJ sz o CO CO CO x: o > 3 o ° >l TJ O CO 10 CO g O g to x: CO .!= x: co o x: co si, o CO o to >. CO 5 CO to CO o to ca =1 co to >J to i2 o ci 2 H- O X 2 O H o CO c CO co o to > CO CO 5 TJ CO 3 W f i . ± CO « - CO ><.<« 2 z CO c CO or o r CM CN o r CO m CO co CD CD 00 00 CD GO CD O I (0 10 0> 3 = 1 < = c o> X J CO o C 01 3 U Q c E OJ 8 ra Q_ 0) E cu £ < CU E cu CU CU E cu £ CO < CU =E P - r i " £ o o-XI TJ 3 XJ 3 8 (0 CU E ffi e (A DC 8 l III CO CU o ra CL I CO cu ra £ cu ' o CO I ? co 5 5z E o + <u E 111 O a 0) 11 T - JU •O C 0) XI a (0 , 0 , 2 O o cs 0) 5. T J c CO (0 0 J O J CO <u CJ] O r CD : CD £ co CO CO ml CM CM |1 o OJ o>| cu .o. 5 £ « 3 £ o H ra oil ra 9 3 10 m CO in OQ CO E <u 5" CO cu £ "cu E o CO 3 CO CO 2 CO lu 3 CO ra !e * - a. "D i _ TJ aj CU SZ to o 01 £• £ CD c SZ u= £• cu n Atth that' c O J Q m CO M Z} o E cu cu CQ CO cu E cu 3* cu cu g o CO cu <: o o j g ; cu X o CO CO 3" o c « ro ~ a . — « S £ . = co ra <u O 5 * OQ OJ co OJ £ 1 Zl o 8 B CO OQ CO 178 179 c O CO o 3 •o 5 c ~ S- <» < = 0) •o 3 li 3 IO c I o I CO T3 c o co "D C o CO o-o T3 3 O o CO TJ v-O CO o c *•» c (0 <D O T3 >* T3 T3 3 n i _ 3 O >. c CD SZ 5 t o CD (0 c o a (0 CD 3 "5 Q J CD x : CD o o TJ c CO CO "E i CD sz -*—' 3 o '1 o co CD SZ CO •g o 5 CD T J cz 3 o CO c s CD CD SZ 3 o "a cz 3 o CO CD E CO Q. CD CD SZ CD E "E co |5 T J cz CO CO •c co t o E 1 ' 51 CD SZ • ® O CD CO o % TJ CO I* CD CD CD CO CO CD OJ i_ O CD O CO a: CM CM o >. 2= E • CD a. sz CD - ' -CD T J tz c £ E ± 3 CD . t i s z H ]j> x : ^ * * co 3 a. CD CD £ o c >- ^ a: CO .£2 ID CD s 3 o E CD CD CO 3 3 O Ithe her. ca CD CD CO t_ O nd CO ^—i 3 "S a. WO "O T— CD WO > 1 o CD s SZ CU *o a> CD cz <+— sz one ead 1 nd- you "E cz o CD sz T J 1 cz •g 3 O o a. 3 LUO rst o it-c (0 sz CO CO CO <D. Q . co >*l co co CD J= CO CQ CD CO CO c CQ LO CO CO CD CD CD <D. QJ CO 'sz 5 sz CO < CO CO CD CD cz CD sz T J c CO T3 3 O , . 3 O CO E CD x : •«-» T J c CO CD E d) c o adi ispe our i sz 3 cz CD 'cn CD I X I c CD Q CQ <D, QJ CO O or CO QJ O CQ CO CD T3 C o CO c o CO 3 •—^ CD X CO •p >-l 3 B J B "E CD O X 5 2 o CO CO CD H CD TJ CD CO O CL O. 3 CO CO CO x: 5 CO >, CO CO co x: CD x : j o "53 tT1 T J 3 X3 T J CD CD 3 o CO "iz o Q cz o CD 3 CZ c o o o9 CO I CO 3 o T3 CZ CO CO > N CO CO x i - l CO 3 o c CO I col CO CO c c < CO CQ CQ o 180 o o X J 3 o >» o X J CO JZ cu co (0 I CO CO CD J £ co E ro X J 3 O k_ 3 O O £ CO (0 X J co >» X J X J 3 X2 lb. 3 O c CD i c 3 o CO CD IK £ o c o CD fc p o fc O 111 o CD o O CD O £ o O CD CD CD CD -c—i c o O o £ o O CD O £ I— o O X CD i8 CD "CD o £ o £ o o o £ o o £ o o CD T3 CO E to I or o « ~ o to ~ co l o g CD >> CO CO c 0) >< CO CO 3 o CO C & 0) CD UL c CD X J 3 CO CD X J 2 o X J 3 3 _Q. i CD CD SZ J£ CO 0 * 3 . 3 m — E CD E co. CD fc o o CO CD 5* O CD CD SZ CL CO E CD QJ CD X TJ o o CD o g I* CD £ (0 XJ L _ o g DH O c | | 8 CO CO o g o g CD SH 3 Si CD (0 3 CO o CD XJ TJ C o o CD CO CO c CC CO CO CO CO CD E CD E o CO I ± i 42 co CD Q. CD CO o .*= g «o. > C5H CO CO t f Is CD LS o > .2 CO | SZ CO CD CO o 'I I CO TJ c iS CD TJ c 3 CO I co 5T co CD TJ CO CD 3 H 5 * CO i c CO o Z CO < CO 3* c c CD Q -O n o or col e 'co CD CO ^ XJ CO CO l>_ XJ c CO o o CO X) o CD 5n c o CO XJ co co O O. Q. 3 CO 10 I CO CO CO I co CO x: g CO E tn "co o g CO g o c c CO CO o XI CO SZ CO c CO co o > CO Q. CD X c (0 -4—» CO I CO I CO c c < I CO I or or CN CN CC CO CQ CO CD LO OQ CD CO CD CQ 00 0O CQ O) CQ 181 c CD a a n X c o (A TJ re > j o or co JO "53 a> a . Q. (0 x: <o is sz 3 a> a) c ' c a) CL CL (0 j= to % sz 3 E CD CD CO C o a w 2 to CD CD ill" If II CD •o 3 X) i _ 3 a . : CD CD E o to CD TJ C CO CD CD SZ C to CD O TJ TJ TJ 3 XI Z3 o >< TJ SZ CD O O E CD r E 2.2 H TJ O cu co CD Z3 to T 3 O 3 c3< -*—' to to I sz I I 3 W o £ CJ -i-> '°-1 to O >> SI i i — tD — to • 3 T 3 O £ HZ 3 °M t= 0> to CD to £ O ~ to CO o co TJ — V Ci Q. O C L * ' CO SZ TJ c CO -*—» to CD TJ CO 11 > to > TJ CD 1= CD § to 5 to CD CD CO to TJ i "to to I S3 • x : to o co CO c 1 8 CD 3 tO 5.1 CO ° 3 o>" 5 5 to TJ L _ i 08 p o jo "CD JO "CD CD 3 CD to 3 8 cr o -*—' to CD SZ to TJ L _ § co co CD CO c SJ to CD l l CP CO ts to C D c CD SZ in >. CO co CD X CD Xt >. co E E 3 CT ; C 'sz CD CL CL CO C CD TJ 3 (0 CD TJ 2 CD a> O n CD TJ (0 • ra CO CD E? O : <D . CD I I CO CO c CO sz -«-» CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO sz co < CO s1 c CD a o or CO CD o o CD > c CO CO CO I CO I ca c c < CO I Ctrl or ICC CQ CQ CN CM CO CO LO CQ CD CQ CQ CQ CQ CD CO 00 a. I CD I 182 (0 c o tn cu 3 N . O E | ! « c 0) XJ 3 to XJ Ri OJ k. XJ XJ o n CO CO OJ X] CD 3 O >% O XJ CO SZ 5 04 to x> c CD £ CD CO CD (0 c o Q. CO CD OH CD XJ 3 CO CD •o s o 0) co 2 (0 TJ o m to CO TJ TJ zi XI i" (0 o o x: O XJ rz co CO or co T* TJ CO c CO •S ro tO TJ CO CO XI CO Is -1 f i Jo jo 3 t M= XJ (0 <2 (0 OJ s i i= £ OJ, o CD o or CN co CN ra Q. 00 TJ CO CD B CO zs o • > TJ CO £ a • SZ or co CO 11 © u -J co CO XI s> to o x: W TJ CO CO % ! CO E ° 2 c cz CO SZ +—> CO z co co m SZ .ti TJ X» CO TJ <s =t or m co 5 »l TJ T T ra TJ co n or m tz CO XI TJ c CQ S TJ CO => m tn > ii B 11 » CO TJ Zt C o .2 co in OQ CO TJ TJ CO TJ CO u or m to TJ CO CO CO "2 I (0 CO c o i-(0 (0 CO to SI to 8 =8 to i? E TJ o c co ra S4 x: to < eo CO CO ™ • 2 o TJ CO Z) 0 ca h-CD in 3 "> CO TJ m e CD Q OQ 22 CO Q CO CO CO CO SZ tz o JO o or co OQ CO co co f l ZI CO m x CO T J CO CO TJ ro <B +e E •2 c i ca tz1 TJ oJ g F B *? TJ 0 => CO XI " I ' c — •2 to CQ OJ c co -*—< W co OJ Zt <D co x TJ C CO •c co «-0 CO ra o SZ i_ — 0 . x: TJ O co Z 2 S £• g c — "2 h i o> o co — 0 > 9 E S R O Zl lO I-5 TJ • CO 3 or it : CD OQ co 183 © m TJ CO • ® z eo E o 3 a> CD X i TJ CO CD CD t X) TJ CO CD CD P 3= O CD > X 5 > -a E £ 2 CD n TJ CO CD I TJ CO CD CD •= C CD > x> > E I o o> 3 >^  CO r-§ 4 5 o> co > o 2- O c= o> 2 CD o O) c T5 (0 >» TJ TJ 3 Xi O "O 3 O o •a >> CJ) w c o a CD cz o CD E o CO CO co o CD CZ CD > c >< o Q4 5 CD SZ fc >• CO CD CD CO T3 -c= £ CD O "* cz CD — CO CO CO o « CQ £ CD CJ) o +-* TJ CO £ CO CD TJ TJ 3 n CD 3 o a. CD s CD CD "§ CQ XI co TJ O O C0| cn c % o C O 1j 3 2 0 ai ' CO .E o TJ O co a>| Si , co >i •a "E § x ? - £ 2 £ TJ S= s • = 43 CD tr j i 1 c f CO o O TJ c CO 3 >> TO o)| * i 3 CO O CD - ° T J •a 3 co - Q £ CD o co o sz f co cz sz o TJ O 3 W O TJ >, CO CD CD O) >> CD T J CO CD CO jD 2 "§ T J £ CD ^ CD " CZ CZ CO CO o « 1 TJ CO s CD CD CDI £ P C • • » • ® , 2 O CD U CO CD •1 CO ICO CD CD CO CD CD o ; CD O i CO CD E CO I CO I CO c (0 sz ca Z I CO I CO >J CO x: co c CO c CO I CO sz CO < CO 2 c CD Q O or CO o r— CO 2H c CO CO CO 2 CO c c < CO CM CD CM CO CO CO I f ) DO CD 03 CD CD 00 CO 00 CD CQ CD 184 £ IO CD co CO T J i i > LL co W T J I I CO CO T J I I CO CD J O T J i § i t CO o "iz o Q O TJ C CD £ CO " c to to $ >> XI XJ 3 J2 i_ 3 O >. o XJ 3 o >» 3 o CO CD CD tn c o a tn . a IK c , ° | « CD I "2 , 2 O CD SZ o CO CD TJ CO a> CD tz o >> fZ o CD SZ y> +-* J t CO — SZ l« § CD 10 — "53 .2 CD £Z o ° c o CD a CD — • £ ' § o - - T J CO cz CD CD >^ ' C S £ •C-J CD c3 £ CD T J CO CO T J C CO TJ £ s to CD J O = CD E £ CD ,_ co CD CD J O to CD T J T J 3 J O CD OJ CZ co to CO 5 T J | I C co E CD J Z T J co CD <D col CO ICO CD CD CO Si CD C3 CD > CD CO CO I CO I CO CO c CO c br: co CO x: CO < CO 2 c CD Q n o or: co o CO a> c CO CO I CO I 2 c < I CO I cd I CM I CC OQ CM I CO CO CD LO LO CD CO CD CD CD CO CD ICQ I co 185 (0 S CO e> © sz o CO II-T J d) X © CD o E i (D E CO CO TO O CO c =j T J C CO x: CD 3 O co >• 1 | c ° T J © CO •5 2 CO _ a) to ^ L ! O T3 Q . _ CO 0 8 2 CD CO c D O >» "D C (0 L _ CD 32 o CD •I—» CD CO o T J CO CD O 12 CD E co ••—< c CD T J _D "(0 CO CD •-o £ T3 T J C 3 O <D Xi O T J i _ CO D © — to CO (D J° § CD O O 2 > , * - O CO g CO > F > CO CO 1 O 1 RO CD 2 £ •g CD .9. 2 o J ~ CO TJ | -O CL O o CO - ~ CD 8 8 CO o P CO .== c 31 3 2 o £ 9 CO CO _ _ CO CO T J ° i » O CO c CO * x : cr « TO TO CO T3 x: co *-CD C C c CD 3 3 J CD 2 32 « o b o -CO CD > CO CD O c CO sz o IS ™ CO c © © © "i ^ CO CO l _ Q. CD "to 1 <n co CO JO 3 JO 1 o CO c O O CO I— © © a . o E g>2 : = CO T J co $ <0 2 O CO © 1_ E © CO £ CO cu is-* CO © © >, x: co " 1 c o c o tf> CD CO © x: u CO TO c x: 8 c T J HI sz -a E « D © o x: x: •JS © == © 3* T J T J Xi I c © © CO r -o £= 0 5 x: 0 o co T J T J CO CO — g CD CJ CO c CO o o sz o CO c © T J © © © ._: O E ^ © © © CO o o x: o CO 13 CO ^ 8 T J T J © " 5 3 ** 2 co 1 X J 1 T J J 3 © o CO O T J _ <n Xi © r-- (0 © i= ^ CO .F © E C M= £ © © co © o - w © c = ^ CO CO © c. s s §>! i co fc i : E 52 O) 2 Q. a ) c T S to >» "O "O 3 X) b. 3 O 3* o (0 CD E "3 19 o CN © x: o © © T J T J U 0 3 O "S © CO © T J © CD © — -g c T J © CO T J © O CO CO c © ai «2 > T J © CJ) 3 CO t— CO 1— © L: © x: o x: o o ro J2 © © c CD g ~ cj ~ i - ri) i — o.= o Zi CL c o c CO © x: T J C © © CD co o r c c o Q o © "co-2 © o co ^ © ij a , n o x CD * i © 1 © ^ T J iS o zs — p © .== sz T J © ^ © ^ c o CO o CO © © 3 sz co o © © ^ © CO * - <D CO CO © T J T J u © x i x : © CJ) c o I m tfj © © i f f © • « c r w g © t o o > o © CO T J 2> © M-c - g B 1 s © | ^ O o I c > © sz © Xi CO c © > © T J c © T J © CO 2 © a > £ c o i l l s E xi 9 T J 0 o ra «*- ^- w <D 1 CL 1 1— O © © o —' co >, ^ *i O c o ZS Xi 2 co S- o 9- o o x : • 0 E © TO O CL 112 >> Q . . O © © I I o © T J c © T J © © © TO E £ v== T J T J O O TO © O o CO T J © x: © ro © CO © t TO iS 1 CO 186 co <D co c o Q. CO CO £ l l CD > O . ^ < £ CD O (0 CD c CD T3 3 -i-> (0 i _ 3 O E 2 O) s Q. OJ £ <0 2. >» X3 T3 3 n CO CD N "E CO E> o 3 o >» >» CM co S CO O CD JZ o CO I P CD co >_ CD J Z u CO (0 CO I O I CM i_ CD CO CD CD J Z o CO i f f CO c JZ ra y <D CO -g 0) CD XJ £ ^  -« s o o o g s co XJ — 2 C C 2 CO o o "co CO "tz CO CD c CO CD X J X J 3 JO CO i X J X J — CO CD CD JZ i_ CO O | * -Q o CD 3 CD 0 5 P — > , . f c CD C JZ ' -CO c o CO c CD CO cz XJ CO 5* CD or: CD > i s Is XJ CD -c CO CO O CO T ~ S 3 > o c o - Q c CO S o ® JZ O >» CO to XJ ~ CO m 5 ra CQ CD i .E >, CD CD > J Z ra E o O CO Q. CD c CD TJ 3 CO CD XJ vis j2 ° > © o ' C o CD JZ CL O X CO CD i XJ XJ 3 JD CO c XJ CO CD XJ CD -c CO HI—' CO CD O co O 3 JZ CO o C L CO o c S c — 2 c :t= o XJ XJ co — fc co CD £ CD JD XJ CD CO _ iz 8 CO CO CO CD P C L — CO CO CO C CO co £ CD C — * -*—• •= +^  CO CO t JZ CO o CO CD 2*. C JZ CO c c c 3 S- l _ m •— eft W c CD CD JZ) CO »*-CD c CD J D CD CO CO C CD CD S Sfc CO XJ CD — C L CD O CO O o ° ~ o >> CO CO £ ^2 CO t_ CD XJ CO _ <D CD <- CD co*-c E 2 © o5 £ Q © co co co E O o i CO 8 3 CO CD ^ •j= ~c O O CO XJ CO X J ^ * S Z l CD — O 3 3 CD co -Q co P E 2 x ! cz XJ CO CD C 3 XT O C L C L O co ra CD CO <1> CD £ E CD O > JZ CO — JZ CO CO Q. C L J Z O co 5.S 45 ^ 2 2 = Jra ^ a. <D XJ 0 * i c 1 .E co <» CD £ -c O "CD JZ CO o o co *-CD >> > i9 o Q-x3 3 XJ c 3 o J Z g> C CO ocj £ CD CO CO CD l _ CO CD E SZ CD o S O CD CD CO >» CD JZ CO CO 8 CO C L . „ 2 "CD = *- J= 5 CO i CO O CD ra"^ CD CD cS? i C L CD JZ c CD CD JD CO CO JZ i— CD JZ o CO CD >» XJ XJ 3 JD CO M g CQ O co CO CD 3 S5 CD CD CD JD ^ r - — - R - F — O O O CD CO i iz O .i= CO XJ 0 CO CO c > -XJ % w I JD £ %s P. * CO $ o « 2 CO CL I ^ CO i (0 CD (0 c o a. (0 „ CD © > <I >_ <D O <0 0 ) Q. 3 e 00 Q. ( 0 0 ) w o <C d> (0 O O O 3 O >. T3 O CO (fl o '1 I* la : CA CD C O k . CD x: u (0 iff l i -en It? i _ O CN 1-CD ' • § CO i f f ICQ CO I S CD o CO i f f sz o CD CD CO T J c CD CO c o CO o •*-» CO E TJ O O CO CO CD CU SZt CO •c o co CD t_ CO CO CO £ w Si - o -§ CD CD CD i J r- 3 £ £ £ CD | 1o • i O i 5 2 ffi CO CO CM T J CO CD CD -Q co c5 ° -2 <D T J OT co T J CD © o •g © o F? 8 9 1 ^ ^ ^ 2 CO i CO ^ CO c o CO k_ CD Q_ CO CD CO O SZ o CD E +-» CD C T J fZ o © cT > CD CO ~~ CD O O CD CD SZ >> . Q T J CD x: io fo CD CJ) CO T J O O O) CO CO ! CD £ « 8 CO x: T J ' CO ^ CD .CD c CD CO (0 c CL a) T J "co O x: O o CO CO CO CO c CO o CD o3 x: O) T J 3 T— 3 to O £ x: CD (D o 1 1 Xi >^  CO CD T -x: co CD £ CD T J ^ O £ o > -~ >» I i CD c s t f CO T J Q . CO o £ | 2 CO co .2 CO -«-« CO CD O x: 3 CD co co . CD c CO x: I c CO c g QL O i .CD O O SZ o CO CO o CO CO sz I CO CD T J T J CO o T J o c in o CO T J x: CO CD sz CO .5? c «- 3 4-> *— CO . 3 C o CO CD x: co co x: o B it £ co * TJ CD co 3 i q CD CD co » x: 58 ^ J ° S co « x: co eo L CO (D o CD CD CD S = c CO LO CD sz CO o o CM OT JJ o 11 s I JO CO 3 E 55 x: T J Q - co O i CD i CO E g 188 co CD CO C o Q. (I) „ CD C O ^ cu > f l I-CD . c o CO cu E 5 p 0) c "O co cu >• T3 T3 3 CQ >_ 3 O >» c 5) cu n 3 O £ cu SZi £ CO CO CO cu o cu c £ CO CO c o 3^ s CO o . cu CO SZ CA s I CO o 'I CO 11-CO IS o co 'I CO 1*2 2 2 o CN '1 CO i f f ICQ CO CO .e« TJ CO CD £ o >. CD T J - ° 3 CO JO CO go -£> CD co x: IS 7 J 1- 4-> CD C £ 0 3 ID co o o 9-— E CD — CO °> co F .5> © xM JD TJ CD 8 E o) TJ CO CD CD CO _ o O . Q y CO CO o CD o i ° 2 TJ O JD CO CD TJ i= II § P i ra « ra JZ ® Q. >> 5 1 JD O i_ C CO CD HI i co i i co C CD TJ 3 CO *i CD TJ 2 " o CO CO CD O JZ - E $ ra CD JZ 11 o § ±5 C CO CD .5 £ TJ ^ E 8 C L CD CO 8 c CO c o CO c JD 8 E> i=! — 3 CD JD ±= CD -js <D £ E CO CD % E O c CO o TJ -*—< C O CD TJ CD CD ^ £ C Og co iS cz o c OJ k X CO ® CD JD CD ~ o ra co CO CD JZ CO - ~ CD 2 t l — TJ 1 3 CO JD CO v. , • CD 6? JZ " £ CO CO I— CD « "2 — CO CO o £ CD TJ i— CO CO CD 2 co S > ^ 2 > CD JD CD > CO co E TJ fZ 3 O f3 T> =1 JD -Q i— I 32 ^ o 3 3 O tT _ i _< O O 5 $ O 2.2 — CO cz CO TJ CD CO ^ CO 111 3 O O O *" C >, 1 CO TJ CD 2 TJ o -q CD 3 C L JD CO i_ CD CD TJ £° o o CO CD TJ TJ 3 JD CD TJ CO -= CO O — i_ S T o .2 § CD t3 • ° JD CD CD o -JZ is TJ ~ CO ~S CZ CD JZ CO CO CD ^ CD CD -~ CD CO CD TJ C £ O " 7 .ra CD JZ CD > ~3 O CO co c JZ © "> TJ L_ 2 CD W -Q JZ £ • « CD 5 E TJ © CO CD i i— CO O O JD CJ >. Q. CL 3 CO CO o o JD CD CO c CO CO CO i= CO 6 ^ TJ CD CO > >. c CO o . = CO TJ CO CO O CD — CO CL CZ E ra c S> CD I .1 •CD i ! l CD i2 CL C CD -g c 2 O CO CD E CO N o i 8 2 E 00 o c *-"Z co C L *i ZJ c J CD 0 "2 co £ 1 co 189 co CD CO c o Q . CO l l CD > Q . »-CD 3 T +•» < £ k . CD O CO CD ' O O) c X J CO CD or >» XJ X 3 3 CQ CD £2 > . CD CO CO B c CD X 3 3 * J CO k . CD X J > Q 3 o o X J CO c o ^3 O £ • • » • X 3 * J CO i CO I S C O kl O i _ 0) JZ o CO I t ? ICC CO C O k. CD JZ u CO i f f S ' *? o C M l l u CO i f f ICQ CO © CD JZ u CO iff CO c b o co c b CO CD CO SI CO co J? CD <-> $ CO 7 cr: TJ CO <= co CD i i s T J CD T J <* JO >. O) CO CO C T J T J o ^ CO -rj LU CD ^ Zf H CD E CD E CD E o CO TJ c CD Q. co © CO £ .== T J ^ CO C L CO C o CO o CD C L _ X _>> CD "co §1 >. 2 CD CD O \t CD 3 o JD CO 3 E iS o g> c § CD = JZ CO l j JZ L7 ® g £ Jo c JZ CD CD — JD T J . . CO CD CD CZ oo T J CO CO CD O >- O O JD ~ T J C CO CO O JZ o -~ cz CO o II E 2 CO X CD £ co o 3 o JD CO CO ' 5 -4—» > CD CO E 16 = 3 T J > TJ CD CO cz co — CD Q CD JD 2 JZ • C L I CO CD 2 i iZZ CD CD zB £ CD J2 3 C CO CD CD ,„ TJ ^ CO 3 CO § "CO E r\ Q CO o 8.1 x t CD i JZ CO c iS 8 c E o ^ £ >> CO CO CD o g ) £ JSC JD CD JD CD © _ CD JO o S CO co CD § , | 1 co E ^ 8 T J 3 E 2 5 CD CO JZ fl) s i T J CD (0 O it-CD C L c o o JD CO CD O O JZ o o O i -JD CD *4— JZ o "CD CD CO o b JZ o 2 CO _ CD .9 « CO T J CD ^ JD i fl) fl) E -o Z 2 O O CO JD fl) CO Q o — CD E CO oCD QL co co CO fl) 190 CO CD CO c o o. <0 0 0 £ ? J go < I CD U (0 CD >» T 3 T 3 3 CO <D cn i2 e <D •o 3 ( 0 o TJ O X C D (0 S CO hi CD 1 _ Ci) sz o CQ iff to v . CD co i _ CD SZ o ro iff li-en' IO 1 -CD SZ o CO CD im CO p 0) sz o CO i f f CL CD CD O E £ ~ '*•* o © o "X CO o OT 0) CO CD D_ CO TJ ZJ szt ZJ CD ° TJ 00 ^ <D •— ^ CO - CD 5 CD CO CD TJ TJ ZJ Xi CD TJ « ro CO > , CD © TJ £ TJ ZJ szt O) Xi (D CD E £ 8^ E o o L _ CO CD TJ TJ ZJ X) ro CD o) ro szt "co x: CD CO J2 TJ JS s £ O" CO ^ CD © O > CO CD CD i_ CO i CD CD C tz" ro 5= co Q-— CO © CD CZ CO £ > ~ CO CO ~ x o co CD Q c c- x : g co o 1.! 1 CO TJ 5 OJTJ o CQ X i a CD SZ CD CO O O xz o CO C CO CD CD -3 TJ CO ZJ i SZ\ CD g o sz o CD CO CO CD TJ CD ? J Xi ~ i - CO CD .!= TJ *~ O © CD CO CO CD TJ TJ ZJ Xi CD CD <°lo CD g j= CL © co >» « « W ^ , CD E 5 CD c TJ 5= TJ - ~ ZJ <5 Xi £ o © t ? CL 2 TJ O ZJ © 2 •o "© CD 0 0 E o 8 © o — 8 I 8 * CO > 5 £ CD 0) O V. O 5 x: co o ,_ co £ CD CO SZ CD *1 "7 Xi c CO .2 >» CO TJ CO TJ < ZJ o)CQ c CO c c ro D CD TJ ^ _1 ro co 0) W ro o o c CO S 8 CD O | E CO g TJ TJ ZJ Xi l _ CD TJ CD c o c Q) >» TJ TJ ZJ Xi TJ CD CO »-CD CD CD or £ £ ZJ S3 CL — >.•»-55 SZ M CD c O CD CO £ CO S c TJ J= ZJ CO Xi Q _g 3= o «-d 8 C CO CD CO CO £ L U co n _ « CO o 2 < >, TJ CO CD ro CO CO sz CD SZ o ro _ CD *-» co *•» ^ g T_ CD 5 O CL 3 CO L _ CO CL CD SZ o ro a> c o ^ ^ © o3 CD ^  co CD O C £ o © o c5 B CO co o C= CD •Ei CO — •5. • co CO t - CO 5 O co TJ O O CD °> CD © CO c « © fO TJ D to CD TJ •« fi CD CO jo x i , iS 8 TJ c CD TJ C o CL CO CO CD CD Xi TJ CD C 5? co CO co CD ro CO CO CD D O CO CD —^» CD x: E <o co" © m TJ .9; co >fc O co 0 c >» CL CO ZJ E 2 1 CO g "> ro xz CD Xi co" CD c ro E o o = CO J5 E CO E © Xi o CL <D c CD ro — © "8 o CD CO X Z o ^ CO Xi CD 2 CL CL CD g > _ CO o sz C CD • Xi +=•  CD CD TJ '>O CL C si CD O) CO CO E £ i CD ro zs CD 8 .5 8 191 co cu mmm T3 TJ 3 n k . <D 33 o v. CO c o "-ZJ O CD Q. X CD 3 o >» 2 CO •*-> CO J Z CO C O k! O CD JZ o cs i f f I OS 00 o co >_ CD JZ o CO I t ? C O k . o C M V . 0) o (0 i f f I C Q CO CD CO i f f CO ZJ o T— CO , • 3 6 ra CO . ^ CD O CO XJ S CD ^ © co 2 "2 co O "CO © to O iS o — ^ co co CD C L o CO * -cr CD o CO JD CO © CD -«—» CD ma the 0) ey JZ -•—» JZ •> > © TJ CO CD O CO CD O CD "c TJ ra CD T J o TJ "oo CD T J TJ ZJ JD ZJ i JD E i JD CO c JD TJ Q_ CO E 2 CO X CD CD » "2 CO CD T J C CO CD CO 5= XJ CD O CO o O r a l "2 ro o iZ CO CO S 2 © • i JD O O JZ o CO T J CD CD CO c i CD CD — JZ - ~ O ©E O CD JZ CD £ CD O ~ raj? CD 5b CO E CD JZ CO CO — CD O TJ it i CO © • £ CD fc co ra O CO i l l 2 § | O O 3 t o CD JD O 2 CD JZ CD CO * 5 o I •c '8 JD. C L CD CO c CO © CD ra CO -rr CD ? 8 b <D 9- o £ 8 7 E c 2 > c © © JD CO TJ C CO ZJ © O « 8 © CO T J CO XJ © JD XJ BE © © IS CO © T J T J ZJ CO JO © CD S I © 8>© § E ° E fc o "2 Q "o co ° ZJ O w -s JD T J CO C © o E co = C L T J 2 fc CO 8 © o = Q . CO 2 o TJ CO i > TJ •4-> I— Zi O o © CO XJ CL £ © i ? ^ © o k . cu cu o CO cu k_ £ c cu T J 3 CO O T J _C0 CO 'iZ CO E +-> CO i 0 0 E o o © JZ *1 CO E CO o o O J g JD ^ 8 c z © JD Z zi >. J2 •« co cz •- ra -3 CL © co TJ i o 16 CO © c N ra co CO JD E CO C O L J o. CO CD CO o =j ° o - ° 0 c © g * - TJ TJ C 1 JD CO O O JD © © CO E -1—» o CO M— CO als th © C L CO o O als th X o o JD CZ JD CO TJ TJ CO © ci §. eo O O co o ra JD o JD i D O «-O ^ > o c ° _ © "2 o •= ra CO t- JZ o o JZ 00 CO — CO CD % E CO 7= 2 § © CO = o CO o CO E c o o JD 2 8 © co -X co o CO JD ° k. CD JZ u CO © © E CO . _ JZ o © c o TJ c © CO _ O CO 2 © JO JD -Q CO JZ CO C O © ra T J CO o TJ © -*—' CO 2 CD c 2 = t ! co co CO .= c £ © >. l l CO © CO CO *-— o I E « cz c ^ © W s § co C O 192 <>>• CO 0) T 3 T J CO CD a w TJ TJ 3 n i _ 'CD CC CD CO O O O _CD CD CO c CD TJ 3 *J CO o TJ I CJ> CO I S CO kl CD • « * i _ Q) x: CJ CO CD I * CO CD CO CD CO CD CO CO k l CD CN k. CD x: o CO i f f Iffl CO |6 CD U CO i f f TJ C CO CO CD > CD x: CO CD x: -•—• CD CO c o o TJ © CO .!= CD TJ " E CD co o O -n CO 8^ © „ 2 © » >,~ 8 ? E x: c o o i <i= co .-= CD CO JE O © "g c *-> x: c 0 8 TJ >p CO TJ CD-O 1 X) CO © ^ © TJ C TJ ~ Xi '© © £ © CO CD O > o © 21 ~ CO — x: ±= T J <D rjj T) x: o 0 0 3 ~ * - T J Xi >. CO © m © co ro 3z! 5 ° © co o ~ =J x: i o CL tD co x: © sz co O o Xi TJ © x: j^ o o X) c? >• .E co TJ © © © ro .2 © CL co GO © © o ro ^ ~ © 3 TJ .!= TJ i _ 3 CO XI — - E © CO SZ y_ r; o LO P "2 © © CO O CO © = CO c — o 0) o E £ F TJ fx, ro O CD T J C ro © © x: © E © sz CO CO ro o CO c ^ 2 « 52 © 8 © w 1 co" © « C L £ 3 C O O TJ CO © o o o © o © 0 . 0 ) 0 . © sz , .- t zB en CO O ro o E o E x i ro -g TJ CO © o o Xi © 1 2 2 TJ Q. C i CO o TJ >» CD o TS CO 5 o c o TJ > » CD CO CO " E o k . <D +J C 3 O o c CD s CD TJ 3 CO c CD CD E © © © © 3 X - I— o © OT2 o ro © o _ ro © © £= © ro £ -2-TJ © C CO iZZ © o CO © TJ © CO ZJ TJ L . I © x: -•—< CO TJ © CJ) c © CO CO TJ © • c? E j _ O TJ TJ — co © :J © 2 © o 3 o Q_ © © © " CO © CO © TJ TJ Xi © TJ O © E xz © TJ TJ 3 Xi © co © TJ TJ E P. © i TJ o 3j © — £ E _ © J*: x : o ~ • i © CO 2 P © 5 — 0 > ro *- co © 8 2>^ CO 21 CO Q- .iS 2 3 O CL TJ t_ I © ro TJ £Z 3 O CO CL c TJ O © © CO E c 3 C o © CO © CO • C 3 (,) >.TJ CO CO 3 E E co CO 3 ro Q. E "5 £ 2 c t © O TJ O 3 CO CL 2 CL CL ro o 5 CD « © Xi 3 ^ 1 O COl 193 co CD co c o Q. tn cu > < c cu o CO cu TJ c o Q. CO £ £ c cu TJ 3 CO o TJ O CU TJ co E £ CO £ £ cu c TJ CO £ 2 o c CU CO CO 'I CO i f f CO 2 CD o CO iff II-<0 2 CO (D <N i_ CD JZ o CO i f f loo CO I S CD JZ o CO i f f >. TJ TJ -Q "2 jz i c © o £ CO C c i f CD Zi c >. TJ C TJ O 3 O JD CO CD CD = -a £ TJ 3 CD JD £ CD CD zzz tn ~ ZJ <4- CO O CD sz co CD co I CD o £ "2 to =. Zi — CO •Jo CD CD jo .E co — ^ TJ JP. a , 5 0 i 7" © CD o CO ~ — > O (D 5 co ^ CO 'E co E to JZ 3 O JD CO TJ CD —< > ra c -4—» c o TJ CD > CD C CO CO c CD TJ 3 "to -•—< CO JZ o CO CD ra S 0 ^ 3 Ji o co ^ TJ C c 3 o 12 Q TJ TJ > >. CO CO ^ i_ c O CD CO 2 i_ co p cD t JZ CD * -CD © £ CO JZ ra -o 2 ci CD JZ o tz CO CL 1 .g Q co it co CD ra JZ CD o TJ cr CO CD 2 c CD CD E: to TJ I CD TJ § & > O CD "to £ CD fc £ CO 0 fc X E ® CD CD CD C O O JZ — CD ^ CD CO * J E i2 O CD O) CO CO CO cu E CO 3 CO cu T J c CO +•» 2 cu TJ c 3 k . CU o CO CD Q. CU & c cu TJ 3 CO O TJ o X CO 10 3 o JD CO v - 1— == CD 3 1 1 -o " r a C O) co o JZ CO CO CD 3 ' i_ JO o 1 "co CO CD CO J-c o JZ co "CD CD E £ <D 0= CO * -CO 2 0 t 1 TJ CO >-. JZ CO co to o -2, C CD >,> ra 2? C CD c JZ i_" CO O TJ fc -g ^ C0J£ CD .9 >*r f= JZ 0 0 >,"2 CO cz .f—. 1 CO CO CD JZ c CO CO SZ 3 o JD CO TJ CD -£ > ra c "c o TJ CD > CD c i CD JZ o CO CD o c c o TJ CO JZ >. SZ JD '5 CD > JD CO >• CL CO OJ E CD CO 0 CO c 3 CD 0 CO CO en TJ CO CO CO c CO CZ rawi ting ci) 0 tude TJ •fe- CO CD CO CD 3 1— ~ CD ^ © O TJ co -Jn £ M CO ^ O JS ~ CD 2 CD >- O 3 -o J2 C L . i Z , CD^ TJ .ti ra ^ o E . 0 > £ 0) TJ i_ CO — CD co ra TJ CO CD CO JZ ra to £ c CD CD i= »- TJ CO CD -j^ CD JZ 3 "to CD O o CO 0 3 JZ CO O ^ CO CD C TJ TJ °r O CD CO JZ 1 o CO CO 7= CD 2 E CD CD •D £ CD - ~ JZ O •— c CO c^< CO o .£ to ^ CD CO JZ tz JO CL X CD CO E CO ra TJ TJ 3 JD C o 2 2 l l CO .9? Ii J3 > 1 CD CD JZ o CO CD > » f c •e co 2 CD CO CO c E co ra o to co o fc c to ?*! 5 o .-• 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items