Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An exploratory study of kindergarten children's critical response to literature during group storybook… Palmer, Marlene 1988

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8 P35.pdf [ 3.71MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078295.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078295-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078295-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078295-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078295-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078295-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078295-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078295-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078295.ris

Full Text

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN'S CRITICAL RESPONSE TO LITERATURE DURING GROUP STORYBOOK READING by Marlene Palmer B.A., Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y , 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION  ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f English Education) We accept t h i s ' T h e s i s  as conforming  to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1988 (c) Marlene Palmer, 1988  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  of  the  University  of  British  Columbia,  I  agree  for  this or  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and  scholarly  or for  her  Department  DE-6  (2/88)  Columbia  I  further  purposes  gain  shall  that  agree  may  representatives.  financial  permission.  T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Britisn Vancouver, Canada  study.  requirements  It not  be  that  the  Library  permission  granted  is  by  understood be  for  allowed  an  advanced  shall for  the that  without  make  it  extensive  head  of  my  copying  or  my  written  ABSTRACT  It  is  now  during  the  along  with as  a  that  there  sensitivity  about of.  activity  the  which  child's  of  reading  is  eliciting  turn,  abilities  written  to  interpreting  their  the  language.  explored.  the  and  foundation  continuation  It  implicit  understanding,  strengthen  for  language,  of be  stories  children's  thinking,  responses  with  forms  beginning  and  necessary  about  literary  just  affect  these  experiences  knowledge from  school  positively In  interactive  meaning  in  ways  literature.  critical  linguistically  construct  are  stories  that  develop  to  literacy  to  kind  years  abilities  responses  the  known  preschool  Storytime appears  well  of  of  literacy  teacher  reading  development.  The  purpose  selected  books  storytime  two  and  would  children.  A  intact  morning  of  of  researcher  read  the  period  ten  days.  read  random  critical  middle  sessions  treatment  behaviors books  During with to  the the  teacher  interaction  behaviors.  pretest  storytimes  and  according elements  to and  significantly  an four more  critical  investigate  teacher  three  of  the  group this  group  same  ten  the  For  comments  posttest  stories,  same  and  and  The  than  ii  the  used. who  one  per  day,  the  arising  for  group  children children  each  composed in  the in  the  either  of  treatment  The  over  the  teacher  researcher  practice  questions  of  were  teacher.  specific  time, not  group  attended  same  did  a  group  Subjects  the  of  during  from  practiced  period  instrument  knowledge.  was  with  storytimes  matrix  responses  school  group  behaviors  children  researcher  the  a  literature  design  different  nontreatment The  about  kindergarten  time,  group.  whether  interaction  responses  class  in  author-adapted levels  to  nonequivalent  upper  afternoon  was  specific  the  pretest-posttest  or  interaction  study  practicing  increase  groups  of  this  specific  from  three  were ten  coded literary  group  nontreatment  gave group.  Qualitative identifying literature  observations and and  during  evaluating  literacy  the  study  behaviors  indicated  of  both  learning.  iii  the  need  teachers  and  to  develop children  means  of  related  to  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  ABSTRACT List  of  ii  Tables  vii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1.  INTRODUCTION  viii TO  THE  1.1  Introduction  1.2  Background  to  1.3  Purpose  the  1.4  Hypotheses  1 1  of  the  Problem  1  Study  5 6  1.4.1  Hypothesis  I:  6  1.4.2  Hypothesis  II:  6  1.4.3  Hypothesis  III:  6  1.5  Significance  1.6  Definition  1.7  Limitations  1.8  STUDY  Summary  of  of of of  the  Study  6  Terms the  6 Study  Chapter  1  8 and  Overview  of  the  Thesis 2.  REVIEW  OF  Remainder  of  the 8  THE  LITERATURE  2.1  Introduction:  2.2  Transactional  2.3  Imagery:  2.4  Narrative:  2.5  The  2.6  Theories  2.7  Reader  2.8  An  The  Stories  and  Origin  Text  Literacy  and of  Response  Response  Thought and  Critical  10  and  of  Experience  Reading  12 14 15  Theory Research  10 12  Programs  Response:  Overview  and  Learning  Linking  Readerly  10  17 in  iv  Reader  Response  18  3.  4.  2.9  Story  Reading  2.10  General  2.11  Some  2.12  The  2.13  Summary  and  Adult  Conclusions Specific  Key  to  of  Storyreading  Findings  the  Interactive  of  Beginning:  Behaviors  20  Activities  Storyreading The  :.  21  Activities  21  Evocation  22 23  METHODOLOGY  •  3.1  Introduction  3.2  The  3.3  Hypotheses  •  26 26  Research  Question  26 27  3.3.1  Hypothesis  I:  27  3.3.2  Hypothesis  II:  27  3.3.3  Hypothesis  III:  27  3.4  Design  27  3.5  Subjects  28  3.6  The  3.7  Testing  3.8  Treatment  3.9  Materials  34  3.10  Scoring  34  3.11  Statistical  Testing  Instrument  of  Literary  Procedures and  Nontreatment  Design  29 31  and  Group  Analysis  RESULTS  Procedures  32  36 38  4.1  Summary  4.2  Statistical  4.3  Tests  of  4.3.1 4.4  Knowledge  Tests 4.4.1  of  Problem  38  Results Hypothesis Null  of  the  I:  39  Hypothesis:  Hypothesis Null  38  39  II:  40  Hypothesis:  40  v  4.5  Tests  of  4.5.1  5.  Hypothesis Null  III:  41  Hypothesis:  ,  4.6  Qualitative  4.7  Observations  of  the  Response  4.8  Observations  of  the  Use  4.9  Summary  Descriptive  SUMMARY,  Findings  of  41  DISCUSSION, AND  of  Process  the  Research  Results  Summary  5.2  Discussion  of  Statistical  5.3  Discussion  of  Descriptive  42 Instrument  46 49  RECOMMENDATIONS  5.1  5.3.1  41  52 52  Findings  54  Findings  55  Introduction  5.4  Discussion  5.5  Recommendations  5.6  Suggestions  55 56  for  for  Practice  Further  62  Study  66  REFERENCES  ,  APPENDIX  1: Matrix  of  Literary  APPENDIX  2:  Pretest  and  APPENDIX  3:  Books  Read  to  the  Control  APPENDIX  4:  Books  Read  to  the  Treatment  APPENDIX  5:  Examples  APPENDIX  6:  t-test  of  Knowledge  Posttest  Analysis  of  75  Books  Response DRP  69  76 Group Group  Categories Scores  vi  77 78 82 91  LIST  OF  TABLES  Table  Page  1  2x2  2  Analysis  3  4  Anova  Analysis  t-test  Design  37  of Variance for Dependent interpretative responses) of Variance for Dependent evaluative responses)  Analysis  of  DRP  Scores  Variable:  INTPER  (percentage  of 39  Variable:  EVALPER  (percentage  of 40 91  vii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  The made  this  thank  the  author  would  study  possible  following  Wendy  Sutton,  Dr.  Nadine  Pelland,  Ms.  Robert  Roy,  Tracy  Ms.  Theemes,  like  for  thank  all  children,  to  take  place.  their  hard  work  In  and/or  Milburn,  Dr.  Glen  Diana  Munson,  Dr.  Charles  Kennedy,  Ms.  Sue  Ms.  Margot  Fisher.  viii  parents  addition,  Dennis  Betty and  to  and  the  author  inspiration:  Dixon,  Mrs.  Ungeleider,  Fillopenko,  Mr.  administrators  Dr.  Jon  Patricia Mr.  would  David  like  to  Shapiro,  Dr.  Wakefield,  Dallas  who  Ms.  Hinton,  Mr.  Rosenbaum,  Ms.  CHAPTER INTRODUCTION  1.1  TO  THE  STUDY  Introduction  Storytime reasons.  One  kindergarten relates of  1  that  1.2  reason years  a  to  According  to  print  and  (Cochran-Smith, the  language  key  to  Snow, with  the  Kuerbitz,  and  1979;  children  later  literacy  study  in  kindergarten stories  affect  to  this  the  with  literature  Dyson, the  literacy  when  and  program  during  the  reading  that  the  responsive  This  within  can  interactions  several  preschool  assumption  adults  for  abilities.  development  examines  1984;  of  participation  with and  theory,  they  print,  development.  Wells,  of  study  the  context  that  children  enrich with  and  and  extend  stories.  Problem  supportive  Moon  thinking  about  knowledge  activities  1985;  positively  particular,  reading 1984;  part  experiences  to  emergent  Thus,  literacy  storyreading Sulzby,  the  child's  involved  that  engaging  around  1983).  child's  In  by  Background  important  critical  knowledge  knowledge  books,  is  and  storytime. tacit  an  appear  literature  group  have  remains  participate Teale,  creating  in  adults  in  (Clark,  the to  language  early this  1976;  years  study  1  it  learn  concepts  print  rich  appears  that  event,  that  Shanahan  and  Hogan,  literacy are  is  an  1978;  related  integral  research Kita,  Teale,  which  it is  is the  1983;  activities  part  of  the  correlates  Goldstein, 1982;  of  settings  literacy  (Feitelson,  Schickedanz,  1983).  and  Specifically,  informal  development  1979;  children  interactive  frequent  Central  Wells,  in  1986).  an  literacy  reading  preschool  Walker  1986; and  Findings  indicating  several  facets  of  (Cohen,  1968;  Fox,  metalinguistic structure  1979;  awareness  appear  (Altwerger,  1985;  to  is  a  area  meaning  with  of  1982;  the  making  process  and  be  to  make  plausible  structure"  (Just  The list  of  interplay  reading  Reading  is  (Anderson  and  (Applebee,  children  Carpenter,  of  behaviors  use  and  Stokes, which  1978, of  to  1983;  narrative these  Morrow,  as  using  Heath,  and  be  regarded  appears  more  to  Egan,  1979;  fiction, to  which  Wells, higher  theories  which  the  story beyond  storybook  reading  with  This  to  by  " . . .  and  aspect  their  may  world  book  strategies  this  the  a  correlation  thinking  related  1981),  But  1983).  among  of  1981),  1983).  order  syntax  Scollon,  meaning  identified  knowledge  of  detailed as  a  constructs  be  make  and  into  focus  events, require  of on  objects, a  reader text's  and  of  the  generating  an  expanding  224).  a  Bruner;  to  "relations  and  Wells,  language,  1982;  be  theories  cultural  1984;  of  and  Schickedanz,  how  and  to  his  1 9 8 7 , p.  1985;  to  extend  vocabulary  Scollon  written  underlay  and  structures  1984;  "unstated"  research  social  construct  structures  inferences  coming  psychological,  One  &  may  Olson,  of  activities  include  1978;  Studies tend  which  . . . which  These  development  research.  macro-structures—structures facts"  child  storyreading  Bruner,  1982;  the  Cochran-Smith,  activities  oral  conventions  educate  storyreading  the  1984;  Golden,  the  of  promising  and  (Bruner,  with  of  development. Ninio  1983,  familiar  experiences  benefits  literacy  (Applebee,  becoming  the  1986;  literacy  description complex of  are  understand  with.  2  of  the  reading  transaction  process.  between  both  the  reader  Schieffelin  and  Cochran-Smith,  significant Rosen,  is  for  1983; referred  young  Wells, to  literature,  that  children  1983).  here  and  as  this  It  is is  stories, study  the  is  the text 1985).  narrative  the and  macro how  concerned  Part  of  knowledge To  know  only  about that  reflects  other a  understanding  story  new  together  wolves  always  get  caught  child  form—the  big, bad  structures,  shared helps the  book  child  adult  is  evoking,  to  be  of  this  a  a  knowledge,  attention  to,  and book  critical  educators is  being  beginning  learn  reader  constructs those  involves  both  child  intent  the  upon  in  the  In  child's  a  and  end,  knows  not from  sense  culture  of with  and  Furthermore,  the  these  literature—content  One  process  of is  of  and  critical and  can  use  In  In  the  adult  this  way,  other  evolving  is  words,  the the  child thesis  interplay  abilities  develop  the  implicit  helps It  of  ways  seeing  adult  reading  culture's  the  when  construction.  continual  a  the  knows.  resources. the  with  evaluate  event  response,  response,  the  transaction  familiarity  making  addition,  structure.  making  of  already  meaning a  of  reader's  1984).  child  child's  requires  reaction.  a  the  meaning  in  shared  conflict.  construction  what  the  the  interpret  Cochran-Smith, meaning  child  of  and  already  dimensions  text  to  done  constructs.  of  ability  is  organizes of  store  content  culture  that  a  over  of  can  be  time  in  events.  more  directed  readers  for  on  both  justice  resolution  guiding  in  of  the  reading  and  reading  a  the  reader  supported  how  extend  draw  mainstream means  purposeful  and  reader-a that  a  to  into  reflection  interactive  As  evolve  critical  identified  partner  that  interwoven  1983;  and  and  two  an  becomes  to  terms  with  a  as  (Applebee,  listening  study  well  in  had  and  with  ability  a  literary  the  wolf  formulate  understandings in  in  as  event  the  also  has  meaning  structures  is  the  reader  encoded  those  Western  way,  by  are  literary  but  in  another  determined  Negotiating  with  a  Put  the  constructs and  fit  what  experiences  the  stories  experiences,  is  is  how  story.  literature  literature  to  about the  the  kinds  (McConaughy,  reading of  1980;  3  process  stories  which  Morrow,  and  reading  parents  1982;  and  Morrow,  development, schools 1984).  use Both  story  structure  content a  (  or  listener  certain  linked  other  of  affective  and  of  of  selected young  texts"  mind  and  child  cognitive through  or  story"  offer  a  (p.  the  to  literature and  and  influence  how  education  says  thoughtful  (Meek,  1983;  relate  closely  of  the  responses  Rosenblatt, to  child's  conjoins  The  accessibility  1978).  the  story  thoughts.  story  of  child's  those  worlds fantasy  the  attraction  into  the  suggest  the  relevance  and  benefits  As  a  "mythic  literature  (Rosenblatt,  consciousness it  with  .  .  appears  appealling  thinker"  . that  language,  literature  a  1978),  other  the the  personally  lived  fiction  with  well-formed  do  of  "fus(ing)  narrative  and  than  (Egan,  1980),  into  the  young  and  Thus,  experience  1982)  appear  in  language  worlds,  readers.  388).  content,  richer  the  grammars,  of  to  the  to  1982)  fiction  of  language,  Trabasso,  Theory  seem  and  fantasy  elements  and  imaginative  structures  aesthetically  imaginative  structures  elicit narrative  beginning  affective  poem  intensely  for  story.  1983)  story  through  responds  and  the  with  varied  storybooks  a  can with  Stein  T r a b a s s o , T.,  of  (Meek,  and  literature  &  development;  engagement  clear  worlds  stories  cognitive  the  enthusiastic through  1978;  sense  experiences  "significant  magic  Glenn,  makes  kinds  with  These  and  N e z w o r s k i , T., S t e i n , N . L ,  reader  that  (Stein  story  stories  in  this  mode.  Examinations attention reading. given  has From  to  the  kindergarten  been the  curriculum paid  of  choice  knowledge  to  the  to  preceding of  storytimes.  knowledge  children's  of  guides  the  literature It  responses  to  of  discussion,  also  macro-structures  construct  use  lead  meaning literary  it  as  the in  appears  that  as that  a  4  it  care  role  insufficient stages  needs  of  of  to  be  literature  in  children  have  a  tacit  and  they  use  this  that  Furthermore, seems  that  beginning  more  the  fiction,  story.  experiences,  to  the  young  narrative  from  conclusion  literature  well  appears of  to  that  if  we this  listen  to  knowledge  develops with  in  older  between  an  children  teacher  acknowledged Sloan,  to  Literature into  this  which  based  the  study,  the  main  books,  as the  upon  Will  a  by  frequent  specific  critical  have  had  area  of  by  the  the  teacher  the  along  children's  literacy and  response  those  is  relationships.  to  question he  repsonse  can  needs  and to  be  elicited  teacher  reading  experience.  with  critical  1984;  interaction,  child  effect  question  be  year.  about  knowledge  that  to  (Baumann,  child's  of  literary  the  a  the  interactions  needs  research  that  cultural  author,  of  a  encouraging  about  their  response  interactions  knowledge to  stories.  of This  question:  have  behaviors during  and  Research  kindergarten  assumes  was  or  the  literature,  assumes  following  who  during  knowledge  of  the  knowledge  motivates  interest  kindergarten  teacher  nonspecific  study  of  between  and  comment  children  responses  response  learning.  development  theory  critical  social  of  to  explore  kindergarten  a  this  described  class  on  understanding  children  to  of  Finally,  Study  true  perspective  personal,  the  literacy be  and  structuring  literary  relationships  aesthetic  of  attempted  random  is  a- c h i l d ' s  literature  guided  study  as  require  study  also  experience  careful  for  may  theoretical  story.  interpreted  selected  who  play  of  about  This  indicates  evokes  the  Purpose  group  development  which  more  providing  1987).  This  the  understand  In  of  which  thinking.  central  1.3  part  this  process  that  reading  summarize,  critical  bring  indicates  Young,  development  spiralling  and  as  1985;  To  and  interactive  group  and  group  5  reading  selected  storyreading  guided  books?  using  storybook  storybook  than  books  experiences elicit  kindergarten  reading  more children  experiences  with  1.4  Hypotheses  There  1.4.1  were  three  Hypothesis  null  hypotheses  arising  from  the  general  research  question:  I:  There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant difference in the number of interpretative responses as measured on an author adapted test of literary k n o w l e d g e , regardless o f the kind o f b o o k read and regardless of the kinds of teacher interaction behaviors practiced.  1.4.2  Hypothesis  II:  There will be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant difference in t h e n u m b e r of e v a l u a t i v e r e s p o n s e s as m e a s u r e d o n an a u t h o r a d a p t e d t e s t o f literary k n o w l e d g e , regardless of the kind of book read and regardless o f the kinds of teacher interaction behaviors practiced.  1.4.3  Hypothesis  III:  There will treatment.  1.5  Significance  This to  comment  and  Definition  Selected  the  and  to  question  of  understanding the  about  and  critical  continue  Illustrated  appeal  and  the  two  variables,  book  and  their  to  recommendations  responses  facilitate  knowledge  children  interactions  of  for  teachers  on  are  already  requiring  how  making children  to to  literature.  Terms  of  elements—events/plot, ideas/themes,  between  Study  support  how  Books:  imaginative  interaction  provides  acknowledge and  no  of  study  literature,  1.6  be  the  storybooks content,  chosen .the  characters/relationships,  language/style/structure—and  6  by  clarity  the  based  richness  on  the  of  literary  setting/mood/atmosphere,  images,  the  and  author  consistency  with  which  these  elements  are  integrated  Unselected/Random Columbia  Books:  Kindergarten  development (Appendix  of  into  language  Oral  literary  elements.  Types  interpretative,  Teacher  to  storybooks  Guide  (1984)  literature  (Appendix  suggested  as  by  suitable  concepts  2  Appendix  the  and  during  and  current  British  appropriate  the  4)  for  kindergarten  the year.  listeners'  and  scaffolding  for  included  demonstrating in  this  sharing  of  and  modeling  the  can  be  study  knowledge  are  response  of  factual,  to  7  a  book  into  the  personal,  initiated  information, a  behaviors  include  showing  with  extend  valuing the  his  book  story  the  peer  interaction  with  such  as  1)  dialogue  encouraging theme  with  spontaneous  child's  or  activities  group  categories:  linking  response,  behaviors  during  two  Teacher  giving  interpretative  drama).  interactive  and  interaction  child  self-generated  for  to  responses.  thinking  time  teacher  divided  comments,  increasing for  of  responses  teacher  and  allowing  by  critical  2)  Teacher  stories,  kinds  behaviors  and  risk-taking,  opportunities  movement  these  questions  responses  (discussion,  comments  Certain  child's  dialogue,  experiences.  appreciation  and  knowledge  Behaviors: the  inviting  predicting  of  Basically,  initiated  includes  questions  evaluative.  affect  storyreading.  music,  and  Interactive  providing  and  work.  3)  Response:  teacher  literary  Illustrated  Curriculum  Critical  appear  a whole  response, group, the  art,  and story  writing,  1.7  1.  Limitations  The  of  the  population  kindergarten limits 2.  3.  The  the two  The  time  person  a  that  the  teacher)  teacher  effect  was  of the  designed  to  six  involved in  test  length thus  the  random  sampling  of  and  this  of  the  the the  the  Also,  posttest,  results  of  are  that  the  time.  results difference  the  data  limited  administration  the  and  end  period  over  Thus  day  respond.  pre/posttest  treatment.  and  of  forming  administrator.  pretest  and  place—i.e.  of  the  times  attend  weeks,  in  the  to  the  capable  two  group.  took  on  groups—i.e.  using  different  study  were  researcher)  between  at  intact  Not  the  abilities  over  two  groups.  story  their  place  of  beyond  this  children  variable  and  may  be  in  the  treatment  may  limitation. study  between differ  is  more  the  of  be  groups.  each  outgoing  this  not  their  of  Summary  and  may  in  sample  In  as  constriction  took  to  a  to  time  limited  the  place  which  (the  The  books  in  study  (the  in  affected  person  responses  1.8  listened have  responses  consisted  generalizations  another  be 5.  of  year  The  study  already  year—placed  the  One  may of  collection.  4.  the  classes  groups  factor  school  of  making  time  to  Study  styles  of  interaction  group  may  the  those  1 and  represent who  specific  of  and a  of  the  interaction  8  of  more  effect  of the  behaviors  a was  However,  as  because  well  Thus  the  who  are  group—those  of  as  individuals  knowledge.  of  Remainder  group.  groups  occurs  kinds  of  the  the  kinds  part  the  of  within  limitation  express  Overview  problem  responses  distributed  distribution  Chapter  practicing  evenly  the  This  and/or  chapter,  determine  knowledge.  the  teacher  Thesis  reading  introduced  selected  within  the  context  of  definition  of  chapters the  current  will  literature  which  as  it  to  the  and of  research  limitations the  applies and  and  of  the  following to  the  are  the  methodology,  working  collect  and  analyze  chapter  findings;  findings,  chapter  V,  a  recommendations  summary for  literacy  study  delineation  assumptions  data;  on  topics:  of  qualitative of  consist  hypotheses  descriptions used  terms  theory  also  chapter  II,  of  of  in  reports the and  stated. a  this of of  the  for  four  review  of from  chapter  and  III,  procedures  statistical  chapters,  suggestions  next  framework  terms,  preceding  The  study;  both  Hypotheses,  thorough  a. c o n c e p t u a l  definitions  practice,  9  were  drawn  IV,  development.  a  future  and  discussion study.  CHAPTER REVIEW  2.1  Introduction:  Reading  and  occurrence  telling in  transactional and  Stories  based  reading  stories  Feitelson,  1984;  Wells,  schools  is  writing  Kita,  1983, to  ensure  activities  development.  as  an  (1983)  Roser,  to  (1978)  of  the  special  The production and use of 'literary' aspects of the generative process of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f o u r m e a n i n g s (p. 8 7 ) .  2.2  Transactional  Transactional social an  inquiry  involved  with  what  1980).  Critical  based  views  motivated  (Bruner,  and  learning,  constructivism,  meaning  of  Learning  the  When  the  written  learner  Purves  (1983)  in  calls  a  the  of  literature  writing  then  Teale, of  reading  as , e v i d e n c e literature  (Doake,  1985;  responsibility  with  in  the and  of  this  education:  materials are complementary building and sharing symbolic  as  theories an  the  children  language  role  and  Sulzby,  in  language  experiences  and  thinking, well  interest  Response  on  participant  as  the  common  relating  how  1987;  says,  a  Current  reading  symbolic  means  be  language  into  1979;  important points  whole  of  Donaldson  to  programs  learning  Fox,  development  provide  and  investigations  the  1986;  assumed  kindergartens.  literacy,  prompted  particuarly  the  Applebee  with  (emergent  If,  is  theories  Goldstein,  1986).  children  along  have  learning,  young  and  development  influence  LITERATURE  preschools  theories,  programs)  1979;  to  homes,  learning  THE  Literacy  stories  most  intellectual  and  OF  2  symbolic  interpreter  construction  listen  to  structures, "cognitive  10  of  or  both  of  read as  of  interaction  human  and  experience  personal  and  social  stories,  they  individuals  and  as  the  process  community,"  in  are  and  actively members of  interpreting theorists  and  view  The  constructing reading  theories  of  1978;  Rosenblatt,  and  text.  An  Rosenblatt, as  the  the  more  process  literary  enables with  (p.  world.  These  with  Frye  critical  is  of  way  that  some  reading  a  the  are  of  variety  reader  organization  reader  ability  with  of  to  and  by  these  during  on  a  (Fillion,  a  the  text  (p.  70). of  structures  of  and  their  a  text,  with  finally,  of  1981;  "understanding  transaction  myriad  of  criticism  structures  and,  reader  sense  defines  upon the  of  make  1974)  1974;  between  response  as  response  based  (Barthes,  interaction  knowledge  Familiarization  constructions  this  recreator"  Purves,  required  to  in  critical  (in  structures  available  is  as  the  both  1962;  knowledgeable  clear:  to  i s , in  in  1983).  with  making" effect,  and  (p.  Vygotsky Wells  to  the  that  in  our  transactions  social  (1962)  sees  (1983)  and  cultural  the  child  in  the in  11  and  such  a  interaction this  relationship, scaffolds  knowledge  the  says:  child  structural  conceptual  care  When  teacher  provides  mature-parents  222).  guiding  way  extends  more  those  theory  a  and  relationships.  more  meaning  child  refines  Wells,  social  interact  constructivist the  formulates,  adult  reciprocal  are  attention,  social  interacts  internalized  the  a  experiences  of  describes  "reader  allows  series  It  systems.  Vygotsky,  their  which  literary  text.  and  on  Northrop  schemata  Applying  child  21).  of  discourse  based  responses  focusing  the  adult  (1987)  as  are  the  process.  text"  1985).  a  whereby  texts"  assimilation  of  the  ability  Sloan,  Young  in  complex  1978;  from  transactional  1978)  important  application  Likewise,  a  "reader  Iser,  progressively  as  meaning  higher  "For  those  teacher-the way  as  to  centers  process  of  as  (Bruner,  mental of  the the 1980;  functions us  who  as are  responsibility foster  around  and  is  enrich  storyreading,  transactional  reading.  2.3  Imagery:  The  Origin  Transactional This  shift  of  responses. 1962)  and in  propensity  for  (Langer, (Egan,  the  function  impulse  chjldren  the  making  with  comprehend to  and  positively  affect  into  "its  interest  in  objective for  of  and  the  in  (Abbs,  p.  40).  responses  literacy  a  1982). the  Thus,  (Morrow,  the  1988;  both  process follows  an  image  activities  literature  with  as  artist  for  symbolic  arts,  In  imaging  development of  The  are  human  of  recognized  desire  to  The  variety  representations,  reflection,  (Vygotsky,  process  linguistic.  Abbs,  valid  (Eisner,1979),  educational a  1983).  make  researcher.  became  1978;  could  language  basic  in  as  reading,  (Eisner,  reader  this  imagination  well  (Rosenblatt,  domains  experiences  subjective  development  the  thought  for  as  complete"  their  that  learner  image  desire  response  cognitive  the  their  activity  and  formulate  of  kinesthetic  subjective  image  the  role  represent  aural,  and  of  reader  trusting  generated  the  epistemological  to  hold,  in  on  between  affective  making  and  image  transforming  will  symbol  visual,  and  meant  relationships  the  People  of  dependent  reconception  1942/1978)  forms—e.g.  is  status  proposed  1978).  natural  reader's  between  influential  Response  reading  the  The  of  which  would  Pellegrini  its a of the  which enable  appear and  to  Galda,  1982).  2.4  Narrative:  Linking  Narrative have 1978;  is  emphasized Cates,  psychology, broadest  Thought  one the  1979;  the  1983).  literary  consists  of  Experience  oldest  importance  Wells,  aesthetics,  sense  of  and  of  forms narrative  Theories  criticism both  of  of and  form  and  12  communication. in  literacy  narrative literature  Some  development  come  from  education.  content—form  the  researchers (Applebee, fields  Narrative  being  the  in  of its  narrative  discourse the  system  past,  present  Narrative as  everyday  hand,  the  is  the  calls  (P-  man of  our  when  he  Our  content  "we  of  1986;  being  human  narrative—as  art  Rosen,  A  distilled  Rosenblatt  felt,  thought  1983).  collective  experiences  (1968)  and  says  created"  (p.  of  necessarily  personal  stories  are  verbal  from  sees are  which  the the  well  self  as  stories  we  as  we  On  the  the  or  we  of  other to our Wells  of  one's  stories  of  what  meaning with  and  limited  embodiments  synonomous and  literature  "province  more  negotiate  tell  the  frameworks,  and  thoughts  288).  are  as  literature  culture's  that  stories  1983),  in  feelings,  personal  models,  says  of  Wells,  (1987)  levels  1983).  has  1986;  mental Rosen  and  (Bruner,  structures Rosen,  that  (Bruner,  experiences. stories  1986;  two  storying  experiences.  experiences (1983)  in  province  individual  structuralism,  describes  verbal  all  in  future.  theory  (Bruner,  literature  and  thinking  constitutes actions  rooted  new  personal could  tell"  3).  Narratology recurrent  elements,  the  makings  of  narrative  resource" storying  is  of  a  as  experiences  structural  themes story"  a  (Rosen, is  the  and  1983).  the  process  and  to  patterns  (Pradl,  "primary  of  of  Whereas  literature  to  in  a  in  set  (Hardy, is  everyday  order  of  Narratology  mind"  engage  them  narrative  yield  1 9 8 3 , p.1).  act  people  interpret  study  to  understand  universals arose  1977)  narrative both  to  from and  that the  as  make  determine recognition  a  elevated  "cognitive to  sense  an of  others.  For w e d r e a m in n a r r a t i v e , d a y d r e a m . in n a r r a t i v e , r e m e m b e r , a n t i c i p a t e , hope, despair, believe, doubt, plan, revise, criticize, construct, gossip, l e a r n , h a t e a n d l o v e b y n a r r a t i v e . In o r d e r t o r e a l l y l i v e , w e m a k e u p s t o r i e s a b o u t o u r s e l v e s a n d o t h e r s , a b o u t t h e p e r s o n a l a s w e l l as t h e s o c i a l p a s t a n d f u t u r e . ( H a r d y , 1 9 7 7 , p. 7 ) ,  13  "how  art, their  In  addition  storying  is  continually 196).  the  as  the  stories  the to  of  group  in  the  provides  the  the  self  in  2.5  The  of  (Holland,  the  Text  literary series  by  In  is  enter  shared  social  engaging  with  and  are  stories  as  responding  to  mode,  1983,  p.  in  resource  in  the  learning  within  92).  combined  meaningful  (p.  "involve  this  (Applebee,  others"  experiences  stories  in  is  own  and  that  which  with  their  cultural  claims  world,  listening  and  content  (1983)  stories  create  discourse  part"  and  of  way,  experiences  a  a  people  this  govern  form  It  a  for  the  appears  way  that  constructing  of  1980;  negotiations into  the  that  The  viewed  and  writing  skills.  1972;  active,  Squire, of  the  1964) author  responsible reading the  structures  as  text,  text  the and  literacy  1978).  14  on  response  elevated  theory  by  reader,  of  research the  reader  structure  of  Criticism,  was  researchers  and  meaning  prompted 1974;  of  the  New  response  reconstruction  (Barthes,  in  perceptual,  and  status  embodied  Reader  the  passive  the  celebrated  reader.  as  of  focused  Reader  autonomous  between  deep  Rosenblatt,  reading  encoding  to  1929).  who  Reading  1968,  equal  newly  theorists,  theorizing 1978,  child  of  and  Purves,  least  a  and  theories  (Richards,  balanced  theory,  that  Wells  exchange  personal,  which  mode,  the  others.  follows  accessible,  decoding,  at  text  by  we  resource,  society.  1975;  being  of  the  narrative  Traditional  to  which  most  whereby  increases It  cognitive  narrative  conventions  Readerlv  linguistic,  of  form.  a  enriched  stories  others  narrative  cultural  and  the  being  "means  bounds  of  variety  that  the  broadened  listen  familiar  storying  also  Within  well  to  through  research  Bruner,  1986;  a  and Iser,  Familiarity meaningful the  the  connection  with  relationship  1985; of  with  Wells,  and  (1978)  claims  (1978,  1980)  to  the  texts  for  as  a  for  emergent  2.6  Theories  and  of  language  value  forms of  of  giving  literary  (Clay,  the  important  by  and  vein, (p.  1983;  Meek,  decodes  the  led  to  are  Barthes By  recommended  literature  door  to  Sulzby,  structures  (p.  gave says  a  reading  role  "greatest ability  to  reading  instructional the  Iser's  new  the the  under  Iser  24).  transactional  grouped based  a  structures.  implication, the  with  1982;  it"  (1974)  a  deep  those  gaps"  of  generally  and  of  "telling  37).  along  opened  composing  component  and  writing  to  experiences  his  1976;  Teale,  of  generative  These  to  1986).  and,  child's  practices paradigms  programs.  in  early  of  meaningful  the  are  formal  language  1986).  approach  Both  and  the  reading  and  programs  are  to  as  using  and the  cognitive  real  complete  linguistic  programs  drawing  regarded  and  learning,  abstracted  linguistic  context.  15  natural  childhood,  representations  literacy  purposeful  and  Goodman,  of  before Whole  and  isolated  1987;  understanding a  the  view  literacy  1982,  with  than  process  of  contextualized  along  Flores,  within  a  understandings  rather  representation. form  reader"  language  only  text  same  that  literature,  understanding  reader"  studies  in  (Fox,  not  the  emphasizes  writing,  Edelsky the  the an  importance  structures  (Altwerger, and  theory  instruction  real  reader  the  literacy  conceptual  on  In  evoked  discourse  Programs  formation  and  of  the  "implied  and  narrative  literacy  receives  by  became  and  encodes  recreator.  literacy, whole  literacy  grounded  the  theories  Emergent  writing  but  reader  of  development  of  view,  rewriting  These  the  books  "the  of  experiences  literature  thought,  compose,  process.  the  this  concepts  allow or  In  that  reader  write,  between  1985).  language  conventions  items  encourage  other  visual  child's  means  structures  of  Literature  based  affective-cognitive reason It  for  1982).  in  than  developing  literary  of  to  basal  literature  structures  in  success  strategies  response  experiences Rosenblatt,  literacy  is  more  says  that  sensitive  and  emotions,  but  member  of  text.  The  new  texts  a  readers  are  is  more  readers  allow  significance with  related  comprehension  basal  will  the  experiences  them  to  and  and  as  predict  Trabasso,  more  1982).  literature  One  comprehension.  (Stein  (Morrow,  of  literature.  to  various  comprehending  which  affect  1968,  the  the  1978;  than  a  clearly  Consequently,  well  patterns  as  more  of  and  the  1968,  1978;  cultural  reader's  relation  process  of  the  "an  an  text.  knowledge"  community)  1985; as  a  events  about  of  1983).  increasing  sense  as  on  language  previous  and  he  is  that  negotiates  not  only  and  thought  with  a  to  a of  texts  describes where  we find satisfaction in a g r e a t e r range and d i v e r s i t y of w o r k s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y a s w e f i n d s a t i s f a c t i o n in w o r k s w h i c h , b y t h e i r complexity of the subtlety of their distinctions, their scope or their u n e x p e c t e d n e s s , m a k e g r e a t e r a n d g r e a t e r d e m a n d s u p o n us ( p . 5 ) .  16  as  understanding  form"  a  brings  experiences  (1968)  literary  (Meek,  Rosenblatt  experiences  Britton of  book  writing.  reader  (based  a  satisfying  assumption  and  "event" A  to  this  participation  quality Wells,  in  reading  in  involvement,  to  Sloan,  of  emotionally  responses  Implicit  acts  with  structures  frequent,  qualitative  engages  transaction of  that  1975).  person  in  this  Sloan,  literate  cognitive  of  child's  mechanical  "series  of  assume  the  increases  notion  programs  intelligent  quality  (Rosenblatt, central  learning  influences  in  more  extend  stories.  Literature  (1978)  in  structure  story  have  programs  instead  structures  the  should  other  1983,  story  story  developed  success  literature  that  The  children  relationships  using  appears  reading  the  2.7  Reader  Response:  Theory  in  reader  perceiving  reading  experience  as  it  clear  says  that  that  words  upon  and  and  efferent  the  reading he  a  will  47).  In  through this  participant be no  engaged direct  roles  the  that be  the  stance  to  a the  Britton  that  readers and in  at  (1979) take.  (p.  16).  She  well  events  reader's  the  back  role a  of  17  1987,  the both  aesthetic to  focused  on  "In  response  own  are  efferent  should  work,  and  be  is  experience.  ordered  readings,  preconceptions,  the  but 17).  and  different  spectator the  the  organization,  literary  spectator,  p.  as  new  between the  to  a  relation  what  make  our  literary  (Corcoran,  on  total  to  that  is  25).  abilities  the  learns  the  24).  cognitive  experiences  (p.  primary  enhance  in  (p.  not  proposes  in  attention  centered  she  the  stances  event"  when  experiences,  continuum  two  makes  according  past  the  these  event"  the  vacillate as  of  distinguishes In  and  reading  intellectually its  art"  is  reflects  process  of  reading  text  reading  (1978)  reader,  the  student  which  look  light,  involvement  of  Rosenblatt  for  structures  the  ends  such  language  by  attention  readings,  how  framework  text  as  remains  a  the  describes  the  actual  mirror  which  two  with  to  the  shift  transaction,  "until  a  emotionally  the  reader's  after  fall,  reading  (1983)  explanation  only  work  during  aesthetic  says  literary  aesthetic  meaningful  and  (1980)  window  the  to  immediate  through  during  responses  responses  Rosenblatt the  educators  themselves.  composed  She. labels  residue  more  interpretation  a  the  structures  the  readers'  reading,  of  literature  "In  living  Although  Miller  constitute  stances.  is  indeed  structured  of  provided  responses—responses  language  are  which  act.  as  nucleus  to  literary.  (nonaesthetic) retained  as  which  has  organized  "the  context  personal  what  well  is  alone,  particular  as  response  responses  it  continuum  Theory  reader  nevertheless People  take  not (p. and may has the  participant stance  in  readers  evidence  2.8  role  An  everyday  normally  presented  Overview  Research reconception constitutes  to  of  in of  life  adopt  as  they  with  act  directly  expository  on  texts,  the  world.  accepting  This  or  is  the  rejecting  the  them.  Research  children's the  in  response  reading  response.  Reader  Response  to  literature  process  Rosenblatt  is  (1983)  the  says  is  in  its  continued  infancy.  Implicit  understanding  in  of  a  what  that  s t u d i e s s h o u l d be m a d e o f t h e k i n d s o f e l e m e n t s in a w r i t t e n o r o r a l r e s p o n s e that can be j u d g e d t o r e f l e c t the i n w a r d - l o o k i n g synthesizing a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h lead to the c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n o f a sense o f the w o r k (p. 46). Early  research  1975,  Purves,  in  reader  1968,  definition  of  cognition,  perception  inventory  and  immense  task  young  survey  Squire,  Purves  and  during  and  some  data  1974),  1960's  and  was  based  on  Beach  emotional  collection  identifying  the  and  (1972) or  methods,  coding  a  state  attitudinal the  early  to  (Holland,  cognitively  oriented  "response reaction"  studies  responses  1970's  just  consists  (p.  named  literature  from  178).  of  Using  began  the  adults  and  concluded  that  adults.  Purves's  (1968)  "schools  appear  to  read  appear  to  and  Thus,  Purves'  literature" to  1972;  response.  of  response,  place  them finding  to  and  that  train bind  message instead  before the  study  the  variety  of  of  students  students  to  educators  "imposing  expressions  the  literary of  education  how  the  students of  literature  to  order  a  single  to  is  one  personal  of they  set  countries responses  of  or  read"  of  several so  (1974, with  to  concepts"  aware  structures  involvement  18  ten  their  be  structure  variety works  to  in  (1974,  they  p.  70).  "indoctrination  in  structures that  p. a  what  they  70).  story  might  Squire's correlated  apply (1964) with  expressions readers the  of  is  literary  important  importance  of  Applebee's literature  are  According  to  more  the  to  literary  initial  reading  (1978)  work  constrained Applebee,  subjective,  stage,  of  response  ages  to  eleven  ages  operational  teachers  tended  younger  children.  As  the  studies studies  ethnographic  the  are  Hickman children's and  listening responses,  nine,  ask  of  be  more  of  young  children  of  (1981)  primary  was  responses  nonverbal behaviors, actions  reactions contact  and  drama,  Bunbury  are  the  characterized  ordering  (1979)  that  reports about  Bunbury  expanded with  in  include  young  also  differ  and  literature.  first In  "response  with making  books, things  19  literary  acting  the  note  that of  response  reader  response  in  their  this  use  way, by  of  these  describing  environments.  analysis  events."  at  literacy,  response  researchers  her  and  of  In  than  questions  studies  data.  definition  did  Recent  past  analyzing  the  the  from  children  frequently  emergent  and  stories  inferential  children.  naturalistic  of  as  to  than  by  operations  differentiation,  However,  of  development.  concrete  questions  questions  evaluation  intellectual  in  objective  literature.  of  referentially.  enlarging  to  children  inferential  literal  one  patterns  stage  beginning emphasizes  about  more  gathering and  attitudes  of  for  (1982)  questions  1983)  exploring  Meek  answered  literacy  1981; Kiefer,  stage  than  more  who  future  preoperational  more  selection  children's  Likewise,  conducted  methods  behaviors  verbal  to  of  level—i.e.  to  (Hickman,  researchers  to  definition  began  responses  patterns.  to  that  the  text  Likewise,  current  in  answered  seven  concrete  their  evidence  classifying  children  experiences  by  that  development.  children  give  indicates  concluded  simplistic  latter  nine  judgement  to of  These  on  writing.  document  data,  she  classified  categorizations  impulse  to  young  share,  were: oral  Kiefer's  (1983)  environmental study  is  and  materials their  teacher  discover  she  questions earlier, of  critical  2.9  Story  As  the  asked  them  to  approach"  (p.  and  earlier,  interaction  (Heath,  Although  1982)  on  are  possible  little  research  (Cochran-Smith,  from  or  looking  at  1984;  Roser  (p.  much  as  As  force  in  was  in  they  a  her  to  the  variety  able In  all  to  express  develop  aspects  children  of  they  feelings"  influencing  their to  liked;  and  found  the  the  children  what  (1974)  of  particular,  encouraged  Purves  from  key  time,  19-20).  the or  the  need  surface'  asked  19).  10  "her years  student's  choice  of  accumulate  about  Behaviors  literature  reading.  (Flood,  1977;  and  between the  1983;  parent  these  to  studies for  teacher  is  beginning  Investigations Ninio adult  relationship  Hogan,  and  the  comment  story  implications  (p.  to  findings  was  who  relate  literature.  body  one-to-one  conclusions  there  and  them"  so  major  relationship  (Shanahan  focused  a  adult  literacy  the  to  other  "never  Interactive  during  the  instruct  be to  a  behavior  1985),  development  to  or  seemed  'beneath  teacher  Adult  roles  "look  compare  69)  occurred  stifling  open-ended"  tends  responses "Children  of  artistic  Among  teacher  not  own,"  reported  a  of  development.  which  to  did  teacher  responses  have  children  always  conditions  response.  their  interactive  Martinez,  in  instead  comments  Reading  the  literacy  important,  the  were  "the  of  the  responses  on  instead  of  most  "her  on  setting  depth  helped  thinking,"  adult  the  and,  early  adult  influences  that  richness  study  book based  classroom  story  Martinez,  20  1985).  looked  Bruner,  story  1985).  were  interaction  have  interactive of  Wells, child  and  to  The  reading on  1978;  reading majority  and to  during  child  studies  at  home.  interactions,  Currently, group  and  literacy  of  sessions  one-to-one  specific  Roser  behavior  reading.  behaviors  at  there  is  storytime  2.10  General  Conclusions  Storytime a  written  is  text.  intentional  narrative  and  (Scollon adult  the  and  (Teale,  The  adult  anchors  assists  oral the  the  as  child  well  as  to  form  and  child  an  knowledge extend  sense On  of  an  the  by  on  adult  an  in of  his  expectations  to  the  story  on  the  child's  through  negotiation  and  of  immediate  text  the  level, however,  structures  new  centering  virtue  another  literary  awareness  Some  Specific  Findings  positive  adult  of  Storyreading  interactive  and  from  past  emerging  the  story  structures  "questioning,  positive  feedback,  giving  personal  reactions,  and  relating  concepts  there  appears  to  Furthermore,  quality  of  the  independence behaviors  an  child's  of  (Heath,  These  or  1982;  changes  and  Bloome,  also  be  the  to a  life  expecting  and  indicated  the by  of  the adult  or  sharing 1988,  p.  number  and  level  and  interactive  1988).  patterns  in  interruptions  21  praise  (Morrow,  between  kinds  identified  discussion,  experiences"  (as.  has  offering  directing  relationship  Morrow,  research  responses,  information,  amount  certain  which  and  experiences  1985;  report from  dialogue  extending  storytime  responses)  studies  adult  scaffolding,  Activities  behaviors  include  time,  of  with  certain  specifically  1986).  child  child,  around  make  Ninio,  The  brings  exchange,  and  and  1984).  Some  92).  1985).  interaction  to  adult  participates  narrative  child  apply  between  (Sulzby,  with  Through  adult  the  meaning  experience  Activities  occurring  storytime,  Scollon,. 1981; Snow  enables  readings  activity  of  expectations.  mediation,  2.11  During  experience.  Storyreading  social  construction  predisposition story  a  of  storyreading to  expecting  behaviors.  Over  listening,  from  supporting the  dialogue  end, and  from  Morrow interaction reflect  asking  (1988)  management  and  sustaining  less  meaning  interpretative  level  Morrow  reading  adult.  behaviors. a  which  in  found  increased  that the  asking  found  gradually on  the  turn  level  the  child more  interest  the  responses  story  interaction  participation  of  adult  increases  in  the  began the  the  to  adult literary  decreases  the  informing  and  change  meaning  at  structure  and  behaviors  and  evolving  responses  the  at  questions.  of  control  Likewise, and  questions  internalizes  constructing  adult  verbal  pattern  child's  to  type  inferential  children's  assumes  the  specific  child's  e.  behaviors  increases  using  more  that  adult.  Also,  literal  comprehension  characteristic  She  interactive  at  to  behaviors—i.  dependent  interactive  asking  questions  child  prompting  constructing  sum,  and  the  to  another  interactive  Consequently, being  reading  literal  child  adult's  transaction,  the  observed  between  the  behavior.  during  from  a  more  print.  during  complexity  of  In  story verbal  interchange.  2.12  The  Key  Bogdan of  to  the  (1986)  imaginative  Beginning:  describes  identity  the of  emotion...a  coalescence  52).  Rosenblatt  calls  literary  work  transaction. critical  art  Evocation  response  evocation implies  of  is  a  knowing  can  this that  Evocation  condition literary  of  readers  literary  object,  Rosenblatt's  condition  the  repond  "evocation." to  both  both  emotional  operate  even  at  the  process,  relationship  this  22  by  It  and  "that fusion  efferent is  the  and  this  of  evocation the  of  as the  (p.  of  a  aesthetic  And  process  state  intellect  processes,  level.  experiences  ideal  readings"  after  intellectual  subjective  the  as  the  and  during  understanding between  stasis  typified  aesthetic  includes  transactional about  the  with  and  The  since an  thus the  educator  reader  and  the  "types  of  as  linguistic  At  imagery, patterns,  the  "ideologically of  The  literature" Criticism  one  step  specific  of  field  of  is  1987,  p.  further.  249).  or  is  as  well  1 9 8 3 , p.  43).  reader  response  is  (Rosenblatt,  of  post-structuralists,  this  reader  emotional  continuum  and  should In  basic  texts"  discourse  what  The  and  the  deconstructivists,  construct  (Corcoran,  by  end  constructed  this  assumptions  offered  opposite  deconstructionism.  nature  social  thus  engage  way, not  a  structures,  see  literature  cultural  students  construct...  and  deconstructionism  just  equal  with  as  the  the  teachers  takes  of  the  text,  but  an  New is  its  master.  Applebee  (1983),  crediting  idiosyncratic  violating  the  Corcoran  (1987)  interpretations  and  of  Rosenblatt  literary  underlying  structural  conventions.  interpretative  response  valid,  Rosenblatt  (1983)  that  necessarily  the  make  2.13  an  to  review  literacy. be  There  The  in  is  storyreading which  of  known  development  in  consensus—is  basis  There  rather  "clarification the  works  are  than  of  of  of  the  critical  caution  art  at  the  certain  or  being  communication"  cost  criteria  "correct" criteria  against of  which  "incorrect". applied—not  (p.  49).  Summary  A and  says  (1983)  in  adults  the  literature  relationship about  general  seemingly school affirm  is  why and  indicates complex  to  reading  conclusive  in  relationship  complicated  activities  are  to  between study.  literature  More  important  to  needs literacy  particular.  evidence  affect  support  strong  and  storyreading  positively and  a  that  children's  children's  23  storyreading  literacy  narrative  at  home  development.  expectations  of  and  The  ways  the  story  experience making  is  context  ability of  educators a  to  are  around  meaning  which  form  Some  of  of  these  outside  constructs,  from  comprehension  acknowledging  experiences  these  point  take  literature  symbolic  learned. in  pivotal  children  continue  to  develop  meaning  resources.  This  is  the  theory  constructs  are  literature. able  social  and  that  social  is  is  as  various  of  he/she  the  stories  to  the  to  interact  with  learns and  within  interaction. like  constructs  literature  reader  viewed  language,  cultural  unique  being  cultural  written  and  As  now  and more  That  oral  must  are  complex  comprehend  is,  language,  which some  the  be  learned  forms  more  of  complex  stories.  Reader reader  response  is  involved  encouragement reader  to  texts  composed make  to  at  of  literate  complex  stories. as  symbol  fiction,  experiencing  literary  narrative  complex  literary  they  orovide  times  the of  rich  in  or  negotiate  that  certain  children  literacy  oral  form  opportunities  structures.  24  use  needs  with  language  because  Adult-child experience  and  respond  to  children the  children  children  are  others  young  storybook and  in for  language  than  that  when  Studies  text.  written  Therefore,  and  strategies  the  easily  The  time  both. of  proposes oral  interaction.  or  of  more  effected  to  and  meaning  between  narratives.  of  variety  forms  language.  easily  a  theory  transition  is  a  aesthetically  employ  written  transition  as  communication  to  young  Emergent  language  of  individuals  which  make  reading  efferently  suggests  system  this  on  process  that  narrative  narrative  with  based  different  structures  sense  become more  in  of  the  report  and  Research  in  is  respond—either  response  different  theory  are  new, listen  usually  interactions to  more  To  conclude,  emphasizes and from  current  reading  cultural the  as  active  constructs. story,  research  In  order  to  narrative—psychologically,  socially  and  their  in  structures  of  engage  language  and  as  in  culturally.  they  25  view  In  this  of  and  way,  in  take  a  child with  written  that social  meaning  knowledge  transactions  represented  literacy  psychological,  process  inherent  meaningful are  a  around  the  develop  increasingly  thought  support  centering  participate must  to  theory  communication  child  abilities  the  and  about extends  the  deep  language.  CHAPTER  3  METHODOLOGY  3.1  Introduction  Young  children  They  have  from  books  and  they  question  stories  The  Research  have  random  had  variety  read  experience. And  they  imaginations.  about  stories.  affirm  that  what  They  have  They  have  heard  have  made  This  selected  this  study  the  about  literary  range  of  with  stories.  heard  stories  real  stories  own  is  know  books  their  study  Specifically,  their  increase  experiences  them.  children  of  reading  will  to  of  stories;  based  addresses  stories  knowledge. and  on  as  It  practicing  responses  that  is  in the the  well the  specific children  storytime.  Question  specific  critical  and  development  group  a  their  can  behaviors  during  them  stories.  have  study  with  personal  in  the  kindergarten  by  to  from  teachers  this  school  told  and  support of  Will  who  how  to  fantasy  children  interaction  to  frequent  heard  words,  to  teacher  guided  stories  of  hypothesis  3.2  and  that  how  make  stories  in  knowledge  as  heard  have  pictures,  come  children teacher  responses nonspecific  who  have  behaviors during teacher  group  and  group  26  selected  storyreading  guided  books?  using  storybook  storybook  than  reading books  experiences elicit  kindergarten  reading  more children  experiences  with  3.3  Hypotheses  There  3.3.1  were  Hypothesis  three  null  hypotheses  arising  from  the  general  research  question:  I:  There will be no statistically significant difference in t h e n u m b e r of interpretative responses as measured on an author adapted test of literary k n o w l e d g e , regardless o the kind of book read and regardless of the kinds of teacher interaction behaviors practiced.  3.3.2  Hypothesis  II:  There will be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant difference in t h e n u m b e r of e v a l u a t i v e r e s p o n s e s as m e a s u r e d o n an a u t h o r a d a p t e d t e s t o f literary k n o w l e d g e , regardless of the kind o f book read and regardless of the kinds o f teacher interaction behaviors practiced.  3.3.3  Hypothesis  III:  There will treatment.  3.4  be  no  interaction  between  the  two  variables,  book  and  Design  The group  method  quasi  used  in  experimental  this  study  design.  was  This  a  pretest-posttest  design  is  depicted  nonequivalent by  Wiersma  control (1986,  p.  143). G,  0,  X  0  1 0  2  G=Group 0=Observation X =Treatment The along  Variable  independent with  the  variable  for  use  nonuse  or  this  study of  was  specific  27  the  use  teacher  or  nonuse  interaction  of  selected behaviors  books during  group  storytime.  evaluative  The  dependent  responses  variable  expressed  by  a  was  group  the as  frequency  measured  of  by  interpretative  the  and  pretest  posttest  professional  families  differences.  3.5  Subjects  Both and  groups  were  of  enrolled  subjects  in  either  neighborhood  school  to  differences  minimize  attitudes  towards  literacy and  teacher  style  There  the  same  and  personality,  a  total  of  consisted  age  years.  The  5.7  subjects,  14  boys  English  as  Second  Language  measures, the  a  of  beginning  treatment  and  Second  the of  showed  Language  child  27  girls  in  District  the  school  that  the  in  the  child  a  the  mean  in  the  treatment  year  the  class,  were  class  groupings  of  of  chosen  socioeconomic  status,  (e.g.  preschool,  experiences  (one  teacher  materials  boys  of  The  and  treatment age  group  Statistical Program  different  planned  both  14  morning girls  group,  5.6  reading  for  home  groups),  expectations.  groups.  13  their  were  experiences  control  predict  28  These  terms  two  group.  not  kindergarten  same  Assesment  to  class  behavioral  subjects,  with  groups  and  used  Elementary  the  in  classroom  afternoon 13  Columbia.  background  subjects of  middle  afternoon  groups  and  and  54  group,  or  environments  activities  nontreatment of  the  educational  classroom  upper  British  between  the  was  from  morning  Vancouver,  school,  activities),  executed  in  came  There  three  analysis, scores  a  of  27  was  one  English using  6). •  prior  the  mean  as  a  t-test  (administered  performance)  (Appendix  with  consisted  years. and  class,  to  at the  3.6  The  Testing  A  matrix  and  four  The  purpose  to  test  definition  of  of  of  this  each  Plot:  the  of  Literary  from  was  instrument in  the  element plan  of  as  Relationships:  to  sense  they  action the  composed  chosen  was  true  Knowledge  (1981),  Fillion  knowledge,  children  Characters. or  adapted  levels  the  Events.  Instrument  a  people  the  organize of  were  in  as  the used  of  seven  testing  the  data  word. in  elements  instrument  (Appendix  as  received,  The  the  literary  it  was  literary  study  elements  1). not  and  a  follow:  story. or  animals  who  carry  out  the  plot,  directly  indirectly.  Setting. takes  the  illustrations  Themes:  together  into  Language.  the  a  to  ways  the  the  geographic  location  and  time  in  which  story  book.  underlying  a  idea  that  ties  the  plot,  characterization  and  setting  whole.  Structure:  develop  of  in  meaningful  Style.  sentences  The  Atmoshphere:  place.  Images: Ideas.  Mood.  the  way(s)  in  which  an  author  uses  words  and  story.  understanding  these  elements—i.e.  types  of  knowledge—are  as  follows: Factual:  knowledge  Personal  Associations  listener's)  feelings  Interpretative: make  which  sense  predicting  or  identifies  and  of or  the  Significance:  experiences  knowledge story  anticipating  literal  which beyond  to  information knowledge  emotions  indicates the  outcomes  and  29  which events  awareness  literal  characters.  or  level.  about  of  This  perceiving  a  story.  relates in the  a  the  reader's  (or  elements  to  story. literary  includes  inferring  emotional  meaning,  reactions  of  Evaluative:  knowledge  the  to  ability  knowledge particular literary the  literary  story.  This by  and  evaluative  This  was  about  these  literature  knowledge.  Normally,  in  included  in  the  field  Wells,  1983)  these  of  aspects  The guide  and  than  within  readers.  the to  a  The  responses elements videotaped  of and  of  inquiry  instrument  class  the types  was  to  storytime  modified  as  knowledge  transcribed  thus  based  on  a  linking  it  to  of  the  story.  In  grades. Hardy,  some  rather  children  implicit  than  of  of  literary  elements  is  experts  Rosen,  1983;  knowledge  are  record  The of  a  to  older  listeners  storytime, matrix.  as  1985).  to  class  complete  goals  ways:  categorize  the  the  about  with • stories.  to  in  of  1979;  following  children  both  However,  (Fillion,  the  of levels  these  literature  were  30  to  use  measures  to in  a  refer  and  both  designed  use  providing  apply a  categories  originally  represented  to  particular  was  during  into  of  author's  of  experiences  the  expressed  by  elements  1978;  where  for  element  the  elementary  approach  context  to  conventional  possess  adapted  has  conventional  their  and  comprehension  the  literary  later  study  elements  of  literature  kindergarten  directions  group, of  this  an  elements  synthesis.  (Applebee,  of  to  context  as  literary  knowledge  explaining  The  children  virtue  for  an  individuals,  then  by  instrument  teachers  investigation,  young  literature  testing  for  rather  of  that  increase  its  of  the  education  to  representative  understanding  literature  literary  and  of  well  until  the  refer  the  are  as  curriculum  believe  by  thinking.  education  the  or  because  elements  an  it  analysis  interpret  the  that  within  critical  of  that  story,  chosen  and  traditional  not  mean  reflects  to  general  rather  another  ability  use  in  not  but  the the  relationships  structures  knowledge  does  knowledge  matrix  on  elements  in  their  extends  opinion  name,  element  elements  literary  an  of  element  same  sum,  form  which  the  possible For a  group  students,  rather  than  spontaneous  according  to  storytimes all  this  the were  responses.  3.7  Testing  Both Pretest  Procedures  groups'  and  posttest  different  selected  days  test.  per  The  classroom  the  context  the  teacher  and  order  total  already  was  mentioned  before,  made  the  to  and  posttest  text  The  video  program. as  in  The  possible.  years,  and  her  The  had  distracting that  In  order  to  children  to  the  the  get  it  of  manner  classified  the  as  were  according  sessions  changes  behavioral  her  within  possible.  No  The  six.  instrument.  testing  routine.  was  was  storytimes  testing  style.  side  into of  video  the  would  as  intrusion  experience  the  storytelling  doing  minimize  usual  three  consecutive  storytimes  were  period.  reading  three  These  the  daily  had  and  of  spontaneous  the  filming  events  teacher  her  arrangements,  the  experience  on  posttest  As were  expectations,  teacher  style  in  to  was be  given familiar  class.  only at  in  storytimes.  and  a  posttest  naturalness  of  and  period  Responses  advance the  up  doing  before  the  or  in  it  set  Her  class  presence, the  was  extensive  of  books  and  knowledge  seating  a  storytimes  group  part  teacher)  was  person  research.  course  camera.  camera  pretest six  pretest  classroom  over  uninhabited  was  reading  camera  own  normal  order  before  of  insure  day,  the  of  a  the  analysis.  types  as  of  classroom  the  data  storytime  time  per  these  to  be  (the  with  day  for  storyreader pretest  book  established  and  in  of  number  made  responses  examined  consisted  conducted  categories  effort  that  one  transcribed  literary  Every  the  the  were  periods  books,  Thus  of  videotaped to  responses  and  taught  would  possibility  pretest,  several  used  the  31  that  part  group  to  young  recording  sensitivity  dynamics  to  the  this  as  be  as  part to  of  storytimes  camera were  classroom unobtrusive for  several  her  job  and  that  the  despite  the  insure  maintained  the  equipment.  the  children  helped be  of  would  be  videotaped  a in  3.8  Treatment  Both usual  directed  to  the  Since  to  practicing  were  the  practice  videos,  in  interactions  In effort  the to  treatment manner.  of  was  than  been  the  there  the  kinds own  would  not  be  development selected it  of  was  the  conducted interactions  enough in  the  in  classroom  storytimes of  and  teacher  her  the  behaviors,  time  in  treatment  reading  usual  classroom  the  by  interaction  the  children  that  that  at  practicing  from  conduct  influenced  ten  specific the  consecutive  interaction three  highlighted:  same  specific  observed  study is  rather  opinion  to  storytimes  time  this  as  necessary  critical  well  to  to  manner.  children's  books  for  as  insure  by both  operation.  period  books  their  had  the  teacher  illustrated  For  had  in  a  posttest  this  literature  practiced  books  of  Procedures  response  teacher  of  specific  For  researcher  was  thesis  response  and  and  have  researcher  critical  classroom  the  factors  The  Group  to  the  eliciting  years,  train  continued  However,  storytimes.  many  Nontreatment  groups  place.  the  and  ten  genre,  interaction  the  to  with  the  the  a  group,  with prior  researcher  the  read  treatment  which  the  selected  group.  three  The  pretest  books selected  and  three  motif.  researcher the to  read  random  nontreatment  the  format  study, and  as  style  books group.  well to  as the  and  did  The on  not  researcher the  pretest  teacher  in  her  same  kind  of  group.  the  and  enrich  the  group.  Instead,  the  stories  Storytime  was  not  with  and  similar  nontreatment  nontreatment extend  form  teacher  maintain  the  structures  behaviors  classroom  order  behaviors  literary  days,  days,  researcher children's were  structured  read  toward  32  did  not  make  responses in  a  as  the she  did  straightfoward  substantiative  question  with  but  the  friendly  asking  or  dialogue.  Rather,  conf irmational relating Let's  library.".  .  In  ending  for  of  one  yes,  indeed, that  satisfying  his  well a  enthusiasm  at  share  (He  know  around  is  going  this  researcher  for  interpretative surprise  simply  end, the  responded  coin"  During  a  the to  factual  immediate  happen.".  story—I  or  had  it  text  ."You  do?  from  the  tried  to  and  at  channel  the  evaluative  children's  thinking.  For  what  he  felt  to  be  a  acknowledging  his  surprise  or  confirming  researcher with  asked  both  library, the  wolf  The  with  an  each  out  of  the  for  the  child's  original  ending  text  hand,  the  a  at  retellings,  children's  stories,  sudden  idea  and  of.  a  a  reason  the  between  the In  treatment  home  and  drawing,  objects  the  at  to  researcher  modeled  other  legends  outside all  group school  the  researcher pleasure,  interpretative  related  the  interest,  finding  storymaker.  in  comments  at  example,  between  children  special  the  For  being  and  treatment  general.  joy  of  the  stimulate  connections  story  Loon's  in  on  making  and  cries)  to  similarities  literature,  as  based  resources  discovering  such  either  thinking  literature  questions  mediums  was  about  with  of  of  feeling  their  (recording  and  what  the  of  the  extending  the  and  experiences  "loon  was  variety  for  or  literature  of  as  knowledge  home  know  expressed  instead  ending.  center  on  version.)  introduced and  group,  child  story,  ("I  to  acknowledged  it?")  opportunities one  be  signif icance("l  like  treatment  when  As  to  you  to  tended  information  personal  into  tended  Interaction  story  or  the  example,  more  to  "Did  responses  that  level.  either  see.")  responses  world  aspects were  at and  of  their  encouraged  through  a  variety  gesturing,  music  literature  (such  as  the  Necklace).  period, room  or  the in  classroom the  33  back  teacher of  the  attended  large  L  to  other  jobs  shaped  room  in  a  position  from  neutral  as  of  automatic.  into  the  this  phase  data  to  treatment  of  literature.  improve  a  the  was  phase the  and  the  was  study  camera  used  well,  data  of  this  nature  that  she  to  remain  minimize  as the  posttest.  closest  As  study  of  the  children  tapes  important  nontreatment  study,  the  these  It  during  treatment  and  from  to  observe.  behaviors  the  response  how  her  researcher  The  not  the  both  During  on  children's  of  could  during  changing  ten  videotaped. focused  she  possible  possibility  All  which  was to  for  from  group  up  on  then  qualitative  these  and  set  her,  a  sessions  tapes  a  areas  tripod,  switched  on  analysis  of  provided  suggested  were  for  insights further  study.  3.9  Materials  Six  illustrated  readings.  The  books  imaginative  appeal,  instrument),  and  the  study  books  in  order  literature.  tale)  and  motif  3.10  Scoring  analysis  by  the  clarity  to  treatment  pretest  were  chosen  of  length  the  the  three  These  (related  on  the  theme).  posttest All  for  (Appendix  2  storytimes responses  34  were and  were were  pretest the  observed The  which genre  posttest  the  class  pretest  (legend),  and  the  core  form  criteria: matrix prior  to  posttest of  the  (cumulative  4)  videotaped first  by  the  formed  Appendix  and  following  described  spans).  structures  structures  of  (as  researcher  attention  literary  the  bases  elements  (the  groups'  literary  researcher.  selected  literary  judge  to  and  were  of  suitability  corresponded  The  storybooks  then  categorized  transcribed according  for to  literary of  element  critical  are  process  of  responses  personal  literary  of  an  responses majority  of  able  primary  To  Evaluative to to  explain new  insure grade  two-thirds  of  fit  of  the  the  not  and one  data,  the  of  the  interpretative  Examples  responses, in  the  were fit  any  fewer  for  each  not  considered  category  or  author  saw  levels  thinking  at  and  coding,  one  There  Masters  was  an  two of  most  such  for  fit. of  Out three The  ways  of  as  of  was  thinking.  critical  assistants—one  reliability  This  surface  differences  Education  developing  response.  the  the  and  trained  English  interrater  35  need  evaluative  similarities  not  classification.  and  in  and  categories  average  of  indicated  the  for  the  responses  of  an  story  ten  did  categorizations  responses  Therefore,  format, the  noted  another.  beyond  noting  researcher  5%  group,  thought  and  categorized  matrix.  of  than  indicated  interpretative  frequency  the  the  original  responses  the  Thus,  of  added:  into  However,  story  into  descriptions  accuracy  data.  did  knowledge.  5).  pretest  elements  per  the  of  matrix.  contained  counted.  clearly  insights  teacher  not  "idiosyncratic"  regarding  interpretative  inferences texts.  and  the  the  which  not  type  (Appendix  literary  responses  labelled  true  text.  of  were  examination  particularly  being  categorizing were  to  by  appendix  Responses  70  definitions  the  which  responses  Upon  the  of  were  example,  in  of  elements  average  according  determined  categories  knowledge.  of  of  included  other  precise  was  the  patterns three  classified  response  responses  In  then  For  structure level  linking with  by past  other  experienced  student—categorized .85.  3.11  Statistical  Group This  was  were  Data  responses  groups.  Using  scores,  t-tests  (Appendix  Analysis  hand  necessary  Biomedical  The  and  responses  process  program  Design  the  for  divided  School  conducted  6).  The  groups  the  responses  to  to  were  translated be  (University  first  Vancouver  then  them  Package  were  were  coded  machine  of  computer  scored  California,  into  the  Board  District  insure  that  found  to  not  by  and  Elementary groups  different  the  codes.  computer  1981).  treatment  the  usable  nontreatment  Assessment were  at  not  (DRP)  different  the  .05  level  of  into  four  categories:  2)  personal  significance.  Next, factual, those  those  responses  responses  emotions  or  awareness  in  literary  using  the  echoing  indicating  events  of  responses  from  the  an  the  story;  of  were  details  emotional  structures  knowledge  group  3)  the  or  story;  experiential  interpretative,  found literary  in  divided  in  the  those  story;  structures  in  and  significance,  relationship responses 4)  general  to  the  signifying  evaluative,  to  1)  those  comprehend  the  story.  Of  particular  responses.  For  percentage  scores  interest  purposes by  in of  this  study  analysis,  expressing  were these  each  score  the  interpretative  variables as  a  were  and  transformed  percentage  of  combined:  Interpretative Evaluative  -r  (Factual (Factual  +  +  Interpretative  Interpretative  +  +  Personal  Personal  36  +  +  Evaluative)  Evaluative)  evaluative  x  x 100  100  all  into scores  Following conducted grouping  using  as  the  (ITEM)  to  three the  categories  generated there  were  is  Finally,  (GROUP)  Table  1  ANOVA  grouping  three  worked  is  on  the  significant  responses  were  per  The  group  defined  versus as  was  groupings. matrix  results,  critical  the tried ITEM  instrument. the  results  STORY  and  matrix  treatment/nontreatment the three by  afternoon  group.  pretest  stories  adding  is  Although are  a  grouping  comprised this  of  the  design  questionable  story  to  see  if  it  made  any  difference  (STORY).  GROUP  (0)  (INTPER)  response  Design  Group  was  Pretest/Posttest  interpretative  the  1).  and  (ANOVA)  as  cell.  measured  which  the  on  design  STORY  elements  with  morning  variance  (GROUP)  (Table  Another  and  of  and  attained  (STORY)  GROUP  groups  the  stories  literary  variables,  variables as  statistically  the  group  defined  posttest  of  only  analysis grouping  scores  dependent  existing  some  an  independent  response  Pretest/Posttest the  2x2  the  (GROUP)  versus  ten  as  (EVALPER)  instrument grouping  transformation,  treatment/nontreatment  (STORY)  evaluative  The  this  Nontreatment  Pretest Posttest  0=Observations  37  Treatment  which  CHAPTER  4  RESULTS  4.1  Summary  This  of  books  critically  variable  Problem  and  the  specific  responses  use  the  as  analysis  of  scores.  Statistical  Results  running  program, on  the  a  story  nonuse  of  on  of  an  during  Data  on  used  was  with  and  matrix  performed  and of  on  at  the  effect  children's The  the  of  ability  independent  use  or  nonuse  The  dependent  evaluative  (EVALPER)  critical  (University  computer  the  GROUP).  determine  Package  mainframe  kindergarten  (INTPER)  to  explore  along  (STORY  adapted  to  storyreading.  books  interpretative  was  Biomedical  attempt  group  selected  (ANOVA)  V8  an  behaviors  author  variance  AMDAHL  in  behaviors  (ANOVA)  of  out  interaction  percentages  defined  analysis  carried  interaction  in  computer  or  variance  differences  An  to  teacher  were  was  teacher  respond  was  variables  4:2  the  investigation  selected to  of  the  the of  response.  An  significance  of  data  using  California,  University  of  the 1983)  British  Columbia.  An  analysis  statistically  and  (STORY)  variance  significant  interpretative group  of  (INTPER)  the  was  used  difference and  treatment  (at  evaluative group  to  determine  .05  level)  (EVALPER)  (GROUP),  scores.  38  and  whether between  responses  between  the  or  not  the of  there  was  percentage the  pretest  a of  nontreatment and  posttest  4.3  Tests  of  4.3. J Null  Hypothesis  I:  Hypothesis:  There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant interpretative responses as measured on literary k n o w l e d g e , regardless of the kind teacher interaction behaviors practiced.  Based treatment posttest by  the  Table  on effect  and  the was  between  experimental  findings  in  accepted.  Table  2,  the  Interpretative  nontreatment  group  difference in t h e n u m b e r the author adapted test of text read or the kinds  first  null  response  and  hypothesis  scores  treatment  group  between were  of of of  related pretest not  affected  treatment.  of  Variance  for  Dependent  Variable—INTPER  (percentage  of  interpretative  responses)  Source  Sums  of  Mean  squares  DF  squares  Story  205.33  1  Group  169.01  S.G. Error  <  and  2  Analysis  p  to  F  p  205.33  0.18  0.67  1  169.01  0.15  0.70  983.99  1  983.99  0.85  0.35  119936.34  104  1153.23  .05  39  4.4  Tests  4.4.1  of  Hypothesis  Null  II:  Hypothesis:  There will be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant difference in t h e n u m b e r of e v a l u a t i v e r e s p o n s e s as m e a s u r e d b y an a u t h o r a d a p t e d t e s t o f literary k n o w l e d g e , regardless of the kind o f text read or the kinds o f teacher interaction behaviors practiced.  As critical  can value  Evaluative affected group. GROUP  seen  at  the  response by  The  Table  be  the null  in  Table  3,  chosen  scores  .05  between  treatment, hypothesis  the  favoring was  observed  level the  of  level  and  treatment  accepted  at  .0500  significance  control  the  of  the  the  at  the  over  level  the  and  equal  to  GROUP  experimental  group  STORY  was  the level.  groups  were  nontreatment  rejected  at  level.  3  Analysis  of  Variance  for  Dependent  Variable—EVALPER  (percentage  of  evaluative  responses)  Source  Story Group S.G. Error  p  <  the  Sums  of  Mean  squares  DF  squares  0.31  1  1487.47  F  P  0.31  0.00  0.98  1  1487.47  3.93  0.05  361.66  1  361.66  0.96  0.33  39339.67  104  378.27  .05  40  4.5  Tests  4.5.1  of  Hypothesis  Null  III:  Hypothesis:  There will be no interaction between (treatment and n o n t r e a t m e n t g r o u p s ) and groups).  As not  seen  in  significant  Table  for  2  both  and  Table  dependent  3,  the  the two variables STORY (pretest and  STORY/GROUP  variables.  Accordingly,  GROUP posttest  (S/G)  interaction  was  null  hypothesis  was  the  accepted.  4.6  Qualitative  A in  purely  an  statistical  incomplete  response  in  quantitative  the  a  determine  the  difficult  to  other  discriminating, formulate a the  report  and  those of  course  Most investigation  the of  of  (1981)  of ".  .  the come  study,  more  regarded  his  43).  responses it  (Britton, related  but  to  will  be  1968,  p.  critical  which  are  for  the  observations  to  not  no  help Thus,  and  we  may  there  response  which  indicated  on  video  in  children  to  as  a  than  a  guide  to  reading—reflection.  procedures Young  result  determining  process  matrix  critical  would  that  problem-finders  following  41  show  literature  5).  study  qualitative  of  as  (p.  but  a  component  development  their  this  problem-finding  reflectiveness" .  from  studies  of  the  content from  Other  of  responses"  this  be  arising  elaboration  complex,  behaviors  data  findings.  subjective  focused  growth  the  can  students'  more  of  the  more  of  assess;  of  children  Fillion  assessment  essentially  reading  record  young one.  assessing "The  Findings  a  were  the  might are  to  qualitative recordings  to  lively,  attempt to  to  include  observed  during  instrument.  findings of  use  be  need  testing  is  particularly  indeed  them is  literature  the  of  this  treatment  sessions, stories the  rather  was  contrast,  a  large  store  had  to  the  class  or  anyone  either  during  of  treatment  of  the  motif  and  shared  to  hear  it  to  of  the  qualitative  4.7  Observations  Informal indicated set  that  the  responses  came  during  new  last  it.  the  free  day  of  (including  content  as  personal  the  gathering  to  and  of  were  specific  data  An  such  on  Thus  most  read to  order integral  variables  reflect  family.  of  available  The  for  The  themes  response.  allowed  from  fixed.  stories  remained  children's  classmates  play the  personal  period  of  the  or  during  the  the  children  tried  to  personal)  introduction  42  a  the the  conducive  posttest the  as  story, nature to  a  the  storygroup.  applied  stance the  in  next  their  treatment  this  found  a  intellectual study  Many  day,  made  responses even  up  past  knowledge  to  an  intellectual  or  either  towards  to  their  children  the  seemed  also  and  the  story,  storytimes  story  (1964)  story  establish  to  to  Squire to  that  following  researcher  imaginative  response  than  and  response  response.  observed  as  treatment  emotional  storyreading  study  The  pretest,  and  researcher  the  part  a  intellectual  students' The  with  not focal  As  overnight.  which  comments  was the  posttest  Process  during  later  after  understandings.  emotional story  for  of  more  the  Response  initial  4).  they  home the  to  the  topic.  observations the  it  related  of  and  stories  ideas, opportunities  permitted  the  the  between  understanding  to  of  of  stage  relationship  discuss  sessions  analysis  on  extend  questions  individuals,  fluidity  schedule  (Appendix  based  to  time  pattern  taking  very  the  treatment  for  this  The  literature  interested  and/or  of  of  selected  was  contributions,  treatment  sessions.  order  evolved  personal  and  of  with  stories  again,  the  cumulative  school  treatment  posttest  planned, regardless  In  common  part  as  the  day.  legend,  the  from  followed  previous  researcher  than  the  and  literary  stories.  form The  or  three  literary  forms  motif—were a  story  and  the  as  a  invoking  or  if  querying  remove the  the  power  to  how and  by  the  visualize  did  the  knew  did  the  cries  feel  the  and of  Intellectual  of  legend, the  is  a  is  like  legend;"  This  researcher or  is  when  the  themes,  on  the  world  the  Stance:  As  would  say  House  that to  Jack  hear  and  the  and  animals  without  the  children  "Listen language  Built;" how  to  artifact,  moon  and  the  to  a  character,  the  . how  context.  To  help  to  and  .  .  "  Close man  see  the  . but  how  forest your  get  with  .  .  .  eyes  fire?"  the  concept  see  why  this  story  to  how  this  story  "Listen  like  children  and  the  did  emphasize the  of  focusing is  the  stars  familiar  story  when  to  and  be?"  became  story  personal  legends  eyes  silence  come  the  of  encouraged  your  structures, or  this  an  . .  story.  connections  comparable  listening  "Close  heat  the  to  content.  researcher  hear  to  meaningful of  common  introduction  intentions  imaginative  the  the  introduced  as  and  listened  to  the  similar  book  of  they  or  things.  eyes  of  emphasizing  "Listen  of  songs  part  researcher  the  pattern,  possibility  with  making,  your  as  setting  and  sun  as  attention  the  The  personal  the  Close  response  stories  story  without  children  the  Stance: a  cumulative  children's  about  beginnings  "  the  suggesting  other  and  the  coldness  of  the  dependency  sky  there?"  related  story;  story  get  to  focusing  evoking  they  out  questions  about  of  Examples  a  children's of  blackness  of  Imaginative  group  study—legend,  directed  anyone  of  treatment  way  of  experiences,  the  pointed  researcher  content  Examples  in  frequently  Likewise, the with  used  on  any  the other  concept story  of you  know."  Children to for  the  pretest  follow  up  in  both books.  groups The  activities  to  spontaneously  classroom the  pretest  generated  teacher stories  43  had  not  which  visual  and  initiated she  read,  oral any but  responses suggestions during  free  choice  time,  theme  (first  Dancing  several and  Stars,  legend  second  several  questions.  from?",  "When  sources  of  children  paintings  pretest  children  "Where  was  did  did  the  legends  books). came  next  come  than  the  of  the  whale  the  first  treatment  day  with  their  from?",  transformer?"  rather  drawings  After  the  flowers  first  and  "Where  Obviously,  accuracy  of  it  swan  story,  The  ideas  for  own  did  dinosaurs  was  specific  and  the  come  concept  ideas  that  of were  important.  The group.  quantity  Children  brought  the  cottage.  This about  writing  and  a  The as  about  of  the  children  easily  Sisters.  But  After  home. but  to  storybooks and the  about if  another about  afterwards, story.  ways  Both  the  one  of  was  showed  were  a  was  book  that the  constellation. them  such  she  did  Seven She  taken  home  that  on  On  of a  Orion,  Ursa  a  heroic  character  the  not  have In  read  illustrated day.  of  legends.  We  no  reading  and  had  that fact,  the  her  seen  walls  the large  in  pictures  of  caves.  constellations sky  map,  the  and  the  Seven  an  old  story.  some  they  could  particular  "sky  she  had  two  group  The  Dancing  Northwest  some her  Major  so  and  at  researcher,  story  treatment  told  the  as  then  44  stories.  Sisters.  beautifully  he  concept  Orion's  the  them  was  that  stories  from  of  there  said  the  telling  adventures a  about  to  described  agelessness  told  boy  in  grandmother  the  animal  children  Orion  his  One  and  her  first  draw  shapes  answered one  establish  to  rapidly  stories,  stories  were  finding  that  there  that  books  of  knew  two  stories.  the  developed  legend  to  used  familiar  one  told  stories  introduced  researcher  had  the  people  found  know  The  she  first  no  hearing  wanted  then  other  child  record  how  response  opportunity  when to  of  knowing  One  an  how  researcher one  in.  was  ways  book  quality  reported  books  talked  in  and  Coast  children take  it  story", different  version  Stars of  The many  researcher  of  is  one  to  make  them of  of  got  those.  that  rather  on  than  obvious  follow  part  the  they  finished  they  were  either  now  stories  this  that  One  telling  was  at  the  class.  discussed so  first  told,  so  no  was  later  given  one by  How  C's  and  not  very  grandmother could  be  told  the  the  the  one  The  children  about  first  he  truth  one  child  "weren't  is  for in  or  alive sure  45  Moon.  An  represent their  the  best  responses.  story  three  the  piles  they  As  drew,  representing were  book.  One  boy  had  even  the  book  fitted  to  he  knew  read  a  two  before  different  different  the  story African  with  the  knowledge  in  the  sky.  got  that  One  child  stories."  God  accuracy  to  lack  they  moon  today  answer  the  the  day  true—that  about  by  next  said  moon  to  researcher  The  responded  the  100,000  of  knows  how  Stole  of of  story.  which  disturbed  draw  part  researcher  sky.  to  assembled  home  b o o k s , the  children  which in  in  Raven  children  page  of  the  The  issue  one  seemed  the  stories  no  one  boy  "probably  those  are  One  stories  that  that  grandmother  increase.  theme.  the  old  in  about  end  cover  are  said  or  a  four  stories  stories  No  the  completed  see  to  all  invite  invited  to  got  to  researcher  their  same  there  child  are  visualized  middle  moon  knew  predicted  and  continued  the  they  listened  enthusiasm  to  old  one  her  day.  the  it  and  next  told  read  she  many  the  the  the  designed  fact  not  story  put  in  so  that  and  with  children  to  are  book.  researcher  with  how  that  The  Responses  stories  a  to  And  responses,  beginning,  researcher  a  they  up  there  down.  story.  independently  about  into  as  that  suggested  read  asked  the  bursting  C.  these  illustrations  of  written  story  Building told  explained  and  from  their  the  made  concluded time  authenticity  another  everything."  child's  that  The  legend  when  they  (this  explanation  concern  about  were  the  reality  of  the  During meaning  posttest  the  treatment  construction  stories,  stories  literary  experiences  rather  than  stories first  for  as  the  their  they  sharing  be  way  a  teacher at  the  of  literary read  of  the  the  pretest  at  Use  observations  teacher  guiding  the  ."Look  of  of  the  responses  to  were  One in  consistent  children's what's  thinking  that  elements: and  adults  happening  46  the more  example,  concept  opinions  school  fewest  of  about  in  class,  spending  appeared  with  to  literature.  responses  language/literary  The and  the  time  these  literary  here".  .  .  most  elements.  Look  at  the  spent ("Let's  pictures  for  responses  categories.  energy  in  (except  (except  frequent  imagery and  were  structures  setting/mood/atmosphere  plot/events  in  the  of  simply  experiences  the  Morning).  with  at  to  Instrument  show  Monday the  and  nature  For  shared  and  the  had  the  and  stories  legends,  aesthetic  Research  literary  were  at  peers  ideas/themes  responses level  with  with  thoughts  to  known  conceptualizing  pretest  Morning),  back  children  of  general,  responses  responses.  comfortable  knowledge,  Referring  home  and  and  In  returned  The the  primary  towards  reflective  constantly  as  pattern  children.  recursive  understanding.  their  with  the  a  dimensions  refine  experiences  of  evolving  responses  by  children  their  new  and  legends.  categories  directed  .  within  reflect  of  reinforcing  Monday  .  confirming  an  and  and  were  The  personal  pretest  happens"  one.  offered  Analysis  One  treatment  increasingly  Observations  for  for  teacher  familiar  of  following  the  the  became  legends  the  by  observed  behaviors  group  past  time  both  explore,  researcher  children's  reoccur  understanding  connecting  4.8  to  the  sequential  and  would  treatment  legend,  the  during  pleasure  opportunities  in  linear,  readings  period,  selected  a  Half-a-Ball-of-Kenki).  story  These by  see and  the what see  if  you  can  In other  tell  what  categorizing categories  Rather  than  researcher using  is  to  going  the  of  pretest  literary  discounting decided  make  Format  to  the  story  included  responses  that  went  beyond  the  other  more  had  the  story  Expressing response introduced,  on  the one  response  responded  "It's  Personal  metaphor hornet's  nest  the  knowledge rather child.  were It  tape"  on  title,  develop  the  three  knowledge.  original  ways  hornet" roof  and  her  metaphor  itself,  outside  the  These  story.  acknowledged sometimes  the  story  example,  were  matrix,  the  children  as  is  responses  a  a  narrative  were  about  response  to  of  were  enhancing  distinguish  47  it  of  refered  to  than  that  of  those  story"  this  got  a  factual  if  it's  not  reflected one how at was not the  was  its  the  girl's  child  or  relate the  spots."  the  true  child's response  family  once  night.  Rather  than  story  responses  to  as be  to  pure  a  personal to had  the a  dealing personal  invalid,  experience of  who  directly  interpreted  An  not."  her  judged  or  category.  considered  by  did  example,  name  Hali-a-Ball-of-Kenki  tell  which  this  responses  was  which  sprayed  know  leopard  to  father  means  difficult  For  responses "I  indicated  alive  author, Story  level  when  the  those  experience. was  example,  of  of  pages.  holistic  personal  how  name  the  more For  category  were  of  the  nobody's  they  a  layout  "Oh,  literary  was  book  to  personal  the  other  work;  For  responses  story  their  fit  into  plot  story  the  and  fit  story  Instead,  as  not  and  the  elements.  the  the  legend  outside "mad  specific  responded,  in  with  literary  cagegory.  knowledge  element.  knowledge  with  a  of  necessary  story,  did  some  dealing  the  with  child  became  format,  which  divisions  a  story  evaluative  literary  story  familiarity in  elements:  it  meaningful.  responses  "I  responses,  acknowledge  dedication,  to  happen.")  responses  illustrator,  related  to  for  but the  personal  knowledge  and  those  significance/association" from  Japan"  for  that  child.  contribute did  was  to  On  of  the  the  literary be  authors  in  which  library. that's  Individuals the  Sunflight more it  same by  became  However,  of  this  The of  would  children  story  When  this be  down  was  noted,  process  express  and  could  inferential their  or  also  some  a  thinking  to  reasoning  48  own  that?")  and  the  more  make  element  but  structures  of  to  and  the  knowing  the  they  gained  illustrating  the  storytime  commented  as  the  need  the  each  finer study.  ("Hey,  referring  on  within  it  sessions,  as  responses  this  as  pictures"  felt  author,  teacher  for  Farmer)  subsets  range  not  endings,  books  in  did  education  adding  examples  include  deep  children  researcher  the  dedication,  reason  their  of  analysis  setting  treatment  the  by  be  of  story.  literary  A  made  range  comes  classroom the  the  from  Icarus  this  for  a  during  people  the  complicated  of  wrote  and  could  category  demonstrate  ("Who  categorizing  part  offering  student  literary  title, the  "personal  Japanese"  the  by  of  before,  different  with  mentioned.  experience;  there  too  However,  Daedalus  and  part  speak  (e.g.  not  spontaneously  questions  except  is  is  regularly  written  subsetting  can  not  arose  that  interpretative  responses  Some  story  this  "my  particular  experience  included  as  significance  dad  a  regularly  children.  were  of  category  knowledge  example,  and  format  Although  the  asked  although  possible  was  this  been  apparent  classification  the  classified  personal  mom  personal  the  grew.  "my  child's  McDermott  knowledge  the  the  title, etc.  hadn't  For  knowledge  to  formulating  element.  child's  illustrators  control  be  reflecting  hand,  experience.  introduced  could  the  experience,  illustrator,  story  as  divisions)  author,  a  literary  comprising  story  and  a  other  enhance  story  part  should  the to  Information illustrator,  of  interpreted  directly  appear  which  for  posttest, category.  degrees An  to  of  explanation  follow.  of  responses.  meaning  articulately.  from For  Many  kinds  the  story.  example,  one  child  predicted  married and  by  the  work).  in  wants  attract  more  of  Whereas others to the  "I  story  at  the  "  an  4.9  can  is  respond  of  the  other  For  the  same  note  that  to  Even  with  one  a  the  the  as  except  a  get  as  going  to  and  their a  to  not  jealous"  interpret  gold  seem  was  articulate  plot  response word  with  more opinion  "He  insight  character's  covering  this  a  category.  between  stories,  the  children  who  responded  swan  story"  were  evaluating  another  children  story.  because  varied  were is,  not even  completely ("That's  as  in  and  backwards  That  seen  within  the  individuals  responses.  be  knowledge  example,  story  swan  their  didn't  what's  "He's  can  could  likenesses  the  in  know  to  both—the  own  responses  their  like  explain  of  cat,"  of  Descriptive  Observations  scaredy  similarity  declarative might  is  children  plan  s o l u t i o n , but  ("I  the  understanding.  or  after  was  important  the  thought.  a  wear  its  this  acknowledged  it  It  on  about  articulate  I knew  just  should  one  response  it,  Summary  occurred  of  knew  seeing  character's  nice.")  level  children  either  whereas  differences.  their  might  not  a  ("They  some  explain  individual  time  ("That's  with  idea  that  to  It's  explanatory  of  "Frog  character  children  first."  articulate  that  able  by  explained,  a  story.  valid  ways  evaluative  that  some  Dawn  of  the  equally  are  problem  the  seeing  responses  people"  ways  were  an  in  a  presentation  the  broadly.  Likewise, range  after  had  motivation  resolve  events  verbal  Likewise,  the  actions  other  child  his  to  to  mattress"  Another  happen.")  way  using  dirty  explicit  into  a  in  Another she's  their  bleeding ability  consistently within  one  time,  one and  child  to  either  storytime, at  another  good.")  Results  process  storyreading  time  of  response  than  49  during  showed that  time.  that There  more  responses  appeared  to  be  a  relationship  children as  to  first  heard  later  develop  to  framework to of  the  number  of  by a  factor  development questions  and  music.  Observations  consistent  to  these  the  with  posttest  stories  treatment  books.  responses  to  their  all  knowledge  the during  the  elements.  Plot as  During of in  of  the  the  of  the  time to  children  and be  energy the  the  elements,  interpretative  in  most  discovered  treatment,  literary  were  and  such  the  plot  spent  evaluative,  as  with  that  the  categories thinking  during plots  directed  in  gesture  children's  the  the  knowledge;  imagery  encouraged  along  increase  revealed  to  story  and  drawing,  element  The  nonverbal.  the  as  guiding  had  past  personal  and  salient  ones.  and  by  instrument  similarities  well  oral  of  to  original  individual  forms  researcher as  with  both  well  "intertextuality"  interwoven the  as  the  new  offerings in  as  indicated  research  pretest  to  the  appeared  to  forms,  made;  story,  within  experiences  was  which  responses  stories  and  in  particular  between  knowledge  thoughts  a  refers  literary  behavioral  and  context  words,  (1983)  interwoven of  to  between  constant  comments  appeared  the  was  literary  use  other  as  past  also  teacher's  the  In  Rosen  bringing  feelings  of  responses  as  What  intellectual  responses  well  variety  asked; of  later  responses  a  or  stories. as  were  took  representations  in  upon  Responses  the  other  researcher.  building  of  and  stories  and  majority  story,  individual  Responses  Finally,  imaginative  to  be  experiences. group.  a  the  responses  set  appeared process  between  one  in  the  them  of  several  children's to  express  factual  and  personal  categories  of  literary  ways.  It  became  elements—story, outside  the  responses,  necessary format  categories it  became  and of  to  include  personal the  apparent  new  knowledge—in  original that  three  matrix.  children  50  In  order  to  listening  expressed  their  classify to  responses  the  ideas  children's in  various  degrees child use  of  oral  initiated of  the  explanation.  responses  knowledge  to  Finally,  about  there  literary  appeared  elements  understand.  51  and  to  be  a  children's  difference later  between  independent  CHAPTER SUMMARY,  5.1  and  purpose  quality  study  of  was,  interaction  A  of  this  books  does  a  children  review  selected  texts  make  of  parents  interactions  in  response-based children's  a  affirm  the  represents  applying  and  combining  and  factor  of  knowledge an  literature  interaction  posed  in  specific  frequency  This  to  in  a  which  of  has  the and  this  teacher  of  books.  52  a  the  critical  on  had  to  led  implications  group's  of  one  storybook ability  suggest  to  can  that  the  for  the  develop.  in  storyreading  setting  appears  during  difficulties  study  community  evaluation  naturalistic  knowledge  this  will  literacy.  literary  of  child  of  the  teacher-group  it  relationship  development  the  one-to-one to  of  focused  child's  Furthermore,  selection  the  the  Results  around  findings  teacher  question  evidence  home.  stories  interpretation  the  increase  the  the  setting.  centers  of  practicing  conclusions  findings  literature.  interaction literary  in  these  about  about  this  study  apply  and  and  extend  interactions  interactions  of  these  and  specific  strong  experiences to  effect  structures?  provides  led  classroom  complexity  the  which to  knowledge  that  literary  storyreading  and  storytime  literature  storyreading  interpret  group  about  the  research  to  the  reading  the  one-to-one  explore  teacher  Much  behaviors  to  The  during  of  was  response.  interactive  of  study  critical  between  from  RECOMMENDATIONS  upon  behaviors  responses  book  DISCUSSION, AND  Summary  The  how  5  In  facilitate choice kind  many  possible  that  of and  ways,  way  of  interaction  research  construct  meaning  Statistical responses The  results  at  either  results  of  showed  the  the  difference and  (p  the  difference  statistically  significant  Behaviors  which  children  actively  stories.  These  not  limited  sustained  to  the  and  different  and  evaluative.  stories  were  sought  to  security as  and  original  observations motivated teacher facilitate  The  to reads the  number  their the  and  the to  selected child's  event.  responses with  to  as  of  them  felt  in  in  more  ability  the  to  53  two  that  meaning  drew  children  outside  the  immediate  sharing that  and  with  understand  to  the  oral,  and  initiated, atleast  1)  context  of  degree  of  over  time,  In  sum,  children ways  in  the  independently  the  young  stories.  the  that  socially.  group  from  on  responses  thoughtful  the  interpretative,  the  various  all  suggested  effective  no  that  group  personal,  their  was  groupings.  that  were  the  significant  indicated  they  level. at  there  necessarily  responses  suggest  interacts  divided  treatment  indicated  worth  data  and  not  expressing  something  literature  the  constructing  in  extent  storytime  nonempirical  independent  of  the  at  of  analysis  forms,  group  Finally,  literature—factual,  diversity  children  books  which  about  and  of  children  interpretative  statistically  grouping.  descriptive  of  were  a  interaction  ways  The  responses  interactions  thoughts,  the  variety  understanding  the  respond  a  engaging  confidence  from  in  the  of  pretest/posttest  levels  sought  knowledge  aesthetically  2)  between  took  through of  or  evaluative  reported  storytime  kinds  extend and  difference  independently  carried  difference  treatment/nontreatment  were  and  in  pretest/posttest  constructions  four  storytime  in  significant  treatment/nontreatment  treatment/nontreatment <.05)  no  are  when  ways  the  which  5.2  Discussion  A  specific  favoring  number  difference  the  which  group  posttest  evaluative  in  needs  to  which  they  in  group the  children's  in  Dawn  being  words,  repeated  affect  knowledge  experiences  similarity  of  comparisons  No  specific frequency  well  as  the  43  evaluative  about  were  Plot  this  appears  in  the  the  with  a  to  influence  plot.  Not  only  between  the  three  be  in the did  story, plot  on  to  treatment  stories,  The  stories  but  they  a  the  posttest  these  of  27,  In  to  plot  readily  were  able  and other  positively repeated  children  group  24  element  Maiden  Swans.  in the  the  Furthermore,  which  by  literary  appeared  The  category  Crane  Painted  total similar  elicited Of  of  books.  recognition  stories.  degree  of  specific  Dawn.  structure  other  the  the  strongest  The  group's  on  responses  the  conclusion  posttest  group  story,  based  treatment  pretest  element  the  the  experienced  knowledge  and  evaluative  and  at  and  level  in  treatment  their  story  are  specific  the  treatment  from  category  exist  of  to  the  specific  27  groups books  treatment  the  to  to  referred  by  to  75%  of  plots  seemed  expressed grasp  to  the  articulate  contrasts.  significant  responses  teacher of  the  that  statistically  interpretative  to  about  plots and  in  found  pretest,  given  posttest,  experiences  also knew  Of  responses  as  the  category.  related  Wife,  they  the  plot/event  the  of  the  selected  that  responses  light  coded. on  as  Crane  in  was  showed  responses  examined were  data  several  evaluative  be  treatment  in  the  between  heard  interactions,  of  contained  increase  what  significant  Analysis  of  theme  were  Findings  teacher-storygroup  study.  The  Statistical  statistically  responses,  the  of  as  a  interactions  interpretative  difference  result during  responses  of  found  between  hearing  selected  books  storytime.  Both  from  54  was  the  pretest  groups to  the  the and  groups  in  experiencing  decreased posttest  their stories.  Observations explain If  the  the  lack  study  have  had  and  be  opportunities  were  over  to  a  build  with  fewer  during  so  that  differences  longer their  literature,  the  than  she  posttest  will  Discussion  deep  period  literary  as  the  with  with  well  the  factor  interpretative  of  time,  the  knowledge  as  of  of  regular  to text  probably  the  of  the  story  stories.  story.  begins  at  over  and  pretest.  the  pretest  occur  Descriptive  responses  during  power  the  the  directed  than  attention  most  of  to  did  interaction  interaction  teacher  responsive  children's  Critical  time  may  responses.  children  through  occasions  could  frequent to  form  The and  teacher let  Perhaps  Listening a  more  is  subjective  it  initiated  herself  seemed  flow  she  was  not  a  level.  child  as  a  whole  responding  passive  to  activity.  Articulation  of  that  period,  lead  time.  Findings  Introduction  5.5.7  Qualitative several  analysis  relate  comprehension,  the  relationship  narrative  the  to  addition, related  of  interaction  ability  to  of  interpretations,  interpretations  and  suggest  significant  conducted  experiences  more  more  to  statistically  analysis  responses.  responses  5.3  descriptive  been  more  There  the  the  of  had  repeated  their  to  from  attend comments the  to  place  the  study,  which  concur  the of  to  form  to  or  findings  in  between  study  complex  and  the  included  and in  treatment  findings  in  the  literacy of  which  and the the  in  field.  constructs  value  child  thought  imaging  55  the  storyreading  awareness  adults  are  of  recent  language,  storytelling, this  of  text  oral  increasingly about  with  formation print  behaviors  particularly  for  These reading  development, repeated  develop  language value following  of  the  readings, the  child's  structures.  In  literature  as  discussion.  The  dynamics  parent-child when the if  the  are  part  draw  child  active  the  could  a  other  aesthetic  response  5.4  in  to  this  children group.  the  the  The  child  literary  between  group  more  nature  and  of  to  of  these  to  the  in  experience.  literature  and  as  literacy  words.  a  than  As  whole.  In  the  an this  structures  several  from  that  story  facilitates  are  book  demand  thought  group  during  actual  the  printed  and  There  the  from  story  a  than  dynamics  the  language  stories  from  meaning  attend  apprehends  storyreading  distant  construct  fusion  listening  the  to  book  the  are  in  of  child's  interpretations  observing  literacy  context.  Discussion  During  the  commented, took  making  sense  and  the of  reconstruct  During order was  the to  story these  in  the  the  limited  to  ongoing,  period,  retold  the  home,  and  stories.  parts  storyreading,  an  present  books  comprehend  not be  treatment  questioned,  school,  to  words,  different  resources  group,  connections  development  large  experiences  In  the  a  are  that  manipulate  in  child  in  different  literature.  about  of  on  listener  way,  interaction  storyreading  they child  of  of  the  the  no  the  In  formal  story  It  ways  that  were  not  involved  using  time  objects  which  appeared  the  process children  outside  the  56  upon  at  the  to  selected  to  the  of  Instead,  storyreading  prior  making to group.  of  explore print.  words  in  construction appeared  knowledge  meaning the  ways  actual  written  meaning  in  to  understanding  integrating  attention  the  drew,  books  as  need  from  see  process  were  group  experiences  separate  need the  treatment  appeared  were  period.  dependent  the  and  they  to  Furthermore,  that  in  looked  words,  evolving  context.  ways  shared  storytime  continually appeared  children  stories,  other  child  story.  the  print  and  with  the  and  that  During more the  treatment  frequently stories  several were  and  than  read  to  for  language  possible  were  that  able  closest  to  to  the  In  understanding  period  conducted  the  quality  of  the  children  extended  to  construct Research uses  during  (Ferreiro is  that  child's  and  and  the in  children,  of  from  identified storybook  understanding  the  ways  the  the  and  One  behaviors story.  represent  the  during The  facilites  because  the  increasing teacher  These  is their  child's  of  story  during  the  it  books  of  studies  the  researcher the  quantity  and  children,  interactions  challenges  challenges  their  of  sense  more  children.  Thus,  narrative  responded  between  written  narrative  1982).  to  narrative  1983).  make  by  which  of  Golden,  is  directed  form  be  often  stories.  between and  to  narrative  group  books  because  to  could  clear  formed  1982;  stories  between  story—i.e.  interactions  of  were  the  stories  group  of  their  supported  treatment  around  home,  1982).  is  There  1983; W e l l s ,  use  Trabassco,  that  and  the  written  nontreatment  as  responded  emotionally)  type  for  clearly  children  interactions  the  interaction  about  of  and  relationships  Teberosky,  teacher  why  books,  forms  meaning has  did  these  hypothesis  (Stein  interactions  between  these  structure  This  reason  than  heard  and  the  partly  Rosen,  group  group.  First,  narrative  1979;  structure  the  storygroup  between  All  a  literature.  treatment  written (Hardy,  treatment  nontreatment  chosen  knowledge  is  way,  possible  were  who  more  comprehension.  Another  and  response.  children  this of  and  of  group  the  intellectually  difference  identify  and  (both  the  language  express  speech  experiences.  grammar  oral  in  in  treatment  to  children  children  theorists  closest  the  imaginatively  the this  the  Narrative  period,  more  did  reasons  form.  is  the  the  level  child's  group  become of  level  theoretical  researcher  57  to  and a  demands critical  demands of  literacy  assumptions  storytime practiced  that  is  a  to  reader. a  parent  development of  this  factor  interaction  study in  the  behaviors  with  the  treatment  group  with  the  story  such  and  making  The "Let's a  researcher what  story  direct  her  means  of  ways  happens" is  the  allowing  actions,  understanding  the  of  language  the  story. teacher  order  to  guide  the  child  world  of  ending  would  how  Dawn be  be  first  library),  and  Necklace,  a  she  most  got  in  how  to  questions,  make  meaning  drawing  collection  informed  and  recorded  for  However,  these  of  motivated statistical are  in  that  the  from  paper  cranes  inferences  responses  of  mother?  in  a  58  In  coin to  the at  constitute  The  of  are  build  their evoke  cohesive was  the  story  the in  What  have?  What  kind  words,  what  kind  the  story?  questions another  volunteer response  to  responses  which  periphery  of  foundation  ("Who  story  trips  Maiden  the  there  "That  Crane  the  to  expected.  she  there  in  teacher  more  he  other  drawings,  response were  "Is  of  which  on  children's  yet?"  loon  remained which  back  development  book  to  settings  did  pull  However,  ending  The  the  deeper,  reflect  forms.  for  responded  choices  (paintings,  reading.  child  expression  primary  elements  a  of  the  the  events.  literary  kind  the  These and  of  permit  new  home,  learners. analysis  a  numerous  actions  natural  child  kind  a  seems  one  what  with  story  Since  dispositions,  clues  the  used  reading.  other  character  find  frequently  course  the  help  could  (books  it  example, when  sound?"),  offerings  to  consistent  "Is  its  use  in? W h a t  occur  book?"  wolf  to  formulate  live  if  interactions  the the  it  would  Story made  did  linear  could  to  story  structure  For  the  story  asking  happens,  Referring  Dawn  of  children  teacher  the  the  children  and  the  what  towards  to  of  the  predicting,  that  or  end?"  kind  guide  throughout  plot,  interpretations.  possible  as  observed  interactions  predictive  would  connections.  see  good  in  that  to  The  for the  Loon's  indicated were the of  not study.  critical  The  significance  supports  the  reading other and it  of  theoretical  methodology  hand, theories the  text  appears  as  practices of  behavioral  a  interactions of  the  story,  behaviors  his  own  interactions  Informal such  as  about  related to  plots  evolve  themes ways  which of  plausibe  develop  sensitivity  forming  and  touched  upon  this  themes.  are  to  making  the to  indicated  a  reader Thus,  focus  By  to  of  practicing  participant  child  it  clear  that  in  transfer  children  not to  children  there  are  a  and  only  the  increasingly the  experiences to  the  these  across  of  cultures,  and  In  other  appeared  to  lead  to  believe  down  to  them  they  literary that  words, that  of  discovering  more  number  language.  purpose  about  d i s c o v e r e d , the  literature knowledge  and  enthusiastic  finite  with  develop  meaning  in  began themes,  the  the  infinite  children's  there  are  many  questions.  that  infer  "truth"  that about  treatment,  literature. that  the  themes  decisions  during  become  time  few  to  to  the  event.  and  transaction.  On  the  literary  dynamics  across  concluded  appeared  responses  study  a  more that  these  literature  made  became  The  important  children They  they  understanding  with  beliefs.  children's  to  example,  answers  The  in  the  but  the  current  model. view  also  stories.  enabled  presenting  experiences  with  the  enables  reading Some  text  reading  of  as  child  described  and  an  the  teacher  rigid  creation  reading  also  literature, For  the  critical  transaction.  a  between  and  the  to  of  transactional  observations  those  literature.  in  encourage  construction to  and  relationship  which  as  adhere  criticism  behaviors  development reading  to  participants  is  storygroup  the of  seem  literary  there  in  assumptions  interactive  that  interactive  interaction  In  literature  all  came people  our the other can  59  are  beliefs.  is  words, a  matter  constantly  Although  point  be  a  that  the  means  in  this it  the  did  arise of  personal  process  concept  experiences of  of  was from  the  self-knowledge  of only the  children as  well  as  social  and  cultural  Conducting literature  The  Inflexible  use  between  of  the  plan and  with  multitude  of  of  is  a  with a  or  As  well,  of  the  Oral elicit are,  simply  a  have  they  do  image-making on  the  treatment on  as  group,  illustrations.  and  the  ideas  providing  a  children  literary for  to  a  depends  on  story  the  listeners.  create  the  illustrations. placed  Accordingly,  When little she  text.  other  dynamics  the  stories.  the  kind  Providing,  of  inviting,  control  of  the  describes  springboard  for  a  story,  whether  to  sense  a  of  the  freedom  role  words,  story  the  improvising being to  told  interact  of  the  listener  as  art  of  storytelling  transaction.  words  and  However,  It  children.  growing  knowledge  a  Listening  the  the  discovery.  a  emphasizes In  same  storytelling.  no  and  to  the  of  image-making  allow  their  process  from  to  were  telling  experience  as  the  stories.  access  stories  than  experience. reading  to  of  generated  and  exploration  with  to  in  altered  children  the  response  place  be  means  different  listening  to  shared  story  in  responses—putting  confirmation,  telling  does  she  The  created a  about  importance  knowledge  had  their  insights  the  have  between  to  is  for  and  in  and  being  didn't  treatment  individual not  artist's  resources  aloud  storytelling in  constantly  and  of  resulted  storytelling,  treatment.  implications  images  was  while  story  way  cocreator  could  child  meaningful text.  of  responding  the  a  sessions  interactions  dialogues  Reading text  role  the  fluid  the  nature  a  for  trusting,  process  on  time  children  spontaneous waiting,  the  treatment  original  the  treatment  education,  acitivties.  The  the  knowledge.  as  gestures beautiful  challenge is  the  easy  for  to  refer  researcher  read  emphasis, found  60  that  compared the  of as  the to or to  children  the many  mind and  picture in  come  told the  storyteller  stories  classroom  did  not  books  terms to  to  of  depend to  the  teacher,  depend  on  illustrations  to  frequently not  prompted  need  as  assumes.  from  When story during and  free for  books  equal  pride  into  books  and  "seriously"  in  and  Closely  as  tied  they  understanding Young  element. intangible  enchanted  of  associations.  This  the  etc.  impressions  did  the  are It  (as  in  need  just is  those  primarily  be  they  that  of  were  children  teacher  taken  create  do  direction  seriously  to  a  to  Blue  the  in  the  their  group  own  of  the  original  as  illustrations, stylistic  Again,  as  be  and  of  influential.  No  everyone  were  listened  the  quality  illustrations; stories  the  stories  strong  well  would  class  of  experience  image  61  or  this  responses, images  "This they  the  setting  story—past,  through  the  illustrations.  the  looked  responses  and  because  of  from  were  text  image  after  as  compiled attentively  book.  text  Bird,  the  there  the  images  images to  for  When  own  book's  quality  few  the  back  powerful  very  where  paint  selected  the  making  time  of  and  the  trade  or  their  general,  drawing.  elicited  The  to  referred  a  relationship  setting  amount  represent  In  by  class, to  is  appears  opportunities  draw  child  that  image  category  nature.  impression  of  readers  This  to  books,  her  the  the  to  drawings  sense  or  It  the  is  allowed  intimidated  to  to  one  own  his  read  be  selected  feel  as  experience  (Suntlight).  makes  to  took  story.  it  as  chose  only  their  teacher.  illustrations  researcher  story  were  So  appeared  their  one  responses—something  text.  they  time,  between  illustrations.  the  their  classroom  from  the  when  only  treatment  one  or  the  must  to  by  choice  likenesses  by  children  invited  support  literature  listening  telling,  do  support if  then  and  to  much  Indeed,  classroom, images  qualify  are  so  making  mood  a  to  to  the  the  story  rest  of  is the  relatively  abstract  literary  probably  because  of  combine  distant, is  children  to  future,  frozen  light,  land").  inextricably activities  create  and  tied later  a  distinct  dark,  All to  its  of  tense, these  individual  associations  with  other  can  literary  evaluate  experiences,  the  young  rather  child's  than  through  awareness  of  oral  response,  particular  moods,  that  a  teacher  atmospheres  and  settings.  To  summarize,  descriptive during  behaviors  appears  children  can  of  reading  on  research  possible  ways  education theory.  a  response-based When  effect  on  this  book the  children  personal  and  selection  frequency  to  particularly and  and  from  teacher  the  interaction  diversity  of  critical  stories.  literature  from  from  The  the  the  approach  knowledge  stories.  synthesizing  the for  arts.  and  theory  social  some  behind  and  This  study  was  theories  development  within  the  context  study  as  programs  a  which  possible  literacy  this  cognitive  the  serves  to  experiences  of  findings linking  and  to  is  approach  undertaken  to  of  literature,  based  well  recent  a  research  as  explore literature  transactional for  way  process is  as  of  one  the  sciences,  framework  incorporates  environment, have  interactions  interpretations  literature  recommendations  children  responsive  both  data,  learning  pilot  project  and  theory  level.  recommendations  1.  apply  literacy  on  These  that  response-based  kindergarten  practical  follow.  to  statistical  Practice  knowledge  Ultimately,  Based  a  of  the  kindergarten  knowledge  and  existing  positive  understanding  and  and  from  suggest  for  that  and  a  of  learn  research  on  had  Recommendations  It  for  strongly  storygroup  response  5.5  data,  findings  and  fall using  frequent with  and  literacy  into  two  literature and  62  this  in  a  general more  regular  literature,  of  they  investigation,  response-based  several program  categories—creating  a  effectively.  opportunities are  able  to  to  engage  increase  in their  knowledge  of  experiences  with  enables  child  well  response and  knowledge  When  children and  The  the  the  and  increases  the  Teachers  need  literary  sensitive  to  response-based  be  teaching: be  questions  and  comments  ability  affirm  help  Teachers children  them set to  synthesis context.  the  Teachers which  inferences  lead and  the  formulate  a  to  which  they  their  can  and  evokes literary  meaning  extend  and  variety  developing  key  and  experiences,  needs  to  to . move  one of  which  setting  making. personal,  participate  the  learning of  and  that have  response  as  the  in  to  and  in  sense the  two  analyzing which  Analyzing  children's  the  existing  of  about  to  them  individual.  components  response.  draw  response  and  awareness  questions  make to  assumptive, focusing  for  initiate  meaningful  behaviors  stories. the  to  facility  an  trusting, stage  story  is  from  is  the  for  order  out is  of  Eliciting children's  the  understanding  teacher's and  then  expect  the  responses. of  for  the  Interactions  should  is  in  interpret  the  a  children  about  stage  on  program.  and  eliciting  their  make.  build  interactions draw  extend  for  literacy  to  of  Literature  vehicle  the  of  sense  forms.  story  knowledge  events.  described  and  make  allowing  aware  can  to  to  nature  know  response  to  the  expanding  to  literary  education  and  turn,  primary  combination  possibilities to  of  knowledge  oriented  need  a  opportunities  elements  they  core  literature  goal  The  be  experiences  have  of  the  complex,  should  meaningful  literary  what  more  cultural  agenda  enriching.  as  form  Fitting  prescriptive,  5.  literature  aesthetic  increasingly  4.  In  as  social,  3.  structures.  diversity,  knowledge 2.  literary  which  child's guide the  the  child  to  ideas  of to  response  prior  critical  question, while  63  of  encourage  resources  child  connect  level  make  involved  they  inference,  analysis  knowledge response and in  by  and  and  present  engaging  in  confirm  predictions,  literature.  Interactions  should 6.  encourage  Teachers  need  personal safe  and  and  listened  specific, to  insure  social  and  than  that  with  community  probed  by  global,  children  interactions  stimulating to,  rather  of  responses.  participate  stories.  learners  individual  freely  The  classroom  where  children,  in  should  responses  teachers  meaningful  can  and  the  be  be  a  given,  class  as  a  whole. 7.  8.  Literacy  learning  to  reflect  of  the  multiple  experience  the  Teachers  need  to  on  than  a  more a  teacher  be  better and  Teachers they  of  forms.  and  to  need  resource  for  Teachers  to  associations 1 and and  know  their  need  an  to  take  should  to  Teachers  be  given  and  need  reading  the  time  acknowledgement  to  of  be  a  understanding  traditional  elements  responses  alert  story  of  their  a  of  carefully  develop  to  is  the  not  to  is  Western  and  abilities  story  based  literature.  thoughtfully, to  understand  she the  literature.  young  children  Children  activities integral  need such  in  do  to as  of  all  not  make art,  component  language,  inform  children  elements stories  control, give  must  its  necessarily  responses  writing, a  music,  response  many  in  articulate a  movement  based  forms,  variety  is  program.  a  powerful  learning.  between between  of  that  that  own  access  the  child's  children  story.  be  a  children's  aware a  children  as  finish  the  structures  about  to  To  of  help  be  well  response.  that  knowledge  to  and  story.  remember  need  Children  Teachers  the  Representational  drama  aware,  of  as  of  response.  language  know  stories,  of  able  process  responses,  observes  need  all  recursive  possibilities  finish  thought  11.  form  forms  will  10.  a  numerous  When  9.  and  is  of  careful  within  and  their  when a  and story,  experiences  own  thought  64  meaning to  the  how  in  they  between order  have two  that  or  they  made more become  making.  literature  they  read.  The  content  should  invite  response.  aesthetic  The  story  comprehension.  12.  A  broad  appropriate  to  the  and  children at  not  highly  that  Teachers to  to it  original  always  come and  Children  come and  in  this  and  alive  in  structures  of  literary  for  to  books.  more  introduced building  teachers  experiences  are  encourage  be  useful  However,  pattern  abilities  love  children's  through  Storytime  study  Children  and  between  curriculum, make  literary  encounters  personal  first.  curriculum.  they  of  to  similarity  appear  process.  intellectual  making.  literary  books  reading  receptive  know  literature  entire  suitable  formed by  meaning  and/or  It  must  the  is  be  simplistic  important  developed  to  than  their  literature.  to  know  storytelling,  response. should  The be  sharing  real a  They  need  their  enthusiasm  value  time  of  for  literature  discovery,  and  should learning,  knowledge.  aesthetically.  find  influence  possibilities  textual  clearly  theme—i.e.  Pattern  the  imaginative  abilities.  inviting  insight  the  children's  need make  of  of be  by  and  time.  level  limit  expressive  how  over  one  to  positively  predictable  remember oral  of  terms  should  grouped  to  careful  14.  Literature  range  in  structure  structures—appears  confidence  13.  response  with  responded constantly  Teachers  literature children  and will  to  extended  should life. be  literature  enhance By  65  the  extending  enlarge  literature.  their  as  well  in  ways  responses connections literary as  other beyond children  responses  refine  the  into  than the seek the  meanings  5.6  Suggestions  This  study  literature literacy  for  Further  was  an  education  attempt  and  development,  Study  to  literacy.  and  begin  There  there  is  in  this  to is  new  explore a  the  growing  interest  in  general  body  question  of  literature  relating  knowledge  education  in  about  the  early  years.  The to  research  develop  significant through  critical to  the  school.  regarding  problem  response.  any  link  from  observations  of  between  literature  literacy.  too  expansive  Findings These  from  this  literature  The in  2.  complex  effect  are and  of  The  effect  over  a  several  of  statistical  for  any have  to  of  of  books  and  teacher  study  increasingly  are  advance ambiguous  Findings  at  of  this  research  from  be  for  the  relationships point  to  suggestions  clarifying  literature  students  possibility  connection  several  goal  this  of  be  as  literacy.  the  focus  the  appears  conclusive.  further  possible  study.  relationships  literacy.  with  selected  books  period  different  led  of  use  to  strategies  and  a  to  subjects  longer  such  guided  appears  indicate  one  the  analysis  knowledge  However,  directed  selected  depth, using  thinking  treatment  investigation  suggestions  between 1.  and  the  on  comprehension  literary  informal  and  of the  between  focused  Critical  development  Findings  study  of  groups  a  wide and  time. of  range teacher  An  interaction of  interaction  readers  to  be  explored  to  be  explored  backgrounds.  investigation  beginning  needs  needs  could  over  the  be  conducted  course  of  a  with school  year. 3.  A  qualitative  design  would  allow  behaviors  that  young  children  responses  in  limited  context.  a  for  are  66  the  more  inclusion likely  to  of  a  wider  demonstrate  range than  of oral  4.  A  more  tightly  Tightening  controlled  the  design  variables—selected relative 5.  It  effect  appears  that  influence the  to  assist of  the  their  their  what  done  child  9.  permit  teacher  extraneous  separate  interaction-in  to  child  variables.  examination  order  the  group  during  of  develops  identify a  behaviors  development  was  to  of  the  determine  the  teacher in  storygroup  comprehension  of  setting  describe  and  study  needed  the  reading  a  strong  strategies,  process.  interaction the  have  More  behaviors  development  but  of  on  studies  which  these  best  aspects  focused the  between  aesthetic  in  ways  implicit?  control  the  have  children that  Put  that  another  of  be  of  of  formulating  guided  one-to-one  benefits  the  research  way,  learning  to  and  structure  interactions  make  investigations  need  one-to-one  the  to  and  evoke of  of  storyreading  rests  in  what  in the  only  over  response that  be  to  indicate directed  children a  read  longitudinal  and  how  basis  to  literature responses  literature. aesthetic  to  the  More  information  response  particular  in  young  relationship  development.  aesthetic  67  what  transaction.  literacy  using  example  done  this  aesthetic  needs  between  be  behaviors  response  for  to  nature  various  experiences  say,  relationships need  the on  possibilities  responses,  other  children  young  the  Studies  Also,  literary  can  implicate  strong  identify  on  way  know.  children.  broader  to  another  How  each  so  suggests write.  is  previously  how  to  children  This  with  settings  needs  peers  responses.  about  Research  Do  the  between  classroom  is  the  within  interactions  explicit  8.  control  literacy.  extending  7.  done  Interactions  to  also  interaction  only  that  child  would  each.  not  be  and  teacher  perspective  need  6.  on  would  text  of  design  response? to  which  develop prompt  What, a the  if  any,  wider child  are  the  range  of  to  seek  factual 10.  The  information  effect  groups  needs  respond behaviors 11.  The  in  be  variable for  language,  as  to  study  studied. manner  standardized of  book  development  of  of  Do  useful a  an  to  the  the  program  on  are  they  to  be a  responses  increase  in  What  as  is  68  factor  form a  groups  interaction  literature-literacy oral  of  literary  of  books  books  in  a  response of  response behaviors  this  to  written  structures. should  literature-literacy  critical  nature  in  model variety  the  teacher  between  a  critical  socioeconomic Can  to  between  socioeconomic  specific?  transition  relationship  or  significant  and  different  books?  culture a  story?  cultural  selected  criteria' f o r  literacy?  of  different  motivation  students'  indicated Does  understanding  reasons—as  source of  or  appears  several a  his  literature-literacy  be  determine  development. the  a  same  examination  made This  to  the  programs  An  12.  of  related  be  program.  and  literacy  contribute  relationship?  to  REFERENCES  Abbs,  P.  English  (1982).  within  the  arts.  London:  Hodder  and  Stoughton.  Altwerger, A., Diehl-Faxon, J., & Dockstader-Anderson, K. (1985). e v e n t s a s m e a n i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n . Language Arts, 62, 4 7 6 - 4 8 4 . Altwerger, B., Reading  Edelsky, Teacher,  C, 40,  & F l o r e s , B. (8), 1 4 4 - 1 5 3 .  (1987).  Whole  Read-aloud  language:  What's  Anderson, A., & Stokes, S.(1984), Social and institutional influences d e v e l o p m e n t a n d p r a c t i c e o f l i t e r a c y . In H. G o e l m a n , A . O b e r g & ( E d s . ) Awakening to literacy (pp. 24-38). Exeter, NH: Heinemann. A p p l e b e e , A . N. Press.  (1978).77?e  child's  concept  of  Applebee, A. N. (1983). Studies in the Research!ng response to literature 87-103). New Jersey: Ablex. B.C.  Ministry of Education Book. V i c t o r i a , B.C.  Barthes,  R.  (1974).  S./Z.;  an  Chicago:  spectator and the  Kindergarten  (1984).  essay.  story.  New  York:  University  role. teaching  Curriculum  Hill  B a u m a n n , J.F. (1984). I m p l i c a t i o n s for reading t e a c h e r a n d s c h o o l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Journal  and  In  C.  of  of  Guide  and  instruction of Reading,  from 28,  D. (1986). Virtual and Aesthetic Education, 20(2),  Bruner,  J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Social foundations of language Jerome Bruner, ( E d . D. O l s o n ) . N e w Y o r k :  Bruner,  J. (1984). Language, m i n d Smith (Eds.), Awakening Heinemann.  Bruner,  J. (1986). Press.  Britton,  J . ( 1 9 6 8 ) . R e s p o n s e t o l i t e r a t u r e . In J . S q u i r e ( E d . ) Response to (pp. 4 - 1 0 ) . U r b a n a , IL: National Council f o r T e a c h e r s o f English.  Actual  minds,  and reading. to Literacy  possible  worlds.  69  (Ed.) (pp.  Resource  the research 109-115.  Bogdan,  of  Chicago  Wang.  B.S. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . B e d t i m e s t o r y r e a d i n g as a s o c i a l R.V. Lalik ( E d s . ) , Issues in literacy: A research yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. National Reading Conference. forms  on the F. S m i t h  Cooper literature,  Bloom,  actual 51-57.  new?  on  p r o c e s s . In J . A . N i l e s & perspective. Thirty-fourth 287-294}. 3Rochester, NY:  literary  and thought: Norton.  Essays  In H. G o e l m a n , (pp. 193-201).  Cambridge,  Journal  response.  MA:  in  of  honor  of  A. Olberg & F. Portsmouth, NH:  Harvard  University  literature  Britton,  J. (1979). The role of fantasy: The ourselves. In M . Meek ( E d . ) The cool Head.  Bunbury,  R. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . C h i l d r e n ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f ( E d s . ) , Research in response to children's K.G. S a u r .  Cates,  Dick (1979). Uses of narrative. L o n d o n : Bodley Head.  Clark,  M.  Young  (1976).  fluent  readers.  In  M.  Cochran-Smith.  M.  The  (1984).  making  Corcoran, B. (1987). Readers, BoyntonCook Publishers.  Meek  In  G . F o x & G. H a m m o n d (pp. 9 2 - 1 0 1 ) . N e w York:  The  (Ed.)  a reader. and  Norwood,  teachers  (pp.  Doake,  D. at  Doake,  D. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . R e a d i n g - l i k e b e h a v i o r : I t s r o l e i n l e a r n i n g & T. Smith-Burke ( E d . s ) , Observing the Language Newark, DE: International Reading A s s o c i a t i o n .  Dyson,  Egan, Eisner,  M.  (1978).  E.  (1979).  (1979).  The  24-32).  taking.  Paper  Ablex. New  experiences and emergent reading behavior. Paper Reading A s s o c i a t i o n Annual Convention Institute.  Children's  minds.  Glasgow:  William  Educational  development.  educational  imagination.  Oxford: New  Ferreiro,  E., & Teberosky, Heinemann.  A.  (1982).  Flood,  (1977). Parental styles in Reading Teacher, 30, 8 5 6 - 8 4 7 .  Literacy  Jersey:  reading  70  episodes  and  Presented  In M . (pp.  Jagger 82-98).  Sons.  T o w a r d d e f i n i n g the gap Communication, 1, 5 - 5 3 . University  McMillan  of of  before  to read. Learner  Coliln  Oxford  York:  F e i t e l s o n , D., K i t a , B., & G o l d s t e i n , Z . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . E f f e c t s f i r s t graders o n their c o m p r e h e n s i o n and use Teaching of English, 20, ( 4 ) , 3 3 9 - 3 5 7 .  J.  (pp.  andasof l i t e r a t u r e . In J . R a j c h m a n &. C . W e s t (pp. 6 3 - 8 9 ) . N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y  A . H . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . E m e r g i n g l i t e r a c y in s c h o o l c o n t e x t s : b e t w e e n s c h o o l c u r r i c u l u m a n d c h i l d m i n d . Written Kieran  N.J:  41-75).  A r t h u r C. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . ( E d s . ) Post analytic Press.  Donaldson,  Web  Heinemann.  Danto,  ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Book International  Cool  is no more than a way of S o c i o l o g y X, Mexico City.  of  texts  Philosohy philosophy  literature. literature  London:  C o c h r a n - S m i t h , M . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . What is given p r e s e n t e d at W o r l d C o n g r e s s o f  third area where we are most web (pp. 4 0 - 4 8 ) . L o n d o n : Bodley  Press.  Publishing  Co.  reading series stories l a n g u a g e . Research in  schooling.  with  Portsmouth,  young  children.  to the  NH;  The  Fox,  C.  Fillion,  Frye,  (1979). Talking like a book: M e e k ( E d . ) , Opening moves (pp.  Young 12-15).  B. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . R e a d i n g a s Journal, 70(1), 3 9 - 4 5 .  An  Northrop Press.  Golda,  (1964).  L. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . 137-142.  Golden,  The  Teaching  K.  (1986).  What's  Goodman,  N.  (1978).  Ways  Goodman, N. (1984). Of University Press. B. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . M. Meek  Harste,  Heath,  educated  from  children's  Towards ( E d . ) The  whole of  approach  imagination.  J . M . (1984). Children's c o n c e p t Teacher, 37, ( 7 ) , 5 7 8 - 5 8 4 .  Goodman,  Hardy,  inquiry:  in  story  in  language?  Holland,  N.  (1975).  Iser, W.  (1978).  The  Five act  matters.  V.A. and  Language  and  Cambridge,  Narrative  reading.  reading.  New  Baltimore:  Iser,  W. (1980). Interaction between text Crossman ( E d . s ) , The reader in the Princeton University Press.  Just,  M.A. & Carpenter, P.A comprehension. Newton,  Haven: John and text  59,  Reading  Heinemann. Press.  MA.:  Harvard  In  our a s s u m p t i o n s : in the Teaching  A of  skills  University  Hopkins  Arts,  narrative.  to literature: Teaching of  Yale  English  writing.  NH:  M.  University  Harvester  (1981). Examining l e a r n i n g . Research  perspective on response setting. Research in the  readers of  literature.  Sussex:  S . B. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . W h a t n o b e d t i m e s t o r y m e a n s : s c h o o l . Language in Society, 11, 4 9 - 7 6 . A new school  Indiana  Portsmouth,  Haasocks,  other  IN:  reading  In  learning.  a poetics of fiction: A n approach through cool web (pp. 7 - 2 4 ) . L o n d o n : B o d l e y Head.  J , C , B u r k e , C.L., & W o o d w a r d , transactional view of literacy English, 18, 8 4 - 1 0 8 .  H i c k m a n , J. (1981). elementary 343-354.  Kiefer,  to  monologues. Tinga.  literature  Bloomingon,  of  whole  and  to  response  worldmaking. mind  children's oral London: Tinga,  at  home  Research English,  and  in an 75(4),  Press.  University  Press.  reader. In S. Suleiman & I. (pp. 106-120). Princeton, NJ:  (1987). The psychology of reading M A : A l l y n and B a c o n , pp. 2 2 4 - 2 4 5 .  and  language  B. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . T h e r e s p o n s e s of children in a c o m b i n a t i o n firstsecond grade classroom to picture books in a v a r i e t y of artistic s t y l e s . Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16(3), 1 4 - 2 0 .  71  Langer,  Susanne (19341978). University Press.  Philosophy  in  a  new  M a r t i n e z , M , & R o s e r , N. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . R e a d it a g a i n : d u r i n g s t o r y t i m e . The Reading Teacher, 38, M c C o n a u g h y , S. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . (2), 5 8 1 - 5 8 9 . Meek,  M. (1982). Theory into  Meek,  M.  (1982).  story  structure  What counts as Practice, XX/(4),  evidence 284-293.  Learning  Using  to  read.  Miller,  B. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Teaching the Teachers of English.  Moon,  C , &. W e l l s , r e a d . Journal  G. (1979). of Research  London:  art  of  in  key.  Cambridge,  The value 782-786. the  in  Bodley  literature.  of  of  Harvard  repeated  Language  classroom.  theories  MA:  readings  Arts,  children's  57,  literature.  Head. Urbana,  The influence of the in Reading, 2, 5 3 - 6 2 .  home  National  on  learning  L. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . R e a d i n g s t o r i e s t o y o u n g c h i l d r e n : E f f e c t s o f s t o r y structure and traditional questioning strategies on comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 2 2 1 - 2 3 0 .  Morrow,  L. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . Y o u n g children's responses to one-to-one story s c h o o l s e t t i n g s . Reading Research Quarterly, 23(1), 89-107. antecedents  N e z w o r s k i , A . , S t e i n , N.L., & T r a b a s s o , T . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . S t o r y children's recall. Journal of Verbal Learning 196-206. Olson,  Purves,  G. (1983). Narratology, the study U r b a n a , IL.: ERIC C l e a r i n g h o u s s e o n A . , &. B e a c h , R. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . Research literature, reading interests, and National Council of Teachers of  in  Journal  s t r u c t u r e v e r s u s c o n t e n t in and Verbal Behavior, 21,  l i t e r a c y . In H. (pp. 1 7 4 - 1 8 5 ) .  of themetic-fantasy play c o m p r e h e n s i o n . American  training on Educational  of story structure. ERIC Reading and C o m m u n i c a t i o n  Fact Sheet. Skills.  and the reader: the teaching of English.  72  basal  readings  labeling.  D. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . S e e ! J u m p i n g ! S o m e o r a l l a n g u a g e a n t e c e d e n t s o f G o e l m a n , A . O b e r g & F. S m i t h ( E d s . ) Awakening to literacy, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.  P e l l e g r i n i , A . , & G a l d a , L. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . T h e e f f e c t s the development of children's story Research Journal, 19, 4 4 3 - 4 5 2 . Pradl,  of  primary  to  Morrow,  and  of  how  of  L. (1982). S t o r y structures r e a d e r s . Reading Improvement,  A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The a c h i e v m e n t of Child Language, 5, 5 - 1 5 .  selections  Council  Morrow,  Ninio,  represented in 19, 1 9 4 - 1 9 9 .  IL:  Research literature.  and response Champaign,  to IL:  Purves,  A . (1968). to literature.  Purves, A. Richards,  (1974). I.  A.  Elements of writing about a literary work: Urbana, I L : National Council of Teachers Indoctrination  (1929).  in  Practical  literature.  criticism.  English  New  York:  Harcourt  study of English.  63,  66-70.  response  Brace.  Rosen,  H. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Stories and Teaching of English.  Rosen,  H. ( 1 9 8 7 , F e b r u a r y ) . Narrative in intercultural education. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at t h e c o n f e r e n c e o n A r t s e d u c a t i o n in a M u l t i c u l t u r a l S o c i e t y , B e r g e n , N H .  Rosenblatt,  L.  (1968).  meanings.  Journal,  A of  Literature  R o s e n b l a t t , L. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . The Illinois University  as  reader, Press.  Urbana,  exploration. the  text  R o s e n b l a t t , L. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . T h e t r a n s a c t i o n a l Researching response to literature Norwood, NJ: Ablex. currents:  IL.:  N.  and  Y.:  the  theory of and the  Roser,  N. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . R e s e a r c h 64(1), 9 0 - 9 6 .  Relinking  Roser,  N. & M a r t i n e z , M. (1985). Roles adults l i t e r a t u r e . Language Arts, 62, 4 8 5 - 4 9 0 .  National  Noble  poem.  Association  and  Carbondale,  play  and  in  IL:  Southern  C. C o o p e r (pp.33-54).  Language  literacy.  preschoolers  Schickedanz, J.A. 18-27. Scollon,  (1981).  Hey,  this  book's  story again!" Exploring r e a d . Young Children, 33,  not  working  right!  R., & S c o l l o n , S.B.K. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Narrative, communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.  literacy  and  Young  face  Arts,  response  S c h e i f f e l i n , B. & C o c h r a n - S m i t h , M. (1984). Learning t o read culturally: b e f o r e s c h o o l i n g . In H. G o e l m a n , A . O b e r g a n d F. S m i t h ( E d s . ) , to literacy (pp. 3 - 2 4 ) . P o r t s m o u t h , N H : H e i n e m a n n . Schickedanz, J.A. (1978). "Please read that b e t w e e n storyreading and learning to  the  Noble.  t h e l i t e r a r y w o r k . In teaching of literature,  literature  for  to  Literacy Awakening  relationships 48-55.  Children,  in  37,  interethnic  Shanahan, T., & Hogan, V. (1983). Parent reading style and children's print awareness. In J. Niles ( E d . ) , Searches for meaning in reading /language processing and instruction. Thirty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 2 1 2 - 2 1 7 ) . R o c h e s t e r , N Y : N a t i o n a l R e a d i n g C o n f e r e n c e . Sloan,  G. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . The middle schools.  child New  Snow,  C. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . L i t e r a c y Harvard Educational  as critic: Teaching literature York: Teachers College Press.  and language: R e l a t i o n s h i p s Review, 53, 165-189.  73  in  during  the  the  elementary  and  preschool  years.  Snow,  C. & N i n i o , A . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T h e c o n t r a c t s o f l i t e r a c y : W h a t c h i l d r e n l e a r n from r e a d i n g . I n W . T e a l e & E. S u l z b y ( E d s . ) , Emergent literacy (pp. 116-139). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.  Squire,  Stein,  The responses IL.: S o u t h e r n  J. (1964). Carbondale,  of adolescents Illinois University  to reading Press.  four  short  N.L. & G l e n n , C . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . A n a n a l y s i s o f s t o r y c o m p r e h e n s i o n in s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . In R. F r e e d l e ( E d . ) , New directions in discourse Norwood, NJ: Ablex.  Stein,  Sulzby,  Teale,  Teale,  E.  (1985).  Children's emergent reading o f favorite Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458-481.  W. (1982). T o w a r d s a theory Language Arts, 59, ( 6 ) , 5 5 5 - 5 7 0 .  of  W. (1984). Reading to young development. I n H. G o e l m a n , A . literacy. London: Heinemann.  learning  to  children: Oberg, &  its F.  books:  read  L.  S.  (1962).  Thought  and  language.  Cambridge,  A  and  developmental  write  significance S m i t h (Eds.),  W . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . In W . T e a l e & E. S u l z b y ( E d s . ) , Emergent reading (pp. v i i - x x v ) . N o r w o o d , N J : A b l e x .  Vygotsky, Walker,  elementary processing.  N.L. & Trabasso, T. (1982). What's in a story: An approach to c o m p r e h e n s i o n a n d i n s t r u c t i o n . I n K. G l a s e r ( E d . ) , Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 2 1 2 - 2 2 6 ) . H i l l s d a l e , N J : L a w r e n c e T i r l b a u m .  study. Teale,  stories.  for literacy Awakening to  literacy:  MA.:  MIT  naturally.  Writing  Press.  G.H., & Keurbitz, I.E., (1979). Reading to preschoolers as an s u c c e s s f u l b e g i n n i n g r e a d i n g . Reading Improvement, 16, 1 4 9 - 1 5 4 .  Wells,  G. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Books.  Wells,  G. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . P r e s c h o o l l i t e r a c y r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s a n d s u c c e s s i n s c h o o l . In D. Olson et al. (Eds.) Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.  W i e r s m a , W . (1986). and Bacon. Young,  Research  makers.  methods  C. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . R e a d e r s , t e x t s , Readers, texts, and teachers.  Portsmouth,  in  education:  and teachers. New Jersey:  74  N.  An  H.:  language  to  G. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Learning through interaction: the N e w Y o r k : Cambridge University Press.  meaning  of  aid  Wells,  The  study  and  development.  Heimemann  introduction.  In B. C o r c o r a n Boynton Cook.  &  Educational  Toronto:  Allyn  E.  (Eds.)  Evan  APPENDIX  1: MATRIX  OF  LITERARY  KNOWLEDGE  Questions and Comments Literary Elements  ' Factual  Interpretative  Events, p l o t  Characters, relationships S e t t i n g , mood atmosphere  Images Ideas, themes  Language, s t y l e structure  Format  Story  Personal Know!edge  75  Personal associations and significance  Evaluative  <  APPENDIX  Pretest  PRETEST  AND  POSTTEST  BOOKS  Books:  Clement,  (1986).  The  (1982).  Whale  C.  Siberell,  A.  Schulivitz,  Posttest  U.  Painter in  One  (1967).  and the  Monday  Sky.  the  Wild N.Y.:  Morning.  Swans.  N.Y.:  E.P.  Dutton.  N.Y.:  Charles  N.Y.:  Frederick  Dial  Books.  Scribner  Books:  Aardema,  V.  Bang, M.  (1983).  French,  2:  F.  (1979).  (1972).  Half  Dawn. The  A  Bali  N.Y.:  Blue  of  William  Bird.  Kenki.  Warne.  Morrow.  London:  Oxford  76  University  Press.  and  Sons.  APPENDIX  (Books  listed  Krasilovsky, Shulivitz, Simon,  in  P.  U.  The  (1976).  Duvoisin,  B. R.  A. and House.  Waber,  B.  H.  Ginsburg, Zolotov,  (1966). M. C.  Lyle,  Harry  (1976). (1966).  J.  by Which  Big  Girl.  This  Takes (1973).  One  is  Sister,  Sea. the Little  the  Best  to  the  GROUP  group)  Houghton  N.Y.:  Bright  Sister.  77  that  Mifflin.  Alfred  N.Y.: N.Y.:  Built.  Dandelion  Press.  Knopf.  Morning.  Houghton and  Jack  University  Monday  Harper  Place?  House  Oxford  Boston:  N.Y.:  CONTROL  Collins.  is  Trip.  Crocodile. the  read  London:  a  THE  Boston  Toronto:  Party.  Lyle  TO  were  Little  (1979).  Python's  Baum,  (1965).  Shy  READ  they  Treasure.  Petunia  (1963).  BOOKS  which  by,  (1974).  Baum,  of  The  (1970).  I., i l l u s t r a t e d Books.  Wildsmith,  Zion,  order  3:  Toronto:  Mifflin.  Row. MacMillian  Harper  and  Publishing. Row.  Random  APPENDIX  (Books  listed  Rockwell, Dayrell,  in  A.  order  in  Why  E. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Mifflin.  READ  they  the  and  the  When  the  Sun  Ago  P.  Belting,  N.  (1974).  Whirlwind  is  Cleaver,  E.  (1977).  The  Neck/ace.  B.  McDermott, Matsutani, Yagawa,  G. M.  S.  Aardema,  which  was  "How  Raven  Stole  Some  Stories  and  children  the  group.)  Live  Earth  was  in  the  Flat.  N.Y.:  N.Y.:  E.P.  Oxford  Sky.  Boston:  Hougton  Collins.  Dutton.  University  Press.  Scribner.  Four  Winds  N.Y.:  Press.  Parents  N.Y.:  William  Buzz  in  Magazine  Morrow  People's  and  Ears.  Press. Co.  N.Y.:  Dial  Press.  Light"  were  books  look  the  Crowell.  Moon  Charles  Wife.  to  Dancing.  Maiden.  Mosquitos  read  GROUP  Told:  which  to  Crane  TREATMENT  Toronto:  N.Y.:  Crane  Why  which  include  books  The  The  (1976).  N.Y.:  THE  N.Y.:  a Ghost  Sunt light.  (1968).  Story  Stories  Song.  (1980).  (1981).  V.  Loon's  Moon  (1982).  were  Stars.  Luzzato,  Baylor,  TO  Dancing  Long  (1980).  BOOKS  which  The  (1971).  C.  4:  read  came at  Read to  to  during  and/or the  children  comprise free  Available  time  by  a  mini  and  to  during the  Treatment:  researcher  library take  the  which  home  as  treatment  were  books  available  for  the  overnight.  Legends: Aardema, Baylor, Bersonj,  V.  B. H.  (1976).  (1982). (1969).  Why  Moon Why  Mosquitos Song. the  N.Y.:  Jackal  Buzz  in  Charles  Won't  People's  N.  Y.:  Dial  Press.  Scribner's  Speak  78  Ears.  to  Hedgehog.  N.Y.:  Seabury  Press.  Chek,  C.H.  The  (1976).  Sun  King.  Conner,  C. a n d F a r m e r , P. Collins and Sons.  Dayrell,  E. ( 1 9 6 8 ) Why M i f f l i n Co.  (1971).  the  Sun  and  Domanska, J.  (1978).  The  Tortoise  Gerson,  (1974).  Why  the  M.J. Inc.  Toronto:  G r i f a l c o n i , A n n ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The Village Little, B r o w n and Co. Farmer,  Haley,  P. a n d Sons. G.E.  Conner,  (1970).  A  C.  A  and  the  Live  Moon  the  Tree.  is  Far  of  Found  Story.  in  Icarus.  Beginning  of  Kipling,  R.  (1982).  The  Elephant's  Child.  N.Y.:  Walker  Kipling,  R.  (1983).  The  Elephant's  Child.  N.Y.:  Harcourt  Kipling,  R.  (1982).  How  the  Kipling,  R.  (1982).  Just  So  (1983).  Legend  of  Li  L u z z a t t o , P.C. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Publishing Co.  Long  McDermott,  G.  (1972).  Anansi.  McDermott,  G.  (1984).  Daughter  McDermott,  G.  (1980).  Sunt light.  ArmidiIlos.  His  Chicago:  the Ago  River. When  the of  N.Y.:  Spots. Rand  N.Y.:  the  Brace  Jovanovich,  Toronto,  William  and  Boston:  Collins  and  McNally  and  Rhinehart  Holt,  Earth.  N.Y.:  Delacorte  79  Winds  Jovanovich.  Walker  was  Flat.  and  Co.  Co. and  Winston.  N.Y.:  William  and  Winston.  Rhinehart  Press.  Jovanovich.  Co.,  Brace  N.Y.:  Four  brace  N.Y.:  Holt,  Earth  Harcourt  Spider.  N.Y.:  Houghton,  Atheneum.  The  Lee, J.M.  Willliam  Books.  Houses.  London:  (1985).  Stories.  Boston:  Harcourt  Square  R.  Got  Sky.  Britain:  Greenwillow  Kipling,  Leopard  Great  the  N.Y.:  and  and  N.Y.:  Icarus.  N.Y.:  Away.  Daedalus  (1971).  Story,  Daedalus  and Sky  Dominie.  Press.  Collins  Roche, A.K. Related  Clever  Couple  M.  Wanting  The  (1967).  L i f t o n , B.J.  a  The  (1971).  The  Based  Theme:  Kha, D.M.  (1979).  In  the  Anderson,  H.C.  M.  Grimm  The  K.  Weaving  and  M.  of  Small  Wild  Paper Wild  Swans.  The  The  Golden  Dawn.  N.Y.:  Weaving  of  Kuwata,M.  (1963).  The  Grateful  Crane.  Matsutani,  M.  (1968).  S o u c i , R.D.  Aardema,  Charles  Dial  Scribner's  Sons  Press.  Natick,  N.Y.:  William  The  Cumulative  Books.  World  MA:  Picture  Book  Studios.  Publishing.  Transformation:  (1983).  S.  Press.  Goose)  Ravens.  Swans.  Viking  Greenwillowl  N.Y.:  Seven  Kestrel.  N.Y.  N.Y.:  N.Y.:  (1986).  Yagawa,  Viking  Dragon.  Swans.  Crane.  Co.  Atheneum.  Philomel  M.  San  Inc.  *  and  N.Y.:  N.Y.:  N.Y.:  (1986).  (1969).  Son.  Land  The  The  (1981).  Brothers,  Krueger,  Heyer,  Hall,  Own:  (Raven, Crane, S w a n ,  (1963).  (1985).  Ehrlich, A.  Bang,  Prentice  Walker  Boy.  Yeh-Shen.  (1972).  Transformation:  Bang,  N.J.:  Their  N.Y.:  Inch  Cinderella  C.  (1986).  of  Mudsnail  J.  Perrault,  Child  Inchling.  Morimoto,  Bird  Turtle.  Themes  Lonely Ishi,  The  (1969).  The  (1987).  (1981).  The  Crane  The Crane  Morrow  a Dream.  Enchanted Wife.  N.Y.:  Tokyo:  Maiden.  and  Viking  Kodansha  N.Y.:  Tapestry. N.Y.:  Co.  Parents  Kestrel. International,  Magazine  Vancouver:  William  Morrow  Ltd.  Press.  Groundwood and  Books.  Co.  Pattern: V.  (1981).  Bringing  the  Rain  to  Kapiti  80  Plain.  N.  Y.:  Dial  Press.  Emberley, Hogrogian,  E. N.  (1968).  Drummer  (1971).  One  Hoff.  Fine  Day.  N.J.:  Prentice  London:  Hall.  McMillan  Co.  Poetry/Verse:  Belting,  N.  (1962).  The  Belting,  N.  (1974).  Whirlwind  French,  F.  (1972).  The  Sun  Blue  is  a Golden is  Bird.  Earring.  a Ghost London:  Dancing. Oxford  8 1  N.Y.: N.Y.:  Holt,  Rhinehart  E.P.  Dutton  University  Press.  and  and  Winston.  Co.,  Inc.  APPENDIX  5:  EXAMPLES  OF  RESPONSE  CATEGORIES  PLOT  Factual: Fly  followed  him  out.  And  the  two  went  on.  At  length,  favorite  of  yours.  they  arrived  in  another  town. C:  It's  going  T:  You  know  to  be  this  the  same  story.  It  thing.  must  be  a  Personal: Half-a-Ball-of-Kenki fight,  let  middle C:  I  C:  Me  us  of  make  the  hope  said, a  "It  fire  is  already  first."  So  early  they  in  the  broke  evening.  wood  and  If  we  set  it  are  going  alight  to  in  the  paints,  and  path.  Leopard  gets  killed.  too.  Interpretative: Then  Teiji  several C:  I  rolls  know  The  The  I bet  his  of  he's  tortoise  away. C:  sold  house  paper. going  held  up  Enchantress  the  turtle  and  And to  he  paint  the  started the  back  clouds  her  into  He  kept to  only  the  his  brushes,  his  lake.  swans.  storm  spread  goes  paintings.  wings  the  shell  on and  then  his  back,  flew she  at  . . .  and  the  all  their  fury  faded  tortoise.  Boing!  Evaluative: Then the C:  Teiji gray  I  knew  flew  away  to  join  his  brothers.  Together  sky. he  was  going  to  turn  into  a  swan.  82  they  rose  majestic  against  C:  So  did  C:  So  I  Time  knew  went  needed a  a  by.  as  delicate  The  morning  T:  Think  C:  Yea,  it's  T:  How  is  C:  Cause  She  as  pink.  swan!  could It's  was  your  She  young  woman  dressed  cheeks.  had I  the  a  a  know  very  She  came  oddly,  had  a  into  with  long,  scar  on  her  arm.  I  where  it  was  from?  Except  that  the a  yard  heavy  slender noticed  brown  neck it  and  and  when  asked  if  cloak  over  tiny  she  I  teeth,  took  off  swan!  so? just it  like  going  it  the  It's  One  How  C:  C:  end.  pink  and  cloak.  arrow,  the  saiimaker.  dress  her  I.  the  almost  have  one  like  story.  it's  going  backwards.  backwards?  doesn't  other  crane  a  didn't  the  scar.  have  crane  a  except  In  the  last  one,  when  she  got  shot  with  an  scar. there's  no  peeking.  CHARACTER:  Factual: On  Saturday  guard, the C:  Mrs.  makes  morning  royal M.,  cook,  the  the  king,  the  the  royal  barber,  jester's  somebody  queen, and  who  the  little  the  royal  entertains  prince, jester  the  king  the came and  jokes.  Interpretation:  Leopard C: . C:  turned  I wonder . Leopard Without  away  in  disgust.  why? went Fly.  flying Cause  kuputu, kuputu, kuputu, kuputu Fly  was  too  small.  83  out  the  gate.  knight, to  visit  queen.  a  royal me.  And  he  Whale C:  chased  Frog  is  Salmon  a  up  scaredy  the  river.  Frog  was  afraid.  He  called  to  Raven.  cat.  Evaluative:  C:  (continuing  mean  and  response  the  fly  She  told  me  she  was  then,  began,  she  weaving  it  the  isn't  might with  asked sails.  C:  Me  and  Tiffany  C:  Me  too.  Cause  of  her  the  death  round  one  think  I  she's  scar  is  of  black  thing:  I promised  the  above)  They're  her, but eyes  never  never  to  He  did  C:  I  picture not  saw  looks  see  Frog  would.  the  Canada  the  bullet.  mostly  blue.  on  bank  the  of  the  Frog.  Personal: C:  So  C:  I  beautiful! like  the  it  didn't  believe  colors.  84  her  come  goose.  Factual: The  I  and  IMAGES  C:  doing  because  they  think  it's  mean. be  me  child  river.  black, into '  the « .  her.  black room  How  hair. while  beautiful  Before she  we was  Interpretative: C:  Maybe  C:  The  When  the  She's  C:  She . .  snow  mountains  C:  .  the  is  are  the  Enchantress a  bird  looks  One  saw  one  of  one, they  Lotus  watched  C:  It  was  C:  A  tower  in  made of  swans. the  bird  in  the  c a g e , her  eyes  lit  up.  herself!  like  by  swans.  those  flew  amazement of  birds,  it  hawks.  away. as  Chiang  the  was  Ti  whole  made  and  palace  of  Jade disappeared.  birds!  birds.  Evaluative: The to  blue  bird  his  cage  flew  up  and  I  set  opened  him  "Tui,  tui."  "Tui, tui." "Tui,  him  the  heard  free  cage singing  Over It  perhaps  door, a  and  echoed  and  he  will  they  sing  again,  watched  shaking  his  wings  as  if  trying  him  too,"  as  he  said flew  Jade away.  Lotus.  So  Suddenly  she they  song. over  again  through  the  he  sang  the  song.  countryside.  tui."  Notice  the  difference  now.  Have  a  pictures. C:  down  escape.  "If  T:  inside  Blue  is  all  the  evil.  85  look  and  see  what's  happened  in  the  SETTING  MOOD  Factual: He  was  numbed  by  the  icy  cold,  but  when  at  last  he  saw  the  named  Teiji  who  swans,  he  felt  warm.  C:  That's  a  really  cold  place.  Personal: In  a  village  all  the  C:  My  in  Japan,  world.  is  once  lived  a  painter  was  loved  by  . .  student  Canada  there  comes  the  land  from  of  the  heard  was  Japan.  setting  Japan  is  the  land  of  the  rising  sun  and  sun.  Interpretative: .  .  .  But  woke C:  up  all the  (Making  Then  next  Ti  frozen  C:  Because  C:  I think  sound  and  with  that's when  the  morning,  rhythmic  Chiang  almost  I  I  slow  could  thumping.  still  effects  of  Lotus  saw  Jade  hear  loom the  the  I  went  back  to  bed,  and  when  loom.  working) Enchantress—and  suddenly  they  were  fear. a  frozen  you  step  palace, on  that  I  think.  stuff,  you  get  frozen.  Evaluative: And  I was  T:  Where  C:  No,  he  C:  He  was  home. did  the  was just  So  the  story  just  a  little  take  prince  said,  place?  puppet.  puppeting.  86  I  "We  just  dropped  in  to  say  hello."  LANGUAGE  Factual: C:  Japanese  saying  C:  One  sign  of  As  Fly  was  slipping  of  Fly  Then C:  and  he  What's  Japanese  bound  hid  (pointing  himself  a  script).  means  them  him  to  to  off, a  a word—one Leopard  palm  of  their  plucked  tree—winding  a  letters  long  the  makes  creeper.  creeper,  He  kpung,  a  word.  grabbed kpung,  hold kpung.  nearby.  creeper?  Personal: "Kye,  kye,  kye,"  laughed  Leopard.  "We  shall  see!"  Then  he  bathed  and  oiled  his  response  to  fur. C:  They  talk  T:  Maybe  pirate  that's  talk!  because  we've  been  talking  about  pirates.  Interpretation: C:  Half-a-ball-of-kenki,  character's  name).  T:  to  .  It's  fun  . . The  say  goose  that,  turned  C:  What's  C:  She  C:  Shot.  C:  Sort  of  C:  Like  when  C:  Like  shivering.  half-a-ball-of-kenki  isn't and  as  it? looked  at  me  shuddered?  died.  shook. you're  (said  cold.  87  and  shuddered.  a  chant  in  Evaluative: The  cat  climbed  "Where "We  are  are  "Then And C:  to  thing  his  see  come  the  cat.  Enchantress,"  they  said.  too."  like to  back.  asked the  around  almost  the  to  going?"  going  curled  It's  did  you  I will he  on  Chiang  the  the  other  Ti's  neck,  story  monkey's  of  and the  baby—the  fell  king owl  asleep. lion—like  that  got  the  killed.  mosquito It  story  sounds  like  who that.  THEME  Factual: Then  suddenly  and C:  threw He  Half-a-Ball-of-Kenki  him  got  kabat  into  the  gathered  all  her  strength,  lifted  up  Leopard  fire!  spots!  Interpretative: Then the  C:  Teiji gray  So  flew  away  to  join  his  brothers.  and  there  Together  they  rose,  majestic  against  sky.  they  were  all  men  was  one  swan  who  turned  into  one.  Evaluative: C:  The  rain  dragon  turned  all  the  evil  away,  then  the  birds  were  not  really  free.  STORY  Factual: The  Ashanti  story  is  true.  C:  it  true?  Is  storyteller  says:  I  do  not  88  mean,  I  do  mean  that  this  C:  I  know  this  book.  I  have  this  book  on  tape.  it's  true  and  Personal: C:  It  tells  on  like  my  scared  the  book  baby  if  some  people  think  it's  true  and  get  brother.  Interpretative: The  palace  covered went  C:  was  with  high,  stone  and  towered  birds.  Everything  is  Chinese  above was  them.  very  The  quiet.  roofs  They  and  opened  walls the  were  door  and  inside.  Hey,  maybe  this  the  Wizard  of  Oz.  Evaluative: C:  It's  a  legend.  Nobody's  alive  to  tell  us.  FORMAT  Personal: T:  This  C:  I  book  have  is  a  called  Dawn.  godmother  The  named  author  is  Molly  Bang.  Molly.  Interpretative:  T  (reading  and C: T:  for  the  the  Why  painter  does  (introducing  illustrator C:  She.  C:  The  dedication):  he  Rudo  say book).  listed, what  same  "I  For  the  Krivos, don't  The does  photographer  my  that  Saga,  whom  I  don't  know,  friend.  know?"  author  Teiji  if  he's  is  Ann  make  you  person.  89  giving  the  Siberell. think?  Who  book  to  him?  Because  it  doesn't  did  the  pictures?  have  an  PERSONAL  KNOWLEDGE  So  the  little  C:  I go  to  The  man  prince church  left,  C:  We  once  C:  My  mommy  on  mad  had  said,  a got  as  "In  that  case, we  shall  Sunday. a  nest stung  hornet. of  hornets by  a  on  our  hornet.  90  roof.  return  on  Sunday."  APPENDIX  Table  6:  T-TEST  ANALYSIS  OF  DRP  SCORES  4  T-Test  Analysis  of  DRP  Scores  AM  Group  PM  Group  (N=25)  (N=23)  Test  df  Mean  Mean  t-value  P  1  46  71.08  69.17  -0.38(NS)  .71  2  46  11.12  11.91  01.16(NS)  .25  3  46  08.40  08.52  00.20(NS)  .84  4  46  18.10  19.61  00.24(NS)  .80  receptive  vocabulary  Critical  value  Key  Test  to  Test  1  -  of  t=2.02  Peabody basis.  Test  Recognition  similar Test  -  <  .05)  Measures  equivalent 2  (p  Picture  Test  Discrimination  measuring  measuring  ability  to  perceive  3  4  an  age  identical  and  shapes. -  Beery  Visual  Motor  Inventory  measuring  visual  fine  skills. Test  on  -  Alphabet  Recitation  measuring  familiarity  91  with  alphabet.  motor  integration  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078295/manifest

Comment

Related Items