Studying the Effect Dialogic Reading has on

Family Members’ Verbal Interactions

During Shared Reading

Diana Brannon: Elmhurst College

Linda Dauksas: Elmhurst College

The effect dialogic reading training has on the verbal interactions of family members and their “at risk”
preschool children was studied. There were significant differences at the time of the post-test between
family members who received dialogic reading training and the group that participated in the preschool’s
traditional family time. Family members who received training in dialogic reading utilized questioning,
yes/no questions, labeled pictures, provided feedback, and expanded on their children’s ideas significantly
more often. Family members who participated in the dialogic reading training also had significantly more
verbal interactions with their children and their children shared in the reading experience significantly
more than the traditional family time group.

P arents’ involvement in their children’s

process of learning to read begins at birth.
Therefore, partnering with parents and caregivers
predict language competence (Umek, Podlesek &
Fekonja, 2005). In their meta-analysis on joint
parent-child book reading, Bus, van IJzendoorn,
to encourage reading to and with their young and Pellegrini (1995) concluded that parent-child
children is essential for children’s successful reading is related to language growth, emergent
acquisition of reading skills (Doyle & Bramwell, literacy, and reading achievement.
2006). Storybook reading, which is a common
practice of parents, provides gains in young Dialogic reading, a form of shared reading,
children’s oral language and vocabulary (Isbell, can be used to increase young children’s
Sobol, Lindauer, & Lowrance, 2004). Regular expressive vocabulary. It focuses on adults
storybook reading encourages increased sentence sharing the book reading experience with
complexity, reading comprehension, and positive children. The aim is to shift the interaction and
attitudes about reading (Silvern, 1985). Because conversation from being adult-led to child-led.
of this, the use of storybook reading can be Dialogic reading techniques focus on open-ended
especially effective in teaching English Language questions and expanding on children’s comments
Learners new vocabulary (Collins, 2005). and ideas regarding the book being shared. The
program is based on encouraging children’s
Parents’ participation in shared reading, participation, providing feedback, and adjusting
an interactive form of storybook reading, is verbal interactions based on children’s ability
positively related to young children’s language (Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst, & Epstein, 1994).
development at four-years-old and also helps

SRATE Journal Summer 2012, Vol. 21, Number 2 Page 9

 Researchers conducting a meta-analysis on success. However, parent involvement in reading
read-aloud interventions found that reading aloud can overcome limitations due to economic,
results in significant, positive effects on children’s ethnic, and educational backgrounds to help
language, phonological awareness, print concepts, improve children’s reading ability (Arnold, Zeljo,
comprehension, and vocabulary outcomes. They Doctoroff, & Ortiz, 2008).
conclude that incorporating extended child–adult
dialogue and questioning, as done in dialogic Dialogic reading can be used to provide both
reading, is a valuable practice (Swanson, Vaughn, shared book interactions between parents and
Wanzek, Petscher, Heckert, Cavanaugh, & children and to build vocabulary. Vocabulary
Tackett, 2011). acquisition is essential to children’s success in
reading. Children who are classified as “at risk”
Dialogic reading focuses on expanding often struggle with acquiring the vocabulary
young children’s expressive vocabulary through needed for school success. Children who
questioning. Expressive vocabulary is directly are English language learners or are of low
related to acquiring print vocabulary. Expressive socioeconomic status are at more risk of not
vocabulary skills are a prerequisite for proficient making proficient vocabulary gains than their
reading because they are required for a child English speaking more affluent peers (Jalongo
to comprehend the text being read (Morgan & Sobolak, 2011). Dialogic reading has the
& Meier, 2008). Poor oral vocabulary skills potential of increasing reading skills for children
negatively affect children’s reading skills (Morgan who are learning English as a second language
& Meier, 2008). This is important because (Chow, McBride-Chang, & Cheung, 2010).
young children’s oral language skills are accurate
predictors of later reading success (Farkas & Scaffolding children’s vocabulary
Beron, 2004). development helps to increase vocabulary
(Blewitt, Rump, Shealy, & Cook, 2009).
Children in lower socioeconomic (SES) Scaffolding is when an adult provides support
classes are at a distinct disadvantage when to a child to accomplish a task that he or she
learning to read. They go to the library less couldn’t do independently. As a child’s skills
often, are read to less, are talked to less, and grow, the adult reduces the amount of support
have fewer words than middle and upper-class provided until the child can accomplish the task
children (Evans, 2004). Families from low socio- independently (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).
economic states have been found to put less of Scaffolding questions asked while reading
a priority on home literacy than more affluent storybooks is also beneficial for young children’s
families (Marvin & Mirenda, 1993). Children language acquisition (Blewitt, et al., 2009).
classified as “at risk” have been found to have
deficits in storytelling compared to their middle- Scaffolding language development includes
income peers (Peterson, 1994). As sited in beginning with simple questioning, labeling,
Arnold, et al. (1994), low-SES mothers are less and commenting. This helps children learn
likely to label object attributes and actions and simple words and their meanings. Once children
initiate reading interactions using “where” or have acquired basic vocabulary, parents can ask
“what” questions. They are also less responsive more complex questions and make connections
to changes in their children’s language abilities with words the child already knows. “Pointing,
and adjust their own language less than high-SES labeling, asking simple questions, and repetition
mothers (Valdez-Menchaca, 1990). Farkas & are all effective techniques for increasing
Beron (2004) found that mother’s education and preschoolers’ receptive vocabulary. Parents who
social class influenced children’s later reading scaffold their child’s book reading experience can

SRATE Journal Summer 2012, Vol. 21, Number 2 Page 10

begin with simple techniques like labeling and their children before leaving the school each
pointing and move to detailed questioning as their morning. This family involvement time was used
child’s knowledge of the word grows” (Strouse, to provide dialogic reading training to family
2011, p. 3). members in the morning pre-school program 3
days a week.
Dialogic reading can be used by parents
to teach young children language through Participants
questioning, providing feedback, and adjusting
questions to children’s developmental levels A majority of the participants in the program
(Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst, & Epstein, were parents. However, a few other family
1994). Questions that encourage children to members including grandparents, aunts, and
talk about pictures are more beneficial than uncles were involved in the program at times
asking questions that encourage children to take when a parent was not available to attend. A total
a more passive role such as by asking “yes/no” of 40 families participated in the study. Family
questions (Whitehurst, Falco, Lonigan, Fischel, members whose children attend preschool in the
DeBaryshe, Valdez-Menchaca, & Caulfield, morning participated in dialogic reading training.
1988). Parents should expand on their children’s Family members whose children attend preschool
comments as their children’s language proficiency in the afternoon participated in the traditional
increases. This progression in the types of preschool Family Time, which consists of family
questions asked and responses expected are members being asked to read aloud to their
important to encouraging language development children with no other instruction.
(Scherer & Olswang, 1984). “Studies of social
interaction between parents and young children Twenty-one families were in the morning
have identified many ways in which everyday dialogic reading group and 19 families
conversation supports the child’s task of language participated in the afternoon traditional Family
learning. Among the most common examples are Time group. An initial survey was given to
parents’ use of expansions, repetitions, extensions, determine if there were any significant differences
responses, and questions that follow the child’s between the groups that might impact the results
interest” (Huebner, 2000, p. 513). of the study or give one group an advantage over
the other (Table 1). There were no significant
Current Study differences between the two groups regarding
education, home language, number of times a
The current study was designed to determine week children are read to at home, number of
if dialogic reading could be used to increase books in the home, number of times children visit
positive verbal interactions between family the library, involvement in outside educational
members and their young children classified as programs, or number of adults and children in the
“at risk”. Study participants had children enrolled home. A majority of the families participating
in a public pre-school program designed for in the program (75% of the dialogic reading
children ages 3 to 5 classified as “at risk” based group and 67% of the traditional Family Time
on screening results of children’s expressive and group) had a high school education or less, spoke
receptive language, fine and gross motor skills, Spanish in the home (75% of the dialogic reading
and social / emotional and intellectual processing. group and 61% of the traditional Family Time
group), and reported reading with their children
The school incorporates daily mandatory at least four times a week (65% of the dialogic
family involvement. Family members spend the reading group and 56% of the traditional Family
first fifteen minutes of school reading aloud with Time group).

SRATE Journal Summer 2012, Vol. 21, Number 2 Page 11

 Methods to be kept in the home to ensure equal access to
literature.
Family members in the morning group were
provided daily dialogic reading training three Results
days a week every other week for 10 weeks.
Every other Monday family members received In order to see if there were any significant
15 minutes of dialogic reading training focusing differences between family members’ literacy
on the dialogic reading strategies CAR and 123. interactions in the treatment and control
The CAR strategy, designed by Washington groups, participants were videotaped for 7
Research Institute, teaches family members to minutes sharing a book with their children in
Comment and wait (provide a language model), the fall before the study began. Two trained
Ask questions and wait (encourage interaction undergraduate research assistants scored family
and reflection), and Respond and add more (build members’ literacy interactions with their children
expressive language). This technique was taught using the Adult – Child Interactive Reading
for the first two weeks of training. The last three Inventory (ACIRI) developed by Andrea
weeks focused on a technique designed by one of DeBruin-Parecki. The ACIRI is an observational
the authors called 1, 2 , 3 Tell Me What You See. tool designed to assess parent / child interactions
This strategy asks the child to comment on what during storybook reading. The ACIRI measures
he or she sees (encourage expressive language), both parent and child behaviors related to12
family members to teach new words (build literacy behaviors in three categories of reading
vocabulary), and family members to connect the including: enhancing attention to text, promoting
story to the child’s life (connect to background interactive reading / supporting comprehension,
knowledge). and using literacy strategies. Enhancing attention
to text includes: maintaining physical proximity,
Every other Tuesday, family members sustaining interest and attention, holding the
watched dialogic reading being modeled with book and turning pages, and displaying a sense
the preschool class for 10-15 minutes. Every of audience. Promoting interactive reading
other Wednesday, family members received and supporting comprehension includes:
sample questions and a copy of the book being posing and soliciting questions, identifying and
modeled in English or Spanish to help support understanding pictures and words, relating content
their interactions with their children at home to personal experiences, and pausing to answer
and school. Family members practiced dialogic questions. Using literacy strategies includes:
reading with their children using the book being identifying visual clues, predicting what happens
modeled that week in class on Wednesday and at next, recalling information, and elaborating on
home the following week. ideas.

All presentations and materials were As seen in Table 2, there were no significant
in English and Spanish. Family members differences in family members’ interactions with
participating in the dialogic reading training their children regarding enhancing attention
were allowed to keep the copy of the book to text, promoting interactive reading and
being studied each week of the intervention to comprehension, or using literacy strategies before
encourage practice at home. In addition, both the study began.
the dialogic reading and traditional Family Time
groups of family members received a set of 5 In order to see if there were any significant
random picture books in English and Spanish differences between family members’ literacy
interactions in the treatment and control groups

SRATE Journal Summer 2012, Vol. 21, Number 2 Page 12

after the completion of the 10-week program, members utilized questioning, yes/no questions,
participants were again videotaped for 7 minutes labeled pictures, provided feedback, and
sharing a book with their children. If family expanded on their children’s ideas when the post-
members or caregivers completed the book before intervention transcripts were studied (Table 4).
7 minutes had passed, they were asked to share
another book. After family member’s and children’s
interactions were transcribed the number of lines
The post-intervention videos containing of dialog attributed to each party, excluding lines
the parent / child shared reading experiences reading directly from the book, was analyzed
were transcribed. This was done so that we (Table 5). Family members who participated in
could study the types of interactions family the dialogic reading training had significantly
members had with their children during the more verbal interactions (p < .01) with their
shared reading experience. Pre-intervention children than family members in the traditional
videos were not transcribed due to the similarity Family Time group. Children in the dialogic
between groups on all areas of the ACIRI prior reading group participated in the shared reading
to the start of the program. Two undergraduate experience significantly more (p < .01) than
assistants were trained to transcribe videos using children in the traditional Family Time group.
HyperTRANSCRIBE. Transcription guidelines Overall, children in the dialogic reading group
and conventions for this study were provided. were responsible for 38% of the conversation
Only extra-textual utterances were analyzed. compared to 25% for children in the traditional
Parts of the video including family members Family Time group.
reading directly aloud from the story were not
studied. Discussion and Conclusion

In order to determine reliability of The current study was designed to determine

transcription, a second undergraduate assistant if dialogic reading could be used to positively
independently transcribed 25% (10) of randomly increase the verbal interactions between family
selected videos (Miles & Huberman, 1994). members and their “at risk” children in preschool
Transcription reliability was 95.7%. Differences during shared reading. There were significant
in tenses and word choice (e.g. “Put everything differences at the time of the post-test between the
together” for “Mix everything together”) group of family members who received dialogic
accounted for a majority of the discrepancies. reading training and the group that participated in
the traditional Family Time regarding the number
The coding scheme for the transcriptions of times family members utilized questioning,
utilized a frequency count to determine the yes/no questions, labeled pictures, provided
number of times behaviors that exemplify dialogic feedback, and expanded on their children’s ideas.
reading (e.g. use of open-ended questions, Family members who participated in the dialogic
labeling, explanation, feedback, expansion) and reading training had significantly more verbal
behaviors that participants were encouraged to interactions (p < .01) and their children shared
minimize (e.g. yes / no questions, directives) in the reading experience significantly more (p
were exhibited by both groups of family members < .01) than family members and children in the
(Table 3). The coding scheme was similar to that traditional Family Time group. Overall, children
used by Huebner (2000). in the dialogic reading group were responsible
for 13% more of the conversation when speaking
There were significant differences between with their family members during shared reading.
groups regarding the number of times family Children of families who received dialogic

SRATE Journal Summer 2012, Vol. 21, Number 2 Page 13

reading training also participated in much longer entering kindergarten. And, motivation for
conversations including 3 times as much child reading influences daily reading, which results
participation as the traditional Family Time group in increased reading achievement (Sonnenschein
(Table 5). These findings support other studies & Munsterman, 2002). Therefore, it would
that found that family members use of dialogic seem as though the addition of dialogic reading
reading can be effective in increasing young strategies in preschool classrooms and in parent
children’s vocabulary and expressive language involvement programs would be of benefit to both
(Hargrave & Sénéchal, 2000). families and children.

The family members who participated References

in the dialogic reading training had longer
conversations with their children and participated Arnold, D. H., Zeljo, A., Doctoroff, G. L., Ortiz,
in a significantly wider variety of literacy C. (2008). Parent involvement in preschool:
communication behaviors (questioning, Predictors and the relation of involvement of
expanding, providing feedback, etc.). Family preliteracy development. School
members’ discussions with their young children Psychology Review, 37(1), 74-90.
result in a wide variety of benefits. Test, Arnold, D. H., Lonigan, C. J., Whitehurst, G. J.,
Cunningham, & Lee (2010) find that “talking & Epstein, J. N. (1994). Accelerating language
with young children encourages development development through picture book reading:
in many areas: spoken language, early literacy, Replication and extension to a videotape
cognitive development, social skills, and training format. Journal Of Educational
emotional maturity” (p. 3). Family members’ Psychology, 86(2), 235-43.
talking with their children about books or while Blewitt, P., Rump, K. M., Shealy, S. E., & Cook,
reading provides opportunities for vocabulary S. A. (2009). Shared book reading: When and
development (Frijters, Barron, & Brunello, 2000) how questions affect young children’s word
and exposure to new words (Tabors, Beals, & learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
Weizman, 2001). This is important because 101(2), 294-304.
vocabulary development is a fundamental Bus, A. G., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini,
part of children’s acquisition of reading skills A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for
(National Institute of Child Health and Human success in learning to read: A meta-analysis
Development, 2000; Farkas & Beron, 2004). on intergenerational transmission of literacy.
Vocabulary knowledge is also directly related Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-21.
to children’s reading comprehension (Hiebert & Chow, B., McBride-Chang, C., & Cheung, H.
Kamil, 2005; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). (2010). Parent-Child Reading in English as
a Second Language: Effects on Language
This study supports the finding that and Literacy Development of Chinese
participation in shared reading using dialogic Kindergarteners. Journal Of Research In
reading strategies can positively affect children’s Reading, 33(3), 284-301.
overall language development (Philips, Hayden Collins, M. F. (2005). ESL preschoolers’ English
& Norris, 2006; Shapiro, Anderson, & Anderson, vocabulary acquisition from storybook
2002). This is especially important considering reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4),
that language competence is an essential 406–408.
component to future school success (Wilde, Doyle, B., & Bramwell, W. (2006). Promoting
& Sage, 2007). Children’s discussions and emergent literacy and social-emotional
interactions with parents around books greatly learning through dialogic reading. Reading
influence their motivation for reading when Teacher, 59(6), 554-564.

SRATE Journal Summer 2012, Vol. 21, Number 2 Page 14

Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of Morgan, P. L., & Meier, C. R. (2008). Dialogic
childhood poverty. American Psychologist, reading’s potential to improve children’s
59(2), 77-92. emergent literacy skills and behavior.
Preventing School Failure, 52(4), 11-16.
Farkas, G., & Beron, K. (2004). The detailed age National Institute of Child Health and Human
trajectory of oral vocabulary knowledge: Development. (2000). Report of the National
Differences by class and race. Social Science Reading Panel. Teaching children to read:
Research, 33, 464-497. An evidence-based assessment of the
Frijters, J. C., Barron, R. W., & Brunello, M. scientific research literature on reading and its
(2000). Direct and mediated influences implications for reading instruction: Reports
of home literacy and literacy interest on of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-
prereaders’ oral vocabulary and early written 4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
language skill. Journal of Educational Printing Office.
Psychology, 92(3), 466-477. Peterson, C. (1994). Narrative skills and social
Hargrave, A. C. & Sénéchal, M. (2000). A book class. Canadian Journal of Education, 19, 251-
reading intervention with preschool children 269.
who have limited vocabularies: The benefits Philips, L., Hayden, R., & Norris, S. (2006).
of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Family literacy matters: A longitudinal parent-
Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(1), 75-90. child literacy intervention study. Calgary, AB:
Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2005). Teaching Temeron.
and learning vocabulary: Bring research to Scherer, N. J., & Olswang, L. B. (1984). Role of
practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum mothers’ expansions in stimulating children’s
Associates. language production. Journal of Speech,
Huebner, C. E. (2000). Promoting toddlers’ Language and Hearing Research, 27, 387-396.
language development through community- Shapiro, J., Anderson, J., & Anderson, A. (2002).
based intervention. Journal of Applied Storybook reading: What we know and what
Developmental Psychology, 21(5), 513-535. we should consider. In O. Saracho & B.
Isbell, R., Sobol, J., Lindauer, L., & Lowrance, A. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives
(2004). The effects of storytelling and story on literacy in early childhood education (pp.
reading on the oral language complexity and 77-97). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
story comprehension of young children. Early Publishers.
Childhood Education Journal, 32(3), 157-163. Silvern, S. (1985). Parent involvement and
Jalongo, M., & Sobolak, M. J. (2011). Supporting reading achievement: a review of research
young children’s vocabulary growth: The and implications for practice. Childhood
challenges, the benefits, and evidence-based Education, 62, 48-50.
strategies. Early Childhood Education Journal, Sonnenschein, S., & Munsterman, K. (2002). The
38(6), 421-429. influence of home-based reading interactions
Marvin, C., & Mirenda, P. (1993). Home literacy on 5-year-olds’ reading motivations and
experiences of preschoolers enrolled in Head early literacy development. Early Childhood
Start and special education programs. Journal Research Quarterly, 17, 318-337.
of Early Intervention, 17, 351-367. Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Data Analysis (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, Erlbaum.
CA: Sage.

SRATE Journal Summer 2012, Vol. 21, Number 2 Page 15

Strouse, G. (2011). Dialogic video: Influence of About the Authors
dialogic reading techniques on preschoolers’
learning from video stories. Nashville, Tenn.: Diana Brannon is an associate professor
Vanderbilt University. of education at Elmburst College. She is a
Swanson, E., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., Nationally Board Certified teacher whose research
Heckert, J., Cavanaugh, C., & ... Tackett, K. interests include parent involvement, pre-service
(2011). A synthesis of read-aloud interventions teachers, and emergent literacy.
on early reading outcomes among preschool
through third graders at risk for reading Linda Dauksas is an assistant professor of
difficulties. Journal Of Learning Disabilities, education at Elmburst College. She dedicated
44(3), 258-275. thirty eyars teaching and leading programs for
Tabors, P.O., Beals, D.E., & Weizman, Z.O. children with special needs. Her speciality area is
(2001). You know what oxygen is?: Learning early childhood special education.
new words at home. In D.K. Dickinson &
P.O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning Literacy with
language. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Test, J. E., Cunningham, D. D., & Lee, A. C.
(2010). Talking with young children: How
teachers encourage learning. Dimensions of
Early Childhood, 38(3), 3-14.
Umek, L. M., Podlesek, A., & Fekonja, U.
(2005). Assessing the home literacy
environment: Relationships to child language
comprehension and expression. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(4),
271-281.
Valdez-Menchaca, M. C. (1990). Child effects on
maternal language: Their implication for long-
term maintenance of early intervention effects
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State
University of New York at Stony Brook.
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J.,
Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-
Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988).
Accelerating language development through
picture book reading. Developmental
Psychology, 24(4), 552-559.
Wilde, M., & Sage, R. (2007). Developing the
communicative competence and narrative
thinking of four and five year olds in
educational settings. Early Child Development
and Care, 177(6&7), 679-693.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The
role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

SRATE Journal Summer 2012, Vol. 21, Number 2 Page 16

 Table 1

Characteristics of Parents in the Dialogic Reading and Traditional Family Time Groups

Dialogic Reading Traditional Family
Total Group Group Time Group
Item (N = 38) (N = 20) (N = 18)
Education
Less than high school 21% 25% 17%
Some high school 16% 15% 17%
High school 34% 35% 33%
Some college 24% 20% 28%
College graduate 5% 5% 5%
Language at Home
English 24% 20% 28%
English and Spanish 26% 25% 28%
Spanish 42% 50% 33%
Other 8% 5% 11%
Read to Child
Daily 16% 15% 17%
4-6 times per week 45% 50% 39%
2-3 times per week 26% 25% 27%
1 time or less 13% 10% 17%
Books in the Home
0-2 8% 5% 11%
3-7 18% 25% 11%
8-10 24% 20% 28%
More than 10 50% 50% 50%
Visits to Library
0 times a month 11% 5% 17%
1 time a month 33% 35% 33%
2 - 3 times a month 45% 55% 33%
4 + times a month 11% 5% 17%
Other Programs
Daycare 0 0 0
Library Program 13% 5% 22%
Sunday School 3% 0 6%
None 84% 95% 72%

SRATE Journal Summer 2012, Vol. 21, Number 2 Page 17

 Table 1 cont.

Dialogic Reading Traditional Family

Total Group Group Time Group
Item (N = 38) (N = 20) (N = 18)
Adults in the Home
1 5% 5% 6%
2 61% 65% 55%
3 26% 20% 33%
4 8% 10% 6%
Children in Home
1-2 53% 60% 44%
3-4 39% 30% 50%
5-6 8% 10% 6%

Table 2

ACIRI Pre- and Post-Test Means and Standard Deviations of the Interactions of Family Members
from the Dialogic Reading and Traditional Family Time Groups

Item M SD M SD M SD M SD
Enhancing Attention to Text
Maintaining physical proximity .05 .22 .05 .23 .10 .30 .05 .23
Sustaining interest and attention .62 .80 .26 .65 .71 1.19 .26 .56
Holding book and turning pages .33 .57 .16 .37 .67* .58 .05 .23
Displaying a sense of audience .38 .59 .26 .45 .67* .73 .11 .32
Promoting Interactive Reading
Posing and soliciting questions 5.05 2.75 3.32 2.69 19.52* 11.62 5.53 5.33
Identifying pictures & words 3.86 2.74 2.89 2.28 2.90 2.72 4.63 3.90
Relating content to experiences .67 1.02 .32 .58 .52 .98 .58 1.30
Pausing to answer questions .76 1.30 .79 1.36 1.29 2.19 .37 .96
Using Literacy Strategies
Identifying visual clues 1.10 1.18 2.00 1.97 .95 .97 .74 .87
Predicting what happens next .14 .36 - - .19 .51 .05 .23
Recalling information .05 .22 .05 .23 - - .05 .23
Elaborating on ideas .10 .30 - - .71 2.17 - -

SRATE Journal Summer 2012, Vol. 21, Number 2 Page 18

 Table 3

Category Family Member’s Action Example

Questions Asks questions such as who, “Where is the boy?”
what, where
Yes/No Question asked to elicit a yes or “Is the boy in the house?”
no
Directives Asks the child to do something “Point to the house.”
Labeling Tells the child what an object is “It’s a ladder.”
Explanation Explains something in the “He is climbing the ladder.”
picture
Feedback Positive or negative “Good. He is climbing high.”
reinforcement
Expansions Expands on child’s verbalization “That is a cat. It’s a big, black
dog.”
Completion Questions Asks child a question he must “The cat is in the . . .?”
complete
Answers Answers child’s question “That cat is called Siamese”
Connects to Experience Connects story to child’s life “Do you remember when Daddy
used the ladder to get our cat
from the tree?

Table 4

Post Intervention Descriptive Statistics for Rate of Strategy Use by Both Groups of Family

Traditional Family Time
Dialogic Reading Group
Group
Communication Behavior M SD M SD
Questioning 17.42* 10.11 3.44 4.02
Y/N Questions .95* 1.43 .06 .24
Directives .74 1.63 1.61 3.82
Labeling 2.11* 2.54 .05 .71
Explanation 2.16 4.57 .17 .51
Feedback 8.58* 6.54 2.44 2.94
Expansions .95* .97 .22 .55
Completion Questions .26 .56 .11 .32
Answering Child’s Question 1.42 3.96 .50 1.42
Connects to Experience - - - -
* p < .01

SRATE Journal Summer 2012, Vol. 21, Number 2 Page 19

 Table 5

T-Test Results for Number of Lines Spoken as Recorded on

Transcriptions of Both Groups of Families

Dialogic Reading Group Traditional Family Time Group
Number of Lines M SD M SD
Family Member 80.84* 30.84 41.28 17.74
Child 30.84* 14.53 10.17 11.11
* p < .01

SRATE Journal Summer 2012, Vol. 21, Number 2 Page 20