This article was downloaded by: [Akdeniz Universitesi]On: 20 December 2014, At: 06:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Research in ChildhoodEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20

Teacher Talk: Promoting LiteracyDevelopment Through Response to StoryCory Cooper Hansen aa Arizona State University WestPublished online: 03 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Cory Cooper Hansen (2004) Teacher Talk: Promoting Literacy DevelopmentThrough Response to Story, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19:2, 115-129, DOI:10.1080/02568540409595059

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568540409595059

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journ al of Research in Childhoo d Education

2004. Vol. 19. No. 2

Copyright 2004 by the Association forChi ldhoo d Education International

0256-8543/04

Teacher Talk: Promoting Literacy DevelopmentThrough Response to Story

Cory Cooper HansenArizona State University West

Abstract. This study documented how young children talked about story in asupportive environment. Participants were 22 kindergartners and their teacher,who engaged in extended talk about story after listening to a picture book or chap­ter from a novel. Data collected included transcripts of videotaped conversationsduring large- and small-group dis cussions after story, informal interviews, memos,and field notes. Qualitative analysis of the data revealed that the teacher's ques­tions and responses encouraged lit erary talk and decreased as the children grewin their ability to respond in literary ways. Teacher talk served to set the climatefor engaged listening, encouraged children to transact with the text, and estab­lished an en vironment that supported literacy development.

The majority ofthe children who enter kin­dergarten each new school year arrive hav­ing constructed language and a view of re­ality developed through talk. They are ableto talk with adults and other children inconversational, yet purposeful and goal­directed, ways. They can collaborate andnegotiate to make meaning. They makesense of what they have learned by connect­ing it to what they already know (Wells,1986). Children who have grown up inhomes where storybook reading is a dailyroutine naturally respond to literature inthe same manner-through literary talkabout story (Green , Lilly, & Barrett, 2002 ).

Studies based on "liter acy-ri ch homes"(Christie, 1991; Durkin, 1966) have servedto inform effective early childhood educa­tion. Children raised in such environmentshad access to many books, and stories wereread to them often and repeatedly. Read­ing aloud became an important familyritual, complete with discussion, socialroles, expected subroutines, and negotiablesocial contracts (Teale & Sulzby, 1987).Parents intuitively set the scene for learn­ing-and learning to read-during readalouds. They expected a very young child

to interrupt; as the child grew, however,expectations changed. Older children wererequired to listen longer and to learn infor­mation from the story. Talk about the storychanged , too. Very young children's re­sponses were accepted and dialogue duringthe story wa s expected. As comprehensionand attention developed, parents began toask questions about recall and content af­ter the reading (Morrow, 1988).

Read alouds and the connection to con­tinued literacy development is well-docu­mented. Researchers (e.g., Dickinson &Smith, 1994; Teale & Martinez , 1996;Trelease , 2001) have identified effectivestrategies in storybook reading. Childrenwho participate in read-aloud experi encesoften develop pos itive attitudes towardreading and demonstrate continued growthin literacy development (Cochran-Smith,1984; Porter, 1995). However, knowingwhat constitutes best practice in effectiveread alouds does not always play out inclassrooms (Beck & McKeown, 2001 ; Eeds& Wells, 1989) . Hoffman, Roser, and Battle(1993) conducted a surv ey throughout theUnited States and found that while mostprimary grade teachers planned for a read-

115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

HANSEN

aloud time, the frequency and the qualityofthose read alouds varied. Based on theirresults, they provided a modal descriptionof read-aloud practice:

The classroom teacher reads to students from atrade book for a period between 10 and 20 min­utes. The chosen literature is not connected toa unit of study in the classroom. The amount ofdiscussion related to the book takes fewer than5 minutes, including talk before and after thereading. (p. 500)

Based on the research available at the timeand the decided advantages of readingaloud to children, Hoffman et al. (1993) pro­posed a model read-aloud experience thatwould include designating time for readingaloud, selecting quality literature, and con­ducting a variety of response and extensionactivities. Scheduling a read-aloud blockand choosing quality literature is an easiertask than committing the time and effortnecessary to develop meaningful conversa­tion after a story. However, it is the talkafter that encourages and promotes literacydevelopment. Rosemary and Roskos (2002)aptly explain the significance of talk:

While reading to children exposes them to booklanguage and prompts them to think if encour­aged to do so as they listen during storybookreading, such exposure is not enough. It is thetalk and ideas generated by book reading thatundergirds vocabulary development and ex­pands ways of thinking that supports children'scomprehension once t hey become re aders . (p.226 )

Why Is Talk Important?Talk about story, according to Wells (1986),allows children to extend their experiencesvicariously, resulting in a richer mentalmodel of the world. Vocabulary developsas children talk about those experiences .Gilles, Dickinson, McBride, and Vandover(1994) stressed that talk is the keystone forunderstanding text and creating deepermeaning. Dialogue is a natural way to learnand construct meaning and, according toPeterson and Eeds (1990), the most effec-

tive method for teaching and learning aboutliterature.

Clearly, talk about story is beneficial. Sowhy would rich, sustained discussions af­ter storybook reading be missing from class­rooms? Part of the reason may be howteachers' views of childhood and learningaffect their planning of literacy events .Strict adherence to Piagetian theory(Forsman & Fosnot, 1982) would precludetalk for more concrete, exploratory activi­ti es following storybook reading. Or, asEeds and Hudelson (1995) found, teacherswho themselves do not live literate livesmay have difficulty sharing genuine re ­sponses to literature.

Beck and McKeown (2001) offer an addi­tional explanation. Engaging children ingenuine conversation is more difficult thanone would think. Young children tend toignore text information and respond toquestions based on pictures and their back­ground knowledge. Children talk aboutwhat is easily accessible to them ratherthan engaging in the hard work of think­ing through linguistic content (Neuman,1990). Facilitating talk after story is sur­prisingly difficult; however, the equallyhard work of inviting transaction is a con­crete way teachers can promote literacydevelopment.

Literacy Development ThroughTalk About Story

Phonemic Awareness. Talk afterstorybook reading invites children to playwith the language introduced and repeatedin favorite stories. Phonemic awareness,the ability to identify and manipulate indi­vidual sounds in words, is a building blockto reading and spelling (Armbruster, Lehr,& Osborn, 2001 ). Green, Lilly, and Barrett(2002) found that young children repeatedphrases, seemingly for the pleasure of hear­ing the sounds, and engaged in phoneticplay while using literary language. In akindergarten study, Karjalainen (1996)found that children as young as 3 or 4 yearsof age played with language in spontane­ous conversations about story.

116

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

LITERACY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH RESPONSE TO STORY

Fluency. Repeated read alouds and play­ing with literary language allow childrento internalize how story should sound.Wells (1986) believed such activities providethe foundation for the rhythm and struc­ture of written language. Familiarity withlanguage registers serves to scaffold at­tempts when children begin to associatewords on a page with spoken language(Snow, 1983).

Vocabulary. Incidental learning of vo­cabulary through listening to stories andthe link between vocabulary developmentand school achievement have been well­documented (Anderson & Freebody, 1981;Fondas, 1992; Sternberg, 1987). Talk aboutstory involves children in active responsethat enhances vocabulary acquisition(Senechal, LeFevre, Thomas, & Daley,1998). In addition, the likelihood of addingnew words to vocabulary repertoires in­creases when children are involved in anactivity that requires them to use words andthink about their meanings (Beck, Perfetti,& McKeown, 1982).

Comprehension. The most valuable as­pect of conversation after read alouds maybe that children talk through ideas, emo­tions, understandings, and reactions be­yond their immediate experiences. Ideasfilter through the opinions and response ofothers, engaging children in actively re­thinking how they view the world(Cochran-Smith, 1984; Eeds & Wells ,1989). Involving children in talk, throughpre- and post-questioning, significantlyincreased comprehension for the kinder­gartners in Morrow's 1984 study. Compre­hension, as well as decoding andstorytelling ability, was increased whenchildren were involved in verbal interac­tion after story (Rosenhouse, 1997).

Talk about story, then, addresses four ofthe five areas identified by the NationalReading Panel Report (2000) as essentialcomponents of effective reading instruction.The early childhood teacher has a signifi­cant role in creating an educational envi­ronment in which literacy development cancontinue to emerge through response tostory.

The Role of the TeacherResearchers have attempted to define therole of the teacher in promoting rich talkabout story. Moore (1992) studied how kin­dergartners respond to picture books andinteract with one another as they talk aboutbooks . She found that the teacher had apowerful role in creating the social contextfor interaction during book-reading events.Within that social context, children wereable to share their feelings and make life­to-text and text-to-life connections. Gilleset al. (1994) defined the teacher's role as afluid one, moving along as participant,guide, facilitator and learner. McGee (1992)found the teacher had a dual role to play intalk about story: to focus the discussionaround an interpretive question and to seizeteachable moments to increase knowledgeabout literature. Smith (1993) describedher role in talk about story as a participantwho introduced her students to a particu­lar way of thinking and talking aboutstory-one that reflected her belief in thepower of literature.

Two factors are evident in creating anenvironment rich for meaningful talk aboutstory: awareness that young children natu­rally engage in literary response and aware­ness that talk about story contributes toessential elements of reading instruction.However, the practical step needs more defi­nition. Dickinson and Smith (1994) foundthat the quality of the talk influenced thequality of the experience. What does ateacher do and say to focus the discussion?Where do interpretive questions come from?How does a teacher create a social contextfor interaction during book-reading events?The purpose of this article is to present adiscussion of actual classroom conversa­tions to provide insight into the type of ques­tions and responses teachers can use to pro­mote literacy development through talkabout story.

Background

Allen, Buchanan, Edelsky, and Norton(1992) point out that classroom researchhas become, increasingly, a collaborative

117

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

HANSEN

effort between the university-based re­searcher and the classroom teacher. "Inmuch collaborative research, the personalrelationship both precedes the study andcontinues after it ends" (p. 360 ). This isone such study-one that Wagner (1997)would describe as a co-learning agreement.

Through a number of years of observa­tion and professional collaboration with thekindergarten teacher, the researcher wasable to pinpoint her classroom as an exem­plary site for the study. Read alouds werean integral part of the kindergarten day.Stories included picture books and novelsfor both instruction and the joy of listeningto a good book . Most significantly, the dailyschedule included time for extended talkabout story. The teacher's willingness toreflect upon and co-interpret the children'sresponses with the researcher contributedto the efficacy of the study.

The study documented how kindergart­ners talked about story in a supportive en­vironment, focusing on two components: 1)What kind of questions did the teacher askto promote meaningful talk after a storyread aloud? and 2) What kind of responsesdid the teacher make to further children'sability to transact with text?

MethodSetting and ParticipantsThe school was in a suburban area of alarge, southwestern city with a populationof more than 1,100 students and 58 teach­ers. Students came from a largely white,middle-class neighborhood (median house­hold income, $44,177). The children in thefocus classroom were in a full-day program,attending school for the same six hours aday as the other primary students. Theprincipal described her school as beingchild-centered, with a staff dedicated toproviding a fully extended academic andsocial educational experience.

While new to the school, the teacher had27 years of early childhood experience.There were 22 students in her classroom (8girls and 14 boys ) and all, except for one 7­year-old with developmental delays, were5 or 6 years old. Two children were En-

glish language learners. The participantsremained stable throughout the five-monthperiod of the study.

ProceduresCollection of data occurred through video­taping the children and their teacher en­gaged in talk after reading a picture bookor a chapter from a novel. The researcherjoined these naturally occurring discussionsas a participant observer for 200 hoursacross the course of the second semester ofthe school year. During that time, fourchapter books and 41 picture books wereread and discussed over 89 sessions. Somediscussions, including listening to the text,were as short as eight minutes. The long­est was one hour.

The researcher had spent time in theclassroom the previous semester as an ob­server and substitute teacher and so wasquickly accepted as a member of the learn­ing community. The presence of the videocamera came to be regarded as natural be­cause it had been used routinely at schooland many children had them in theirhomes. While the camera was running, there searcher entered as much of the conver­sation as possible into a laptop computer,which allowed field notes and memos to befreely inserted.

After leaving the classroom, the video­tapes were viewed as often as necessary tofill in gaps in the original transcript. Toverify the accuracy of the transcripts, ar­eas of interest noted by the teacher werechecked against the videotape of a particu­lar discussion. If the transcript was foundto be less than accurate, revisions weremade to reflect the interpretation of boththe researcher and the teacher. Some por­tions of talk were unintelligible, becausemany children were talking at the sametime. Those sections were coded as "mul­tiple discussion" and were not included inthe data analysis.

Data came from two distinct classroomprocedures: large- and small-group discus­sions. Large-group discussion occurred af­ter the lunch recess when all children(n=22) listened to the same text read aloud

11 8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

LITERACY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH RESPONSE TO STORY

Segments ofteacher or student talk thenwere sorted into sample categories. Samplecategories included teacher talk, teacherexpectations, students gaining knowledgeabout the world, students using existingstrategies in the making of meaning, stu­dents developing understanding of story,

segment of talk was coded according towhether it was initiated by the teacher or astudent. A segment of talk was defined asan uninterrupted speech segment (includ­ing the connected talk), to keep the mean­ing whole. For example, the following 15utterances were kept together as one seg­ment of talk. It was a student-initiatedsegment of talk within a large-group dis­cussion on pages 153 and 154 . The studentswere talking after listening to The GreatKapok Tree by Cherry (1990).

by the teacher. Children made commentsand built upon each other's responses inteacher-facilitated conversation. Small­group discussion involved half ofthe class,divided into small groups of children (offouror five) who had read the same picture book .While the teacher led the other half of theclass in science discovery, the small groupsengaged in independent discussions of thecommon picture book. In essence, an op­portunity to model large-group discussiontechniques became available in a smaller,more intimate conversation.

Throughout the data collection stage,tapes and transcripts were readily availableto the teacher. The teacher's personal notes,reflections, and unstructured conversationswere recorded as informal interviews.

Data AnalysisData analysis began as the researcher fol­lowed the suggestion of Bogdan and Biklen(1992) to self-transcribe the videotapes, inorder to get to know the data well. Thisemergent design allowed data collection andanalysis to become "simultaneous and on­going activities that allow for importantunderstandings to be discovered along theway" (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p. 174).After the transcription was complete, quali­tative data analysis, including systematicreview, coding, constructing categories, andinterpretive analysis (Erickson, 1986), wasconducted.

Transcripts were reviewed once more asthe videotapes were played to confirm ac­curate representation ofthe conversations.A numbering system within the transcriptswas established to quickly identify the datasource. A numeral one, then the page num­ber, prefaced responses from small-groupdiscussions . The numeral two, then thepage number, prefaced discussion followingchapters from The Princess and the Goblin(MacDonald, 1872). The numeral threeprefaced page numbers from informal in­terviews, memos, and field notes. A simplepage number indicated that the responsewas from a general large-group discussion.

Then, segments of dialogue werechunked into connected pieces oftalk. Each

Jason:

Austin:

Anna:Rebecca:

Anna:

Rebecca:

Kim:Jamal:Austin:

Anna:Austin:Anna:Jamal:

Rebecca:

Austin:

The man was being really, reallymean because he was destroyingthe rainforest.Well , he didn't know if he cutdown the trees, the Earth wouldsplit apart-he didn't know.Trees hold the earth together.There'd be no earth left.There will be earth left. It justwon't be a good earth.Yeah, because people-you coulduse trees without cutting themdown if you could get. .. .You could just shave the treewithout hurting it.Well , if you shave the bark... .That hurts the tree.Cuz that's like peeling someone'sskin off.It protects the tree from harm.What's harm?Harm means like trouble.You could only chop down onetree. One tree is a lot of stuff ifyou chop down a big one . Itwouldn't hurt the rainforest.If you cut down a little tree, itwouldn't hurt the earth.It would be like a little part of mybody. (153-154)

119

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

HANSEN

and students considering and evaluatingthe opinions of others. Understandably,some segments of talk could be sorted intomore than one category. For example, theabove segment of student talk was codedunder T7 (ki ndergartners were capable ofliterary talk about story), PI (kindergart­ners gained knowledge about the world intheir talk about story), P3 (kindergartnerstaking risks in talk about story within asupportive group), L7 (generalization), andD7 (evaluat ing interpretations).

In analysis, the above segment of talkwas included in each category. However,when frequency and distribution tableswere generated, it was counted only onceas an example of generalization (t alkingabout the central meaning ofthe text). Fre­quency and distribution tables were gener­ated in order to determine the compositionof the literary discussions and to address,specifically, what percentage of the talk seg­ments were teacher- or student-initiated.

ResultsThree codes made up the larger category ofTeacher Talk. Those codes were: settingthe climate, questioning techniques, andresponding to student statements.

Setting the ClimateEvery day after lunch recess, the childrengathered on the carpet in front of theirteacher in a place where they could do "theirbest listening." Some sat expectantly, somelay down comfortably, and others perchedon the carpet's perimeter. A short pre-dis­cussion set the scene: children retold whathad happened to bring absent ones up-to­date, questions from the day before wererevisited, or predictions were entertained.Before the text was read, the climate wasset for listening to and thinking about theauthor's words:

Get your picture in your head first. Don't tellanyone else. Your picture will be more powerfulifyou keep it in your head. These are hard wordsand they require a lot of thinking! No one talkand I'll start. Your brain is really going to beworking! (2.067)

"Getting the picture" emerged as a meta­phor as these children were introduced totalk about story in a formal setting. Onanother day they were told:

Make your ideas go into your brain so you cansave them. You can do it. Suck them in . Letyour ideas get every st rong in your brain. Shovethem in so you can remember. If you need to,close your eyes. (2.004-2.005)

The kindergartners closed their eyes andmade whooshing noises as they sucked intheir ideas. They listened without inter­ruption until the read aloud was over, thenmoved from their listening positions to forma large circle. Within their spot in the circle ,they knew to look at the person speakingand to talk without raising hands. Theyneeded to remember the one rule about talkafter story: "Talk one at a time and talk tothe whole group" (2.007). The conversationgenerally started with children sharingwhat they thought and comparing it to whatreally happened. They were asked whythey thought the way they did and the se­rious business of making meaning togetherbegan. Gradually, the teacher lowered her­self from the reading chair and joined in asa participant in talk about story (Hansen,1998) .

Expectations for participation duringtalk about story unfolded as the studentsgrew in their ability to respond. The con­tent and the direction of the conversationfollowed the students' agenda, but elementsfor discussion were clear in the teacher'smind. During a difficult time during talkafter Tough Boris (Fox, 1984), she expressedfrustration at the quality ofthe talk:

We will not have a discussion ifyou're not goingto listen. Someone talks and someone listens.So, if someone is talking and all you're doing iswaiting to talk, then you're not having a discus­sion. Listen, and then think about what theysay. (166)

Response to inappropriate words or actionsduring talk about story was quick and ex­plicit. In the next example, Kim had pre-

120

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

LITERACY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH RESPONSE TO STORY

sented an opinion that did not fit with thetopic at hand. Anna looked at her with ex­aggerated derision. The teacher's responsemaintained the climate for genuine conver­sation and comfort to express individualinterpretations:

When you look at people like that, it makes themnot want to share their ideas. If you think heridea is wrong, explain to her or ask me to read,but don't give her a look like you don 't believeher or value her idea. If you value her idea,you're going to want to help her fix it up , notjust ignore it. Now, please help her think abouther idea without making he r feel bad. (2.204)

The students had the responsibility forending a conversation. As talk waned orcame to a natural conclusion, the teacherchecked: "Is there anything else we needto talk about?" (2.171 ) or "Okay, I think youguys are done. Are you done? Was thereanything else in that chapter that reallystood out to you? That kind of made you

go, 'aha'? No? Okay, let's go on." (2.219)Anna summed up the conversation after achapter of The Princess and the Gobl in(MacDonald, 1872) quite succinctly:

Anna: Why do you think she's lying?Alondra: Princesses don 't lie .Austin: Because .. . what'd you say?Anna: Why'd you think?Keegan: Well, she's acting like a princess.Victor: . ... and princesses don't lie.Children: (lots of nodding but no initiating

conversation)Anna: Okay. There's a death of silence.

Who's gonna talk?Victor: I guess we already talked about

this chapter. (2.142)

Questioning TechniquesA total of 764 segments of talk initiatedby a teacher question were sorted accord­ing to interpreted purpose; in other words,each segment oftalk was grouped with oth­ers that seemed to have the same intent.

Figure 1Total Percentage of the Conv ersation

100% -

I90% -

c I0 80% :

.~ ICIl

70% ~...Cl)

>60% ~

c0U I

Cl)

.c 50% i-to-. I0Cl) 40% -,01) Ito

30% j-cII)

20% i~Cl)c,

10% ~

0% IJanuary February March

Month

Apri l May

IiIII Teacher Questions• Student Questions

121

Bl Teacher ResponsesISD Student Responses

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

HANSEN

Or to clarify for understanding:

Keegan: Why was the boy's dog in a parade?Teacher: Well, what happened in the last

chapter? (219 ).

Using comprehension-based questions inthis manner often resulted in bringing theconversation to a deeper level of meaning.

For example, all segments of talk that be­gan with "Why do you think.. . ?" were puttogether.

Four categories of questions were estab­lished that nurtured approximations to­ward more literary talk: 1) questions thatfocused on comprehension (1991764), 2)questions that caused the kindergartnersto reflect upon the quality of their talk (86/764 ),3) questions that encouraged talkingabout transactions with the text (2201764),and 4) questions that brought attention toliterary ways to respond to story (2591764).Figure 1 presents a proportional view ofthequestioning techniques distributed throughthe conversations.

Comprehension Questions. Basic literalunderstanding was not the purpose ofcomprehension questions. Rather, theywere used to get the children thinking aboutwhat had happened previously in the story:

Reflection Questions. The responsibilityfor polite, meaningful talk about story wasplaced upon the shoulders of the 5- and 6­year-olds through questions that encour­aged reflection. ''Who is in charge of yourbehavior?" (164) was asked ifthings got outof line. If children were not listening totheir talkmates, the teacher asked suchquestions as , "If you are talking when oth­ers are talking, what happens?" (191). Suchquestioning caused the kindergartners toreflect upon and maintain the quality of theconversation.

At one point, talk about Chapter 25 ofThe Princess and the Goblin (MacDonald,1872) had deteriorated to individual fanci­ful predictions about the future ofthe prin­cess and Curdie. The teacher interjectedby saying, "Are you listening to one an­other?" (2.188). Still, the kindergartnerscontinued making guesses without listen-

Austin: And the bad people didn't wantthe elephants to die. The bad guysdidn't want to hurt the elephantsbut they all-they want to do it­to tell the people they don't likethe zoo and maybe they want itto be . . . maybe the bad peoplewant to . ..

Teacher: Who were the bad people?Children:(no response)Teacher: Let me tell you . We were the bad

people. We were the countrydropping the bombs.

Rebecca: America?Teacher: Yeah . That's what happens in a

war. People fight each other andwhen you drop a bomb, it reallyhurts people and it also reallyhurts animals. (147)

Talk after listening to The Faithful El­ephants (Tsuchiya, 1988) focused on the"bad people" who were being mean to theelephants. The teacher was uncertain ifthekindergartners meant the zookeepers or thewar people when they were referring to "badpeople." She asked a simple comprehen­sion question that brought the discussionto a different level of understanding.

Oh , I get what you're saying. Hecould throw one ofthe rocks to gether free.Wait. Who 's in the hole and whois out in the cave?Curdie's in the hole and the prin­cess is in the cave.'Cuz the goblins took him.Maybe the grandma's just beenso, so nice to the princess but she'sreally not like a grandmother buta witch.But why would she want the prin­cess to go in the cave to saveCurdie?Because he might be able to saveher with that song.But who's in trouble right now?Curdie. (2.133-2.134)

Dillon:

Anna:

Teacher:Chorus:

Adam:Elliot:

Teacher:

Anna:

Teacher:

122

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

LITERACY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH RESPONSE TO STORY

ing to or considering the ideas of others.At that point, the teacher raised this ques­tion: "Do you feel like we 're not accomplish­ing anything?" (2. 188) . After some reflec­tion, the conversation continued morepurposefully.

Comprehension and reflection questionsrepresented roughly one-third of the totalnumber of questions posed during the 20­week period of data collection. The other63 percent of the questions asked were used,to paraphrase Smith (1990), to bring read­ers (or in this case, listeners) into the expe­rience of the text. The following question­ing techniques encouraged children to ver­balize their transactions with the text andprovided a model of literary response tostory.

Transaction Questions. Verbalizing trans­action with the text is , of course, modelingliterary response to story. Subtle differences,however, created the two categories. As thekindergartners grew more adept at verbal­izing what they thought and wonderedabout the text, questions focused on thatgrowth and brought attention to differentways to respond. The questions asked mostoften were, "Why do you think . . .?" or"What makes you think ..." (144/764 totalquestions). These kinds of questions be­came a habit of mind in talk about story(i.e., children knew they would be expectedto validate their response with their ownopinion or information from the text) . Thefollowing example is from talk after a chap­ter from The Lion, the Witch, and the Ward­robe(Lewis, 1950). An oflhand remark fromthe teacher as the talk began to waneprompted transaction with the text.

Teacher:

Adam:

Anna:

Austin:Keegan:

It seems like you have a lot moreto say about chapter books thanpicture books.Because picture books give youcertain pictures you have to lookat.But chapter books give you a pic­ture in your head.There has to be lots of words.'Cuz there's lots of stuffyou haveto learn.

Teacher: So what do you think about chap­ter books? Is that a good thing?

Chorus: (''Yeahs'' heard over multiple dis­cussion.)

Keegan: It gives you a picture and not pic­tures that stay still.

Austin: The pictures in your head are dif­ferent than real pictures. Youcan't take them out of your head.

Teacher: Do they stay there better thanpictures in a picture book?

Austin: Yeah. They stay longer.

Other examples of questions used to encour­age children to verbalize their transactionswith the text were: "Does anyone have agood picture of what's happening withCurdie and that goblin family?" (2.054) and"What makes you start those wonderfulimaginations going when she cries?"(2.026).

Similarities and differences among indi­vidual transactions with the text were ac­knowledged and commended with suchquestions as, "How many of you were won­dering the same thing?" (2.153) or "Howmany think it's going to be the King? Howmany think it's going to be the Princess?"(2.225)

Literary Response Questions . As the kin­dergartners grew in their ability to sharewhat they thought about the text, questionsbrought attention to increasingly literateways to respond to story. When one childused parts of the story to support an idea,the teacher jumped in with, ''Where did itsay that?" (2.135) and enthusiasticallyfound and reread that part of the text.Qu estions like "How'd you figure that out?(2.124) caused children to reach back intothe story world and substantiate theirthinking. Insights were rewarded withquestions that honored such thinking, suchas an enthusiastic, "Wow, what part madeyou think that?" (2.114). Changing opin­ions based upon the ideas presented inlarge-group discussion were verified withsuch questions as, "So, what do you thinknow? " (2.083).

When the kindergartners asked ques­tions, the teacher often would counter with

123

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

HANSEN

a question of her own. For example, in adiscussion from The Princess and the Gob­lin (Ma cDon ald, 1872), Anna asked herteacher where Lootie got the ring. She re­sponded with, "H ow can we find out?"(2.106). Questions used in this mannerserved to encourage talk among peers, tiedtalk to the text, and promoted student own­ership of the conversation.

Questions also modeled the teacher'spersonal literary response, such as "Howabout these words.. ..? They made me dosome hard thinking." (2.190) The childrenshared in the teacher's genuine puzzlementafter reading DePaola's Strega Nona (1975)when she asked, "1 wonder why they didn'tblow three kisses to the cloud?" (063). Pas­sages from the text framed genuine ques­tions, as in the next example. "Rememberthe roses? When she cleaned her dress withthe burning rose? What do you think aboutthat fire thing?" (2.099).

Making connections across texts throughquestions promoted literary talk. The chil­dren were trying to connect "bursting intotears" from The Princess and the Goblin(Ma cDon a ld , 1872) to a book they hadtalked about earlier. The question "Doesthis remind you of Stone Fox?" (Gardiner,1980) brought them back to Searchlight's"bu rst in g" heart (2.076). Other questions,such as "Wh o does it remind you of? "(260), "Wh at part in here is like that?"(251), and "What else was the same? Howwere they different?" (225), served the samepurpose.

Skillful use of questions influenced howthe children considered and approachedtalk about story in this kindergarten class­room. The teacher's questioning techniquescontributed to the students' growing abil­ity to talk about story in literary ways, andher responses nurtured and encouragedthat growth.

Responding to Student StatementsResponse to student statements effectivelyhelped the group make meaning togetherand created a safe place in which childrencould use language to explore importantideas and issues (Wells, 1995). Responses

were neither evaluative nor judgmental.Rather, they rewarded the ideas childrenpresented, promoted increasingly literateways to talk about story, and encouragedfurther growth.

Rewarding Literary Response. If a childbacked up an idea with a reference fromthe text, that technique was quickly sup­ported and emphasized as a desirable wayto respond. The following segment of talkfollowing Strega Nona (DePaola, 1975) il­lustrates how response was used to encour­age talk about story in literate ways.

Jason: .. . and ifhe didn't and he madethe spaghetti and he thought hehad a way to stop it his own waybut he didn't.. . . And the spa­ghetti kept on going and goingand then he didn't blow the magickisses and then she came homeand said start eating.

Stephen: Why'd she say "start eating"?Adam: Because he wished for it.Austin: Because he wanted to eat some

spaghetti.Keegan: No.1 know why. 1 know why she

let him eat it! Because she didn'twant to clog up the whole world.

Jamal: I know why. She wanted to sleepin her own bed.

Teacher: It said something about that rightin the book! Wait a minute. Let'ssee (looking through the text)."Alr ight , Anthony. You wantedspaghetti from my magic pastapot," Strega Nona said, "an d 1want to sleep in my little bed to­night so, start eating."

Children: (much laughter) (054-065)

Restating what a child had said in otherwords modeled the idea that careful listen­ing was important, each person's ideas werevaluable, and that thinking through whatother people said was part of talk aboutstory. In the next example, also from talkabout Strega Nona (DePaola, 1975), Aus­tin was struggling to express his interpre­tation of why Strega Nona's magic pasta potwas not cooperating for Big Anthony.

124

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

LITERACY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH RESPONSE TO STORY

Austin: Oh, I know. It needs someone tobe nice to it. So like ... ifhe didn'tblow the three kisses then it . . .like the pot was real like a hu­man . . . but when-you know,when people don't hug you andyou get kind of mad at them be­cause they don 't hug you and thenyou get mad at them-and youkeep doing what you're doing .. .like the pot keeps making . . .

Children: (begin to talk to each other andmove around)

Teacher: So you thought the pot was like aperson and it was waiting for itskisses and didn't get them.

Austin: Yeah, so it kept being mad. (061­062 )

In this segment of talk, the teacher re­alized Austin had something important tosay but he was losing the attention of histalkmates and his words would be lost. Herresponse clarified Austin's powerful meta­phor and focused the talk on his insight.

Responses did not serve to elicit imita­tion merely for praise, but honored and en­couraged individual thinking and consid­ered reflections, as in the following examplefrom Owls in the Family (Mowat, 1961):

Jamal: The part when the owl went soclose to the ground so the crows­if they came down-they wouldhit the sand. It reminds me ofwhen I fall on the sand and getsand in my eyes.

Teacher: I sure got a picture in my headthere! (181)

Monitoring Conversation . Often, re­sponses would "wrap up" or summarize thedirection ofthe talk. For example, one dis­cussion ended with "Inter esting idea-tobreak the spell" (136). The teacher endedanother discussion when the class puzzledover why Big Anthony from Strega Nona(DePaola, 1975) took down the help wantedsign, by saying, "That's true. You don't takethe sign" (068). A summary response ei­ther provided closure or the necessary

words to bring the discussion to a deeperlevel of meaning. Tough Boris (Fox, 1994)was a book that prompted lots of talk andmany differing opinions. The teacher pro­vided closure to the discussion by saying:"So you think it's about pirates being meanand you think it was about pirates beingmad. It's okay to be mad. It's not okay todo bad stuff because you're mad" (173) .

That response "wrapped up" that discus­sion , but sometimes response led to a deepermeaning. For example, after reading TheFrog Prince (Tarcov, 1974), the childrentalked at length about the mean way theprincess treated the frog. As the conversa­tion died out, the teacher mentioned thatshe wouldn't want to marry that princess ifshe were the frog . An entirely new discus­sion erupted in which the children ques­tioned the central meaning ofthe text, madeinferences and predictions, and referred tothe author's use of literary elements.

Teacher: I wouldn't want to marry her if Iwere that frog.

Joseph: I didn't understand why a princewanted to marry a mean prin­cess-why would he marry her'cuz she threw him against a walland that had to hurt! A brickwall. Why would the prince wantto marry her?

Austin: He just got hit on the wall and hejust stood there and he was aprince and they got married! Aprincess threw him against thewall and the next day they gotmarried. Why would the princewant to marry the princess whenshe just threw him against thewall?

Richard: Because they both begin with 'p.'Children: (exaggerated "No"s)Anna: Maybe that's how the spell was

going to be broken.Austin: Yeah, if he got hit against some­

thing-really hurting.Kim : The frog was trying to make the

princess mad at him.Anna: He was trying to make the spell

break! (134-135)

125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

HANSEN

S eizing Teachable Literary Moments . Intheir talk about story, these kindergartnersquite naturally discussed elements of lit­erature. The teacher was quick to "shoot aliterary arrow" (Peterson & Eeds, 1990 ) toprovide a concept or a word so children de­veloped the vocabulary to describe whatthey were thinking.

The students' conversation was somberat the conclusion of Stone Fox (Gardiner,1980). Discussion of the dog's death oc­curred through many tears. Rebecca madesense of what happened literally: "Becauseshe was running so fast that her heart juststopped ." Other possibilities surfaced:something was stuck in her throat andmade the heart stop beating, the sleigh tum­bling over hurt her, she had run too longand her legs hurt so bad that she just died,or maybe she was "gotting" too old. All theseideas were considered, checking back to thetext for verification and holding experience

of the world up to the facts. The group de­cided that Searchlight gave it everythingshe had, so that's why she died.

The teacher shared how she began to crythe first time she read this story; talkingthrough why they were so sad prompted thechildren to think through the events andthe characters in the story. Rebecca lookedup from wiping her tears to smile, and said,"Now I like Stone Fox."

''Yeah ,'' agreed Alondra, "now I like him!"Anna added, "Now he's nice ." ''Why?'' askedthe teacher and support for their change ofheart surfaced: he liked dogs , he petted thedogs, he protected his dogs, and he felt sadfor Little Willy. The teacher's response builton what they had discovered about litera­ture: "We all changed our minds aboutStone Fox. I'll tell you a little trick aboutbooks. Th e main character-the main per­son or the main animal-the one the bookis about-usually changes somehow" (059 ).

Figure 2Types of Questi ons

Comprehension26%

Literary Response34%

Reflection11%

Transaction29%

126

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

LITERACY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH RESPONSE TO STORY

Teacher talk, in this classroom, set theclimate to promote literacy developmentthrough genuine conversation about story.Probing questions built on initial attemptsand developed ways of literate thinking.Response honored initial attempts andmodeled more complex ways to respond.Regularly scheduled extended periods oftime for talk after story allowed this com­plex process to unfold. Student opportuni­ties for literary development were reflectedin their proportion of the talk in the con­versations. The teacher proportion of talkin conversation decreased as the studentsgrew in their ability to make meaning witha group of peers.

In order to illustrate this process, onecomplete conversation about story was se­lected from each month of data collection.The conversations were chosen based onsimilar length (20 minutes) and richness oftalk about story. Then, segments of talkwere counted by teacher and student ques­tions and responses . Figure 2 displaysthese data.

DiscussionThe growing emphasis on accountability foreducational instruction is a concern of allteachers, but early childhood educators arefaced with the dual task of balancing de­velopmental appropriateness with bestpractice. This study focused on the role ofteacher in creating an environment wherechildren make gains in literacy develop­ment in ways they have already used tomake sense of the world.

Talk about story became a way the chil­dren in this classroom came to learn moreabout their world and the world of story.They felt the power of story to change theway they viewed their lives and to changethe way they thought. These possibilitieshappened in a classroom where wonderfulbooks were read every day and time for talkwas part of the schedule. Significantly, thisteacher chose to read selections from clas­sical children's literature (Lewis, 1950;McDonald, 1872) as well as picture booksof quality (Cherry, 1990; DePaola, 1975) toher young students. She did not shy away

from stories that dealt with powerful mes­sages or the harsh realities oflife (Gardiner,1980; Tsuchiya, 1988). In short, she readbooks that gave her students something totalk about and allowed an extended periodof class time to do just that.

Reading books in a particular way con­tributed to what the teacher referred to as''hunger for response." The lack of inter­ruptions during the reading of the text al­lowed students to listen, interpret, andimagine on their own. The teacher felt itwas the author's responsibility to make theideas clear and the children's responsibil­ity to monitor for comprehension as the textunfolded. Knowing there would be time totalk through ideas after the story contrib­uted to engaged student listening. Theteacher fondly remembers the student whosaid that listening to a story was like beingon a field trip and when someone inter­rupted with a thought or question, it pulledyou right off the bus!

Verbal support came from genuine honorand respect for children emerging into criti­cal literacy. Initial reactions were acceptedand built upon through questions and re­sponse within a supportive environment.Essentially, the teacher expected that theyoung children would be capable ofprovid­ing literary responses and held them ac­countable for thinking through their ownideas and the ideas of others. She spoke tothem in literary ways and expected themto grow in their ability to respond in a lit­erary way.

Changing the context for discussion con­tributed to that growth. Large-group dis­cussion allowed participants to share indi­vidual meanings and listen to the interpre­tations of others so they could re-evaluateor confirm their initial reactions. Small­group discussion let four or five children,who had read the same book, work throughthe process with more opportunity for theirvoices to be heard. Interestingly enough,children who were the quietest in large­group discussions often were the ones mostvocal in small-group discussions.

Making time for talk about story with aneffective facilitator appears to focus chil-

127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

HANSEN

dren on text information and response toquestions beyond the basis of pictures andbackground knowledge. Engagement withpeers in this process allows children to buildnaturally the essential components ofread­ing success. When doors are opened to earlychildhood classrooms, they need to be leftopen long enough for children to developfoundations of literacy through the waythey have already used to make sense ofthe world-talk.

ReferencesAllen, J ., Buchanan, J., Edelsky, C., & Norton,

G. (1992). Teachers as "they" at NRC: Aninvitation to enter the dialogue on the ethicsof collaborative and non-collaborative class­room research. In C. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.),Literacy research, theory, and practice: Viewsfrom many perspectives (pp. 357-365). 41' tYearbook ofthe National Reading Conference.Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Armbruster, B. B. , Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001).Put reading first: The research building blocksfor teaching children to read. Jessup, MD.(NIFL No. R305R70004/0ERI)

Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabu­lary knowledge . In J . T. Guthrie (Ed .), Com­prehension and teaching: Research reviews(pp. 77-117). Newark, DE : InternationalReading Association.

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Texttalk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloudexperiences for young children. Th e ReadingTeacher, 55 .

Beck, I. L., Perfetti, Ca. A., & McKeown, M. G.(1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary in­struct ion on lexical access and reading com­prehension. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 74,506-521.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitativeresearch for ed uca tion: An introduction totheory and methods (2nd ed .). NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Christie, J . F. (Ed.). (1991). Play and earlyliteracy development. Albany, NY: State Uni­versity of New York Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). The making of areader. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long­term effects of preschool teachers' book read­ings on low-income children's vocabulary ands t ory comprehension. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 29, 104-122.

Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early .

New York: Teachers College Press.Eeds, M., & Hudelson, S. (1995 ). Literature as

foundation for personal and classroom life.Primary Voices, 3(2), 2-7.

Eeds, M., & Wells , D. (1989). Grand conversa­tions: Meaning construction in literaturestudy groups. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish , 23(1),4-29.

Erickson, R. (1986). Qualitative methods inresearch on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook ofresearch on teaching (3rd ed ., pp.119-161). New York: Macmillan.

Fondas, L. (1992). The acquisition of vocabu­lary from reading stories aloud . Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Nova University, NorthMiami Beach, FL .

Forsman, G. E., & Fosnot, C. T. (1982). The useof Piaget's constructivism in early childhoodeduca t ion programs. In B. Spodek (Ed .),Handbook ofresearch in early childhood edu­cation (pp. 185-211 ). New York: Macmillan.

Gilles, C., Dickinson , J ., McBride, C., &Vandover, M. (1994). Discussing our ques­tions and questioning our discussions: Grow­ing into literature study. LanguageArts, 71(7),499-508.

Green, C. R., Lilly, E. , & Barrett, T. M. (2002).Families reading together: Connecting litera­ture and life . Journal of Research in Child­hood Educat ion, 16(2),248-261.

Hansen, C. C. (1998). Getting the picture: Talkabout story in a kindergarten clas sroom. Un­published doctoral dissertation. Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe.

Hoffman, J. , Roser, N., & Battle, J . (1993). Read­ing aloud in classrooms: From the modal to­ward a "model." Th e Reading Teacher, 46 (6),496-503.

Karjalainen, M. I. (1996). Th ere is a monster inhere, in play: Analysis ofthree- and four-year­old children 's conve rsations in terms of acts ,turns, topi cs and special features. (Doctoraldissertation, University of Oulu, 1996 ). Dis­sertation Abstracts International , 58-02C,321.

Maykut, P., & Morehouse , R. (1994 ). Beginningqualitative research: A philosophic and prac­tical guide . London, UK: Falmer Press.

McGee , L. M. (1992 ). An exploration of mean­ing construction in first graders' grand con­versations. In C. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.),Literacy research, theory, and practice: Viewsfrom many perspectives (pp, 177-186). 41 ,tYearbook ofthe National Reading Conference.Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Moore, L. (1992). The social contexts ofliteracy

128

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

LITERACY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH RESPONSE TO STORY

interactions in a literature-based kindergar­ten classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Univer­sity of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1992 ). DissertationAbstracts International, 53-11A, 3858.

Morrow, L. (1984) . Reading stories to youngchildren: Effects of story structure and tradi­tional questioning techniques on comprehen­sion . Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4),273-288.

Morrow, L. (1988) . Young children's responsesto one-to-one story readings in school settings.Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 89-107.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching chil­dren to read: An evidence-based assessmentof the scientific research literature on readingand its implications for reading instruction.Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.

Neuman, S. B. (1990). Assessing inferencingstrategies. In J . Zutell & S. McConnich (Eds. ),Literacy theory and research (pp . 267-274).Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Peterson, R , & Eeds, M. (1990). Grand conver­sations: Literature groups in action . Rich­mond Hill, Ontario, Canada: Scholastic-TABPublications.

Porter, S. (1995). Effects of a read-aloud pro­gram on reading attitudes ofelementary chil­dren . Unpublished master's thesis, Fort HaysState University, Fort Hays, KS .

Rosemary, C. A , & Roskos, K. A (2002). Lit­eracy conversations between adults and chil­dren at child care: Descriptive observationsand hypotheses. Journal ofResearch in Child­hood Education, 16,212-231.

Rosenhouse, J. (1997). Interactive readingaloud to Israeli first graders: Its contributionto literacy development. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 32(2), 168-183.

Senechal, M., LeFevre, J ., Thomas, E., & Daley,K. (1998). Differential effects of home literacyexperiences on the development of oral andwritten language. Reading Research Quar­terly, 33, 96-116 .

Smith, K. (1990). Entertaining a text: Arecip­rocal process. In K. Short & K. Pierce (Eds.),Talking about books: Creating literate com­munities (pp . 17-32). Portsmouth , NH:Heinemann.

Smith, K. (1993 ). A descriptive analysis of theresponses of six students and their teacher inliterature study sessions (Doctoral disserta­tion,Arizona State University, 1993 ). Disser­tation Abstracts International, 54-03A 809

Snow, C. (1983) . Literacy and language. Rela-

tionships during the preschool years. HarvardEducational Review, 53, 165-189.

Sternberg, R J . (1987). Most vocabulary islearned from context. In M. G. McKeown &M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabularyacquisition (pp. 89-105). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Teale , W. H., & Martinez, M. G. (1996) . Read­ing aloud to young children: Teachers'read­ing styles and kindergartners' textcomprehension. In C. Pontecorvo, M. Orsolini,B. Burge, & L. B. Resnick (Eds.), Children'searly text construction (pp, 321-344). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Teale , W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1987 ). Literacyac­quisition in early childhood: The roles of ac­cess and mediation in storybook reading. InD. Wagner (Ed .), The future of literacy in achanging world (pp . 111-130). Elmsford, NY:Pergamon Press.

Trelease, J . (2001 ). The read-aloud handbook.New York: Penguin Books.

Wagner, J . (1997). The unavoidable interven­tion of educational research: A framework forreconsidering researcher-practitioner coopera­tion. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13-22.

Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Chil­dren learning language and using languageto learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wells, D. (1995). Leading grand conversations.In N. Roser & M. Martinez (Eds.), Book talkand beyond: Children and teachers respondto literature (pp. 132-139). Newark, DE: In ­ternational Reading Association.

Children's Books CitedCherry, L. (1990). The great kapok tree . New

York: Trumpet.DePaola, T. (1975). Strega Nona. New York:

Prentice Hall.Fox, M. (1994). Tough Boris. New York: Trum­

pet.Gardiner, J . R (1980). Stone Fox. New York:

Harper & Row.Lewis, C. S. (1950 ). The lion, the witch, and the

wardrobe. Glasgow, GB: Williams Collin.Mowat, F. (1961) . Owls in the family. Toronto,

Ontario, Canada: McClelland and Steward.MacDonald, G. (1872). The princess and the

goblin. Middlesex, England: Puffin Books .Tarcov, E. H. (1974) . The frog prince. New York:

Scholastic.Tsuchiya, Y. (1988). The faithful elephants.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

44 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014