Running Head: EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 1

The Effects of Teacher-Directed Dialogic Reading on the Oral Language Development of

Students in Preschool

Lauren Betar

Franciscan University of Steubenville

EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 2

The foundation of reading and writing is more than simply learning your ABC's or

learning how to grip a pencil. Rather, the foundation of reading and writing is held within the

development of oral language. Oral language is an umbrella term for the ability to use spoken

language to express ideas, thoughts, and feelings (i.e., expressive language), and the ability to

understand spoken language (i.e., receptive language). The term oral language also includes

students' vocabulary and grammar skills (Byington & Kim, 2017). Oral language is an important

part of teaching literacy because research has shown that high, complex levels of oral language

have been found to be a predictor of later success in reading and writing (Hill, 2011). Along with

being an indicator of future success, experiences with oral language give the students

background knowledge they can refer to in the future, as well as practice speaking orally in front

of their peers. When students are introduced to a word or words in an oral context, they can add

this word or words into their schema. Then, when students are reading or writing a passage in the

future, they can retrieve this oral information from their schema and use it to inform their reading

and writing. In other words, hearing a word orally helps the student be able to decode it quicker

and students are even able to spell words better when they hear them orally (Wegener, Wang,

Lissa, Robidoux, Nation, & Castles, 2018). Due to oral language being the backbone of literacy,

it is crucial that these experiences are provided to children beginning at an early age (Byington &

Kim, 2017).

A common way in which researchers in the field determine the growth of a student's oral

language is by tracking his/her mean length of utterance (MLU). MLU simply means the average

number of words in an oral response (Casby, 2011). MLU can be used to measure individual

growth, or group growth. The simplest way in which to see if students are reaching this

milestone is to take into consideration their age. A student's MLU should equal his/her age (i.e.,
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 3

a four-year-old student should have an MLU of four, a group of five-year-old students should

have an MLU of five). This will be referred to as MLU age criteria.

A way in which teachers can increase student's oral language performance and MLU is

by using the strategy of Dialogic Reading (DR). DR is simply stopping to ask questions to the

young child as a picture book story is being read aloud to them. The questions asked within this

strategy are short but are intended to elicit a fruitful and meaningful oral response from the child.

To form a question to ask during DR, the teacher or parent should think about the main ideas and

points that the author of the picture book is trying to convey to the reader. The questions asked

during DR must be relevant to the book and elicit further class discussion (Towson, Fettig,

Fleury, & Abarca, 2017).

Purpose

In literature, the importance of oral language in the preschool classroom is greatly

stressed. Still, teachers often struggle to implement useful strategies and assessments in order to

improve and inform decisions based on students' oral language. During a few tutoring sessions in

the urban preschool classroom, I observe that the classroom teacher is constantly having to

remind the students to answer questions in complete sentences. This reminder usually comes

after an initial, subpar response from the student. For example, when the teacher asks, "Jordan,

what is the weather like today?" Jordan answers, "cold and cloudy". Then, the teacher has to use

a second prompt in order to gain a complete sentence response from Jordan. The teacher usually

says, "Can you repeat your answer in a complete sentence?". Then, the student responds, "The

weather is cold and cloudy today." The need for these constant reminders had started to become

frustrating for the teacher. Based on my observations, I discovered that these students need to

have more opportunities to increase their oral language and their understanding of using
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 4

complete sentences. To help these students in their oral language skills, I will implement the DR

strategy to help the students improve their oral language and, most specifically, help them get to

a place where they automatically respond with complete sentences. Through research I plan to

answer the question: What are the effects of teacher-directed dialogic reading on the oral

language development of students in preschool?

One of the goals I will accomplish is implementing the DR strategy with a group of

preschool students. I hope to perform this strategy multiple times on this group. I plan to

discover what aspects of oral language (e.g., receptive and expressive language) are increased

through DR. I hope to implement teacher-directed DR and record anecdotal notes of student's

oral answers to the dialogic reading questions as well as their MLU for these oral responses.

Through experimental and quasi-experimental research, I hope to determine whether or not DR

is effective for this specific set of students and what effects DR had on oral language.

I hypothesize that my research will show that DR is effective in that it increases

preschool students' understanding of oral vocabulary, frequency of expressive language, and

MLU. I predict that my research will prove that DR is an effective strategy to help young,

emergent readers improve their oral language skills. I also predict that after several trials of DR,

that more students will not need a second prompt from the teacher that encourages them to give a

response that is in a complete sentence. More students will give a complete sentence as their first

response.

Review of Literature

Reading aloud to children is one of the most critical and rewarding acts that can take

place in a child's life. Not only do these rich and meaningful interactions with text positively

influence the child's ability to read later in life, but it also helps support the development of oral
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 5

language. In order to develop oral language, many researchers have found the interactive reading

through the Dialogic Reading (DR) intervention to be effective. Towson, Fettig, Fleury, &

Abarca (2017) conducted a quantitative meta-analysis of thirty studies to determine whether or

not DR can be given the title of "evidence-based". The researchers looked at the many articles

with participants that ranged from 24-75 months both male and female. Of the chosen studies,

seventy percent focused on using the DR intervention with children described as typically

developing or at risk. Not many of the studies conducted focused on children with identified

disabilities. This DR intervention was used both in the general education classroom, as well as in

the special education classroom. The authors conclude that DR is an evidence-based practice that

improves oral language in children. Although, this evidence-based practice title can only be

given when the intervention is being used with typically developing and at-risk students.

The authors of the article set many different parameters for which studies were to be

included in their review. The initial search for studies included 194 articles which they then

narrowed down to 30 based on the central focus of the article, the experiment type, and the report

of data. Tables I and II are both thoroughly completed and, along with the help from the decoder,

fairly easy to follow along and understand. The academic language that was used throughout the

study was difficult to follow. Also, there were many abbreviations that were used throughout the

article and it was difficult to remember all of them after only reading about the specific item

briefly. The article is relevant because it reviews several different articles about a specific

strategy to determine whether or not this strategy would be effective in the development of oral

language in young students. It gives insight into why and how the DR strategy is so effective in

improving oral language. While this article looks at a plethora of different studies that have been

conducted over the years about the effectiveness of DR when instructing typically developing
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 6

students and students at-risk, there is a lack of research on effectiveness of this strategy for those

with identified disabilities. Another area that needs more research is the method that teachers use

to conduct this intervention. More research needs to be done on whether or not this strategy

would yield better outcomes if the teachers were explicitly trained on how to implement the DR

strategy.

It is well known within the education world that it is extremely important that we are

engaging our students in literacy activities from the beginning of their schooling. Byington and

Kim (2010) have found and supported the importance of meaningful, authentic, and engaging

literacy experiences in the preschool classroom. These experiences aid students in their

development of vocabulary and oral language, as well as their emergent writing skills. The

purpose of this nonempirical study is to remind early childhood education teachers, especially

preschool teachers, of the importance of literacy-rich environments. The authors break down

three main areas of development that should be emphasized in preschool (e.g., vocabulary

development, oral language development, and emergent writing skills). The authors also lay out

the steps of "The Entomologist Tool Kit", a practical example of a literacy-rich lesson. The

authors found that having these literacy-rich resources strategically throughout the room, the

children are more likely to interact and participate with these resources. Such literacy-rich

resources could include having a large bookcase filled with books that they enjoy giving students

the choice of which book they would like to read, and even flexible seating. These activities also

help students expand their knowledge of the world and themselves.

This article is worthy because the authors do a very clear job of outlining the article. The

reader knows exactly what to expect during the remainder of the article. The way the authors

implemented the text feature of headings before each section of the paper is another thing that is
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 7

worthy of this article. The authors used headings to indicate when they were going to talk about

their findings and their recommendations for future applications. These were helpful for me

when I was looking for the information to write this literature review. It was easy to locate what

was needed to include in the literature review. Nothing in this article was too difficult to grasp.

Because the main audience for the article is teachers, the authors did a good job of making the

content simple and applicable to everyday life as a teacher. This article is relevant to my research

because it makes it clear that a lot of different literacy skills are taught and exercised in

preschool and that the literacy skills being taught are all related to one another. Dialogic reading

may be a great way to support the development of student's oral language, but while it is helping

students formulate and verbalize complete sentences, the practice is also supporting the

development of students' vocabulary and writing skills. A continuation of this study in the future

could focus on conducting research in order to be able to call the Entomologist Tool Kit an

evidence-based practice. The authors briefly mention the importance of a purposeful teacher, but

the effects that a purposeful teacher could have in these literacy-rich environments are never

explicitly discussed. For the future, it would be interesting if research focused on the teacher's

role in the Entomologist Tool Kit strategy.

One of the most important things to remember when teaching young children is to always

be sure that they are engaged. When they are not engaged in the activity, they can become

distracted easily or become a distraction to their peers. Massey's (2013) article emphasizes the

importance of partnering storybook reading and guided play in order to increase student

engagement, vocabulary, oral language, and literacy skills in the classroom. The main purpose of

the nonempirical article is to provide teachers with a practical way in which they can implement

dramatic play, hand puppets, and play centers paired with the teachers' use of concrete and
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 8

abstract comments about the story to promote conversations about literature within the preschool

classroom. The author concludes that conversations about text through dramatic play, puppets,

and other engaging strategies that give students an opportunity to gain a different point of view,

increase the students' vocabulary and oral language development.

The article is worthy because the authors provide very practical and concrete examples of

what type of activities to use in order to increase conversation in the classroom. The authors do a

great job of giving activities to use and the exact skill that these strategies could be used to

improve in preschoolers. It was interesting that they added a chart with levels of abstraction,

teacher comments, and questions that can be asked to the teachers. This is a great idea to share

with teachers who teach various levels of development. It was difficult to follow the article. It

seemed as though at one point in the article they were talking about puppets and the next

sentence they were talking about levels of abstraction. Although they did utilize text structures

such as headers, they were vague and did not really help organize the article in an effective or

easy to follow way. This relates to my research of dialogic reading in that when students are

engaged in the interactive storybook reading, they are being asked questions. The teacher must

determine what questions to ask the students during this dialogic reading time. The questions

must be age-appropriate and relevant to the content in the storybook. Once the students have

answered the questions, the teacher must also be able to interpret these answers in order to check

for student understanding and to plan for future teaching. One of the elements of these answers

that the teacher looks for is the development of the student's oral language. For future research,

researchers could focus on the quality of the language and questions that are being used by the

teachers in the classroom. Maybe researchers could compare lower levels of language to higher

levels of language to determine the effect that teacher language has on student learning.
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 9

One way to assess students' oral language is by observing their MLU. Essentially, MLU

is a calculation of the average number of words in an oral language sample. The purpose of the

quantitative meta-analysis study, written by Casby (2011), was to look at the relationship

between oral language samples and the various MLU responses and compare them to the MLU

that students with developmental language impairment produce. By doing this, the authors hope

to cut down on the suggested sample sizes that can be used to calculate MLU. Previous research

found that the best sample size to calculate MLU was fifty to one hundred words. The authors

hope to conclude that this sample size can be lowered to accommodate for recording time by the

teacher and so MLU can be a worthy measure for students with developmental language

impairment. The authors concluded that when a larger sample size of words (i.e., 50-100) was

compared to a smaller sample size of words (i.e., 10-20), the samples were significantly related

and not significantly different. Therefore, the authors found that MLU is an effective way to

assess oral language, even if the sample size is smaller than 50 words.

What was worthy in this article were the supplemental graphs and tables. While it was

difficult to follow along with the explanations of these tables in the text, it was easier to

understand what the authors were trying to say when there was a visual. It was nice to look at the

data in a short, compressed snapshot instead of just in the text. Overall, the language of the

authors was very difficult and hard to understand. Even after doing a Google search of these

terms, there were a few terms that were hard to follow, and they continued to use the terms

without really explaining or giving examples of what these terms meant. The statistics were also

difficult to make sense of because they were all over the place and were not well explained.

Compared to the previous articles, this article was not written for teachers and it was very

obvious. The language was probably more appropriate for a higher-level researcher rather than
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 10

an average classroom teacher. MLU is relevant to my research in dialogic reading because it is

one way that teachers can assess the effectiveness of this evidence-based practice. In dialogic

reading, it is uncommon for a student to give a fifty to one-hundred-word response after one

teacher prompted question. This study shows that MLU does not need a large sample size in

order for it to be reliable to use during assessment. Future research could focus on what

benchmarks a student with a developmental language impairment should be reaching compared

to his/her peers without disabilities. It would also be helpful for researchers to discover how

MLU is related to the teacher prompt and whether there is a correlation between the length of the

teacher prompt and the MLU of the student.

Methodology

The participants in this study were eight preschool students in an urban school in Ohio.

These eight students were selected randomly out of a poll of twenty-three preschool students

from the same preschool classroom. This specific classroom of students was chosen for this

action research project because I saw an overall need for improvement in oral language. The

students randomly chosen to participate were representative of the population and of varying

abilities. To randomly select students, the teacher used her bucket of popsicle sticks. Each

popsicle stick had a student's name on it. The students' names were randomly picked from the

popsicle bucket immediately after the teacher asked the whole class the DR question, I decided

to randomly select students from the class to make sure that the sample size was representative of

the population. Randomly selecting students to answer questions makes them accountable for

thinking of an answer to all teacher questions rather than simply the ones they know they will be

asked to answer (Price & Nelson, 2019).

EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 11

My research was conducted through the use of observation and anecdotal notes of

teacher-directed DR. When the students were participating in DR, I recorded their MLU, whether

or not their answer was in the form of a complete sentence on their first attempt, and whether or

not their response to the question was an acceptable answer (i.e., the answer made sense). I

tracked these student responses in order to better understand the student's present level of

performance on the first day of DR and to compare this data with student performance on the

final day of DR. These notes became pre and post strategy data.

My first session of DR consisted of an oral reading of At the Grocery Store by Anne

Rockwell. After Rockwell described what you can buy at the supermarket, the teacher stopped

reading and asked the question, "What do you like to get at the grocery store?". For this question

and the questions studied in the final trial, I created a hierarchy of three different tiered answers

that the student could have used to respond to the given question. Tier 1, the most basic answer

was a one-word response to the question (e.g., “soup”). Tier 2 answers were a complete sentence

with seven words but missing some of the details from the question (e.g., “I get pizza at the

grocery store”). Tier 3 answers were a complete sentence with nine words and included all of the

details from the question (e.g., “I like to get donuts at the grocery store”). In the first session,

four students were randomly selected to answer the question. Three of the four students

answered with a Tier 1 response and were given a second prompt in order to get them to answer

the question in a complete sentence. The second prompt consisted of the teacher repeating the

question and then asking the students to give a complete sentence. After the second prompt, two

of the students answered with Tier 2 answers and one student answered with a Tier 3 answer. All

of the answers that the students gave made sense and were relevant to the question that was

asked.
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 12

After the first trial, the teacher had implemented this strategy three other times. I do not

have data for these sessions, as I was not present for these sessions. This specific classroom

engaged in dialogic reading more times than just the days I set aside to go into the classroom to

conduct my research. Because of my absence, I decided to speak to the classroom teacher about

student performance during the sessions I missed. The teacher shared that while the students

were relying less on further prompting to answer the questions in complete sentences, sometimes

the students needed a second prompt in order to give answers in complete sentences. The

classroom teacher also identified that the students were providing Tier 3 answers more often than

the first implementation of the strategy.

The final session consisted of an oral reading of Rhinos Don't Eat Pancakes by Anna

Kemp. After stopping her oral reading of the picture book, the teacher discussed with the

students that breakfast is usually eaten before school. Once the students understood, the teacher

asked the question, "What do you like to eat before school?" In this session, as with the first

session, four students were randomly selected to answer this question. None of the four students

who were randomly chosen in the first trial were chosen in the final trial. Two out of the four

students answered with a complete sentence on the first attempt. One student answered with a

Tier 3 response while the other student answered with a Tier 2 response. Neither of these

students needed a second prompt. The other two students who were randomly selected to answer

the question needed a second prompt from the teacher after giving Tier 1 responses. After the

second prompt from the teacher to answer the question in a complete sentence, one student

answered with a Tier 2 response, and the other student answered with a Tier 3 response. As with

the first trial, all of the answers that the students gave made sense and were relevant to the

question that was asked.

EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 13

Findings

The findings presented in this document are based on teacher-directed dialogic reading

and the effects of oral language on students in preschool. In total, data from eight different

students in two different trials were recorded. Data from four students was recorded during the

first trial and data from four different students was recorded during the final session. The first

trial was conducted on Monday, November 4th, 2019 and the final recorded session of the

teacher-directed DR was conducted on Wednesday, November 13th. Between these two recorded

sessions, there were three other sessions of teacher-directed DR. Due to scheduling issues, data

from these three sessions was not recorded. The results of my findings conclude that oral

vocabulary, frequency of expressive language, and MLU for preschool students when responding

to teacher-directed questions increased over five trials of teacher-directed DR.

EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 14

Figure 1 depicts the initial student responses in the first trial. The first and second

students responded with one-word answers, the third student responded with a two-word answer,

and the fourth student responded with a seven-word answer. These findings act as a baseline for

all other student results. It is interesting to note that the MLU of student answers increase from

the first student to the fourth student. This may be due to the fact that the teacher had to give a

second prompt to the first two students, so the students understand that if they give a Tier 1

response, they will be asked to give a better answer. Because of this, they are more likely to

answer with a Tier 3 response in their first attempt.

Figure 1. Graph of the initial responses of students during the first session of dialogic

reading.
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 15

Figure 2 portrays the initial student responses in the final trial. The first and second

students responded with one-word answers, the third student responded with a seven-word

answer, and the fourth student responded with a nine-word answer. By analyzing these findings,

one can see that the average number of words in student responses increased from the first trial

to this final trial. Again, it is interesting to note that the MLU of student answers increase from

the first student to the fourth student.

Figure 2. Graph of the initial responses of students during the final session of dialogic

reading.
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 16

Figure 3 depicts the findings from the initial responses from all eight children in the first

trial and the final trial. This figure shows that while four of the students gave initial answers that

were Tier 1 responses, overall there was an increase in the MLU. We can see this increase when

looking at the difference between the third and fourth students' initial responses. The red line

indicates the results from the first session, while the blue line indicates the results from the final

session. Looking at the graph, it is clearly illustrated that there was an increase in MLU between

the first trial and the fifth (i.e., final) trial of DR.

Figure 3. Graph of the initial responses of students during the first and the final sessions

of dialogic reading.
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 17

Figures 1, 2, and 3 all show the first responses from students. Students who gave a Tier 1

response were given a second chance to respond. The teacher used a second prompt in order to

try to gain a Tier 3 response from the students. Tables 1 and 2 describe these findings.

During the first session, three of the four students were given a second prompt after their

initial responses. The teacher instructed them to answer in a complete sentence. After these

students received an individualized prompt, the first student responded with a Tier 3 response

(i.e., nine-word response), while the second and third students both responded with Tier 2

responses (i.e., seven-word responses). Table 1 depicts the number of words in each student's

initial response and response after the second prompt from the teacher. Table 1 also calculates

the MLU of these four students in both the initial and the second response. The MLU of all

students in the initial response was 2.75. The MLU of all students, who needed to be given a

second prompt from the teacher, in their second response was 7.67. Because these students are

between four and five years old, they did not meet the MLU age criteria with their initial

response but did meet the MLU age criteria with their second responses.

Table 1

Table of the Number of Words in Initial Response, Second Response, and Mean Length of

Utterance for the First Trial.

First Second Third Fourth Mean Length

Student Student Student Student Utterance

Words in Initial 1 1 2 7 2.75

Response

Words in Second 9 7 7 N/A 7.67

Response
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 18

During the final session, two of the four students were given a second prompt from the

teacher after their initial responses. As in the first trial, the teacher instructed them to answer in a

complete sentence. After these students received an individualized prompt, the first student

responded with a Tier 2 response (i.e., seven-word response), while the second student

responded with a Tier 3 response (i.e., nine-word response). Table 2 illustrates the number of

words in each student's initial response and second response after the second prompt from the

teacher. Table 2 also calculates the MLU of these four students in both their initial and their

second responses. In the final trial, the MLU of all students in the initial response was 4.5. The

MLU of all students, who needed to be given a second prompt by the teacher, in their second

response was 8.5.

Table 2

Table of the Number of Words in Initial Response, Second Response, and Mean Length of

Utterance for the Final Trial.

First Second Third Fourth Mean Length

Student Student Student Student Utterance

Initial Response 1 1 7 9 4.5

Second Response 7 9 N/A N/A 8.5

Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate the increase in MLU between the first session and the final

session of DR. The initial response MLU of the students increased from 2.75 in the first session

to 4.5 in the final session. The second response MLU of the students increased from 7.67 in the

first session to 8.5 in the final session. These numbers indicate that, through the implementation
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 19

of DR, students' MLU increases. Because these students are between four and five years old,

they also met the MLU age criteria with their initial and second responses.

Because all of the student answers corresponded with the teacher's questions, it can be

concluded that students' receptive and expressive oral language were both engaged and improved

during these trials. Students' exercised their skills of receptive language by understanding the

question that was being asked. Students' demonstrated their skills of expressive language by

taking that interior receptive language knowledge and forming a coherent answer to the oral

question. These findings are important because they highlight the effectiveness of the DR

strategy and how quickly oral language can be improved.

Recommendations

After reviewing literature and conducting my own data in a preschool classroom, I have

determined several recommendations. Research is clear on the effectiveness of DR in early

elementary classrooms (Towson, Fettig, Fleury, & Abarca, 2017). But research failed to specify

which elements of oral language are directly affected by this DR strategy. My findings show that

receptive and expressive language can be increased through the DR strategy, but more research

needs to be conducted on this topic. Researchers could duplicate my study with more students,

record data for more trials, and include a second assessment in order to track student's receptive

language (i.e., Bracken Basic Concept Scale) (Bracken, 2009). Another recommendation that I

have is discovering a way in which to make DR more engaging for students. Massey (2013)

conducted a study that integrated dramatic play, hand puppets, and play centers into the DR

process. The authors found that engaging students in this way promoted their oral conversations

about the specific story that was being read. Through this integration of engaging materials,
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 20

students are gaining authentic experiences with vocabulary as well as topics that are found within

the content of the book.

There were a few limitations to the way in which I conducted my study. Namely,

scheduling issues, lack of numbers, and missing trials. After the first trial was conducted, the

teacher informed me that this strategy was going to be used in different lessons during the day

(i.e., math, social studies, etc.). While I was happy to hear that this evidence-based practice was

going to be implemented, the times in which these other sessions were going to take place did

not coincide with my schedule. Thus, I was only able to be present for one other trial after the

first trial. Because of these scheduling issues, I was unable to gain data from more students. This

was another limitation. My findings could be more solid if data was recorded for more than eight

students. My findings also could have been stronger if I had raw data from the three sessions

between the first trial and the final trial.

After analyzing the data, I can conclude that I was correct in my hypothesis. During the

final trial, less students needed a second, individualized prompt from the teacher (i.e., “Can you

repeat your answer in a complete sentence?”) and more students gave an answer with a greater

MLU. Overall, this study showed that DR is an effective strategy in increasing the oral language

understanding, frequency of expressive language, and MLU of students in preschool.

EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 21

References

Bracken, B.A. (2009). Bracken Basic Concept Scale – Third Edition: Receptive. London,

England: Pearson.

Byington, T.A., & Kim, Y. (2017). Jump‐starting preschoolers’ emergent literacy: The

entomologist tool kit. The Reading Teacher, 70(5), 601–604. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1540.

Casby, M. (2011). An examination of the relationship of sample size and mean length of

utterance for children with developmental language impairment. Child Language

Teaching and Therapy 27, 286–293.

Gelderen, A., Kessels, J., & Pluijm, M. (2019). Activities and strategies for parents with less

education to promote the oral language development of their children: A review of

empirical interventions. School Community Journal, 29, 317-362.

Hill, S. (2011). Early Literacy Early Literacy. Transitions to Early Care and Education, 45–55.

doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0573-9_5

Kemp, A., & Ogilvie, S. (2015). Rhinos don't eat pancakes. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster

Books for Young Readers.

Massey, S.L. (2013). From the reading rug to the play center: Enhancing vocabulary and

comprehensive language skills by connecting storybook reading and guided play. Early

Childhood Education Journal, 41(2), 125–131. doi:10.1007/s10643‐012‐0524‐y

Price, K.M., & Nelson, K.L. (2019). Planning effective instruction: diversity responsive methods

and management (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage.

Rockwell, A.F. (2015). At the supermarket. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.

Towson, J.A., Fettig, A., Fleury, V.P., & Abarca, D.L. (2017). Dialogic reading in early
EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 22

childhood settings: A summary of the evidence base. Topics in Early Childhood

Special Education, 37(3), 132-146.

Wegener, S., Wang, H.C., Lissa, P., Robidoux, S., Nation, K., & Castles, A. (2018).

Children reading spoken words: Interactions between vocabulary and orthographic

expectancy. Developmental Science, 21(3).

EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC READING ON ORAL LANGUAGE 23

Appendix

This worksheet was used during the first and final trials of DR to track student responses

and whether or not the answer made sense. The questions that were asked to the students were:

"What do you like to get at the grocery store?" and "What do you like to eat before school?"

Question:

Initial Response Second Response Did it

make
sense?

Student 1:

Student 2:

Student 3:

Student 4:

Student 5: