Comparison of Preschool Children's Story Retelling
|
Participant |
Gender |
Age |
PPVT |
EOWPVT |
Group A |
||||
1 |
Male |
5.5 |
116 |
119 |
2 |
Male |
4.4 |
119 |
104 |
3 |
Female |
4.3 |
107 |
92 |
4 |
Male |
3.4 |
123 |
96 |
5 |
Male |
4.1 |
122 |
110 |
Mean |
4.3 |
117.4 |
104.2 |
|
Group B |
||||
6 |
Female |
4.1 |
117 |
120 |
7 |
Male |
3.9 |
109 |
100 |
8 |
Male |
4.5 |
109 |
93 |
9 |
Male |
3.7 |
124 |
117 |
10 |
Female |
4.8 |
129 |
114 |
Mean |
4.2 |
117.6 |
108.8 |
Note. Age report in years; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (Dunn & Dunn, 1997); EOWPVT = Expressive one-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (brownell, 2000).
Materials and Equipment
Materials for this investigation included the book, Shoes From Grandpa (Fox, 1989), and a Sony Digital 8 video camcorder. The book was selected based on teacher report that it was unfamiliar to the children (i.e., the story had not been used in the preschool classroom). The book also had illustrations and characters recognizable to preschoolers (i.e., realistic characters and actions), repetitive wording, and a number of story details to recall (i.e., clothing items and people). There were six clothing items the participant could recall: shoes, socks, coat, scarf, hat, and mittens. There were eight people the participant could recall: Jessie, Grandpa, Grandma, Dad, Brother, Sister, Aunt, and Uncle.
Design and Procedure
This was an independent samples treatment comparison study. Two groups (A and B) of five children listened to the same story, one or three times. Then each child individually retold the story to a na�ve listener.
In Group A participants were assigned to dyads of one female and one male. A familiar teacher read the book Shoes From Grandpa only one time to each dyad. The teacher was told to read the book and limit interactions with the children, but if children asked questions, they were answered. After the two participants of the dyad heard the story, they immediately retold the story individually to a na�ve listener.
In Group B, participants sat in a large group (i.e., 15-20 children) around the classroom teacher. The teacher read the book Shoes From Grandpa to the entire group. The teacher was given the same instructions as the Group A teacher, that was to read the book and limit interactions with the children, but to answer any questions the children asked during the reading. The teacher read this story to the participants at the same time over three consecutive days. On the fourth day during the story time, instead of listening to the book, each participant retold the story individually to a second classroom teacher, a familiar listener.
In both groups (A and B), the listener used minimal verbal prompts to elicit the participant�s retelling of the story. Prompts included utterances such as, �Tell me about the story you just heard,� �Tell me about the story you have been hearing in circle time the past couple of days,� and �Is there anything else you remember about the story?� All retellings were video recorded in their entirety.
Data Analysis
The video recorded retellings from the participants were transcribed verbatim for analysis. All the children�s relevant, story-related utterances were coded for the following: (a) total number of words spoken, (b) average number of words per utterance, (c) number of people mentioned, and (d) number of clothing items mentioned. Transcriptions were adjusted so that repetitions or false starts (ex: She, she, she got�) and fillers (ex: Um, um, the�) were deleted in the count of total number of words spoken. It should also be noted that if the participant mentioned a story character three times during retelling, it was counted as only one person mentioned. For each clothing item, one of similar meaning (such as boot instead of shoe) was recorded as one clothing item mentioned. Frequency counts for all dependent measures were tabulated for data analysis. Nonparametric and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.
Results
Mean frequencies and Mann-Whitney U statistics for the dependent variables are summarized in Table 2. Group A (immediate retell after one reading) performed better on all of the four measures compared to Group B (delayed retell after three readings). The total number of words per narrative ranged from 40-102 (M = 60.6) for Group A and ranged from 9-45 (M = 23.8) for Group B. The average number of words per utterance ranged from 3.75-6.80 (M = 5.42) for Group A and ranged from 1.80-4.09 (M = 2.65) for Group B. The total number of characters mentioned ranged from 0-3 (M = 1.20) for Group A and ranged from 0-1 (M = 0.2) for Group B. For Group A the mean number of clothing items mentioned was 2.2 (range = 0-4), and Group B mean was 1.0 (range = 0-3).
A Mann-Whitney U test statistic was applied to identify significant differences between groups in retellings under the two conditions. Group A produced significantly more words per retelling (U = 21.5; p <.023), greater number of words per utterance (U = 24.0; p < .006), and total number of people mentioned (U = 20.5; p < .038). Although Group A also mentioned more clothing items, there was not a significant difference between the two groups for this measure.
Table 2. Statistical Findings
Study Variable |
GA Ms |
GB Ms |
Mann-Whitney U |
Total # words |
60.60 |
23.80 |
21.5* |
Words Per Utterance |
5.42 |
2.65 |
24.0** |
Total # People |
2.20 |
1.00 |
18.0 |
Total # clothing Items |
1.20 |
0.20 |
20.5* |
Note. GA = Group A; GB = Group B; n = number of participants; *p<.05, one-tailed; **p<.01, one-tailed.
Discussion
The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether there were differences in children�s story retelling in two different conditions, immediate retell after one exposure (Group A) and delayed retell after three exposures (Group B). For each of the measures examined, it was hypothesized that the children who heard the story three times (Group B) would produce a greater number of words, have a higher average number of words per utterance, and would reference a greater number of targeted details (i.e., clothing items and people in the book). These hypotheses were not confirmed, as Group A performed significantly better than Group B for three of the four measures. The results indicate that the children who listened to the story one time and retold immediately performed better on all the measures compared to the children who listened to the story once over three consecutive days and retold in the delayed context.
It was anticipated that the children who had three exposures to the book, Group B, would produce more informative stories. Instead, the children who had one exposure, Group A, produced more informative stories than children in Group B. The researchers concluded that the children who had one exposure told better stories due to memory factors. The immediate retell condition relied on short-term memory. In contrast the children who had three exposures and a 24-hour delay before retelling, were relying on long-term memory stores.
In addition to memory limitations, other potential factors may have influenced the current findings. One, is that the story reading conditions were different, with Group A children hearing the story in a small group and Group B listening to the story in a large group setting. Because the group sizes were different, the children in the dyads were physically closer to the book than the children in the large group setting. Children in Group A also were slightly older than children in Group B, with the oldest child in Group A at least 6 months older than the oldest child in Group B. Despite efforts to control for age, age effects may have impacted the overall findings. Research consistently reports that children�s narratives change as a function of age (Applebee, 1978; Kaderavek & Sulzby, 2000).
Previous research has shown that the repetition of recurrent topics and themes allow children time to explore a topic until they feel they have some control over required forms, functions, and processes (Labbo, 1996). Despite their impoverished retellings, the children in Group B (repeated reading) may have actually comprehended the meaning of the story better than their retellings indicated. The children in Group B were observed to be reading aloud with the teacher during the second and third readings of the book. However, when the children began their retellings without the book or a memory aid present, they were unable to verbalize the details or story line they had expressed as the teacher read the preceding day.
Past research also has demonstrated that repeated storybook reading interventions in conjunction with thematic units (e.g., related props and activities) promote language and literacy in children (Bellon & Ogletree, 2000). Studies in storybook reading emphasize the importance of props, such as the book, in aiding young children�s story recall (Kaderavek & Sulzby, 2000). The children in the current study who retold in the delayed context may have benefited from some type of prop, such as the book, which was not available.
Another factor impacting the current results includes the lack of interaction between the adult and children during reading. Interaction was limited to control for variability across adult readings. However, research suggests that children must be encouraged to be partners in the literature event; be invited to talk about what they know, think, feel, and to ask questions (Hoffman & Lilja, 1988). Repeated reading and adult expansions on the child�s utterances facilitates oral and written language use (Bellon & Ogletree, 2000). The language used by the adult outside the written text as adult and child expand upon the meaning illustrated in the pictures and text makes a significant difference in children�s use of oral language and their early reading behaviors (Hoffman & Lilja, 1988).
Variation
Although group data showed a significant advantage for Group A, individual differences also were observed. For example, Child 4 in Group A produced no real story, nor did he reference any of the targeted story details. This participant�s utterances included statements such as, �I don�t know what it is,� and �I don�t remember nuffin about it.� The other four children in Group A referenced at least one person and two clothing items.
General observations were made for all the children in Group B. There were only two children, Participants 8 and 10, who referenced any targeted story details. Child 10 was the only participant in Group B to reference any of the people. In summary, it was observed all five children in Group B produced statements indicating their difficulty retelling. Common across Group B participants were utterances such as, �I don�t know. No, I don�t remember the words.� It should also be noted that all five children in Group B produced notably more false starts and fillers (ex: Um, um, um�) compared to the five children in Group A.
Research has documented that when faced with the task of retelling an entire story, many young children are not successful due to the memory demands of the task (Morrow, 1985). The current study supports this contention, particularly when long-term recall was expected, as with the Group B children. However, at least one child in Group A, Participant 4, also experienced notable difficulty in retelling.
Future Investigation
Although there are other studies examining children�s retelling based on one versus repeated exposures to a book, this was the first study to examine the importance of immediate versus delayed retell. Further work is needed to fully understand the role that memory plays in immediate versus delayed retelling.
One limitation is the sample size of this study. The sample size consisted of 10 participants, therefore the implications of this study are limited to this present sample. Future studies should have a larger sample size.
Considerations for future studies include examining immediate versus delayed retellings after repeated exposures to a storybook. Using the storybook as a prop, the children could view the book during the retellings, thus reducing the memory load and potentially enhancing recall. Despite limitations, this investigation adds to the research examining factors that facilitate preschool children�s literacy and language production during storybook reading.
References
Applebee, A. N. (1978). A child�s concept of story: Ages 2-17. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bellon, M. L., & Ogeltree, B. T. (2000). Repeated storybook reading as an instructional method. Intervention in School & Clinic, 36 (2), 75.
Brownell, R. (Ed). (2000). Expressive one-word picture vocabulary test (2000 ed.). Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test � III. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Dowhower, S. L. (1989). Repeated reading: Research into practice. The Reading Teacher, 42, 502 � 507.
Fox, M. (1989). Shoes from grandpa. New York: Orchard Books.
Hoffman, S., & Lilja, L. D. (1988). An analysis of language transactions within the storybook reading environment in selected out-of-home childcare centers. (ERIC Document number ED 302816).
Kaderavek, J. N., & Sulzby, E. (2000). Issues in emergent literacy for children with language impairments. In L. R. Watson, E. R. Crais, & T. L. Layton (Eds.), Handbook of early language impairment in children (pp. 199-244). Albany, NY: Delmar � Thomson Learning.
Labbo, L. D. (1996). Beyond storytime: A sociopsychological perspective on young children�s opportunities for literacy development during story extension time. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 405 � 428.
Morrow, L. M. (1985). Retelling stories: A strategy for improving young children�s comprehension, concept of story structure, and oral language complexity. Elementary School Journal, 85(5), 647-664.
Pappas, C. C. (1984). Scaffolding: Observing and responding to young children learning to read by reading. (ERIC Document number ED 255860).
Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 54-64.
Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245-302.
Sulzby, E. (1985). Children�s emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458-481.
Author Note
Molly Caton, Undergraduate Student in Communication Sciences and Disorders, Kansas State University. Linda K. Crowe, *Faculty Co-Author, Communication Sciences and Disorders, Kansas State University, Sherry J. Haar, *Faculty Co-Author, Apparel, Textiles, and Interior Design, Kansas State University
This research was supported in part by a Kansas State University Small Research Grant. Correspondence concerning this research should be addressed to Linda K. Crowe, Kansas State University, School of Family Studies and Human Services, 317 Justin Hall, Manhattan, Kansas, 66506-1403, phone (785) 532-1485, e-mail [email protected].
RESOURCES: |
©2002-2021 All rights reserved by the Undergraduate Research Community. |