CE320Language Development in the Young ChildUnit 5.docx

CE320
Language Development
in the Young Child
Unit 5 Seminar:
Best Practices for Promoting Bilingualism
in Kindergartners
1
Shout out!!!!
Nicole Browne
did a TERRIFIC job of answering the discussion questions for
Unit 5 **as required.** She responded early enough to advance
the discussion, revised her response to address the DB topic
requirements and answer my concerns, used her own
**original** work, and cited her references, including course
materials.
Way to go,
Nicole!!

Unit 4 Topic Review
Mediation – simplifying words or concepts to relate information
more easily to the student
Linguistic Scaffolding – building on prior language knowledge
to expand a child’s vocabulary
Sign Language – signing in our preschool classrooms can give
students ways to express themselves in acceptable ways
(EX: Alana)
Conflict Resolution – establishing procedures for children to
use language in an effort to mediate / resolve conflicts
Unit 5 Seminar
Tonight we will discuss…
Selection guidelines for Read-Alouds for kindergartners.
Best practices for building language and literacy skills in the
kindergartner.
Discuss narratives.
Discuss bilingualism.
Discuss television as a medium for promoting language.
I will also…
Introduce the Unit 6 DB Topic and Instructions
Review the Unit 6 Assignment Instructions and Rubric.
Answer questions about the assignment.
Present a proposed time-management schedule for the
completion of the assignment.

If you have not yet submitted your Unit 2 Assignment, please
know you may still do so, but time is running out! If the
assignment is not submitted by TOMORROW, it will no longer
be eligible for credit. Review the university late policy in the
syllabus for more information.
Unit 5 Outcomes and Expectations
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
Explain and defend the practice of Read-Alouds in the
kindergarten setting.
Explain the role of the early childhood professional in
supporting the kindergartner’s acquisition of semantic and
phonetic knowledge.
Review of the Readings (Uchikoshi, 2005)
We will discuss these elements one at a time, based primarily
on the information presented in the article, “Narrative
Development in Bilingual kindergartners: Can Arthur Help?”
Please don’t jump ahead…
narratives
bilingualism
using TV to promote language
best practices

Narratives
Seminar Question 1:
Define narratives based on the information from the
Uchikoshi (2005) article.
Narratives
Narratives are defined as at least two (2) sequential
independent clauses (complete sentences) describing a single
past event. (Stories!!)
Narratives require the ability to sustain talk about one
topic and beyond. It requires the use of several utterances that
are linked to build a coherent story.
“When telling a story, the narrator not only tells the listener
what happens in the story but also talks about the meaning of
those events” (Uchikoshi, 2005, p. 465).

8
Field Trip Time!
Please click the link Field Trip #1 in the “Information” box
under the chat window.
When you return from watching the video
(in about 3 minutes), respond to the following question:
Read Aloud Strategies
What strategies did she present that corresponded with the Unit
5 readings?
Review of the Readings
There has been a dramatic rise in the number of students in
American schools with limited English proficiency (LEP) in the
last 20 years.
53% of these children with LEP are in Kg through 4th grade.
Nationally, at least 1 in 12 kindergartners comes from a home
where English is not the primary language.
77% of the English-Language Learner (ELL) children in the US
have Spanish as their first language.
(Uchikoshi, 2005)

Review of the Readings
This study was conducted for one year to provide information
regarding the influence of children’s television programming on
the development of narrative skills among Spanish-speaking
ELL children.
Why?
Narrative skills have been identified as a critical link to later
school success.
Narratives in school settings often are observed in “Show-and-
Tell”
Children from mainstream backgrounds are familiar with this
format
ELL students (for example) are not.
Frequency of book reading is also associated with narrative
development.
(Uchikoshi, 2005)
11
How was the research conducted?
Students were exposed to two television shows 3 times a week
during school hours for the academic year: ½ watched Arthur
and ½ watched Between the Lions.
Arthur is a 30-min. education-based program appearing on PBS
across the country and targeted to audiences of preschool and
kindergarten children. Arthur tells a story to the viewers in
each episode and is quite popular. In each episode there are two
stories presented, each with a plot, a conflict, and a resolution.

Each story is based on a storybook and follows the components
of a well-formed story structure.
Between the Lions is also a 30-min. book-based education
program that is also on PBS and targets kindergarten age
children. Each episode introduces one book; but, instead of
focusing explicitly on the narrative, the show puts more weight
on text structure, individual words, and other print features.
(Uchikoshi, 2005)
What are the results of Uchikoshi’s research?
Children who viewed Arthur had steeper growth trajectories
than those who viewed Between the Lions.
Boys displayed better English narrative skills than girls, but
there was no difference in their narrative growth rate.
This suggests that certain education TV programs can assist in
some aspects of the language development of bilingual children.
(Uchikoshi, 2005)
Promoting Bilingualism
It is critical to expose bilingual children to a variety of
resources to increase their narrative skills.
Read Alouds
Educational-based television shows
Story time in class

Doing so will encourage narrative skill development:
Story structure (beginning, middle, and end)
Story elements (character, setting, conflict and resolution)
Seminar Question 2:
What have you discovered about using narratives to promote
bilingualism?
Using TV to Promote Language
and Literacy Development
Seminar Question 3:
Is television an appropriate
medium for promoting
literacy and language learning?
Why or why not?
Best Practices to Promote the
Use of Narratives
Seminar Question 4:

What best practices presented in Unit 5 might you incorporate
into your own educational setting in using narratives, as an EC
professional?
Provide developmentally appropriate resources / activities for
the children
Choosing a story that is on their level of interest
Build upon the children’s prior knowledge
Puppets
Questioning during reading
Model retelling and then have children retell events of the story
Provide opportunities for the children to use their language to
interact.
Investigative Play versus Exploratory Play
Investigative Play = similar to exploratory activities but more
focused/complex goals
Open-ended to create more diverse ideas
Cross-curricular concepts (arts, science, language/literacy,
math, social studies, etc.)
Active involvement of children
Cooperative grouping
Posting of rules
(Otto, 2014, p. 315)

Guidelines for Read Aloud Selections (Kg)
NOTE: In the Unit 6 Assignment, you will identify which
of the guidelines your selection follows and how it does so.
Use the guidelines presented in your text or by NAEYC.
(Otto, 2014, p. 273) or (NAEYC, 2008)
Identify title/author of story book (appropriate for Kg).
Identify the Genre.
realistic fiction, fantasy, poetry, fairy tales,
alphabet books, wordless picture books, etc.
Explain the connection to the curriculum.
socialization, concepts (i.e “the ocean” or “using manners”)
Does the book have high-quality illustrations?
Does the story include humorous, advanced language?
figurative language, multiple meanings, alliteration, rhyme, etc.
Does the story encourage participation/active engagement?
How?
Any
Questions
about
Unit 5?
To-Do List / Unit 5
Complete your readings
Post your initial response to the Discussion Board

Participate throughout the week (not just on Tuesday)
Attend Seminar (Thanks for coming tonight!)
Review concepts via the “Learning Activities”
Complete the Unit 5 Quiz
Continue working on the Unit 6 Assignment
Now let’s take a look at what’s
coming up next…
Unit 6 DB
Unit 6 DB ~~ A look ahead…
In the Unit 6 reading, you will learn that children receive more
formal instruction in the primary years. With this change in the
classroom, there is a shift in how exploratory activities evolve
into investigative play.
Please respond to this three-part discussion in three paragraphs
and support your responses with research and references from
your reading:
Again this week…
THERE ARE THREE (3) SEPARATE COMPONENTS TO
THE UNIT 5 DISCUSSION. PLEASE BE CAREFUL!!

Part 1: Use and identify a story book of your choice, design a
lesson for a Read Aloud that you would use in your classroom
or center to enhance the primary child’s language development.
Model your lesson after the one you observed in SEDL’s video:
“Read Aloud: Bringing Stories to Life.”
What does this mean? What should I do?
Review the SEDL Video “Read Aloud: Bringing Stories to
Life.”
(click to open)
Identify a story book of your choice appropriate for use in the
primary classroom (Grades 1-3).
Design a lesson / Read Aloud activity you would use with your
chosen book to enhance the children’s language development.
Your lesson should follow the same steps as that presented in
the video.
23
Part 2: In your role as early childhood professional, describe a
creative drama based on your selected Read Aloud activity for
use in the primary years.
Explain how you would extend the Read Aloud lesson (from
Part 1) into a Creative Drama activity.

**May NOT be the same as the activity presented in Workshop
1 for the Unit 6 Assignment*
(Use information from the textbook [p. 324] to help understand
what Creative Drama entails, then identify the elements of
Creative Drama in your activity on the DB,
citing your textbook in your response.)
Part 3: Apply your knowledge as an early childhood
professional to a discussion on investigative play and
developmentally appropriate practices in a primary classroom.
Please be sure to support your answer with research and
references.
Review the information in your text on p. 315 (and from
tonight’s seminar) concerning investigative versus exploratory
play.
Explain how investigative play reflects developmentally
appropriate practices (DAP) for the primary classroom (Grades
1-3).
Use information from BOTH the textbook and the NAEYC
article on DAP (from your unit readings) to support your
statements (i.e., in-text citations and direct quotations as
needed).

Unit 6 Assignment
A Look Ahead: Unit 6 Assignment
Planning a Mini-Conference on Workshops
that Promote Early Literacy
and Language Development
For the Unit 6 Assignment, imagine that you are the director of
a childcare center and are planning for the “Week of the Young
Child,” an annual celebration sponsored by the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
The purpose of the Week of the Young Child is to focus public
attention on the needs of young children and their families and
to recognize the early childhood programs and services that
meet those needs.
As the director, you are planning a mini-conference on
children's early literacy for caregivers, teachers, and parents.
Unit 6 Assignment:
Newsletter or PowerPoint Presentation
As part of your assignment, you will create a newsletter OR
PowerPoint Presentation that describes the topics that will be
covered in the workshop. (Choose ONE)
Your newsletter OR PPT should be focused on gaining

attendance to the workshops you are planning as discussed on
the next slides…
(Sell your workshop – advertise!!)
Download ONE Template from DocSharing
You must create this project in Microsoft Word or Microsoft
PowerPoint, following APA guidelines.
Newsletter (MS Word)
Use double spacing
Use Arial or Times New Roman (12-pt) font for your
newsletter.
Include a title page and reference page.
If you use the template as directed, the spacing and font size
will be correct!! :o)
PowerPoint Presentation (MS PowerPoint)
Requires 18-pt font.
Include a title page (slide) and a
reference page (slide) with one-inch
margins.
Headings may be larger font.
For help with citations/references, please refer to the APA
Quick Reference Guide and/or visit the KU Writing Center for
help as needed.

In Workshop 1, you will give a developmentally appropriate
example of a creative drama based on a popular story book that
you would use in a classroom or center setting.
In Workshop 2, you apply your knowledge about the
developmentally appropriate principles, language development
and investigative play critical to creating a learning center for
children in the preschool age group.
In Workshop 3, you will give a developmentally appropriate
example of a read-aloud activity based on a popular story book
that you would use in a classroom or center setting for
kindergartners.
In this workshop, you must share the five guidelines for
selecting books to read aloud to a group of kindergartners and
how to apply those guidelines to a popular storybook. (Note:
The storybook of your choice should be identified in your
newsletter or PPT presentation.)
Unit 6 Assignment: Mini-Workshops
Time Management Tip for Success
Schedule specific day(s)
of the week and/or hours
every day of the week that you will work on your assignment.
What day(s) / times will
you work?

Maximum Points Possible
125Unit 6 Assignment
Planning a Mini-conference on Workshops that
Promote Early Literacy and Language DevelopmentContent
115 pointsTitle slide for Power Point or Heading for Newsletter
with byline for author – author (Student) should be identified
= 5 points
Introduction to Workshop = 15 points (5 points each)
Explains and introduces the annual celebration of the Week of
the Young Child as sponsored by NAEYC
Presents the purpose of the three workshops
Focuses on how your center will promote the needs of the young
child and the family.
Workshop 1 = 25 points
Give a developmentally appropriate example of a creative drama
based on a popular book that you would use in a classroom or
center setting.
Apply your knowledge about the developmentally appropriate
principles, language development and investigative play critical
to a learning center for children in the preschool age group
Give a developmentally appropriate example of a read-aloud
activity based on a popular story book that has been identified.
Story book should be appropriate in a classroom or center
setting for kindergartners.
Explain the five guidelines for selecting books to read aloud to
a group of kindergartners and how to apply those guidelines to a
popular storybook.
Conclusion = 10 points
Summarize the information shared in the Workshops and how
this experience can help the child and the family in developing
language skills.
References = 10 points

Include at least 3 references relevant to language development
(i.e., textbook, story books used, and websites).Mechanics &
Structure
10 points
(1 point each)Newsletter or Power Point format submitted
Appropriate sentence structure for newsletter / Click to Add
Notes section of Power Point explaining bullet points on slide
Clipart does not take away from the content
Appropriate Length (2-sided newsletter or 12 slides for a Power
Point)
Spelling, Grammar checked (Subject/Verb agreement,
punctuation, capitalization, etc.)
12-pt font Arial or Times New Roman for newsletter / 18-pt
font for Power Point
Use Headings/Subheadings to organize work (Note: Headings
may be larger font sizes)
Includes an introduction
Includes a conclusion
References include unit materials and are in APA format
What questions do you have about the
Unit 6 Assignment due at the end of Unit 6 (Tuesday, January
20, 2015)?
What story have you chosen to present for Workshop 1
(Creative Drama)?
**May NOT be the same as
presented on the Unit 6 DB**

34
Unit 5 References
NOTE: You should use these references in
your written assignments. If you use the source, then you need
an in-text citation within the body of the paper or post, too.
Review my initial DB response for the correct in-text citations
for each source.
References
Kindle, K.J. (2009). Vocabulary development during read
alouds: Primary practices. Reading Teacher, 63(3), 202-
211.
Otto, B. (2014). Language Development in Early Childhood
Education (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Reading Rockets. (2014). Looking at Writing: Kindergarten.
Retrieved from
http://www.readingrockets.org/looking_at_writing/kinderg
arten/writing_sample_1
Uchikoshi, Y. (2005). Narrative development in bilingual
kindergartners: Can Arthur help? Developmental Psychology,
41(3), 464-478.
Unit 6 References
NOTE: You should use these references in
your written assignments. If you use the source, then you need
an in-text citation within the body of the paper or post, too.
Review my initial DB response for the correct in-text citations
for each source.
References

Coplan, R. J., & Weeks, M. (2009). Shy and soft-spoken:
shyness, pragmatic language, and socio-emotional adjustment
in early childhood. Infant & Child Development, 18(3), 238–
254.
Otto, B. (2014). Language Development in Early Childhood
Education (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
(2009). Core considerations in
developmentally appropriate practices, pp. 9–16. Retrieved
from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSDAP.pdf
SEDL. (2012). Afterschool Training Toolkit: Read Aloud [video
file]. Retrieved from
http://www.sedl.org/afterschool/toolkits/literacy/pr_read_a
loud.html
Thank you for joining me!
Remember, as your instructor,
I view your success as my success.
If you need anything, please email me, meet me on Google
Chat, or post your question(s) on the Course Questions
Discussion Board
in our classroom.
Have a super week.
I’ll see you on the Discussion Board!

The following slides will describe these.
37
:o) See you on the DB! :o)
Narrative Development in Bilingual Kindergarteners: Can
Arthur Help?
Yuuko Uchikoshi
Harvard University
This study examined the effects of the children’s TV program
Arthur on the development of narrative
skills over an academic year for Spanish-speaking English-
language learners. In October, February, and
June of their kindergarten year, children were asked to tell a
story, in English, prompted by 3 pictures.
Before the 2nd and 3rd assessments, half of the 108 children
were randomly assigned to view Arthur 3
times a week during school hours, and the other half, which
formed the control group, viewed the
children’s program Between the Lions on the same schedule.
Individual growth modeling analysis
showed that children who viewed Arthur had steeper growth
trajectories than those who viewed Between
the Lions. Boys displayed better English narrative skills than

girls but no difference in narrative growth
rate. The results suggest that certain educational TV programs
can assist in some aspects of the language
development of bilingual children.
Keywords: narrative development, educational television,
English language learners, kindergarten,
growth modeling
The number of children who have limited proficiency in English
in U.S. schools has risen dramatically over the past 2 decades.
Moreover, 53% of these children are concentrated in
kindergarten
through Grade 4; nationally, at least 1 in 12 kindergarteners
comes
from a home in which English is not the primary language
(August
& Hakuta, 1997). In addition, 77% of the English-language
learner
(ELL) children in the United States have Spanish as their first
language (Office of English Language Acquisition, Language
En-
hancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English
Pro-
ficient Students, n.d.). Despite a dramatic increase in the
number
of young children learning English as a second language, there
has
been little systematic research on the development of their
English
narrative skills.
Narrative skills have been pointed out as being strong predictors
of later language and literacy achievement for monolingual En-
glish children (e.g., Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Griffin,
Hemphill,

Camp, & Wolf, 2004; Paul & Smith, 1993). Griffin et al. (2004)
showed that children’s oral narrative abilities at age 5 predicted
reading comprehension skills at age 8. In particular, 5-year-
olds’
ability to mark the significance of events and their ability to
represent informational context in expository discourse
predicted
8-year-olds’ reading comprehension skills. Dickinson and
Tabors
(2001) found kindergarten narrative production scores to be cor-
related with fourth- and seventh-grade receptive vocabulary as
well as reading comprehension. In addition, Mason, Stewart, Pe-
terman, and Dunning’s (1992) study showed that at-risk
children
without narrative problems do much better on later reading
achievement than do children with narrative delays.
Given that narratives have been identified as the critical link to
later school success (Paul & Smith, 1993), narratives are often
demonstrated in classroom situations such as show-and-tell,
even
by kindergarteners and first graders. Yet, although children
from
mainstream backgrounds enter school familiar with the type of
narrative structure that is valued in schools (Heath, 1982),
children
from other backgrounds, such as ELL children, do not. Research
shows that narrative skills are associated with cultural
background
and ethnic-group membership (Dart, 1992; Heath, 1982, 1986;
Minami & McCabe, 1991; Ninio, 1980; Shiro, 1995; Silva &
McCabe, 1996; Tannen, 1980; Wang & Leichtman, 2000). For
example, Latino children tend not to follow a linear model when
telling narratives (Rodino, Gimbert, Perez, Craddock-Willis, &
McCabe, 1991, as cited in Silva & McCabe, 1996). They tend to

deemphasize event sequencing yet emphasize description and
evaluation (Silva & McCabe, 1996). Latino children also tend to
produce narratives focused on personal and family relationships
rather than on events as monolingual English-speaking children
do
(Silva & McCabe, 1996).
Thus, Spanish-speaking ELL children are at a disadvantage
from school entry as a result not only of their weak English
skills
but also of their different narrative styles. Consequently, they
are
projected to have later academic problems. In order to prevent
this,
interventions that can be conducted prior to school entry,
particu-
larly for the growing Spanish-speaking ELL population, need to
be
created and examined. More research is crucial to give these
ELL
children an equal start in first grade.
Yuuko Uchikoshi, Graduate School of Education, Harvard
University.
This research was supported by dissertation grants from the
Interna-
tional Reading Association and the Harvard University Graduate
School of
Education.
I am thankful to Catherine Snow, Terry Tivnan, Maria Carlo,
and Lowry
Hemphill for their valuable comments on previous versions of
this article.
I also thank Carlo Santos, Frida Gomez, Kim Keith, Elisa Jazo,

Kaytie
Dowcett, Jill Jacobs, Jody Clarke, Jude Higdon, Patti Sullivan-
Hall, Sara
Roberts, Robyn Viloria, and Elizabeth Willmott for their
assistance with
data collection and Elisabeth Duursma for her assistance with
coding
reliability. In addition, I am grateful to television station
WGBH as well as
the principals, teachers, staff, and children of the schools for
their support
and participation in this study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Yuuko
Uchikoshi, who is now at the School of Education, University of
Califor-
nia, Davis, 2059 Academic Surge, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail:
[email protected]
ucdavis.edu
Developmental Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American
Psychological Association
2005, Vol. 41, No. 3, 464 – 478 0012-1649/05/$12.00 DOI:
10.1037/0012-1649.41.3.464
464
T
hi
s
do
cu
m

en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al

A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s

ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he

in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad

ly
.
Labov (1972) defined a narrative as at least two sequential
independent clauses describing a single past event. Narratives
are
a form of decontextualized extended discourse. The ability to
produce a narrative demonstrates a child’s ability to sustain talk
about the world beyond the here and now (Snow, Tabors,
Nichol-
son, & Kurland, 1995). Furthermore, narratives are not streams
of
unrelated words or sentences. They require the use of several
utterances or turns that must be linked to build a coherent
linguistic
structure (Snow et al., 1995).
Story structure (Chang, 2004; Labov, 1972; Peterson & Mc-
Cabe, 1983), evaluation (Chang, 2004; Labov, 1972; Peterson &
McCabe, 1983), temporality and reference (Chang, 2004; Labov,
1972; Peterson & McCabe, 1983), and storybook language
(Purcell-Gates, 1988, 2001) are the key dimensions of narrative
skills. Much of the past literature in this area has focused on the
development of these dimensions in the narratives of English
monolingual children.
The components of a well-formed story structure include an
abstract (a summary of the narrative or a title), an introduction
(a
conventional opening to the narrative), an orientation (a
descrip-
tion of the characters, setting, time, and activity to set the stage
for

the narrative), events (actions that advance the storyline,
including
the problem), a resolution (a termination of complicating
events),
and a coda (an ending of the narrative; Chang, 2004; Labov,
1972;
Peterson & McCabe, 1983; Snow et al., 1995; Willenberg &
Kang,
2001).
It is also important to focus on the evaluation component of
narratives. When telling a story, the narrator not only tells the
listener what happens in the story but also talks about the
meaning
of those events. In other words, the narrator includes evaluation
devices to signal the point of the story from the narrator’s per-
spective (Chang, 2004; Labov, 1972; Peterson & McCabe,
1983).
Evaluative devices include intensifiers (e.g., “all the other
bears”),
adjectives (e.g., “the little bears”), negatives or defeats of
expec-
tations (e.g., “The bear could not reach the kite”), references to
emotional states or cognitions (e.g., “The bear was scared”),
references to physical states (e.g., “The bear was hurt”),
intentions
(e.g., “The bear wanted to get the kite”), causal markers (e.g.,
“The
bear fell because he slipped out of the tree”), and words with
high
evaluative content (e.g., “The bear came crashing to the
ground”;
Beck, Coker, Hemphill, & Bellinger, 2003; Peterson & McCabe,
1983; Willenberg & Kang, 2001). Peterson and McCabe (1983)
found 21 types of evaluation devices in the narratives of 4- to
9-year-old American children, with the older children using a

larger variety of evaluations than the younger children.
Temporality and reference are the two main elements in the
organization of a narrative. In order for narratives to be
coherent
and follow a time line, linguistic temporal devices such as con-
nectives are used. Peterson and McCabe (1991) found that even
31⁄2-year-old children used connectives such as and in their
narra-
tives. In addition, how the narrator first introduces the story
characters in the narrative influences the organization of the
story
(Beck et al., 2003). Ideally, the character should be introduced
in
a way that does not assume any prior knowledge on the part of
the
listener. For example, a story that begins with an unspecified
pronoun such as he would have an unclear beginning. A
narrative
that starts with a nonpresupposing introduction using an
indefinite
article and a noun, such as a bear, would be more coherent
(Beck
et al., 2003; Willenberg & Kang, 2001).
In addition, when children pretend to read storybooks out loud,
they use a discourse different from the one they use when they
are
telling a personal narrative. That is, when they pretend to read,
children use the language of storybooks (Purcell-Gates, 1988,
2001). They tend to use a lexicon that is more literary and
varied
as well as to use the syntax found in written texts. For example,
narrators may include direct or indirect quotes as well as
conjoined
phrases.

However, not all of these traits appear in the narratives of
children before the age of 6 (Peterson & McCabe, 1983). Narra-
tives of 4- and 5-year-old monolingual children contain little
evaluation of story events (Bamberg & Damrad-Frye, 1991;
Eaton,
Collis, & Lewis, 1999; Peterson & McCabe, 1983). The most
common narrative structures of 4-year-old monolingual English-
speaking children have been described as either leap-frog narra-
tives, in which children jump from one event to another and
leave
out major events, or chronology narratives, in which they
provide
only a simple recounting of successive events (Peterson & Mc-
Cabe, 1983, pp. 43– 45). At age 5, the most common narrative
patterns are the chronology narrative and the ending-at-the-
high-
point narrative, in which there is no resolution (Peterson & Mc-
Cabe, 1983, pp. 41– 45). At age 6, the classic narrative pattern
finally becomes dominant (Peterson & McCabe, 1983, pp. 36 –
41).
The classic narrative pattern has been defined as one in which
the
narrative is built around a high point. “The narrator builds up to
a
high point, evaluatively dwells on it, and then resolves it”
(Peter-
son & McCabe, 1983, p. 36). Yet the narrative patterns of ELL
children—in particular, those of Spanish-speaking ELL
children—
and how their English narratives develop are still unexplored.
Most
studies of Spanish–English bilinguals’ narrative performance,
such
as the one by Gutiérrez-Clellen (2002), have focused on cross-
language comparison, not on charting the developmental process

involved.
Various environmental factors, such as parental responsiveness,
affect the development of children’s narrative skills (Peterson,
Jesso, & McCabe, 1999). The types and number of parent– child
conversational exchanges during book reading shape children’s
narrative development (McCabe & Peterson, 1991; Peterson &
McCabe, 1992; E. Reese, Haden, & Fivush, 1993). Some parents
make detailed references to past events and ask multiple
questions,
whereas others ask simple questions and frequently switch
topics.
These differences in parental style have been shown to
influence
both the quantity and quality of narratives produced by
preschool
children.
Frequency of book reading is also associated with narrative
development (Purcell-Gates, 2001). Books display narrative
struc-
tures particularly clearly, and furthermore, some interventions
use
book reading as a carrier for their interactions. Well-read-to
mono-
lingual kindergarten children can learn linguistic registers that
are
specific to social contexts and use more formal and booklike
narrating language when pretending to read a storybook
(Adams,
1990; Heath, 1982; Ninio, 1980; Purcell-Gates, 1988, 1991,
1992,
1996, 2001; Purcell-Gates & Dahl, 1991; Scarborough &
Dobrich,
1994; Scarborough, Dobrich, & Hager, 2001; Sulzby, 1985).
Preschool-age children whose parents spend more time in

narrative
conversation, in asking more open-ended and context-eliciting
questions, and in encouraging longer narratives through book-
reading sessions tend to produce more context-setting
descriptions
465NARRATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN BILINGUAL
KINDERGARTENERS
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e

A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts

a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y

fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot

to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
about when and where the events in a narrative took place
(Peter-
son et al., 1999).
However, research shows that Latino preschool children are less
likely to have frequent book-reading experiences than are
White,
non-Latino children (Nord, Lennon, Liu, & Chandler, 1999).
Given the evidence from past research with monolingual
children
demonstrating that exposure to narratives through book reading
during the preschool years is positively associated with
narrative

skills in kindergarten and subsequent literacy outcomes, the
impact
of mechanisms for supplementing Spanish-speaking ELL chil-
dren’s access to experiences with narrative needs to be
evaluated.
Educational TV programs, particularly shows based on books,
could provide children with the desired extra exposure to
language
and literacy environments as well as to English narrative
conven-
tions.1 Past research suggests that educational TV programs,
such
as Sesame Street and Between the Lions, can be a source of
language learning for monolingual English-speaking children
(e.g.,
Linebarger, 2000; Rice, Huston, Truglio, & Wright, 1990; Rice
&
Woodsmall, 1988; Van Evra, 1998). Children have acquired new
vocabulary and developed phonological awareness skills by
view-
ing these shows. In addition, child language research shows that
the number of conversations and the variety of words that
children
hear affect the speed of their language and literacy growth
(Tabors,
Beals, & Weizman, 2001). Studies show that, on average,
children
between the ages of 3 and 5 years watch 19 –20 hr of TV per
week
(Huston, Wright, Rice, Kerkman, & St. Peters, 1990); it is
impor-
tant to know whether, if these hours were concentrated on
educa-
tional TV programs, it would assist in the English-language and
literacy development of ELL children.

Children from nonmainstream backgrounds might become more
accustomed to mainstream English narrative styles that are
prev-
alent in school settings by viewing educational TV programs
that
are based on books and follow the classic narrative pattern. Like
book reading, TV viewing can be a routinized activity. Many
shows follow a routine format. Moreover, children can view
reruns
or videotaped versions of the same episode. In addition,
research-
ers have found that with monolingual English-speaking
children,
parent– child interactions around TV programs can replicate as-
pects of interactions around books (Lemish & Rice, 1986).
Yet there have been no studies investigating the impact of
book-based educational programs on either monolingual or ELL
children’s narrative development. A representative of a book-
based show is Arthur. Arthur is a 30-min educational program
appearing on Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) stations across
the country and targeted to audiences of preschool and
kindergar-
ten children. Arthur tells a story to the viewers in each episode
and
is popular with kindergarten-age children.
In Arthur, each episode presents two stories, each with a plot, a
conflict, and a resolution. As each story is based on a
storybook,
each story follows the components of a well-formed story
structure
as defined by Labov (1972) and Peterson and McCabe (1983).
The
Arthur TV series exposes children to various stories with moral

points of interest to them. The show is about growing up. The
characters in Arthur learn to make thoughtful decisions and
resolve
problems in each episode. The problems Arthur and his friends
face are similar to the ones the viewers may face at home and at
school. In addition, evaluation is emphasized through the
charac-
ters’ speech and actions.
In this study, my aim was to investigate whether the book-based
educational TV program Arthur would influence narrative
devel-
opment among ELL children from Spanish-speaking homes. I
attempted to answer the following question: Does viewing
Arthur
have a beneficial effect on narrative skills so that ELL children
can
be better prepared for first grade? To control for effects of
watch-
ing educational TV, I used Between the Lions, another book-
based
educational TV show, as a control.2
Between the Lions is also a 30-min book-based educational
program that is broadcast on PBS stations across the country
and
targeted to kindergarten-age children. Between the Lions intro-
duces a book in each episode, but instead of focusing explicitly
on
the narrative, the show puts more weight on text structure, indi-
vidual words, and other print features (Linebarger, 2000).
Phono-
logical awareness and reading fluency are heavily emphasized.
Each Between the Lions episode follows a “whole–part–whole”
framework, adopted as the approach to literacy instruction. The
story line of each Between the Lions episode begins with a

read-
aloud experience as the “whole,” in which portions of the text
are
displayed on the screen and words are highlighted as they are
read
(Rath, 2000). Then the “parts” are emphasized to point the
view-
ers’ attention to such topics as phonological awareness, letter–
sound correspondence, word meanings, punctuation, and other
conventions of written English (Rath, 2000). Most of the show
is
centered on this “parts” part. At the end, the “whole” text is
revisited and the “parts” are reviewed (Rath, 2000).
Hence, Arthur focuses more on the narrative structure, whereas
Between the Lions focuses more on phonics and story
mechanics.
By showing a program that is educational but not entirely
focused
on narratives, such as Between the Lions, to the control group, I
could control for any effects that could be attributed to TV
viewing.
Thus, in this study I examined the effect of viewing Arthur
versus Between the Lions on ELL children’s English narrative
growth within the context of a standard kindergarten program.
In
addition, I investigated the patterns of growth in oral English
narrative skills in young ELL kindergarteners. Such research is
needed to fully understand the narrative skills development of
Spanish-speaking ELL children and to prepare them for school
entry.
Moreover, in this study I used individual growth modeling
techniques (Singer & Willett, 2003; Willett, 1994) to analyze
the

children’s narrative development. As individual growth
modeling
makes use of repeated waves of data and conceptualizes change
as
a continuous process of development (Willett, 1994), it yields a
more accurate picture of change over time than do traditional
techniques, such as ordinary regression methods.
1 Educational TV refers to shows that have a core educational
or infor-
mational purpose. In 1990, the Federal Communications
Commission
passed the Children’s TV Act, which required commercial
broadcasters to
air programming that has a core educational and informational
purpose
targeted to children under age 16 (Hill-Scott, 2001). Such
programs must
be regularly scheduled, weekly programs of at least 30 min and
be aired
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
2 Between the Lions focuses on phonics and story mechanics.
How
Between the Lions viewing affects the development of ELL
children’s
phonological awareness and story mechanics, with Arthur
viewing as a
control, is not discussed in this article.
466 UCHIKOSHI
T
hi
s

do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol

og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.

T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se

o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed

b
ro
ad
ly
.
Method
Participants
A total of 108 children (47 girls and 61 boys) attending six
public
schools in a large urban district located on the East Coast
participated in the
study. The average age of these children in October was 5 years
7 months.
The average age for the boys was 5 years 7 months; for the girls
it was 5
years 6 months.
Spanish–English bilingual kindergarten classrooms were
selected from
these schools. In all classrooms, instruction occurred in both
English and
Spanish. All kindergarten teachers were fluent in both English
and Spanish.
All children were from primarily Spanish-speaking homes and
lived in
neighborhoods heavily populated by Spanish-speaking people.
Participants
were recruited through these kindergarten classrooms. School
district de-

mographics and school data indicate that 80% or more of the
participating
students qualified for free lunch.
To gain background information about the students, I sent home
with
them a parental questionnaire in both English and Spanish (see
Table 1 for
a summary of these data). The number of older siblings of the
target child
ranged from 0 to 5, with the average child having 1.2 older
siblings. Years
living in the United States ranged from 3 months to 7 years,
with the
average being 4.9 years. The majority of those whose parents
responded
had been born in the United States; only 22% of these children
had been
born outside of the United States. Although variation in the
number of
children’s books in the home was large—from 0 to 300 books
(SD � 35
books)—parents responded that on average there were 21,
including both
English and Spanish books. The mode was 10 books.
Concerning prekin-
dergarten experience, 56 of 108 parents responded that their
target child
had gone to either prekindergarten or a Head Start program. A
third (34 of
108 parents) said they took their target child to libraries on a
frequent basis.
In terms of home viewing, 73.4% of the children viewed Arthur
at home,
whereas 41.9% watched Between the Lions at home.

Information about the mothers was also collected. The
educational levels
of the mothers ranged from no education to professional
degrees, the
average parental educational level being some secondary
education. The
top 10% of all parents had received some higher education,
whereas the
bottom 10% had not completed primary education. The
remaining 80% fell
somewhere in between, with the majority completing primary
education.
The English vocabulary levels of the target children were
measured with
the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Third Edition (PPVT–
III; Dunn &
Dunn, 1997) in October before the intervention started. The
results of the
test indicated that, on average, in October these native Spanish
speakers
scored at the level of a monolingual English child 3 years 2
months of age
(Dunn & Dunn, 1997).
The Spanish vocabulary levels of the target children were also
measured
in October with the Test de Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody
(TVIP;
Dunn, Padilla, Lugo, & Dunn, 1986). The results of this test
revealed that,
on average, these native Spanish-speaking entering
kindergarteners
achieved scores that would be expected from Spanish
monolingual children

residing in Mexico and ranging in age from 4 years 8 months to
5 years 0
months, according to the age norms of the test (Dunn et al.,
1986). As the
average age of the children in this study was 5 years 7 months,
these ELL
children had vocabulary levels that were slightly lower than
those of their
Spanish monolingual counterparts. (See Table 1 for a summary.)
Raw scores are reported for initial vocabulary levels in both
Spanish and
English for later use in growth modeling analysis. It should be
noted that
there are fewer items on the TVIP than on the PPVT–III, which
may
explain the lower Spanish raw scores.
Design
On the basis of a stratified random sampling, half of the
students in six
classrooms (51 children) were assigned to watch Arthur during
school
hours, and the other half in the same six classrooms (57
children) were
assigned to watch Between the Lions during school hours. In
each class-
room, the children were first grouped according to gender, and
then they
were rank ordered on the basis of their October English PPVT–
III vocab-
ulary scores. I then randomized assignment to the two viewing
conditions,
Table 1

Background Information and Vocabulary Scores for All
Children (N � 108) and for Children by Viewing Group and
Gender
Variable
Total Arthur Between the Lions Boys Girls
M SD n Range M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n
Parental educationa 3.69 1.69 93 0–8 3.76 1.76 45 3.63 1.63 48
3.49 1.79 53 3.95 1.52 40
No. of older siblings 1.16 1.16 92 0–5 1.09 1.27 44 1.23 1.06 48
1.19 1.12 53 1.13 1.22 40
Years lived in the U.S. 4.89 1.80 99 0.3–7 4.87 1.85 48 4.90
1.78 51 5.02 1.69 57 4.71 1.96 42
No. of Spanish books at home 12.40 27.32 91 0–250 7.39 6.79
46 17.51 37.77 45 8.73 9.14 52 17.28 40.16 39
No. of English books at home 9.01 11.22 92 0–55 5.60 5.44 47
12.57 14.29 45 8.06 10.16 53 10.31 12.54 39
No. of total books at home 21.47 35.07 92 0–300 13.11 9.55 47
30.02 47.70 45 16.94 17.72 53 27.51 49.26 39
No. of yes n No. of yes n No. of yes n No. of yes n No. of yes n
Preschool experience (yes/no) 56 89 26 44 30 45 28 49 28 40
Library experience (yes/no) 34 92 13 47 21 45 21 52 13 40
Arthur home viewing (yes/no) 69 94 35 46 34 48 39 54 30 40
Between the Lions home viewing
(yes/no) 36 86 17 50 19 42 21 50 15 36
Receptive vocabulary score
Initial English vocabulary 39.69 20.38 108 0–85 41.37 20.74 51

38.19 20.13 57 44.30 18.37 61 33.72 21.49 47
Initial Spanish vocabulary 32.05 13.29 108 2–69 32.65 12.49 51
31.51 14.06 57 31.28 13.24 61 33.04 13.44 47
Note. Background information was obtained from parental
questionnaires, and vocabulary scores from the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test-Third Edition
and the Test de Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody.
a Parental education was on a scale from 0 to 8.
KINDERGARTENERS
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o

f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol

el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is

n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
matching the children on their vocabulary scores, which yielded
viewing
groups with similar composition in gender and initial English
vocabulary
skills. Receptive vocabulary scores were chosen as a basis for
stratification
because children’s understanding of the shows would be most
influenced
by their English vocabulary.

Both groups watched one 30-min episode three times a week in
a
classroom at school from October to the beginning of May, for a
total of
54 episodes. A frequency of three episodes a week was chosen
because of
the importance of repetition in interventions (Galdwell, 2000),
children’s
liking for repetition and familiar events (Galdwell, 2000), and
the feasi-
bility and practicality of children viewing educational TV
during school
hours. Owing to time constraints and to keep the intervention
consistent
among classrooms, teachers and researchers only showed the
videos and
did not do follow-up activities based on the episodes with the
children.
All kindergarteners were assessed with the narrative tests
described in
the following section at three time points throughout the school
year:
October (before watching any episodes in the classrooms),
February (after
watching 27 episodes in the classrooms), and late May or early
June (after
watching an additional 27 episodes in the classrooms).3 The
total testing
time for each individual session was 30 – 45 min. Children were
also
assessed on English as well as Spanish receptive vocabulary
knowledge.
Measures

To measure narrative skills, I asked children to tell a “Bear
Story” in
English, prompted by three slides of pictures that depicted a
family of
teddy bears in an adventure involving a flyaway kite and a baby
bear
falling from a tree (from the SHELL [School-Home Early
Language and
Literacy] test battery in Snow et al., 1995). The child was
allowed to look
at the slides as long as needed but was asked to put them away
before
telling the story. However, when the child appeared hesitant to
give a
narrative, the child was allowed to see the “Bear Story” pictures
as he or
she related the story.
Trained assessors transcribed the narratives dictated by the
children on
the spot. The children’s narratives were written down so that the
assessor
could read the story back to the child and confirm that the story
had been
correctly recorded. If the child began to describe the picture
instead of
providing a narrative, the assessor prompted the child with
questions such
as “What is happening in the story?” or “What happened next?”
If the child
appeared to be taking no definite course in the narrative or if
the child
ended the narrative abruptly, the assessors were instructed to
ask, “Is that
the end of the story?” or “How does the story end?”

Total Number of Words and Mean Clause Length
Because past research showed an increase in the length of
stories as well
as the syntactic complexity of utterances as children got older
(Eaton et al.,
1999; Karmiloff-Smith, 1985; Purcell-Gates, 2001), I calculated
the total
number of words and the mean clause length in each story. After
separating
each story into clauses, I calculated the mean clause length by
dividing the
number of clauses by the total number of words.
Combined Narrative Measure
Each story was then coded along the following five dimensions:
story
structure, number of main events, evaluation, temporality and
reference,
and storybook language. This coding scheme was adapted from
Willenberg
and Kang (2001), whose coding checklists were based on
previous Bear
Story checklists from Snow et al. (1995) and Beck et al. (2003).
Each
category was coded for the presence or absence of each feature
listed
regardless of how frequently it occurred in the narrative.
Story structure coding. Seven major types of narrative elements
were
categorized on the basis of an adaptation of high-point structure
(Peterson
& McCabe, 1983) and previous coding checklists used for the

“Bear Story”
(Beck et al., 2003; Snow et al., 1995; Willenberg & Kang,
2001): abstract,
introduction, orientation, character delineation, problem,
resolution, and
coda. If the narrative contained all seven elements, the child
was given a
total of 7 points. The definitions of the elements, as well as
examples from
the actual data, are listed in the Appendix.
Events coding. Narrative events relate the actions of the story
charac-
ters and move the plot forward. Five categories of events from
Willenberg
and Kang (2001) were included in this section: bears playing,
bears flying
kite, bear climbed tree or bear attempts to get kite, bear fell or
jumped, bear
hurt or dead.
Evaluation coding. Evaluative devices in narrative are used to
signal
the point of the story from the narrator’s perspective. Eight
types of
evaluation from Willenberg and Kang (2001) were included:
intensifiers,
adjectives, negatives or defeats of expectations, references to
emotional
states or cognitions, references to physical states, intentions,
causal mark-
ers, and words with high evaluative content. See the Appendix
for
examples.

Temporality and reference. Temporality and reference (e.g., use
of
connectives, first mention of story characters) were included
from Willen-
berg and Kang (2001) as presented in the Appendix.
Storybook language. The elements of storybook language
examined
came from previous studies concerning pretend book reading
(Beck et al.,
2003; Purcell-Gates, 2001; Snow et al., 1995). As most
instances of
storybook language contain syntactic constructions that are
typically found
only in older children (Labov, 1968, cited in Peterson &
McCabe, 1983),
only three elements of storybook language from Willenberg and
Kang
(2001) were examined in this study: direct or indirect quotes, -
ly adverbs,
and conjoined noun/verb or adverbial phrases (see the Appendix
for
examples).
The points for each of these five dimensions of the child’s
narrative were
added up to form a combined narrative measure score. For
reliability of
coding, 20% of the narratives were randomly selected and
independently
scored by a trained researcher. The Cohen’s kappa statistic,
which corrects
for chance agreement (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997), was .82.
Statistical Analysis

First, a descriptive analysis was conducted on the total number
of words,
the mean clause length, and the combined narrative measure.
Then, to
examine the difference in the level and rate of change on the
combined
narrative measure among individuals, I made use of individual
growth
modeling.
Results
Descriptive Results
In Table 2, the means and standard deviations for the total
number of words, the mean clause length, and the combined
narrative measure are presented for all children, and by viewing
group and gender. The average for each of these three measures
increased as the children approached the end of their
kindergarten
year. Individual variation was high for all three variables. The
average total number of words increased by 43% from slightly
over 20 words to 37 words, a growth of two thirds of a standard
deviation. The average mean clause length went from 4 words
per
clause to 5 words per clause, an increase of nearly one half of a
standard deviation. The average combined narrative measure
score
3 Children were tested on a variety of literacy measures, but
only
narrative production is discussed here.
468 UCHIKOSHI
T

hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he

rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na

l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in

at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
also increased from 5 points to 8 points, roughly equivalent to
three quarters of a standard deviation.
These three measures (total number of words, mean clause
length, and the combined narrative measure) were moderately to
highly correlated with each other, with correlations of about .60
at
each of the three time points (see Table 3). Children who
produced
elaborate narratives tended to incorporate a lot of detail into
their
narrative clauses. The total number of words as well as the
number
of other features increased in the children’s narratives.
Initial English vocabulary scores tended to be moderately cor-
related with the narrative measures at all three time points, with
the
median correlation of English vocabulary with the narrative
mea-
sures being just over .50. Conversely, initial Spanish vocabulary
scores were not correlated with English narrative scores on the
“Bear Story.”

Individual Growth Modeling: Effect of Arthur?
To examine differences in the level and rate of change among
individuals, I used individual growth modeling to analyze the
combined narrative measure. Individual growth modeling was
the
appropriate analysis tool for this data set for several reasons.
First,
it is designed for exploring longitudinal data on individuals
over
time (Littell, Milliken, Stroup, & Wolfinger, 1996; Singer,
1998;
Singer & Willett, 2003). Second, it allows for the spacing of
waves
of data to vary across individuals (Littell et al., 1996; Singer &
Willett, 2003). In this data set, narrative measurements were
taken
at slightly different times. For some children, the time between
assessments was 3 months, whereas for others it was closer to 4
months. Third, individual growth modeling can analyze data
sets
with varying numbers of waves of data (Littell et al., 1996;
Singer
& Willett, 2003). That is, unlike other approaches, individual
growth modeling includes all participants in the estimation
regard-
less of missing data. The majority of children in this study had
a
narrative score at all three time points, yet some had a narrative
score at only two time points.
To arrive at a final model that best predicted English narrative
development, I built a taxonomy of theoretically motivated indi-
vidual growth models. Time was denoted in number of months

rather than assessment occasions, because assessments were car-
ried out with some variation in exact timing among individuals.
As
most participants had three data points each, a linear model was
used (Singer & Willett, 2003; Willett, Singer, & Martin, 1998).
In the first stage, I fit an unconditional means model that
included no predictors. This model describes variation in the
outcomes (Singer & Willett, 2003). I then fit an unconditional
growth model, in which I examined within-person change by
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Narrative Variables for All
Children (N � 108) and for Children by Viewing Group and
Gender
Narrative measure
Total Arthur Between the Lions Boys Girls
Total no. of words
October 21.91 21.80 99 0–96 21.92 19.10 49 21.90 22.54 50
25.85 21.74 55 16.98 18.64 44
February 26.18 20.15 108 0–108 28.29 20.42 51 24.28 19.89 57
29.13 19.63 61 22.34 20.36 47
May/June 37.33 32.54 102 0–253 42.66 39.44 47 32.78 24.69 55
37.79 23.47 58 36.73 41.92 44
Mean clause length
October 4.41 2.54 99 0–11 4.72 2.55 49 4.11 2.52 50 4.63 2.05
55 4.04 3.10 44
February 4.70 2.28 108 0–14 5.35 2.18 51 4.12 2.23 57 5.00
1.72 61 4.31 2.82 47
May/June 5.05 1.90 102 0–8.43 5.26 1.67 47 4.87 2.08 55 5.51

1.35 58 4.44 2.33 44
Combined narrative measure
October 4.90 3.76 99 0–15 5.00 3.50 49 4.82 4.02 50 6.12 3.86
55 3.52 3.15 44
February 6.32 3.77 108 0–15 7.04 3.56 51 5.68 3.87 57 7.21
3.64 61 5.17 3.66 47
May/June 8.07 4.14 102 0–20 9.13 4.35 47 7.16 3.75 55 8.93
3.58 58 6.93 4.57 44
Table 3
Correlation Matrix for Vocabulary and Narrative Measures (N �
108)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Spanish initial vocabulary — .07 .09 �.09 �.26** .06 �.02
�.25* .03 �.02 �.16
2. English initial vocabulary — .53** .33** .24* .51** .45**
.44** .67** .57** .54**
3. Total no. of words in October — .39** .13 .61** .32** .31**
.77** .57** .38**
4. Total no. of words in February — .31** .36** .51** .35**
.34** .77** .48**
5. Total no. of words in May/June — .02 .18† .54** .07 .32**
.63**
6. Mean clause length in October — .54** .30** .68** .53**
.30**
7. Mean clause length in February — .50** .42** .58** .45**
8. Mean clause length in May/June — .37** .55** .60**
9. Combined narrative measure in October — .61** .47**
10. Combined narrative measure in February — .69**
11. Combined narrative measure in May/June —
† p � .10. * p � .05. ** p � .01.

KINDERGARTENERS
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic

an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p

ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p

er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di

ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
fitting growth trajectories for each child over time. The growth
trajectories of each individual child varied. Some children
showed
steady growth, whereas others showed no growth. In light of the
variation across children, it is important to understand the
general
growth patterns in ELL children’s ability to narrate stories.
Hence,
I looked at between-person variation and added predictors to
investigate whether they affected individual changes in the
com-
bined narrative measure. I first added the predictor show to
inves-
tigate whether individual changes in the combined narrative
mea-
sure (CNM) were related to viewing of Arthur.
Combining the within-person and between-person models

yielded the following model:
CNM ti � ��00 � �01 SHOWi � �10 TIMEti
� �11 SHOWi TIMEti� � �u0i � u1i TIMEti � rti�.
The parameters in the above model represent the effect of show
on
the initial level of the CNM (�01) and the effect of show on the
rate of change in the CNM (�11). Because I was comparing
models
that differ in their fixed effects but not their variance
components,
I used full maximum-likelihood estimation (see Singer, 1998).
As a general modeling strategy, I first evaluated the above
full-model equation for significance. SHOW was kept in the
model
even if it was not significant, as it was a key predictor. The
CLASS
variable was kept in the model to control for classroom
difference.
Indicators of home viewing—that is, watching Arthur at home
and
watching Between the Lions at home—were also kept in the
model
to control for home viewing. Past research has used mother’s
education to control for socioeconomic status (SES). Although
parental education was not significant, it was included in the
final
model to control for SES. Subsequent analyses investigated
whether other variables such as gender, prekindergarten experi-
ence, home educational TV viewing, number of older siblings,
number of years the child had been in the United States, the
child’s
initial vocabulary levels in Spanish and English, the number of

children’s books in the home, and library exposure4 were
signif-
icant variables.
Individual Growth Modeling Results
After fitting a baseline unconditional means model (Model 1)
and baseline unconditional growth model (Model 2) for the
com-
bined narrative measure, I built a taxonomy of theoretically mo-
tivated individual growth models, as shown in Table 4. The pre-
dictors that were not statistically significant were kept out of
the
model. Control variables (show, Arthur home viewing, Between
the Lions home viewing, class, parental education) were kept in
the
model even if they were not significant.
The variance components in Model 1 (unconditional means
model) indicate that the average child’s English combined
narra-
tive measure varied over time and that the children differed
from
each other. Using the results of this model, I calculated the
intra-
class correlation coefficient to be .50. The intraclass correlation
coefficient is the intercept divided by the sum of the intercept
and
the residual (8.53/[8.53 � 8.38] in this case), and it “describes
the
proportion of the total outcome variation that lies between
people”
(Singer & Willett, 2003, p. 96). Thus, this correlation indicated
that half of the total variation in the combined narrative
measure
was attributable to differences among children.

Comparing the variance components in Model 2 (unconditional
growth model) with those of Model 1 shows that 48.6% (from
8.38
to 4.31) of the within-person variation in the combined
narrative
measure was systematically associated with linear time.
Further-
more, as there was nonzero variability in both true initial status
( p � .01) and true rate of change ( p � .01), Model 2 suggested
adding more predictors into the model to explain heterogeneity
in
each parameter. Preschool experience, number of older siblings,
total number of children’s books in the home, and library
experi-
ence were not significant when included as predictors, and they
were not included in subsequent models. Model 9 was chosen as
the final model and is interpreted in the following sections.
Effect of show. As Model 9 in Table 4 shows, the estimated
coefficient for show was not statistically significant, indicating
that
the two groups did not significantly differ from each other at
the
start of kindergarten, after I controlled for the other variables in
the
model. However, the estimated coefficient for the Show � Time
interaction was positive and significant after the other variables
in
the model were controlled. This finding indicates that viewing
Arthur during class hours improved the narrative outcome at a
faster pace than did viewing Between the Lions, after I
controlled
for initial show differences, classroom differences, gender,
home
viewings, initial English vocabulary, and parental education, as

shown in Figure 1. The standard deviation for the combined
narrative measure pooled across all occasions was 4.08 points.
Thus, the coefficient of .26 for the interaction of show (Arthur)
and
time corresponds to an effect size of slightly over one twentieth
of
a standard deviation per month, or an effect of slightly over one
half of a standard deviation for the entire school year.
Classroom differences. The estimated coefficients for most
classrooms tended to be around 0, indicating that most
classrooms
had similar estimated average initial levels of the combined nar-
rative measure. Moreover, differences in growth in the
combined
narrative measure among classrooms were also not significant.
Home viewing. Home viewing was kept in the model to con-
trol for extra viewings of Arthur or Between the Lions. Model 9
indicates that home viewing of neither show was significant.
Gender. After I controlled for show, class, home viewing,
initial English vocabulary, and parental education, gender had a
significant effect on the estimated average initial level of the
combined narrative measure. However, the interaction between
gender and time was not significant. Boys began with a 1.40-
point
(effect size of roughly one third of a standard deviation)
advantage
on the combined narrative measure at the start of kindergarten,
and
this difference remained throughout the school year, as shown
in
Figure 1.
Initial English vocabulary. After I controlled for the other

variables in the model, initial English vocabulary had a
significant
effect on the estimated average initial level of the combined
narrative measure. Every 20-point (one standard deviation) in-
crease in initial English vocabulary was associated with a 2.2-
point
(effect size of slightly over one half of a standard deviation)
increase in the combined narrative measure. That is, children
who
started kindergarten with higher initial English vocabulary
scores
also started with higher initial combined narrative measures.
How-
4 Library exposure indicates whether or not the child was taken
to the
library on a frequent basis.
470 UCHIKOSHI
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py

ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio

n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in

te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al

u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
Table 4
Estimates of Fixed and Random Effects From a Series of Fitted

Individual Growth Models in Which Show, Class, Arthur Home
Viewing, Between the Lions (BTL) Home Viewing, Gender,
Initial English Vocabulary Scores, and Library Experience
Predict the
Average Combined Narrative Measure at the Start of
Kindergarten and Rate of Change in the Combined Narrative
Measure During
the Kindergarten Year for All Children (N � 108)
Effect
Model 1:
Unconditional
means model
Model 2:
Unconditional
growth model
Model 3:
Show
Model 4:
Show �
Time
Model 5:
Class
Model 6:
Home
TV
Model 7:
Gender

Model 8:
English
vocabulary
Model 9:
Parental
education
Fixed effects
Intercept
�00 6.34** 4.37** �0.74 4.27** 4.46** 2.87** 1.51† �0.73
�0.78
SE 0.33 0.38 0.87 0.52 0.78 0.90 0.90 0.77 1.02
Time (in months)
�10 0.46** 0.32** 0.36** 0.36** 0.36** 0.36** 0.35** 0.33**
SE 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
Show: Arthur
�01 �0.03 0.21 0.22 0.11 0.16 �0.09 �0.25
SE 0.63 0.76 0.74 0.73 0.69 0.58 0.61
Class 1
�02 �1.08 �0.93 �0.52 �0.41 �0.37
SE 1.10 1.04 0.97 0.77 0.81
Class 2
�02 �0.90 �0.30 �0.29 0.19 0.42
SE 1.04 1.01 0.94 0.74 0.78
Class 3
�02 1.17 0.97 0.81 �0.94 �0.51

SE 0.97 0.92 0.86 0.72 0.76
Class 4
�02 �1.78† �1.41 �1.19 �0.89 �1.15
SE 0.98 0.94 0.88 0.69 0.74
Class 5
�02 0.77 1.38 1.46† 0.57 1.08
SE 0.91 0.92 0.86 0.68 0.77
Home TV: Arthur
�03 1.62* 1.69** 0.76 0.46
SE 0.68 0.63 0.51 0.55
Home TV: BTL
�04 1.05 0.96 0.47 0.45
SE 0.63 0.59 0.47 0.50
Gender: Boys
�05 2.19** 1.31** 1.40**
SE 0.53 0.44 0.47
Initial English vocabulary
�06 0.10** 0.09**
SE 0.01 0.01
Parental education
�07 0.12
SE 0.14
Show � Time
�11 0.22* 0.22* 0.22* 0.22* 0.23* 0.26*
SE 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Random effects (variance components)

Intercept
Estimate 8.53** 10.74** 10.96** 10.79** 10.03** 9.30**
7.77** 4.07** 3.69**
SE 1.61 2.22 1.50 2.22 2.14 2.05 1.85 1.39 1.45
Slope
Estimate 0.11** 0.11* 0.11** 0.11** 0.11** 0.11** 0.11* 0.09*
SE 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Residual
Estimate 8.38** 4.31** 4.42** 4.28** 4.29** 4.31** 4.29**
4.28** 4.28**
SE 0.84 0.60 0.66 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.64
Proportional reduction in
variance from Model 2:
Intercept N/A N/A 6.6% 13.4% 27.7% 62.10% 65.6%
Slope N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 18.2%
Akaike’s information criterion 1,691.8 1,611.1 1,338.8 1,607.9
1,606.1 1,598.5 1,584.7 1,535.8 1,346.5
† p � .10. * p � .05. ** p � .01.
KINDERGARTENERS
T
hi
s
do
cu
m

ly
.
ever, initial English vocabulary was not associated with rate of
growth on the narrative measures.
Parental education. Parental education was included in the
model to control for SES. Model 9 indicates that parental educa-
tion was not significant.
Five Narrative Measures
The fitted growth trajectories for each individual narrative mea-
sure (story structure, events, evaluations, temporality and refer-
ence, and storybook language) were further examined using the
growth modeling perspective. The estimated coefficients for the
interaction between show and time were positive and significant
for story structure (�11 � .09; p � .04) and evaluation (�11 �
.09;
p � .03), after class, home viewing, gender, initial English
recep-
tive vocabulary, and parental education were controlled. This
finding indicates that viewing Arthur during class hours
improved
the narrative outcome for story structure and evaluation at a
faster
pace than did viewing Between the Lions.
The interaction between show and time was not significant
either for events or for temporality and reference. For the story-
book language measure, many of the children scored 0 in
October
and stayed at 0. The low occurrence of storybook language sug-

gests that it might be difficult for kindergarten-age ELL
children to
provide such language.
In addition, gender was significant for story structure, events,
and temporality and reference. That is, boys started
kindergarten
with higher scores in these three areas than did girls, and these
differences remained constant throughout kindergarten.
Figure 2 shows the average growth trajectories describing the
effect of show on the change in story structure, evaluation,
events,
and temporality and reference for ELL boys who watched
Arthur
during the intervention period. On average, the most gains were
seen in the story structure measure.
Qualitative Results
Growth trajectories for each individual child varied. Some chil-
dren displayed steady development, whereas others exhibited
little
change. The average growth trajectories (see Figure 1) show a
gradual increase in narrative skills. In this section, the stories
provided by two boys are presented in order to demonstrate the
average growth pattern. These two boys, Miguel and Raymond,
were in the Arthur group. Miguel started the school year with
minimal English abilities. Raymond was relatively fluent and
comfortable in speaking English.
At Time 1, in October, for many children, their lack of English
vocabulary kept them from creating long, detailed narratives.
Many children with limited English, such as Miguel, tended to
stay

silent or to produce narratives in Spanish. These Spanish stories
were not used in the evaluation, because the objective of this
study
was to measure English narrative growth. Children with greater
English abilities, such as Raymond, were able to connect
several
sentences together to make a narrative, and their narratives in-
cluded more events to move the plot forward. Under Peterson
and
McCabe’s (1983) categorization, many of these narratives
would
be classified as chronological narratives, in which the child
con-
nects sentences with and and then, or leap-frog narratives, in
which the child jumps from one event to the next.
Excerpt 1: Miguel at Time 1
[Said nothing]
Excerpt 2: Raymond at Time 1
Last morning the bear was getting kite out of tree. And it was
stuck.
Then last morning the kite fell down. Last morning he went to
take out
the kite. Then it fell. Then it broke. Now it pull pull harder.
At Time 2, in February, children began to include more evalu-
ative words in their stories. For example, Miguel said, “One
[bear]
was tired.” He described the bears as being little. In addition,
the
words bear and kite were mentioned more in the stories.
The three little bear was walking. One was tired. And one was
in the

tree. That is it.
One day a bear was running a kite. And it was a sunny day.
Then the
Figure 1. Average fitted growth trajectories, after controlling
for parental education, that describe the effect of
show and gender on the change in the combined narrative
measure for English-language learner children in an
average class with average initial vocabulary scores of 40 points
who watch both Arthur and Between the Lions
(BTL) at home (N � 108).
472 UCHIKOSHI
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te

d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o

ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed

s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a

nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
kite was stuck in the tree. Then the bear was climbing to the
tree. Then
he was trying to get it. Then the kite ripped.
At Time 3, in May or June, many of the advanced ELL children
provided more events and advanced story structures. Some ad-

vanced ELL children used direct speech, painting a more vivid
verbal picture of their narratives. Some children started their
narratives with titles, such as Miguel and his title “The Book.”
He
then continued by beginning his story with a traditional
beginning
such as “Once upon a time” and ended his story with a formal
ending such as “The End.” According to Peterson and McCabe’s
(1983) categorization, some of the stories would be classified as
ending-at-the-high-point narratives, in which the child builds up
to
the high point and then abruptly ends the story. For example,
Miguel ended his story at a climactic moment with “he fall off.”
Some children even produced stories of the classic pattern. It is
interesting to note that in May, Raymond gave the same story as
he
did in February yet he added a resolution and coda.
The Book.
Once upon a time, they was flying kites. The kite then hit the
tree.
Then a bear try to get it. Now he fall off. And the end.
One day a bear was running a kite. And it was a sunny day.
Then the
kite was stuck in the tree. Then the bear was climbing to the
tree. Then
he was trying to get it. Then the kite ripped. So they got the kite
out
of the tree. And it was so much fun. That was the end.
Discussion
The results from this year-long study show intervention effects;

children who viewed Arthur during class hours had steeper
trajec-
tories on the combined narrative measure than did those who
viewed Between the Lions during class hours. The study was
designed so that half of the children in each classroom watched
one of the two shows. Because of time constraints, it was not
possible for the teacher or the researchers to follow up with
exercises to reinforce learning from the educational TV shows.
Yet
even though no reinforcement followed the viewing sessions,
growth in narrative skill was greater for children who watched
Arthur, after any initial show differences, classroom
differences,
gender, home viewings, initial English vocabulary, and parental
education were controlled for, as shown in Figure 1.
Each half-hour Arthur episode presented two stories, each with
a plot, a conflict, and a resolution. Hence, children who viewed
Arthur had a lot of exposure to mainstream storytelling
techniques.
This effect was also demonstrated in the separate growth
modeling
analysis for story structure, in which the interaction between
show
(Arthur) and time was significant.
The interaction between Arthur and time was also significant in
the separate growth modeling analysis for evaluation.
Coviewing
in a classroom with peers may have assisted in comprehension
and
understanding of the meaning of the events. Researcher
observa-
tions and teacher reports indicated that there appeared to be
more

conversations concerning plot, storyline, and characters after
the
viewing sessions among the children who viewed Arthur than
among those who viewed Between the Lions. Arthur may have
had
more memorable characters and impressionable storylines than
Between the Lions, which focused more on phonics and rhythm.
Children may have understood the emotions of the Arthur
charac-
ters through these casual discussions with classmates.
Conversa-
tions among the Arthur viewers may have reinforced some
vocab-
ulary items, expanding the children’s lexicons.
Although each episode of Between the Lions begins with a story
that the Lion family reads together, the program spends
consider-
Figure 2. Average fitted growth trajectories, after controlling
for parental education, that describe the effect of
show on the change in story structure, evaluation, events, and
temporality and reference for English-language
learner boys who watched Arthur during the intervention period,
who were in an average class with average
initial vocabulary scores of 40 points, and who watched both
Arthur and Between the Lions at home (N � 108).
KINDERGARTENERS
T
hi
s
do

cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og

ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T

hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o

f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b

ro
ad
ly
.
able time directing viewers’ attention to phonological
sensitivity,
the alphabetic principle, letter–sound correspondence, word
mean-
ings, punctuation, and other conventions of written English
(Rath,
2000). Thus children’s attention may be diverted from the
narra-
tive structure of the extended discourse. After the viewings, the
researchers and teachers noted that the children sang the songs
and
chanted the rhymes from the show, but they did not discuss the
contents of the show, including plot and character development,
like the Arthur groups did.5
This study also suggests that children can develop mainstream
narrative styles prior to first grade. Past research shows that
narrative styles are influenced by early socialization
experiences
and may differ depending on cultural background (Dart, 1992;
Heath, 1982, 1986; Minami & McCabe, 1991; Ninio, 1980;
Shiro,
1995; Silva & McCabe, 1996; Tannen, 1980; Wang &
Leichtman,
2000) as well as SES (Burger & Miller, 1999; Heath, 1982;
Shiro,
2003; Whitehurst et al., 1994). Children from nonmainstream

cultural backgrounds or with lower SES enter school with
different
narrative styles than those valued in schools (Dickinson & Mc-
Cabe, 1991; Heath, 1982; Minami & McCabe, 1991). The com-
bined narrative measure examined features typical of school
norms
(such as having a title, an introduction, and a closing as part of
the
story structure) and of the stories shown in Arthur. This study
shows that routine and attentive viewing of Arthur can assist
nonmainstream bilingual children to develop English narrative
styles that match the English-speaking school norms faster,
even
prior to formal literacy instruction.
It is interesting that there was a gender effect; boys started with
and maintained higher English narrative scores than girls. This
gender gap was also seen in the children’s initial English vocab-
ulary scores. Yet for Spanish vocabulary, there was no gender
difference.
Past research with monolingual English children has shown that,
on average, girls have higher literacy skills than boys
(Bornstein,
Haynes, & Painter, 1998; Gambell & Hunter, 1999; Karmiloff &
Karmiloff-Smith, 2001). Although only a few studies have
looked
at gender differences in second-language acquisition, mainly in
the
areas of reading, these studies have provided contradictory
results.
Medrano (1986) found no significant gender differences in
English
reading among sixth-grade Mexican American students whose
first
language was Spanish. Yet L. Reese, Garnier, Gallimore, and

Goldenberg (2000) showed that second-generation seventh-
grade
Latina students outscored their male counterparts in English
read-
ing achievement tests.
Although further research is necessary to verify the patterns
identified here, these results are suggestive of several
hypotheses.
Boys and girls may have different exposure histories; for
example,
girls may be more likely to be taken care of by Spanish-
speaking
relatives and may have fewer interactions with their English en-
vironments than boys. Gender effects may also depend on the
age
of acquisition, the age of testing, as well as on the skill being
assessed. In addition, differences in cultural values may play a
role. Parents may emphasize academic language attainment
more
to boys than to girls. Future research should involve a more
in-depth study of children’s home environments.
Furthermore, and similar to past findings by Tabors, Roach, and
Snow (2001) that kindergarten assessments of oral narrative
pro-
duction and receptive vocabulary were moderately correlated, a
relationship between English narrative skills and English
vocabu-
lary was found in this study. English vocabulary was predictive
of
initial levels of English narrative skills. An investigation of the
children’s word choice from the narratives may be useful for
further understanding the relationship between second-language
English vocabulary and narrative abilities.

I have demonstrated the positive impact of Arthur on children’s
narrative skills. It would also be of value to explore further the
degree to which characteristics of the language used in Arthur,
such as syntactic complexity and lexical repetition, contributed
to
this effect. Research has shown that TV programs designed for
children use characteristics of child-directed speech (Hoff-
Ginsberg, 1986; Snow, 1984; Wells, 1985), but a more targeted
analysis of what ELL children actually understand after one
view-
ing of the various episodes would be informative.
Further, this study focused on only one bilingual population; it
would be of value to replicate the study with other groups of
young
bilinguals, particularly as limited research shows that ELL
children
are likely to begin schooling in English less prepared for
literacy
instruction than children from middle-class English-speaking
homes (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). In addition, these
children
were followed only for their kindergarten year; although consid-
erable other data suggest that narrative skills in kindergarten
relate
to later narrative and literacy skills, a longer term longitudinal
study collecting data on those later outcomes would be of great
value.
Conclusion
This study showed how ELL children progressed in their nar-
rative skills as a function of exposure to two educational TV
shows
that are easily available on PBS to all children. For the

population
of children in this study, viewing Arthur assisted in the
develop-
ment of their extended discourse. Further studies should
examine
the influence of other children’s TV shows on ELL children’s
literacy outcomes. A more detailed understanding of ELL chil-
dren’s literacy processes as well as of the effects of educational
TV
is important to the design of better language education
practices,
assessments, and interventions.
5 Intervention effects on phonological awareness skills were
seen for the
Between the Lions viewers. This finding will be discussed in a
separate
article.
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Learning to read: Thinking and learning
about print.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling
for
language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington,
DC: Na-
tional Academy Press.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. (1997). Observing interaction (2nd
ed.).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bamberg, M., & Damrad-Frye, R. (1991). On the ability to

provide
evaluative comments—further explanations of children’s
narrative com-
petencies. Journal of Child Language, 18, 689 –710.
Beck, S., Coker, D., Hemphill, L., & Bellinger, D. (2003).
Literacy skills
of children with a history of early corrective heart surgery. In
C. M.
Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch, J. Hoffman, & D. Schallert
(Eds.),
474 UCHIKOSHI
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d

by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne

o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s

ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd

is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
52nd yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Oak Creek,
WI:
National Reading Conference.
Bornstein, M. H., Haynes, O. M., & Painter, K. M. (1998).
Sources of child
vocabulary competence: A multivariate model. Journal of Child
Lan-

guage, 25, 367–393.
Burger, L. K., & Miller, P. J. (1999). Early talk about the past
revisited:
Affect in working-class and middle-class children’s co-
narrations. Jour-
nal of Child Language, 26, 133–162.
Chang, C. (2004). Telling stories of experiences: Narrative
development of
young Chinese children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 83–104.
Dart, S. (1992). Narrative style in the two languages of a
bilingual child.
Journal of Child Language, 19, 367–387.
Dickinson, D. K., & McCabe, A. (1991). The acquisition and
development
of language: A social interactionist account of language and
literacy
development. In J. F. Kavanagh (Ed.), The language continuum
from
infancy to literacy (pp. 1– 40). Parkton, MD: York Press.
Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. (Eds.). (2001). Beginning
literacy with
language. Baltimore: Brookes.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test (3rd
ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Dunn, L. M., Padilla, E. R., Lugo, D. E., & Dunn, L. M. (1986).
Test de
Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guid-

ance Service.
Eaton, J. H., Collis, G. M., & Lewis, V. A. (1999). Evaluative
explanations
in children’s narratives of a video sequence without dialogue.
Journal of
Child Language, 26, 699 –720.
Galdwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can
make a big
difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Gambell, T. J., & Hunter, D. M. (1999). Rethinking gender
differences in
literacy. Canadian Journal of Education, 24, 1–16.
Griffin, T. M., Hemphill, L., Camp, L., & Wolf, D. P. (2004).
Oral
discourse in the preschool years and later literacy skills. First
Language,
24, 123–147.
Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. (2002). Narratives in two languages:
Assessing
performance of bilingual children. Linguistics and Education,
13, 175–
197.
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative
skills at home
and school. Language in Society, 2, 49 –76.
Heath, S. B. (1986). Taking a cross-cultural look at narratives.
Topics of
Language Disorders, 7, 84 –94.

Hill-Scott, K. (2001). Industry standards and practices. In D. G.
Singer &
J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp.
605– 620).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1986). Function and structure in maternal
speech: Their
relation to the child’s development of syntax. Developmental
Psychol-
ogy, 22, 155–163.
Huston, A. C., Wright, J. C., Rice, M. L., Kerkman, D., & St.
Peters, M.
(1990). Early television viewing. Developmental Psychology,
26, 409 –
420.
Karmiloff, K., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2001). Pathways to
language:
From fetus to adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes
from a
developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes,
1, 61–
85.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the
Black English
vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lemish, D., & Rice, M. (1986). Television as a talking picture
book: A
prop for language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 13,

251–274.
Linebarger, D. L. (2000). Summative evaluation of “Between
the Lions”:
A final report to WGBH Educational Foundation. Boston:
WGBH.
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., & Wolfinger, R.
D. (1996).
SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Mason, J., Stewart, J., Peterman, C., & Dunning, D. (1992).
Toward an
integrated model of early reading development (Tech. Rep. No.
566).
Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
McCabe, A., & Peterson, C. (1991). Getting the story: A
longitudinal study
of parental styles in eliciting oral personal narratives and
developing
narrative skill. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developing
narra-
tive structure (pp. 217–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Medrano, M. F. (1986). Evaluating the long-term effects of a
bilingual
education program: A study of Mexican American students.
Journal of
Educational Equity and Leadership, 6, 129 –138.
Minami, M., & McCabe, A. (1991). Haiku as a discourse
regulation device:
A stanza analysis of Japanese children’s personal narratives.
Language

in Society, 20, 577–599.
Ninio, A. (1980). Picture-book reading in mother–infant dyads
belonging
to two subgroups in Israel. Child Development, 51, 587–590.
Nord, C. W., Lennon, J., Liu, B., & Chandler, K. (1999). Home
literacy
activities and signs of children’s emerging literacy, 1993 and
1999
(NCES 2000 – 026rev). Washington DC: U. S. Department of
Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National
Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved November 2, 2003, from
http://nces.ed
.gov/pubs2000/2000026.pdf
Office of English Language Acquisition, Language
Enhancement, and
Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students.
(n.d.).
United States rate of LEP student growth. Retrieved May 1,
2002, from
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/state-
data/2000/usar.pdf
Paul, R., & Smith, R. L. (1993). Narrative skills in 4-year-olds
with
normal, impaired, and late developing language. Journal of
Speech &
Hearing Research, 36, 592–598.
Peterson, C., Jesso, B., & McCabe, A. (1999). Encouraging
narratives in
preschoolers: An intervention study. Journal of Child Language,

26,
49 – 67.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1983). Developmental
psycholinguistics:
Three ways of looking at a child’s narrative. New York: Plenum
Press.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1991). Linking children’s
connective use and
narrative macrostructure. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.),
Develop-
ing narrative structure (pp. 29 –53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1992). Parental styles of narrative
elicitation:
Effect on children’s narrative structure and content. First
Language, 12,
299 –321.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1988). Lexical and syntactic knowledge of
written
narrative held by well-read-to kindergarteners and second
graders. Re-
search in the Teaching of English, 22, 128 –160.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1991). Ability of well-read-to
kindergarteners to decon-
texualize/recontextualize experience into written-narrative
register. Lan-
guage and Education, 5, 177–188.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1992). Roots of response. Journal of
Narrative and Life
History, 2, 151–161.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV guide:
Relation-
ships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy
knowl-
edge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 406 – 428.
Purcell-Gates, V. (2001). Emergent literacy is emerging
knowledge of
written, not oral, language. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent
Development, 92, 7–22.
Purcell-Gates, V., & Dahl, K. L. (1991). Low-SES children’s
success and
failures at early literacy learning in skills-based classrooms.
Journal of
Reading Behavior, 23, 1–34.
Rath, L. (2000, March). Between the Lions: Using television to
promote
literacy. Book Links, pp. 41– 45.
Reese, E., Haden, C. A., & Fivush, R. (1993). Mother– child
conversations
about the past: Relationships of style and memory over time.
Cognitive
Development, 8, 403– 430.
Reese, L., Garnier, H., Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2000).
Longitu-
dinal analysis of the antecedents of emergent Spanish literacy
and
middle-school English reading achievement of Spanish-speaking
stu-
dents. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 633– 662.

KINDERGARTENERS
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic

ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
Rice, M. L., Huston, A. C., Truglio, R., & Wright., J. C. (1990).
Words
from “Sesame Street”: Learning vocabulary while viewing.
Develop-
mental Psychology, 26, 421– 428.
Rice, M. L., & Woodsmall, L. (1988). Lessons from television:
Children’s
word learning when viewing. Child Development, 59, 420 –
429.
Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of
reading to
preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245–302.
Scarborough, H. S., Dobrich, W., & Hager. M. (2001).
Preschool literacy
experience and later reading achievement. Journal of Learning
Disabil-

ities, 24, 508 –511.
Shiro, M. (1995). Venezuelan preschoolers’ oral narrative
abilities: Focus
on research. Language Arts, 72, 528 –537.
Shiro, M. (2003). Genre and evaluation in narrative
development. Journal
of Child Language, 30, 165–195.
Silva, M. J., & McCabe, A. (1996). Vignettes of the continuous
and family
ties: Some Latino American traditions. In A. McCabe (Ed.),
Chameleon
readers: Teaching children to appreciate all kinds of good
stories. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Singer, J. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel
models,
hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of
Educa-
tional and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323–355.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data
analysis:
Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Snow, C. E. (1984). Parent– child interactions and the
development of
communicative ability. In R. L. Schiefelbusch & J. Pickar
(Eds.), Com-
municative competence: Acquisition and intervention (pp. 69 –
108).

Baltimore: University Park Press.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998).
Preventing reading
difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National
Academy
Press.
Snow, C. E., Tabors, P., Nicholson, P., & Kurland, B. (1995).
SHELL: Oral
language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and first-grade
chil-
dren. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 37– 48.
Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent abilities to read favorite
story-
books: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20,
458 –
481.
Tabors, P., Beals, D., & Weizman, Z. (2001). “You know what
oxygen
is?”: Learning new words at home. In D. Dickinson & P. Tabors
(Eds.),
Beginning literacy with language (pp. 93–110). Baltimore:
Brookes.
Tabors, P., Roach, K., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Home language
and literacy
environment: Final results. In D. Dickinson & P. Tabors (Eds.),
Begin-
ning literacy with language (pp. 111–138). Baltimore: Brookes.
Tannen, D. (1980). A comparative analysis of oral narrative
strategies:

Athenian Greek and American English. In W. Chafe (Ed.), The
Pear
stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative
produc-
tion (pp. 51– 87). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Van Evra, J. (1998). Television and child development.
Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Wang, Q., & Leichtman, M. D. (2000). Same beginnings,
different stories:
A comparison of American and Chinese children’s narratives.
Child
Development, 71, 1329 –1346.
Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the pre-school
years: Lan-
guage at home and at school (Vol. 2). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge
University Press.
Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, S. A., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L.,
Smith, M.,
& Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in
day care
and home for children from low-income families.
Developmental Psy-
chology, 30, 679 – 689.
Willenberg, I., & Kang, J. (2001). Bear Story coding manual.
Unpublished
manuscript, Harvard University.
Willett, J. (1994). Measuring change more effectively by
modeling indi-

vidual growth over time. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite
(Eds.), The
international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 671– 678).
Oxford,
England: Pergamon Press.
Willett, J., Singer, J. D., & Martin, N. C. (1998). The design
and analysis
of longitudinal studies of development and psychopathology in
context:
Statistical models and methodological recommendations.
Development
and Psychopathology, 10, 395– 426.
476 UCHIKOSHI
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te

nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
Appendix
Coding of the Five Dimensions in the Combined Narrative
Measure
Each Bear Story was coded along five dimensions: story

structure
features, events, evaluation, temporality and reference, and
story-
book language. The following coding scheme was adapted from
the
“Bear Story Coding Manual” (an unpublished manuscript by I.
Willen-
berg and J. Kang, 2001, Harvard University) with the
permission of its
authors:
(Appendix continues)
KINDERGARTENERS
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh

te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or

o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd

ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se

r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
Received February 10, 2004
Revision received November 17, 2004
Accepted January 14, 2005 �

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P

sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis

he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so

na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em

CE320Language Development in the Young ChildUnit 5.docx

More Related Content

Similar to CE320Language Development in the Young ChildUnit 5.docx

More from tidwellveronique

Recently uploaded

CE320Language Development in the Young ChildUnit 5.docx