Home Storybook Reading in Primary or Secondary Language With Preschool Children, Evidence For Equal Effectiveness For Second-Language Vocabulary Acquisition PDF

Home Storybook Reading in Primary
or Second Language With Preschool

Children: Evidence of Equal Effectiveness
for Second-Language Vocabulary
Acquisition
Theresa A. Roberts
California State University, Sacramento, USA
ABSTRACT
This study examined how providing either primary- or English-language storybooks for home reading followed by
classroom storybook reading and vocabulary instruction in English influenced English vocabulary acquisition. Participants
in the study were preschool children (N = 33), from low socioeconomic status families, whose primary language was
either Hmong or Spanish. There were two 6-week sessions of home combined with classroom storybook reading. Children
were randomized to either a primary- or English-language home storybook-reading treatment in the first session. In the
second session, children switched treatment and participated in home storybook reading with books written in the
alternate language. Children learned a substantial number of words from the combined home and classroom storybookreading experiences. Home storybook reading in a primary language was at least as effective as home storybook reading
in English for English vocabulary learning. Significant gains in vocabulary recognition were documented after home
reading and again after classroom experiences in English. Family-caregiver participation in the parent-support part of
the program rose from 50% to 80% between the two 6-week sessions. Family caregivers English oral-language skills
and the number of English-language childrens books in the home were related to English vocabulary learning. Discussion
focuses on the viability of combining primary- or second-language home storybook reading with second-language
classroom storybook reading as a means to enhance second-language vocabulary learning.
torybook reading is one of the most frequently recommended practices for building preschool childrens early language and literacy competencies
(International Reading Association & National
Association for the Education of Young Children, 1998;
Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Teale, 1984). One reason
that reading aloud to children is effective is that it promotes vocabulary acquisition, which is linked to childrens conceptual knowledge (Elley, 1989; Pemberton
& Watkins, 1987; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Snchal &
Cornell, 1993; Whitehurst et al., 1988). The use of interactive and analytic talk with children during book
reading enhances language and vocabulary development
in English-only children (Dickinson & Smith, 1994).

Effective interactive practices include questioning
(Snchal, Thomas, & Monker, 1995), expanding responses (Pemberton & Watkins, 1987; Valdez-Menchaca
& Whitehurst, 1992), explanation of vocabulary (Elley,
1989), and both verbal and nonverbal responding
(Snchal et al., 1995).
Other studies have shown that teaching family caregivers and day-care providers how to implement highquality storybook reading has beneficial effects on
language development (Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst, &
Epstein, 1994; Valdez-Menchaca & Whitehurst, 1992;
Whitehurst et al., 1988). Interventions that combine
Reading Research Quarterly 43(2) pp. 103130 dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.2.1 2008 International Reading Association 103
high-quality storybook reading on the part of family caregivers with classroom storybook reading have had additive effects (Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Whitehurst,
Arnold, et al., 1994). The term family caregivers refers to
parents, extended-family members, or others who have
primary responsibility for the child. Research has also
shown that repeated readings of stories were beneficial
for children, with 4% of target words learned from single readings and 10% to 15% more target words learned
from multiple readings (Brabham & Lynch-Brown, 2002;
Eller, Pappas, & Brown, 1988; Elley, 1989; Leung &
Pikulski, 1990; Penno, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002;
Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Snchal, 1997; Snchal &
Cornell, 1993; Snchal et al., 1995). The defining features of high-quality storybook reading are elaborating
and expanding childrens responses; sharing and maintaining the childs focus and positive emotional experience; and engaging in naming, questioning, labeling, and
other activities designed to enhance the childs understanding of the story and to model more sophisticated
language use.
Results from storybook-reading studies in which
children attended preschool programs in their first language or home reading occurred in their first language
form the bedrock of evidence for the effectiveness of storybook reading (e.g., Bus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini,
1995; Teale, 2003). There have been few studies in classrooms or homes of either second- or primary-language
storybook reading with children who are Englishlanguage learners (Garca, 2000). The term Englishlanguage learner refers to children who are in the process
of acquiring both the language primarily used in their
home-language interactions and English.
Scholars have raised concerns about the suitability
and effectiveness of second-language storybook reading
and other vocabulary-development activities for novice
English-language learners of preschool age (Garca, 2000).
Other scholars have proposed that the level of secondlanguage proficiency is a critical limiting condition for
second-language learning (Snow et al., 1998). This perspective is based on extensive evidence of correlations between measures of English oral proficiency and a variety
of second-language indexes (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary,
Saunders, & Christian, 2006). However, previous research has not empirically demonstrated nor theoretically defined the level of second-language proficiency
necessary for successful second-language learning at different levels of development or on different tasks. At least
one recent experimental study has demonstrated that
preschool English-language learners can acquire secondlanguage (English) storybook vocabulary from interactive
storybook reading coupled with focused vocabulary instruction in English-language preschool settings (e.g.,
104
Roberts & Neal, 2004). An important component of oral

language proficiency that mediates vocabulary learning in
both first and second language is initial vocabulary
knowledge (Fitzgerald, 1995; Scarborough, 2001).
Studies that have focused on vocabulary learning with
English-only children typically have found that children
who begin with larger vocabularies learn more words
than children who know fewer words (Hart & Risley,
1995; Penno et al., 2002; Stanovich, 1986). Little is
known, however, about the relationship between initial
vocabulary size and the growth of preschool Englishlanguage learners vocabularies during storybook reading. Research examining this relationship is needed.
Older and more recent position statements and learning guidelines frequently identify the importance of childrens primary language for school learning (California
Department of Education, 2007; National Association for
the Education of Young Children, 1996). However, there
is little empirical evidence on what may be effective specific instructional practices for orchestrating the interplay
between first and second language. Given the reality that
many preschool English-language learners are in Englishlanguage classrooms through either circumstance or policy, the upshot of this limited empirical evidence is that
first language often plays only an informal or limited role
in preschool programs. Research on specific, effective
ways to integrate first and second languages during
storybook reading could advance our theoretical understanding of first- and second-language vocabulary development in addition to informing policy and guiding
practice with more precision. The major purpose of the
present study was to examine how both primarylanguage (L1) and second-language (L2) home storybook
reading influenced second-language (English) vocabulary
development when combined with English-language storybook reading in classroom settings.
The study was guided by a theoretical framework
developed for this study suggesting that home storybookreading experiences followed by classroom Englishlanguage storybook reading and vocabulary instruction
on the same books could constitute an effective model for
fostering the vocabulary acquisition of preschool Englishlanguage learners. This framework has the virtue of being
responsive to the language characteristics and affordances of both homes and classrooms. Typically, preschool English-language learners from low-income
families in the United States are dominant in their home
language yet attend preschool programs where English
is the principal language of instruction (Tabors & Snow,
2001). The conditions under which English-language
learners may experience positive language outcomes
from storybook reading in these second-language contexts are important to identify.
Reading Research Quarterly 43(2)
By implementing this sequential vocabularydevelopment model, I examined two expectations related

to preschool English-language learners vocabulary acquisition from storybook reading. One expectation was
that primary-language storybook reading at home could
support English vocabulary acquisition from storybook
reading in preschool classrooms when the shared book
reading in each setting was based on conditions for vocabulary acquisition shown to be effective by previous research. A second expectation was that there would be
no detrimental effect on English vocabulary acquisition
as a result of children participating in a mixture of primaryand second-language storybook reading. I considered
English oral proficiency, general English vocabulary
knowledge, and initial level of story-specific vocabulary
as potential mediators of vocabulary acquisition from
storybook reading. I also explored how family language
and literacy characteristics and literacy resources in the
home shaped English vocabulary learning.
Theoretical Framework
for the Proposed Model
Primary-Language Storybook Reading
A theoretical analysis of word learning and L1 to L2 relationships in word learning suggests there are three
main reasons to expect that primary-language storybook
reading may contribute to second-language word learning. First, reading storybooks in the primary language
may help children access storybook meaning because of
childrens greater ability to process and derive meaning
from the lexical, syntactic, and phonological structures of
the primary language. This greater richness of text-based
meanings should also promote the ability to link this new
information with prior knowledge. Theoretical accounts
of how vocabulary is learned from storybook reading
suggest that the degree to which children can link information in text with prior knowledge may be important
(Nagy & Herman, 1987). The formation of these linkages
is dependent on a number of factors including breadth
and depth of childrens knowledge base (Nagy &
Herman, 1987), phonological skills (de Jong & Olson,
2004; Rosenthal & Ehri, in press), syntax knowledge
(Cain, Oakhill, & Elbro, 2003), lexical search processes
(Masoura & Gathercole, 2005), and the ability to develop new semantic representations (Li, Zhao, &
MacWhinney, 2007). Prior knowledge becomes incorporated into language, and thus, childrens vocabulary
knowledge reflects how much they know about their
worlds. It is plausible, therefore, to expect that primarylanguage storybook reading will foster cognitive develop-
ment, particularly of the conceptual and linguistic meanings embedded in stories. However, it is less clear to what
extent conceptual and linguistic knowledge derived from
experience with particular storybooks would benefit
broader vocabulary development. To examine this relationship, measures of specific storybook vocabulary and
more general vocabulary development were included in
the present study.
A second theoretical reason why primary-language
storybook reading may support second-language vocabulary learning involves individual word learning. The
ability to understand more of what is read (described previously) would result in greater contextual support for inferring new meanings of individual words from linguistic
context, thereby producing lexical expansion. For example, if a child understands the language in Don
Freemans Corduroy, which portrays Corduroy, a teddy
bear, and Lisa as friends, then this understanding
would support the childs attempts to infer the meaning
of the word hugged when the storybook language describes how Lisa hugged Corduroy. Greater familiarity
with primary-language syntax and phonology would also
support the lexicalization of primary-language words.
Thus, with primary-language storybook reading, children might acquire the meanings of more words and establish stronger lexical representations of those words
than would occur with second-language reading. In addition, preschool L1 vocabulary size has consistently been
shown to predict kindergarten and subsequent reading
skills (Scarborough, 2001). Moreover, there is evidence
that primary-language word knowledge transfers to a second language (although this occurs more frequently at
later phases of language acquisition; Kan & Kohnert,
2005) and can serve as a foundation for second-language
word learning, further strengthening the idea that primarylanguage storybook reading could support vocabulary
development in English (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1999;
Cunningham & Graham, 2000; Jimnez, Garca, &
Pearson, 1996). From this perspective, primary-language
storybook reading would be expected to have a greater
effect on text-specific word learning than overall vocabulary knowledge.
A third theoretical explanation for the potential benefits of primary-language storybook reading derives from
the sociolinguistic opportunities that arise from reading
storybooks in primary language. Interaction with adults
during storybook reading that (a) promotes childrens
language expansions and production and (b) initiates
conceptual expansion through practices such as asking
questions and helping children to connect story content
with previous experiences has been associated with the
strongest gains in vocabulary (Dickinson & Smith, 1994;
Pemberton & Watkins, 1987; Snchal et al., 1995;
Home Storybook Reading in Primary or Second Language With Preschool Children
105
Whitehurst et al., 1988). The studies discussed previously showed that teaching family caregivers how to use
these interactive strategies with their own children was
particularly effective for language enhancement. The sociolinguistic opportunities that arise when children read
stories at home in their primary language with family
caregivers who are also fluent in that language should
foster further primary-language vocabulary acquisition.
These are opportunities not only for conceptual expansion in both breadth and depth of meaning from lexical
to discourse levels but also for connecting text material
with individual, familial, and cultural knowledge. Highquality storybook reading has the potential to afford family caregivers the opportunity to incorporate the richness
of their familial, cultural, and linguistic practices into
book reading (Bernhard et al., 2006). This theoretical
possibility suggests more strongly than the lexicalexpansion explanation that primary-language storybook
reading might confer advantages for both storybookrelated vocabulary learning and, as the interaction between adults and children expands beyond the content of
the storybooks, for the acquisition of vocabulary less directly connected to the storybook reading itself.
Primary-language storybook reading could then
serve to promote additive bilingualism where both
English-language acquisition and the preservation of the
primary language were supported and valued
(Cummins, 1999, 2000). It is widely acknowledged that
primary-language maintenance and literacy are associated with older childrens success in English literacy
(August & Hakuta, 1997; Cummins, 1999; Genesee et
al., 2006). This study expands consideration of the influence of primary language on second-language literacy
to preschool children.
By providing opportunities to engage with decontextualized language, home storybook reading may be especially beneficial to English-language learners
vocabulary development. Decontextualized language
refers to language that is removed from present experience and from immediate contextual and concrete support. For example, decontextualized language would be
used to discuss yesterdays events or to describe the life
cycle of a frog to a child who has neither observed this
cycle directly nor seen it represented in pictures. By encouraging children to rely more on linguistic information
alone, decontextualized language strengthens their ability to master language and to employ it as a source of
knowledge acquisition and conceptual development. In
addition, skill with decontextualized language has a very
significant effect on academic learning (Dickinson &
Snow, 1987; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, &
Christian, 2005; Olson, 1977; Snow, 1991), and expo-
106
sure to this type of language has been found to differentiate childrens home environments (DeTemple, 2001).
A vexing problem repeatedly found in studies of firstlanguage vocabulary learning is that early differences in
English-only childrens vocabulary knowledge tend to increase over time and with more instruction and storybook reading (e.g., Penno et al., 2002). An important
difference between English-language learners and
English-only children with low English vocabularies is
that English-language learners also have linguistic resources from their first language. Forty to 70% of words
that are known by preschool English-language learners in
L1 are different from those known in L2. In spite of these
childrens low English vocabulary, their composite vocabulary (L1 plus L2) typically equals the vocabulary size
of English-only children who are similar in age
(Marchman & Martnez-Sussman, 2002; Pea, Bedore,
& Zlatic-Giunta, 2002). Consequently, overall English
vocabulary size may have a different influence on English
vocabulary learning for English-language learners than
that found for English-only children. The relative influence of general initial second-language vocabulary size
(English) on second-language vocabulary learning is included with English oral proficiency and story-specific
vocabulary knowledge as a potential mediator of vocabulary learning in this study.
Combining and Switching

Between L1 and L2
The research evidence has shown convincingly that the
use of the primary language for academic instruction and
literacy with older children does not interfere with
second-language acquisition and likely benefits it when
children are in high-quality English-language programs
of sufficient duration (Corson, 1999; Cummins, 2000;
Genesee et al., 2006). In addition, studies of mixedlanguage processing of individual words demonstrated a
trend toward a smaller switch cost when switching between L1 and L2 for younger children, although the
youngest participants in these studies were 5 years of
age (Kohnert & Bates, 2002). In spite of this evidence,
educators and policymakers continue to be concerned
that combining primary- and English-language storybook reading may hinder English-language acquisition or
result in an intermixing of the two languages such that
language development is impeded (e.g., Genesee et al.,
2006; Rueda & Garcia, 1996). In general, studies on orallanguage acquisition with young children have shown
that childrens L1 and L2 are discretely represented but
are unified in one underlying language-representation
system. Language switching is typically strategic and not
associated with linguistic consequences for L2 (Gass &
Selinker, 2001). However, there has been very limited

study of English-language learners vocabulary acquisition as it develops in response to language experiences
such as storybook reading that contribute to learners
abilities to use the decontextualized language that underpins academic learning.
The present study tested the effects of moving between primary language and English on vocabulary
learning in two different ways. The first way that the effects of language mixing were calibrated was by having
the children and their family caregivers switch from reading storybooks in either their primary language or
English first to then reading storybooks in the alternate
language. The second way involved comparing childrens
vocabulary learning when home storybook reading in
English was followed by classroom reading of the same
books in English with childrens vocabulary learning
when home storybook reading in the primary language
was followed by classroom reading of the same books in
English. It was expected that children would experience
no adverse effects on vocabulary learning by switching
from storybooks written in one language to those written in another or from having storybooks at home in one
language and classroom reading in another.
Method
Participants
Participants were 44 preschool children, from lowsocioeconomic status families, who were enrolled in one
of two morning classes or one of two afternoon classes
in a state-funded preschool located in Sacramento,
California, USA. Primary languages of the children were
Hmong (48%), Spanish (32%), and English (20%). Data
are reported for 33 of the original 35 children whose primary language was Spanish or Hmong. (One child returned to Mexico before final testing; another attended
preschool for less than half of the studys duration.) Of
these 33, 17 children were female and 16 were male.
Twenty children spoke Hmong as their primary language
and 13 spoke Spanish. The mean age of participating
children in months was M = 52.13 (SD = 3.65). The 9
English-only children participated in the regular preschool program and engaged in home storybookreading activities using English-language storybooks, but
data for these children are not reported in this study. All
participants had been screened by the school nurse for
hearing difficulties down to 25 decibels. All participants
received free breakfast and lunch and lived in a lowincome community that was relatively homogenous.
Two classes each of 11 children attended the morning program, and two classes each of 11 children attended the afternoon program. The two morning and
afternoon classes shared the same space and were mixed
during all activities. Both the morning and afternoon sessions had the same teachers and assistant teachers. The
state-funded preschool was located in a portable building
on an elementary school campus. One of the two certified teachers was monolingual English speaking; the other was an English-dominant, EnglishSpanish bilingual.
One assistant teacher was a Spanish-dominant,
SpanishEnglish bilingual; the other was a monolingual
English speaker. There were no Hmong bilingual staff.
All instructional materials, activities (circle time, singing),
and management of routines were in English. The classroom program emphasized social development and relied on a traditional preschool curriculum. Each day,
children participated in circle time and large-motor outdoor play; they also had the opportunity to engage in cutand-paste art projects and to play in the kitchen center or
with blocks. Writing, reading, science, and math centers
were not available on a regular basis. Prior to the introduction of the experimental vocabulary program, storybook reading involved reading from a book, which
accompanied a literacy computer program, two to three
times a week. Children also practiced naming letters and
listened to short stories where the words appeared one
at a time on the computer screen.
Measures
Pretest and Posttest Overall StorybookVocabulary Tasks
Pictures illustrating six key vocabulary words (related to
main episodes or characters) were selected from each of
six books that were used during each of two six-week experimental storybook-reading sessions. Words were selected based on the research teams judgment that many
of them would be unknown to participating children;
however, some easier words were also included to promote task engagement. The 36 total word pictures,
which measured 3" 3", were divided into nine groups
of four words. Each group of four pictures was arrayed
on a 6" 14" card. Children were asked to point to the
picture on each card that showed the item named by the
researcher. Targets on one trial were foils on subsequent
trials. This way, children could not respond correctly
simply by selecting pictures that they had seen previously during storybook reading. The position of the target item was randomized across cards, and no card
contained more than one picture from each storybook. In
addition, no words with the same initial consonant were
107
included on the same card. The set of nine cards was

gone through four times until every pictured vocabulary
item had been named by the researcher. There were two
sets of nine cards for a total of 72 word pictures. One set
tested words for books 16, the other for books 712
(see Appendix A for a list of the two sets of vocabulary
test items). For the set of vocabulary items taken from
books 16, a testretest reliability of .98 on a sample of
25 children with tests separated by six to eight weeks was
obtained. Guttman split-half reliability was calculated using an equal number of randomly drawn samples from
each treatment group (n = 22) at the initial testing and
was .92. Scores ranged from 036.
Weekly Vocabulary Tests

Each week children were tested on the six words for (a)
the next book that they would be taking home (before athome reading score), (b) the book that they had had at
home the previous week (after at-home reading score)
and (c) the book that they had just received classroom instruction on in English (after in-class reading score).
Target words on this task were the same as those on the
pretest-posttest vocabulary measure. This task was needed to permit separate tracking of the effects of the homereading component of the program and the effects of
classroom instruction. The six word illustrations (3"
3") for each book were arrayed on a sheet of 12" 14"
construction paper. Each vocabulary item was spoken by
the researcher in a randomized order, and the child
pointed to the picture of the spoken word. Vocabulary
scores for each book before at-home reading, after athome reading, and after in-class reading ranged from 06
for a total of 18 items on each of the weekly vocabulary
tests.
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

On the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III;
1997), children pointed to one of four word illustrations
on a page after the researcher spoke the target vocabulary
item. Words were presented in 12-word sets. A ceiling
was reached when 8 or more items were missed in a 12item set. This was a standardized test with a national
norming sample. The technical data included in the examiners manual indicated that there were 700 children
in the 2- to 5-year-old norming sample with 21.4%
African American children, 13.4% Hispanic, 60.6%
white, and 4.6% from other groups (Dunn & Dunn,
1997). These percentages reflected national demographics at the time of test construction. A testretest reliability of .92 was reported for 3- to 4-year-old children and
testretest reliabilities of .87 and .89 and alpha reliabilities of .94 to .95 were reported for children ages 45
108
(Dunn & Dunn, 1997). Alternate forms were used for the
first, second, and third testing. This measure was included both to determine breadth of vocabulary learning and
to afford comparison of the present sample with those
of other studies that have used the same standardized
measure. Scores can range from 0177.
Test de Vocabulario en Imgenes Peabody

The Spanish Test de Vocabulario en Imgenes Peabody
(TVIP-H; 1986) is structured and administered in the
same manner as the English Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test-Revised (PPVT-R) with words tested in blocks of 12.
The 125 vocabulary items on the test were translated
from the PPVT-R using what were the most equivalent
items in the Spanish language. Most of the Spanish
TVIP-H items were different from the items on the
English PPVT-III; only 2 of the first 48 items on these two
tests were the same. The norming sample reported in
the examiners manual included monolingual Spanishspeaking children from Mxico City, Mexico (n = 1,219),
and San Juan, Puerto Rico (n = 1,488; Dunn, Padilla,
Lugo, & Dunn, 1986). According to the manual, internal
consistency reliability based on the Spearman-Brown formula was .94 for 4-year-old children (Dunn et al., 1986).
Scores can range from 0125.
Preschool IDEA Oral Language

Proficiency Test
On the Preschool IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test
(Pre-IPT: English; 1988), children responded to questions and pointed to appropriate items in a picture constructed of individual objects on a board. This test is
grounded in the view that oral proficiency is demonstrated by a childs ability to understand and communicate
effectively in English. This is one of two commonly used
tests for assessing preschool English oral proficiency in
the state of California. The scene used in the test depicts
a birthday party in the park. Childrens understanding of
simple vocabulary items (boy, girl, table, mother, cat, cake)
and their ability to give their name and age when
prompted are tested at the earliest levels of proficiency
(levels A and B). Levels D and E require the child to respond correctly to lengthier and more syntactically complex questions with more difficult vocabulary (presents,
balloon, shirt). The most difficult level-E (fully English
proficient) item asks the child to construct and tell a
short narrative about going to a party. The test measures vocabulary, syntax, discourse, and pragmatics to
some degree. Children are assigned a level from AE
based on performance scores that range from 042. Level
A is non-English speaking (score of less than 5 out of
10). Levels B (score of 57 out of 10) and C (score of
1517 out of 20) are limited English speaking, and levels

D (score of 2628 out of 31) and E (score of 3742 out
of 42) indicate fluent English proficiency. These levels
were changed to a 15 scale for data analysis. The norming sample included children whose primary languages
were Spanish (53%), English (26%), and Hmong (3%);
the primary languages of the remaining children (18%)
were Korean, Chinese, and Japanese, among others. The
Pre-IPT technical data included in the technical manual
indicated a testretest reliability of .77. Schrank,
Fletcher, and Alvarado (1996) reported concurrent correlations between this test and teachers estimates of language proficiency and between the Pre-IPT and the
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised of .71
and .91, respectively.
Family-Caregiver Book Selection

After each six-week session of storybook reading, caregivers and children chose two books to keep. All six titles used in that session were displayed on tables in all
three languages (Hmong, Spanish, English), and caregivers were invited to choose the books that they wanted with their children. Title and language selections
were recorded.
Caregiver Language and Literacy Surveys

Two surveys containing simple and concrete questions
were designed to elicit information about the primaryand second-language characteristics of childrens families, the primary- and second-language resources in childrens homes, and the family caregivers participation in
the storybook-reading program. One survey was conducted after the first session (books 16) of the program,
and the other was administered after the program was
completed. The surveys probed (a) the family caregivers
oral language, reading, and writing competencies in
English and their primary language (survey 1); (b) the
number and type of adult literacy materials and childrens books in the home, both in the familys primary
language and in English (survey 1); (c) the frequency of
storybook reading (surveys 1 and 2); and (d) the ambient
family language as estimated by the number of individuals who did and did not speak English (surveys 1 and
2). These characteristics have been shown to influence
childrens vocabulary development (Burgess, 2005; Snow
et al., 1998; Wells, 1985). By using these relatively simple questions, I was able to minimize the difficulties associated with ascertaining the equivalence and meaning of
responses across two language and cultural groups of
family caregivers who self-reported low levels of English
proficiency. Family caregivers views regarding both
English acquisition and primary-language maintenance,
as well as the book-reading program, were also probed

on survey 2 (see Appendix B).
Parents of children in the preschool program, who
had been trained in survey administration, administered
the surveys in Hmong and Spanish outside of the classroom setting. I reasoned that having community members of the same language and cultural groups conduct
the surveys would increase the family caregivers comfort and candor, as well as the elaborateness of their verbal responses. The surveys were conducted outside of
class so that the caregivers might feel less constrained by
classroom expectations and freer to respond to the survey
questions. Data were also collected on letter knowledge,
concepts of print, story-event sequencing, storytelling in
English and primary language, and comprehension;
however, these are not considered here. Survey questions
designed to elicit views on primary language and English
also are not reported.
Materials
Hmong- and Spanish-language versions of 12 classic
childrens storybooks were developed. Storybooks with a
sequential narrative structure were selected. (See
Appendix C for a list of books 16 and books 712,
which were used in the first and second sessions, respectively.) The content of these books was not necessarily
aligned with the cultural backgrounds of participating
children and their families. The Hmong translations were
developed by a native Hmong-speaking parent who
worked at the school site as a bilingual paraprofessional. Translations were checked by another native Hmong
speaker with a teaching credential, and discrepancies in
translation were adjusted, although questions about
whether the books had the correct or best translation surfaced occasionally during the course of the intervention. This same procedure was used to provide
Spanish translations of those books that were not commercially available in Spanish. Translated text was then
typed onto computer label paper. These labels were inserted into individual books over the English appearing
on each page.
Procedure
Children, blocked by language group (Hmong, Spanish),
were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups.
For each of 2 six-week sessions, children took a different book home every Friday and returned it the following
Friday. A crossover design was used where one half of the
children took home books 16 in their primary language,
while the other half took home the same books in
English. For weeks 712, the language of the storybooks
109
for each child was the alternative to what it had been in

the first six weeks (see Table 1 for the sequence of
pretests, posttests, and program implementation).
During the week that followed the at-home reading of
each storybook, two classroom lessons on the same storybook were conducted in English. These lessons included interactive storybook reading with big books,
vocabulary instruction, and pretend reading with individual copies of books. A classroom-instruction-only
control was not included because the theoretical focus
of the study was on examining the language of storybook reading at home and its influence on secondlanguage (English) classroom vocabulary learning.
Classroom instruction in English was a constant.
Childrens vocabulary was assessed using the key vocabulary selected from the first set of books, the PPVTIII, and the Pre-IPT prior to weeks 16 and after weeks
16 and weeks 712. The TVIP-H was also administered
to children who spoke Spanish as their primary language
(n = 13) on the same testing schedule. The third testing
on the vocabulary for books 16 served as a retention
measure of words introduced in the first six weeks of the
program after an approximate 10-week interval. This
testing also served as a measure of retest effects during
an untreated interval. For the second set of storybookvocabulary items, which were drawn from books 712,
children were tested after they had read books 16 (this
was a pretest for books 712) and after books 712 had
been used for both at-home reading and in-class teaching (see Table 1).
Home storybook-reading and training events for family caregivers and their children were held prior to week
1 and week 7. Families were asked to identify the best
time to hold these events, and the events were planned
according to the predominant preference. Dialogic reading principles were incorporated into the training
(Whitehurst et al., 1988), and training was delivered in
family caregivers primary languages. Family caregivers
were invited to bring their children with them to these
events. Childcare was provided for siblings of the preschool children. The trainings emphasized the following
ideas: enjoying storybook reading, sitting close together,
pointing to the print, reading the story several times, and
getting the child to talk more (naming, labeling, asking
questions, responding to the childs language, elaborating, and extending). Overheads written in Hmong,
Spanish, or English with a colored graphic and text explaining each of these points were reviewed with the help
of bilingual family caregivers. It was also explained that
even if the family caregivers could not read the words in
the story (for those receiving books in English), they
could still engage in storybook reading by talking about
the pictures and telling a story. The bilingual family caregivers who had helped with the overhead presentations
also responded to questions and comments from other
family caregivers in their group.
Table 1. Sequence of Pretests, Posttests, and Program Implementation

Pretest for weeks 16
Weeks 16 of program
Posttest for weeks 16

Pretest for weeks 712
Weeks 712 of program
Cohort A, Primarylanguage storybooks
Cohort A, Englishlanguage storybooks
Cohort B, Englishlanguage storybooks
Cohort B, Primarylanguage storybooks
PPVT-III vocabulary
PPVT-III vocabulary
Posttest
PPVT-III vocabulary
Pre-IPT (042)
Pretests on each weeks

vocabulary words (06)
Pre-IPT (042)
Pretests on each weeks

Pre-IPT (042)
Storybook vocabulary
for books 16 (036)
After at-home reading,

test on each weeks
(posttest) for books 16
(036)
After at-home reading,

test on each weeks
(retention) for books 16
(036)
After class lesson, test on

each weeks vocabulary
words (06)
(pretest) for books 712
(036)
After class lesson, test on

each weeks vocabulary
words (06)
for books 712
(036)
Parent training
110
Parent training
Following the overhead presentation, family caregivers and their children were given a book in the childs
primary language and invited to participate in storybook
reading. Cookies and punch also were provided to establish a friendly and relaxed orientation to the interactive book-reading opportunities. Letters of invitation
explaining the purpose and procedures of the study were
sent home prior to these family storybook-reading events
and again prior to the implementation of the instructional model. A bookmark with the same graphics used
on the overheads during the training was inserted into
the front of the take-home book each week and was written in the primary language of the child. The bookmarks
were sent home as a reminder of the recommendations
that were given at that time and as a means of reaching
parents who had not attended the training. These efforts
served as both a family support service and a way of promoting equivalent storybook-reading practices across
families.
Classroom instruction was conducted in English and
included interactive storybook reading and explicit instruction in target vocabulary items using picture cards
and printed words. Children received instruction two
days a week in groups of 10 or 11 in the regular classroom while the remaining 10 or 11 children in the same
morning or afternoon session participated in other inside
or outside activities. Lessons lasted approximately 20
minutes. Two trained undergraduate students served as
teachers. These two teachers were trained by (a) observing the author perform two lessons and (b) reviewing,
discussing, and practicing two lessons and receiving corrective feedback prior to program implementation. The
two undergraduate teachers switched groups each week
to control for teacher effects. Scripted lesson plans were
used for the introduction of the storybooks and the vocabulary instruction to ensure fidelity of implementation.
Lesson components were sequenced as follows: introduction of book; introduction of each vocabulary item
with repetition of the word by children followed by
teacher response to or elaboration of childrens vocalizations; storybook reading with the teacher pointing to text
and responding to childrens vocalizations; follow-up
activities for each target word involving concrete experiences, acting out, and discussion (e.g., going over, under,
and through chairs for the words over, under, and through
after reading from Pat Hutchinss Rosies Walk; putting
small Styrofoam balls in their pockets for the words snowball and pocket after reading Ezra Jack Keatss The Snowy
Day); and children pretend reading individual copies of
the books. Vocabulary items were introduced by showing
an 8" 11" card with a picture from the storybook that
illustrated the target vocabulary word. The picture of the
target vocabulary word was highlighted by coloring. The
target word was also written underneath the picture in

large uppercase letters. A checklist detailing all the major
components of the lesson (book introduction, vocabulary
cards, storybook reading with pointing to text, follow-up
elaborating activities for each word, and individual book
reading) was used to assess fidelity of implementation.
Results
Preliminary analyses of the childrens scores on the
PPVT-III, the vocabulary pretest for storybooks 16, and
the Pre-IPT indicated that there were no significant differences between the groups assigned to storybooks in
English and those assigned to storybooks in their primary
languages in the first of the 2 six-week storybook
sessions. Table 2 shows means and standard deviations
for the storybook-vocabulary, PPVT-III, Pre-IPT, and
storybook-vocabulary retention measures by treatment
and language group.
Language of Storybook Reading

To examine relationships between the language of storybook reading (English or primary language) and overall
storybook-vocabulary learning, two repeated measures
analyses were performed. A 2 (storybook language:
English or primary) 2 (language group: Hmong or
Spanish) analysis with the pretest and posttest scores
treated as repeated measures was computed for each of
the 2 six-week sessions. For weeks 16, there was a significant effect for time, approximate F (1, 29) = 143.72, p
< .001, and a significant time treatment interaction,
approximate F (1, 29) = 5.35, p < .05. Children scored
significantly higher at the end of the first session than at
pretest. Follow-up analyses of the interaction revealed
that although the two treatments were not significantly
different at pretest, at posttest children who received storybooks in their primary language identified significantly more of the storybook words in English (see Table 3)
than did children who received storybooks in English
for home reading, t (32) = 2.06, p < .05. Cohens d effect
size (calculated as the mean difference between children
in the two language groups, primary or English, divided
by the pooled standard deviation) for the posttest difference was 0.87. There was also a significant interaction
between time and language, F (1, 29) = 4.27, p = .05. The
significant interaction occurred because at time 2, but not
at time 1, Spanish-speaking children scored significantly
higher than Hmong-speaking children.
The 2 (storybook language: English or primary) 2
(language group: Hmong or Spanish) analysis for weeks
712 on the overall storybook-vocabulary test revealed
111
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations (in Parentheses) for Storybook-Vocabulary, the PPVT-III, the Pre-IPT,
and Storybook-Vocabulary Retention Measures by Treatment and Primary-Language Group
Primary-language books
Books 16
Measure
Pretest
Posttest
English-language books
Books 712
Pretest
Posttest
Books 16
Pretest
Books 712
Posttest
Pretest
Posttest
Spanish primary language

Cohort Aa
16.33 (4.08) 30.83 (5.23)
16.33 (3.50) 29.33 (3.44)
Cohort Bb
16.43 (4.92) 29.00 (7.62) 18.00 (9.00) 28.86 (6.74)
PPVT-III
Cohort A
Cohort B
17.33 (11.36) 23.67 (14.67)
Pre-IPT
Cohort A
Cohort B
10.67 (9.81) 20.50 (11.67)
Storybook-vocabulary
retention
23.67 (14.67) 35.67 (11.15)

29.71 (20.61) 33.57 (19.13) 22.29 (12.67) 29.71 (20.61)
20.50 (11.67) 28.50 (8.98)

20.86 (11.85) 25.86 (13.98) 10.14 (9.30) 20.86 (11.85)
30.00 (4.73)
26.14 (7.01)
Hmong primary language

Cohort A
18.10 (6.06) 29.40 (5.42)
17.90 (6.44) 29.30 (5.44)
Cohort B
11.90 (4.84) 23.10 (7.53) 13.20 (6.08) 19.80 (9.52)
PPVT-III
Cohort A
Cohort B
18.11 (9.55) 20.89 (11.94)
Pre-IPT
Cohort A
Cohort B
12.20 (7.63) 19.70 (11.56)
Storybook-vocabulary
retention
a
b
20.89 (11.94) 30.78 (19.13)

14.30 (9.02) 16.00 (11.08) 11.00 (6.60) 14.30 (9.02)
19.70 (11.56) 21.20 (9.17)

10.40 (8.37) 13.60 (8.28)
26.10 (5.72)
3.80 (3.65) 10.40 (8.37)

22.20 (5.51)
Cohort A = children receiving primary-language storybooks for books 16 and English-language storybooks for books 712.
Cohort B = children receiving English-language storybooks for books 16 and primary-language storybooks for books 712.
a significant effect for time with children overall recognizing more words at posttest than pretest, approximate F
(1, 29) = 178.06, p < .001. There were no other significant main effects or any significant interactions for books
712. Cohens d effect sizes ranged from .98 to 2.38 for
the time effect for each storybook language (see Table 3
and Figure 1).
The next two repeated measures analyses compared
mean vocabulary-recognition scores immediately before
home reading, immediately after home reading, and immediately after classroom storybook reading in English
for books 16 and books 712, respectively. These scores
were derived by summing and averaging the scores for
the weekly tests. As for the overall vocabulary measure,
a 2 (storybook language: English or primary) 2 (language group: Hmong or Spanish) analysis was computed.
Because I was interested in the change from pretest to
112
after home reading and again from after home reading

to after class reading, the pretest scores were retained in
the analyses rather than being used as a covariate. This
decision was also supported by the evidence of statistical equivalence between groups at the beginning of the
study. There was a significant within-subjects effect for
time of storybook reading for books 16, approximate F
(2, 58) = 43.73, p < .001, and for books 712, approximate F (2, 58) = 266.58, p < .001. Vocabulary scores after home storybook reading were significantly greater
than scores before home storybook reading for weeks
16, t (32) = 3.17, p < .05, and for weeks 712, t (32) =
7.31, p < .001 (Table 4). Vocabulary scores after classroom activity were significantly greater than scores after
home storybook reading for weeks 16, t (32) = 5.96, p <
.001, and for weeks 712, t (32) = 16.87, p < .001.
Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and Effect Sizes for Pretests and Posttests for Overall StorybookVocabulary Recognition, the PPVT-III, the Pre-IPT, and the TVIP-H for Books 16 and Books 712
Books 16
Books 712
Pretest
Posttest
Effect size
Pretest
Posttest
Effect size
Primary-language
group storybook
vocabulary
17.43 (5.32)
n = 16
29.93 (5.22)
n = 16
2.37
13.76 (5.25)
n = 17
25.53 (7.98)
n = 17
1.72
English-language
group storybook
vocabulary
15.18 (7.56)
n = 17
23.53 (9.16)
n = 17
.98
17.31 (5.44)
n = 16
29.31 (4.66)
n = 16
2.38
Grand mean
16.27 (6.57)
n = 33
26.68 (8.24)
n = 33
1.40
15.48 (5.56)
n = 33
27.36 (6.72)
n = 33
1.93
Books 16 after
eight-week
retention interval
PPVT-III
Raw score
Standard score
Pre-IPT
Raw score
TVIP-Ha
Raw score
Standard score
PPVT-IIIa
Raw score
Standard score
a
25.63 (6.15)
n = 33
.38
.41
16.62 (10.32)
63
n = 32
21.28 (14.50)
67
n = 32
27.68 (16.97)
73
n = 32
8.93 (7.98)
n = 33
17.27 (11.23)
n = 33
21.21 (11.18)
n = 33
17.54 (10.31)
87
n = 13
21.85 (8.99)
91
n = 13
20.00 (11.86)
68
n = 13
26.92 (17.66)
73
n = 13
.45
.55
26.54 (8.01)
95
n = 13
.46
.46
34.54 (15.36)
79
n = 13
Means for children whose primary language is Spanish.
There was, however, a significant time treatment

interaction for books 16. Mauchleys test of sphericity
was significant, 2 = 6.85, p < .05, W = .80; thus, a
GreenhouseGeisser adjustment to the degrees of freedom was made. The appropriate F statistic for the interaction after the adjustment was F (1.64, 47.65) = 3.59, p
< .05. Follow-up analyses to pinpoint the interaction for
books 16 revealed that the language of home storybook
reading did not have a significant effect on vocabulary
scores in English before home reading, t (31) = .51, p >
.05, or after home reading, t (31) = 1.02, p > .05. After
classroom storybook reading in English and vocabulary
instruction, children who received books in their primary
language for home reading identified significantly more
of the storybook words in English than did children who
received English-language storybooks for home reading,
t (31) = 2.06, p < .05. Cohens d for this interaction effect was .69 (calculated as the mean difference between
book-language groups, primary or English, after classroom reading divided by the pooled standard deviation).
This result mirrored the primary-language storybookreading advantage found for the overall vocabulary
posttest and pinpointed the effect as occurring after classroom instruction in English but not after home storybook
reading. There was no between-subjects main effect for
language of storybook reading; nor was there a main effect for Hmong- versus Spanish-speaking children for the
analysis of books 16 or books 712.
A follow-up single factor (primary- or English-language storybooks) analysis of only those children in families (n = 13) who reported being literate in English was
performed for both the overall and weekly vocabulary
tests. These analyses showed the same advantage for primary-language storybooks in the first six-week session on
the weekly vocabulary test, F (2, 18) = 3.68, p < .05,
mean for primary-language storybooks = 5.00 (.52),
113
mean for English-language storybooks = 4.36 (1.52), but

not on the overall vocabulary test, F (1, 9) = .03, p > .05,
mean for primary-language storybooks = 31.43 (3.35),
mean for English-language storybooks = 30.17 (4.92).
This small group of family caregivers reported equal frequencies of home storybook reading for primary- and
Figure 1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Overall

Storybook-Vocabulary Measure for Hmong and Spanish
Primary-Language Children and the Combined Sample
27
18 17.23 (6.94)
16.27 (6.57)
15.65 (6.43)
29.77
(5.93)
Spanish
29.15
(5.83)
Spanish
Combined
sample 26.63
(8.24)
Hmong
24.60
(9.00)
Combined
sample 27.36
(6.72)
Hmong
26.20
(7.14)
16.38 (4.15)
15.48 (5.56)
14.90 (6.34)
After 6
Weeks
After
12 Weeks
Pretest
Number of Words Correctly Recognized
36
Storybook Vocabulary
English-language storybooks. For books 712, primaryand English-language storybook-vocabulary scores for
this group of children were equivalent.
Retention of vocabulary words from books 16 over
the two-and-a-half-month period between the posttesting
of the words and the retention testing that occurred after
all the data for books 712 had been collected was analyzed by comparing these two scores. The retention score
was not significantly different from the score obtained immediately after completing the storybook-reading activities, t (32) = 1.14, p > .05 (see Table 3). There was about
a one-word decrease in vocabulary scores over the retention interval, showing that words were well learned. A 2
(child language) 2 (storybook language) univariate
ANOVA was also performed. This analysis revealed that
the treatment advantage for the primary-language group,
which was present at the end of weeks 16, was marginally significant, F (1, 29) = 3.51, p = .07, as was the effect
for language, F (1, 29) = 3.51, p = .07 (see Table 2).
Pretest storybook-vocabulary tests for session 1
(books 16) and session 2 (books 712) were compared.
These tests were separated by 8 to 11 weeks. If storybookvocabulary changes reported for books 16 were due to
the overall language or cognitive growth that occurred
during session 1, then these two pretest scores would be
expected to be significantly different. There was no significant difference between the scores, t (32) = 1.25, p >
.05. In contrast, the posttest vocabulary score for session
1 (storybook reading completed) and the pretest score
for session 2 (no storybook reading as yet) were significantly different, t (32) = 11.25, p < .001 (these two tests
were given within a week of each other). Children scored
significantly higher on words that they had already encountered during storybook reading than on words yet to
be encountered in home and classroom storybook reading; these words were tested at the same point in time.
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and Effect Sizes for Vocabulary per Book Before Home Reading,
After Home Reading, and After Class Reading by Treatment Group for Books 16 and Books 712
Books 16 (n = 33)
Primarylanguage
storybooks
Englishlanguage
storybooks
Overall
Before home reading
2.77 (1.02)
2.58 (1.21)
2.67 (1.02)
After home reading
3.21 (1.06)
2.79 (1.23)
3.00 (1.15)
After class reading
4.42 (1.25)
3.46 (1.55)
3.93 (1.47)
114
Books 712 (n = 33)

Primarylanguage
storybooks
Englishlanguage
storybooks
Overall
2.14 (1.06)
2.29 (1.13)
2.21 (1.08)
.30
2.66 (.93)
2.96 (1.00)
2.80 (.96)
.58
.70
4.26 (1.17)
4.77 (.92)
4.51 (1.07)
1.68
Effect size
Effect size
Individual differences in vocabulary learning were explored by looking at the number of children who had
made no gains, moderate gains, or large gains from pretest
to posttest for each of the two book-reading sessions. Only
children who were present for both class lessons each
week were included. For weeks 16, 5 children (17%)
made no gains, 13 (45%) gained from two to eight words,
and 11 children (38%) gained nine or more words (25% of
total words). By comparison, for weeks 712, children
made greater gains: 5 (18%) gained two to eight words,
and 23 (82%) gained nine or more words. The number of
children gaining over 25% of the words more than doubled. The frequency per million for words in the two sets
of storybook-vocabulary items and the first 48 PPVT-III
items were determined using lists from Carroll, Davies,
and Richman (1971). Target vocabulary from books 712
was significantly more difficult (lower frequency) than the
vocabulary from books 16, t (34) = 2.24, p < .05.

Between L1 and L2
The results of the overall vocabulary test and the weekly
tests given during treatment and presented in the preceding section also show that there was no disadvantage for
vocabulary learning when children switched from one
language to another for home reading nor when they
switched from primary-language home reading to classroom instruction in English. In both book sessions, children scored at least equivalently on the overall
storybook-vocabulary tests whether they read books at
home in their primary language or in English. They also
showed a significant increase in recognizing storybook
vocabulary words after the class portion of treatment for
both books 16 and books 712, regardless of whether
this instruction represented a language switch for storybook reading. A within-subjects t test comparing childrens scores for posttest overall storybook vocabulary
from books 16 and books 712 was not significant,
t (32) = -.88, p > .05, thereby indicating that there was no
within-subjects advantage or disadvantage attributable to
switching from L1 to L2 or L2 to L1 home reading.
Moreover, the correlation between childrens overall
storybook-vocabulary test scores for weeks 16 and
weeks 712 was r = .91. Similarly, results reported in
detail in the next section on the Pre-IPT and the PPVT-III
show that the language of storybook reading had no effect on more global indexes of language development
(Pre-IPT) and English vocabulary (PPVT-III).
Spanish TVIP-H scores from all three testing occasions for the 13 children whose primary language was
Spanish were included in a repeated measures ANOVA.
I had originally hoped to examine these scores by lan-
guage of storybook reading, but the small number of

Spanish-speaking children precluded this. There was a
significant overall multivariate effect, F (2, 11) = 6.87, p
< .01. Spanish TVIP-H scores increased significantly from
time 1, mean = 15.54 (SD = 10.28), to time 2, mean =
21.87 (SD = 8.81), t (12) = 2.07, p < .05, and again from
time 2 to time 3, mean = 26.54 (SD = 8.68), t (12) = 2.17,
p < .01. Comparisons of childrens PPVT-III and TVIP-H
scores were performed using t tests on PPVT-III and TVIP
z-scores at pretest, after books 16, and at posttest. I used
z-scores because the Spanish and English tests had different numbers of items. PPVT-III and TVIP-H scores were
not significantly different at any time. These same analyses were not performed for Hmong primary-language
children as there was no acceptable Hmong vocabulary
measure available. The results suggest that an instructional model combining L1 and L2 was associated with
continued general vocabulary growth in both Spanish
and English. No claim that the book-reading program
caused this pattern is warranted.
Influence of English General Vocabulary,

English Oral Language Proficiency,
and Initial English Vocabulary Knowledge
on Storybook-Vocabulary Learning
Examination of English oral proficiency and general vocabulary knowledge as mediators of storybook-vocabulary
learning was accomplished using hierarchical regression
analyses. In these analyses, the influence of pretest storybook vocabulary was compared to these other two more
global measures of vocabulary, which previous research
and theory have suggested are important mediators of vocabulary learning. The overall posttest vocabulary score for
books 16 and for books 712 was regressed onto the
pretest overall storybook-vocabulary score, the PPVT-III
score, and the Pre-IPT score for the appropriate time. For
each book session, three regression analyses were performed with either the pretest overall storybook-vocabulary
score, the PPVT-III score, or the Pre-IPT score entered in
the first step, followed by entry of the remaining two variables in the second step. These analyses allowed for examination of the contribution of each of these three
potential mediators on its own when entered in the first
step and relative to the other two when all three variables
were included in the model in the second step. For both
sets of books, each of the three pretest scores was significant when entered at the first step. However, for books 16
and books 712, results of the regression analyses showed
that only the overall storybook-vocabulary pretest remained as a significant correlate of overall posttest scores
when all three variables were included at the second step
(see Table 5). This pattern indicates that global indexes of
115
Table 5. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Storybook Vocabulary
Variable
SE b
R2
Books 16 (n = 33)
Step 1
Storybook pretest
PPVT-III pretest
Pre-IPT pretest
0.92
0.56
0.59
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.74
0.71
0.58
6.05
5.54
4.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.48
0.32
Step 2, full model

Constant
Storybook pretest
PPVT-III pretest
Pre-IPT pretest
12.35
0.66
0.09
0.23
2.52
0.23
0.19
0.17
0.54
0.12
0.22
4.91
2.87
0.50
1.29
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.21
0.86
0.29
0.40
0.16
0.07
0.10
0.71
0.62
0.66
5.22
4.33
4.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.05
0.56
0.04
0.15
2.62
0.23
0.11
0.14
0.47
0.09
0.25
5.75
2.44
0.37
1.07
0.00
0.02
0.71
0.30
0.61
Books 712 (n = 32)

Step 1
Storybook pretest
PPVT-III pretest
Pre-IPT pretest
Step 2, full model
Constant
Storybook pretest
PPVT-III pretest
Pre-IPT pretest
0.55
Figure 2. Means and Standard Deviations for the PPVT-III

Vocabulary Measure for Hmong and Spanish PrimaryLanguage Children and the Combined Sample
34.54
(15.36)
Spanish
26.92
(17.66)
27.68
(16.96)
Combined
sample
21.28
(14.50)
23.24
(16.90)
Hmong
27
20.00
(11.86)
16.62
(10.32)
17.42
(10.75)
14.31
(8.71)
PPVT-III Vocabulary
116
After
12 Weeks
After 6
Weeks
Pretest
Number of Words Correctly Recognized
36
18
0.51
0.39
0.44
general English-language vocabulary and overall English

proficiency are less influential in second-language vocabulary acquisition than more circumscribed prior knowledge of specific target words.
Two 2 2 repeated measures analyses of variance
were performed to examine growth in language of storybook reading (primary language, English) and childlanguage group (Hmong, English). Using pretest and
posttest PPVT-III scores as repeated measures, one analysis was performed for books 16, the other for books
712. For books 16, children scored significantly higher on the PPVT-III at posttest than they had at pretest, F
(1, 28) = 13.13, p < .001. There were no main or interaction effects for storybook language or child-language
group. Similarly, for books 712, there was a significant
effect for time with children scoring significantly higher
on the PPVT-III posttest than the pretest, F (1, 28) =
16.44, p < .001. The effect sizes were d = .37 (from
pretest to posttest for books 16) and d = .41 (from
pretest to posttest for books 712). These effect sizes
were notably smaller than the effect sizes for storybookvocabulary learning (d = 1.40), from pretest to posttest
for books 16, and d = 1.93, from pretest to posttest for
books 712). The PPVT-III words were no more difficult than the storybook vocabulary for books 16 and
books 712 as reflected by frequency per million. Figure
2 shows this pattern of results. For books 712, there was
also a significant time treatment interaction, F (1, 28)

= 5.82, p < .05. Follow-up within-subjects comparisons
revealed that children who received storybooks in
English during the second session had significantly higher posttest PPVT-III scores and those children who received primary-language storybooks had equivalent
PPVT-III scores at pretest and posttest. Table 3 shows the
mean raw scores and standard scores for the PPVT-III at
each testing time.
Growth in oral proficiency in English was examined
as a mediator of storybook-vocabulary learning using a
2 2 repeated measures ANOVA for books 16 and
books 712 that paralleled the analyses performed for the
PPVT-III measures. Language of storybook reading (primary language, English) and primary-language group
(Hmong, Spanish) were independent variables. Children
had higher English oral scores from pretest to posttest for
books 16, F (1, 29) = 25.79, p < .001, and from pretest
to posttest for books 712, F (1, 29) = 14.76, p < .01.
There were no significant language-group or storybooklanguage main effects from pretest to posttest for books
16. For books 712, Spanish children had significantly
higher English oral proficiency scores than did Hmong
children, F (1, 29) = 4.74, p < .05.
To evaluate how initial level of vocabulary knowledge
mediated storybook-vocabulary learning, children were
divided into low, medium, and high groups based on a
three-way split of initial storybook-vocabulary scores.
This variable, along with language of home storybook
reading, served as between-subjects factors in a 3 (ability) 2 (primary- or English-language storybooks) univariate analysis of variance with the gain scores between
pretest and posttest for each of the two book-reading sessions as dependent variables. Gain scores rather than raw
scores were used to capture growth independent of initial
vocabulary level. There was no significant main or interaction effect for initial vocabulary ability for books 16 or
books 712. Analysis of frequency distributions of gain
scores for each of the three vocabulary-ability groups
showed that for each ability level, approximately 60% of
children demonstrated gain scores of 50% or more for

unknown words. The estimate for average number of unknown words was computed by subtracting the overall
pretest mean for each book session from 36 (the total
number of tested words). This difference was divided by
2 to locate the gain score representing 50%. For both sessions, the 50% gain score for unknown words was 10.
Table 6 shows these percentages.
Family-Caregiver and Home Influences

Two nonparametric MannWhitney tests were performed to compare reported reading frequency by treatment group (primary- or English-language storybooks)
for the first and second sessions, respectively. For books
16, families who received primary-language storybooks
reported significantly greater book reading than families who received books in English, U = 55.5, p < .05.
The primary-language book mean rank was 18.30, and
the English book mean rank was 11.46. In this analysis,
all scores were ranked, and the distributions of ranks for
the two treatment groups were compared. The mean
rank for each group was the sum or ranks for that group
divided by the number of cases. The mean ranks for
weeks 712 were not significantly different, U = 65.5,
p > .05. The mean frequency of storybook reading reported by parents was 2.70 (SD = .75) for books 16
and 2.83 (SD = .71) for books 712. A score of 2 corresponded with a report of one to two readings per week,
and a score of 3 corresponded to a report of three to
five readings per week.
When family caregivers indicated which language
they preferred for storybook reading on survey 2, 28
(84%) selected their primary language and two selected
English. A chi-square analysis of the distribution of the
English and primary-language choice was significant (2
= 15.70, p < .001) in favor of primary language. These
stated preferences matched the language of books selected by family caregivers to keep for their children at the
end of each session. Eighty percent of the choices made
Table 6. Percentage of Children With Low, Medium, and High Initial Levels of Storybook-Vocabulary Knowledge
With Vocabulary Gain Scores of 50% or More for Books 16 and Books 712
Initial vocabulary knowledge
Books 16
Mean gain
Books 712
Mean gain
Low initial level
67%
10.75 (8.00)
73%
11.00 (6.19)
Medium initial level
60%
10.66 (2.70)
60%
12.78 (5.07)
High initial level
55%
9.36 (2.73)
64%
11.63 (2.98)
117
by Spanish-speaking caregivers were for Spanishlanguage books, and 70% of the books selected by
Hmong family caregivers were in Hmong.
Caregiver reports on the presence in the home of
primary- or English-language written materials for adults
(books, newspapers, magazines, other) reflected a restricted range of responses. Eighty percent of caregivers
reported no more than one type of written materials in
English, and 100% reported no more than one type of
primary-language written materials. Because of this very
limited variability, these two variables were excluded
from further analysis. Kendalls tau nonparametric correlations were calculated using (a) family caregivers
English oral proficiency; (b) caregivers ability to read and
write in English and in their primary language; (c) number of primary- and English-language childrens books
in the home; and (d) childrens PPVT-III vocabulary
scores, their English oral proficiency, and their storybook-
vocabulary knowledge after books 16 and books 712

(see Table 7). Family caregivers reported knowledge of
English (on a three-point scale) and reported ability to
read and write in English were the family-language variables most consistently and strongly correlated with childrens English vocabulary measures. The number of
individuals in the family who spoke no English and the
number of English-language childrens books found in
the home were family-language variables moderately associated with childrens vocabulary scores after treatment. Reported book-reading frequency was significantly
but modestly associated with storybook-vocabulary
scores; however, book-reading frequency was not associated with PPVT-III vocabulary scores or English oral
proficiency (see Table 7). There was limited variability
in the number of childrens books in the home: One third
of the families reported having no primary-language chil-
Caregiver
1. Oral Eng. .85*** .09
2. Lit. Eng.
.11
3. Lit. prim.
4. Books Eng.
5. Books prim.
6. Freq. 1
7. Freq. 2
8. No Eng. #
9. Eng. #
Child
1. Story vocab. 1
2. Story vocab. 2
3. Story vocab. 21
4. Story vocab. 22
5. Home 1
6. Home 2
7. PPVT-III 1
8. PPVT-III 2
9. Pre-IPT 1
.46** -.13
.33
-.22
.10
.01
.13
.04
.15
.22
.01
-.15
.42* .39*
.36* -.40*
.08
.06
.03 -.28
-.21
.03
.26
.08
.03
.35* .29
.32* .45**
.29
.32* .34* .47**
.21
.16
.12
.13
.56*** .35
.35* .34*
.10
.00
.13
.04
.15
.30* .37* .30*
.02
.18
.09
.19
-.37* -.34* -.27* -.35*
.22
.23
.18
.18
.18
.40**
.28
.37* .38*
.21
.16
.16
.24
.30* .34*
.14
.01
.15
.25
.17
.22
.01
.01
.14
-.29* -.45** -.34*
.17
.25
.22
.63*** .65*** .63*** .69***

.63*** .66*** .60***
.71*** .64***
.60***
.35**
.35**
.18
.25
.13
.23
.11
-.28*
.20
.68***
.64***
.60***
.63***
.62***
Pre-IPT 2
Pre-IPT 1
PPVT-III 2
PPVT-III 1
Home 2
Home 1
Story vocab. 22
Story vocab. 21
Story vocab. 2
Story vocab. 1
Eng. #
No Eng. #
Freq. 2
Freq. 1
Books prim.
Books Eng.
Lit. prim.
Measure
Lit. Eng
Table 7. Correlations Among Family-Language and Home Resources and Children Storybook Vocabulary, PPVT-III Scores,
and Pre-IPT Scores
.21* .38* .30*

.31* .35* .30*
.18
.09
.29*
.29* .37* .33*
.11
.07
.16
.32* .19
.29
.03
.09
.07
-.14 -.26 -.23
.16
.29* .21
.69***
.71***
.64***
.60***
.69***
.71***
.58***
.67***
.66***
.66***
.55***
.58***
.64***
.65***
.65***
.73***
.56***
.58***
.62***
.73***
.67***
.54***
.56***
.66***
.47***
.52***
.54***
.66***
.56***
.69***
Note. Oral Eng. = caregivers reported oral English proficiency; Lit. Eng. = caregivers ability to read and write in English; Lit. prim. = caregivers ability to read
and write in his or her primary language; Books Eng. = number of English-language childrens books in home; Books prim. = number of primary-language
childrens books in home; Freq. 1 = reading frequency for books 16; Freq. 2 = reading frequency for books 712; No Eng. # = number of household members
who speak no English; Eng. # = number of household members who speak English; Story vocab. 1 = pretest storybook vocabulary for books 16; Story vocab.
2 = posttest storybook vocabulary for books 16; Story vocab. 21 = pretest storybook vocabulary for books 712; Story vocab. 22 = posttest storybook
vocabulary for books 712; Home 1 = mean weekly words recognized after home reading for books 16; Home 2 = mean weekly words recognized after home
reading for books 712; PPVT-III 1 = PPVT-III score after books 16; PPVT-III 2 = PPVT-III score after books 712; Pre-IPT 1 = Pre-IPT score after books 16;
Pre-IPT 2 = Pre-IPT score after books 712.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
118
drens books, and 50% reported having five or fewer

English-language childrens books.
Caregivers engagement with the reading program
was further examined by arraying all of their available
responses to the question What did you like about the
books coming home from school for reading with your
child? Appendix D shows these responses translated
into English. The specificity and credibility of these responses provide additional qualitative data suggesting
that most family caregivers were indeed participating in
the program. The correlation between time 1 and time 2
in family caregivers survey reports of the number of people in the home who did and did not speak English were
r = .84 and r = .57, respectively. The correlation between
caregivers estimates from survey 1 of the amount of
English they spoke and their ability to read and write in
English as taken from a survey administered by the
teachers was r = .91. These correlations suggest good reliability of these estimates.
Discussion
Language of Storybook Reading
and Vocabulary Acquisition
This study provided evidence that primary-language storybook reading in the home was as effective as home storybook reading in English for promoting English
vocabulary acquisition in preschool English-language
learners from two different language groups. In fact, at
the end of the first six-week session, children who had
received storybooks in their primary language performed
significantly better on English recognition of target storybook words than other English-language learners who
read books at home in English. This advantage reflected
a large effect size. This benefit was seen after children
experienced a combination of home primary-language
reading and related classroom lessons in English. It was
thought that this sequential learning model would marshal both home and classroom language resources in
support of second-language vocabulary learning. Both
the pretestposttest overall storybook-vocabulary measure and the aggregated weekly tests, which were given after classroom storybook reading, showed this result.
The weekly vocabulary test results helped pinpoint
when primary-language storybook reading had an effect
in the first session. Immediately after home reading and
prior to classroom instruction, children who received
primary-language storybooks performed no better on
English vocabulary than those who had received storybooks in English. However, after the combined home
and classroom experiences, children who received primary-
language storybooks had an advantage. This pattern is

compatible with the idea that children were developing
primary-language vocabulary and concepts that became
available in the second-language context of the classroom
lessons and supported acquisition of the related English
vocabulary. This pattern was seen only in weeks 16,
indicating that the above idea should be considered only
partially supported and preliminary pending replication.
A number of interesting speculations arise from the
finding that there was no advantage for primary-language
storybook reading in the second six-week session, even
though significant storybook-vocabulary learning occurred in weeks 712 with a large effect size (d = 1.40
for books 16, d = 1.93 for books 712) and with more
difficult vocabulary words (indexed by word-frequency
norms). It is possible that children were becoming more
effective in learning second-language vocabulary words
during classroom-reading and word-instruction experiences. Another possibility is that childrens growing overall English proficiency and English vocabulary knowledge
may have bootstrapped their second-language word
learning in the second session. In addition, the higher rate
of family participation in the training event held prior to
the second session may have resulted in a broader base
of home support, although reported reading frequencies
were not higher for the second session.
The evidence of at least parity between English- and
primary-language home storybook reading for English
vocabulary learning assessed after home experiences and
after classroom experiences in English across both sessions of storybook reading adds to a large body of evidence with older children that educational experience in
L1 does not compromise L2 learning (August & Hakuta,
1997; Corson, 1999; Cummins, 1999; Genesee et al.,
2006). In the present study, the primary language was
carefully orchestrated to align with specific L2 language
targets. The pattern of equivalent scores on the pretest for
books 16 and books 712 (separated by 8 to 12 weeks)
combined with significantly higher posttest scores for
books 16 compared to the pretest scores for books 712
(measured within one week of each other) also points to
the role of the storybook experiences in contributing to
childrens storybook-vocabulary learning in English.
There was significant improvement from pretest to
after home reading and again from after home reading
to after class reading and vocabulary instruction in
English. Without a control group that did not participate in storybook reading, it cannot be claimed that each
of the two components of the program added to childrens vocabulary acquisition of story-specific words.
However, the effect sizes found in this study do match
or exceed those reported in other experiments where
storybook reading was compared to no-reading controls,
119
including one study that involved a home-plus-school

program (d = .22; Whitehurst, Epstein, et al., 1994).
Pretest to after home-reading effect sizes were d = .30
(books 16) and d = .58 (books 712). The after homereading to after classroom-instruction effect sizes were
d = .70 (weeks 16) and d = 1.68 (weeks 712), suggesting that the classroom instruction was particularly
effective. In addition, the effect sizes for the overall
storybook-vocabulary scores for books 16 (d = 1.40)
and books 712 (d = 1.93) were almost four times larger
than those for the PPVT-III vocabulary measure at the
same points in time (d = .37 for weeks 16 and d = .41 for
weeks 712), showing much greater growth in instructed words than overall vocabulary growth. The evidence
that story-specific vocabulary learning was greater than
general vocabulary growth suggests that home storybook
reading benefited lexical expansion mostly for words encountered during storybook reading.
There was a great deal of vocabulary testing in this
study, and all testing used the same picture-identification
procedure. This is a significant concern. There are several
points, however, that cast doubt on a complete repeatedtesting explanation for the data. Childrens performance
at the beginning of the second session (weeks 712) was
no greater than that in the very first week of the first session, and they had been having weekly vocabulary tests
for six weeks. Although this pattern indicates that a testtaking interpretation of gains cannot reasonably be made,
it is still possible that pretesting and testing after the
home storybook reading may have directed childrens
attention to tested words and contributed to their learning of these words, thereby constituting part of the treatment effect. If so, it would be expected that this effect
would be spread evenly across storybook-language treatment groups. However, differential effects for storybook
language were found for books 16. Biemiller and Boote
(2006) performed a careful empirical test of repeated
testing in their study of vocabulary learning from storybook reading with kindergarten and first-grade children,
about half of whom were English-language learners, and
found no evidence of repeated testing effects. Another argument against a strong repeated-testing interpretation of
the data is that the gains from test to test were not evenly distributed. Gains made after the class storybook reading were greater than those made after home reading.
This pattern would require a nonlinear repeated-testing
explanation. Moreover, such an effect would not be compatible with evidence showing diminishing rather than
increasing effects of repeated testing (Hausknecht,
Halpert, Di Paolo, & Moriarty Gerrard, 2007). There was
also evidence of different rates of growth related to both
primary-language group and language of storybook reading that would be difficult to account for with a repeated-
120
testing explanation. Finally, the retention test for the vocabulary words found in books 16 did not show an increase as would be expected if repeated testing alone
were responsible for vocabulary increases.

Between L1 and L2
Children were able to use both L1 and L2 flexibly because even after switching from one storybook language
to another they still had very robust gains in storyspecific vocabulary learning. There was no negative influence on second-language vocabulary acquisition from
reading books in two different languages. After children
experienced a shift in the language of storybooks that
were used for home reading (books 712), they still
demonstrated a significant book-specific vocabulary increase, and this increase was of a greater magnitude than
the increase demonstrated prior to the shift (books 16).
The correlation of scores between the first and second
sessions for individual children when there had been a
switch in language was r = .91. This very high withinsubjects correlation further indicates that a language shift
did not affect vocabulary learning. In fact, the condition
in which home reading in the primary language was followed by a switch to classroom reading and instruction
in English was the only one where a significant effect of
storybook language was found. A comparison of the
number of words learned in the first and second sessions
of the program suggests that childrens rate of vocabulary
learning accelerated in the second half of the program
(see Figure 1), after there had been a switch in language
of home storybook reading. Repeated-testing effects cannot account for this pattern of word gains because the
words for which there was accelerated vocabulary learning (weeks 712) had not been tested more frequently
than the words for weeks 16. The differential rate of
family-caregiver participation in weeks 16 (50%) and
weeks 712 (80%) may account for part of the acceleration in the second session.
The difference in effect sizes for the storybook vocabulary and the PPVT-III vocabulary measures (d = 1.40
and d = 1.93 for storybooks 16 and books 712, respectively; d = .37 for Peabody time 1 to time 2 and d = .41 for
time 2 to time 3) shows that children improved much
more markedly on storybook-vocabulary items that were
no less difficult than Peabody vocabulary items, suggesting that general English vocabulary development across
time cannot entirely account for the results. The overall
level of PPVT-III vocabulary growth of about 11 words or
10 standard score points compares favorably to that reported by Wasik and Bond (2001; 7 standard score
points) and exceeds the rate of general vocabulary de-
velopment reported by Whitehurst, Epstein, et al. (1994)

for English-only children who had standard score increases of about 2 to 4 points. These gains show that in
addition to growth in storybook vocabulary, children
experienced overall vocabulary growth, albeit of smaller
magnitude. The source of this growth, however, cannot
be attributed to the storybook intervention.
The results for the Spanish TVIP-H are also informative regarding combining and switching languages.
Spanish-speaking children showed significant gains in
their TVIP-H vocabulary from the beginning to the middle and again from the middle to the end of the study.
There is mixed evidence regarding the course of L1 development in early sequential bilingualism. Some studies revealed evidence of L1 loss (Leseman, 2000;
Schaerlaekens, Zink, & Verheyden, 1995) in settings
where L2 is the language used in the classroom. Others
found no such loss when children participated in highquality, SpanishEnglish bilingual preschool programs
(Rodrguez, Daz, Duran, & Espinosa, 1995; Winsler,
Daz, Espinosa, & Rodrguez, 1999). A very recent study
reported L1 stabilization with substantial L2 growth in an
English-language preschool setting (Kan & Kohnert,
2005). The storybook-reading experiences implemented
in this study were designed to foster the oral use of decontextualized language. These L1 or L2 experiences
with decontextualized language when combined with
L2 classroom experience were associated with continued L1 growth in the very small group of Spanish primarylanguage children participating in this study.
Comparison of the standard scores for the PPVT-III
and the Spanish TVIP-H show that children started with
higher Spanish receptive vocabulary and exhibited somewhat greater standard-score growth in English. PPVT-III
scores went from 68 to 79 and the Spanish TVIP-H
scores increased from 87 to 95. Vocabulary growth in
both languages was significant from pretest to time 2
and again from time 2 to time 3. There was no evidence
of a negative outcome on either L1 or L2 from combining
and switching between English- and primary-language
storybook reading.
Language-Ability and Language-Group

Mediators of Storybook-Vocabulary
Learning
An important finding is that there were no differences in
vocabulary gain scores based on low, medium, or high
initial storybook-vocabulary knowledge for either books
16 or books 712. Approximately 60% of children at all
three initial ability levels learned approximately 50% or
more of the unknown words. Many previous studies
have reported Matthew effects in classroom vocabulary
learning where children with lower initial vocabulary

knowledge benefited less than those with higher initial
vocabulary knowledge (e.g., Snchal et al., 1995;
Stanovich, 1986; see Hargrave & Snchal, 2000, for an
exception).
English oral proficiency and overall English receptive
vocabulary were significantly correlated with learning
storybook-specific vocabulary, but prior knowledge of
storybook-specific vocabulary was the most closely related to final performance. In spite of limited English oral
proficiency and English vocabulary, children of varying
levels of initial L2 vocabulary successfully learned L2
vocabulary. These results should encourage the application of the type of high-quality storybook reading and vocabulary instruction implemented in this study in
preschool programs for English-language learners.
The results for language groups show uniformity and
variation. In terms of grammar and phonology, Spanish
is more similar than Hmong to English, and in addition,
Spanish shares many lexical cognates with English.
Nonetheless, children whose primary language was
Spanish and those whose primary language was Hmong
showed similar robust levels of vocabulary learning from
the in-class experiences based on overall rates of
storybook-vocabulary learning. The Spanish-speaking
children might have been expected to show a greater
benefit from primary-language reading than those children whose primary language was Hmong, but this was
not the case. Studies, however, have revealed that 40% to
70% of the words in preschool bilingual childrens composite L1-plus-L2 vocabularies are known in only one
language (Marchman & Martnez-Sussman, 2002; Pea
et al., 2002), rendering the possibility of cognate transfer less likely in young children. This same pattern of
growth was found for both primary-language groups. In
the presence of instruction, both language groups made
similar progress in learning words targeted during
instruction.
Peabody scores and English oral proficiency scores
showed that Spanish-speaking children were growing in
English-language competence at a faster rate than were
Hmong-speaking children. Spanish-speaking children
showed strong gains in English Peabody vocabulary.
Their standard scores increased from 69 to 81, a 12-point
gain in six months. By comparison, Hmong-speaking
childrens standard scores increased from 62 to 67, a fivepoint gain. Initial Peabody standard scores for the two
groups were not significantly different at pretest, but at
posttest, Spanish-speaking children had significantly
higher Peabody scores. On English oral proficiency,
Spanish-speaking children scored significantly higher
than Hmong-speaking children at the end of the program
(after books 712), although the two groups of children
121
were not significantly different on English oral proficiency at pretest or after books 16. These results underscore the importance of developing theoretical
frameworks that account for differences between language groups within the population of English-language
learners. Although cognizant of the limitations in comparing English-language learners to the normative sample
on the Peabody test, I have presented these data to show
how the English receptive vocabulary of the English-language learners in this study compared to the normative
sample and to afford comparison of the results of this
study to other studies. No conclusions about the general
language development or cognitive abilities of these preschool English-language learners can be drawn from or
warranted by these comparisons
Magnitude of Effects
The rate of vocabulary growth found in this study was
approximately 1.1 of 6 tested words per five-day week
in the first session and 2.2 words per week in the second session. The rate of first-language word acquisition
for 3- to 4-year-old children has been estimated to be
about three new words per day, or 15 words over a fiveday period (Bloom, 2000). Comparing the rate of word
learning demonstrated in this study to the estimated
word-learning rate reported for 3- to 4-year-old children
might suggest that the magnitude of effects was not great,
in spite of statistical significance. However, this comparison would be inappropriate because the measures used
in this study sampled only six words from the corpus of
exposure in the storybooks and did not include any
measure or estimate of additional word learning that may
have occurred. The storybook-vocabulary measures documented learning of specific target words and did not
estimate overall vocabulary growth and size.
Children gained about 33% of words tested for each
session or about 60% of unknown tested words on average. Biemiller and Boote (2006) reported that monolingual children from kindergarten to grade 2 learned about
40% of unknown words when storybook reading was
combined with word explanations, although these researchers targeted more words than was done in this
study. Other studies with preschool to first-grade monolingual children have demonstrated additional gains of
14% to 30% from explaining words when compared
with learning words from repeated readings alone
(Brabham & Lynch-Brown, 2002; Elley, 1989; Penno et
al., 2002; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Snchal, 1997;
Snchal et al., 1995). The results of this study compare
very favorably to others reported in the literature, several of which included older and mostly English-only children. The comparable rates of word learning for children
122
with different levels of initial vocabulary knowledge

undoubtedly contributed to the large overall effect size
(d = 1.66) averaged across both sessions. The rates of
learning and associated effect sizes were greatest for the
change between after home reading and after classroom
instruction for both sessions. This finding is not surprising because explicit instruction of the target vocabulary
words accompanied the classroom storybook reading,
and explicit instruction has been shown to benefit the vocabulary learning of English-language learners (August &
Hakuta, 1997; Roberts & Neal, 2004; Snow et al., 1998).
Ceiling effects may have masked childrens potential for
storybook-vocabulary learning. At posttest for both sessions, 20% of children received scores of 34 to 36 out of
a possible 36. The words selected for vocabulary development represented a corpus of moderately difficult
words based on word frequencies. These data suggest the
importance of setting high expectations for Englishlanguage learners second-language vocabulary learning.
Family-Caregiver and Home Influences

Three sources of evidence converge on the conclusion
that family caregivers were engaged in supporting their
childrens language and vocabulary learning and that this
engagement was beneficial to their children. First, a high
percentage of family caregivers attended the two
storybook-reading introductory sessions, particularly the
second session, which was attended by 80% of the caregivers. Second, caregiver comments about the program
showed that they viewed it as shaping and benefiting
their childrens language and literacy learning. In addition, family caregivers reported an average frequency of
storybook reading of almost three to five times a week.
Finally, for the first session, caregivers in the primarylanguage treatment group reported reading significantly
more often than parents in the English-language treatment group, and children in the primary-language group
scored significantly higher on storybook vocabulary.
These findings are consistent with the possibility that
reading frequency mediates vocabulary learning, although no causal interpretation is warranted.
Language characteristics of the childrens families and
language resources in the home were the aspects of the
family environment examined in this study. These were
selected based on evidence that such language characteristics and home resources influence language growth.
Correlations between the home-language environment
and English vocabulary learning showed that caregivers
oral and written English competencies and the availability of English-language childrens books in the home
were associated with English vocabulary knowledge to a
modest but significant degree. There were no consistent
relationships between the childrens English-language

measures and the primary-language literacy of the caregivers or the primary language of the childrens books
found in the home. These results provide further evidence for the relationship between caregiver language
abilities, book availability, book-reading frequency, and
vocabulary development shown repeatedly in studies
with monolingual children and extend such evidence to
include English-language learners. However, this relationship is complex. Primary-language storybook reading
benefited vocabulary learning in the first session of the
study. By augmenting home-language resources with storybooks and a program to support and encourage home
storybook reading, as was done in this study, the relationship between ambient home language, the home literary environment, and childrens language development
may be modified.
Childrens books play an important role in promoting the high levels of decontextualized language needed
in school; however, only limited numbers of primaryand English-language books were found in the homes of
the children who participated in this study. The limited
number of primary-language childrens books available
(33% of caregivers reported zero primary-language
books, 74% reported fewer than five) highlights the
storybook-reading challenges faced by these low-income
families in which 68% of family caregivers were fluent
only in the primary language. There was a modest correlation between reported frequency of storybook reading
during the first session and posttest storybook vocabulary for both books 16 and books 712; however, there
was no significant relationship between reported frequency of storybook reading at time 2 and any of the
vocabulary measures. The speculations offered earlier
for the apparent acceleration of vocabulary learning in
the second half of the program, which pointed to the
possibility of children having a growing ability to learn
second-language words, might explain the diminishing
role of storybook-reading frequency at time 2.
However, although relationships among family
English-language characteristics, the presence of Englishand primary-language books in the home, reading frequency, and story-specific vocabulary learning were examined, specific characteristics of the home reading
sessions themselves were not identified. Possible linguistic factors operating during storybook reading that could
account for the reported benefit of primary-language storybook reading in session 1 were considered in the theoretical framework developed for this study. These
factors included access to meaning, lexical expansion,
and sociolinguistic enhancement and remain an important focus for subsequent studies.
Limitations and Conclusions

A significant limitation of this study is that there was no
comprehensive determination of the characteristics of the
caregiverchild storybook readings in the home. Another
limitation is that the home reading and classroom lessons
cannot be independently evaluated. An interest in examining the theoretical possibilities of support from firstlanguage home reading to second-language classroom
experience, the additive effects of at-home reading and
classroom instruction, and a negative influence from
switching the language of books necessitated a sequential
design between the home and classroom portions of the
model. In addition, there was no comparison group that
did not receive the home-reading and classroom experiences. Because the main theoretical focus of the study
was language of storybook, this was the only variable
that was manipulated. The English-language storybookreading group was a very closely matched control group
for the primary-language reading group and vice versa.
The method of selecting words was based on researcher
judgment and experience rather than a conceptually refined or precise empirical basis. In addition, trained undergraduate teachers rather than regular teachers
implemented the classroom experiences. The possibility
of repeated testing necessitates caution in thinking about
the results, even though several sources of evidence were
marshaled to mitigate this worry. Overall, the sample is
relatively small, and it is particularly so for the Spanish
vocabulary results.
A program of home and classroom activities designed to additively maximize vocabulary learning
of preschool English-language learners from lowsocioeconomic status families was implemented in this
study. The tested model was designed to draw upon and
provide language resources in the home and in the
English-language classroom environment typically experienced by preschool English-language learners. Overall,
the data show that this combination model effectively
promoted vocabulary learning for preschool children
with very limited English proficiency. English (second
language) oral proficiency and English Peabody receptive language were correlated with vocabulary learning,
and children scored substantially below standard scores
of 100 on these measures. However, the childrens limited English did not deter them from learning English vocabulary words, as they showed an average gain of about
33% to 60% of tested words. Children of all levels of initial English vocabulary benefited from the program.
There were no negative effects associated with switching storybook reading from one language to another as
children showed very similar rates of vocabulary learning both before and after switching from either their
123
primary language or English to the other language, and

they showed the highest rates of learning following the
classroom instruction. It was also possible to engage family caregivers whose families were of low-socioeconomic
status and whose children spoke a primary language
other than English in supporting their childrens vocabulary development when caregivers were provided a literacy tool they could use.
Evidence of caregivers preference for storybooks in
their primary language and the partial support for the superiority of primary-language home storybook reading
for second-language vocabulary acquisition indicates that
the potential benefits of primary-language storybook
reading merit further exploration. The results from this
study show that home storybook-reading experiences
with either primary- or English-language books can be
implemented with at least equivalent effects on the vocabulary acquisition of English-language learners.
Notes
I would like to thank the children and families of the Noralto school
community for their eagerness, openness, and collaboration that
ensured the success of the storybook-reading program reported in
this study.
References
Arnold, D.H., Lonigan, C.J., Whitehurst, G.J., & Epstein, J.N. (1994).
Accelerating language development through picture book reading:
Replication and extension to videotape training format. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 235243.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Bernhard, J.K., Cummins, J., Campoy, F.I., Ada, A.F., Winsler, A., &
Bleiker, C. (2006). Identity texts and literacy development among
preschool English language learners: Enhancing opportunities for
children at risk of learning disabilities. Teachers College Record,
108, 23802405.
Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1999). Confounded age: Linguistic and
cognitive factors in age differences for second language acquisition.
In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp. 161181). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Biemiller, A.J., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building
meaning vocabulary in the primary grades. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98, 4462.
Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meaning of words. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Brabham, E.G., & Lynch-Brown, C. (2002). Effects of teachers
reading-aloud styles on vocabulary acquisition and comprehension
of students in the early elementary grades. Journal of Educational
Burgess, S. (2005). The preschool home literacy environment provided by teenage mothers. Early Childhood Development and Care, 175,
249258.
Bus, A.G., van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Pellegrini, A.D. (1995). Joint book
reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational
Research, 65, 121.
124
Cain, K., Oakhill, J.V., & Elbro, C. (2003). The ability to learn new
word meanings from context by school-age children with and without language comprehension difficulties. Journal of Child Language,
30, 681694.
California Department of Education. (2007). Preschool English learners: Principles and practices to promote language, literacy, and learning. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Carroll, J.B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). Word frequency book.
New York: American Heritage.
Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and
administrators. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cummins, J. (1999). Beyond adversarial discourse: Searching for common ground in the education of bilingual students. In C.J. Ovando
& P. McLaren (Eds.), The politics of multiculturalism and bilingual education: Students and teachers caught in the cross fire (pp. 126147).
Boston: McGraw Hill.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children
in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cunningham, T.H., & Graham, C.R. (2000). Increasing native English
vocabulary recognition through Spanish immersion: Cognate transfer from foreign to first language. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92, 3749.
de Jong, P.F., & Olson, R.K. (2004) Early predictors of letter knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 254273.
DeTemple, J.M. (2001). Parents and children reading books together.
In D.K. Dickinson & P.O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school (pp. 3151).
Baltimore: Brookes.
Dickinson, D.K., & Smith, M.W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers book readings on low-income childrens vocabulary
and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 105122.
Dickinson, D.K., & Snow, C.E. (1987). Interrelationships among prereading and oral language skills in kindergartners from two social
classes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 125.
Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, L.M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
Third edition. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Dunn, L.M., Padilla, E.R., Lugo, D.E., & Dunn, L.M. (1986). Test de
Vocabulario en Imgenes Peabody (TVIP) [Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test]. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Eller, R.G., Pappas, C.C., & Brown, E. (1988). The lexical development of kindergarteners: Learning from written context. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 20, 524.
Elley, W.B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories.
Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174187.
Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners cognitive
reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review
of Educational Research, 65, 145190.
Garca, G.E. (2000). Bilingual childrens reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B.
Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 813834.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S.M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D.
(2005). English language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of
research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10,
363385.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D.
(2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research
evidence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hargrave, A.C., & Snchal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention
with preschool children who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 15, 7590.
Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes.
Hausknecht, J.P., Halpert, J.A., Di Paolo, N.T., & Moriarty Gerrard,
M.O. (2007). Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of coaching and
practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. Journal of Applied
International Reading Association & National Association for the
Education of Young Children. (1998). Learning to read and write:
Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Young
Children, 53(4), 3046.
Jimnez, R.T., Garca, G.E., & Pearson, P.D. (1996). The reading
strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English
readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly,
31, 90112.
Kan, P.F., & Kohnert, K. (2005). Preschoolers learning Hmong and
English: Lexical-semantic skills in L1 and L2 (first language and second language). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48,
372383.
Kohnert, K.J., & Bates, E. (2002). Balancing bilinguals II: Lexical comprehension and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish
and English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45,
347359.
Leseman, P.M. (2000). Bilingual vocabulary development of Turkish
preschoolers in the Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 21, 93112.
Leung, C.B., & Pikulski, J.J. (1990). Incidental learning of word meanings by kindergarten and first-grade children through repeated read
aloud events. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and
research: Analyses from multiple paradigms (pp. 231241). Chicago:
National Reading Conference.
Li, P., Zhao, X., & MacWhinney, B. (2007). Dynamic self-organization
and early lexical development in children. Cognitive Science, 31,
581612.
Lonigan, C.J., & Whitehurst, G.J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent
and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 13, 263290.
Marchman, V.A., & Martnez-Sussman, C. (2002). Concurrent validity of caregiver/parent report measures of language for children who
are learning both English and Spanish. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 45, 983997.
Masoura, E.V., & Gathercole, S.E. (2005). Contrasting contributions of
phonological short-term memory and long-term knowledge to vocabulary learning in a foreign language. Memory, 13, 422429.
Nagy, W.E., & Herman, P.A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary
knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M.G.
McKeown & M.E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition
(pp. 1936). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1996).
NAEYC position statement: Responding to linguistic and cultural
diversityRecommendations for effective early childhood education. Young Children, 51(2), 412.
Olson, D.R., (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in
speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 257281.
Pemberton, E.F., & Watkins, R.V. (1987). Language facilitation
through stories: Recasting and modeling. First Language, 7, 7989.
Pea, E.D., Bedore, L., & Zlatic-Giunta, R. (2002). Category-generation
performance of bilingual children: The influence of condition, category, and language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 45, 938947.
Penno, J.F., Wilkinson, I.A.G., & Moore, D.W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to sto-
ries: Do they overcome the Matthew Effect? Journal of Educational

Robbins, C., & Ehri, L.C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational
Roberts, T., & Neal, H. (2004). Relationships among preschool
English language learners oral proficiency in English, instructional
experience and literacy development. Contemporary Educational
Rodrguez, J.L., Daz, R.M., Duran, D., & Espinosa, L. (1995). The impact of bilingual preschool education on the language development
of Spanish-speaking children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
10, 475490.
Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L.C. (in press). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Rueda, R., & Garcia, E. (1996). Teachers perspectives on literacy assessment and instruction with language-minority students: A comparative study. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 311332.
Scarborough, H.S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to
later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S.B.
Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97110). New York: Guilford.
Schaerlaekens, A., Zink, I., & Verheyden, L. (1995). Comparative vocabulary development in kindergarten classes with a mixed population of monolinguals, simultaneous and successive bilinguals.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 16, 477495.
Schrank, F.A., Fletcher, T.V., & Alvarado, C.G. (1996). Comparative
validity of three English oral language proficiency tests. The Bilingual
Research Journal, 20, 5568.
Snchal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on
preschoolers acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabulary.
Journal of Child Language, 24, 123138.
Snchal, M., & Cornell, E.H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through
shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 28,
360374.
Snchal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J.A. (1995). Individual differences in 4-year-old childrens acquisition of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 218229.
Snow, C.E. (1991). The theoretical basis for relationships between language and literacy in development. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 6, 510.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds). (1998). Preventing reading
difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.
Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360407.
Tabors, P.O., & Snow, C.E. (2001). Young bilingual children and
early literacy development. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson
(Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 159178). New York:
Guilford.
Teale, W.H. (1984). Reading to young children: Its significance for
literacy development. In H. Goelman, A.A. Oberg, & F. Smith
(Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 110121). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Teale, W.H. (2003). Reading aloud to young children as a classroom
instructional activity: Insights from research and practice. In A.
van Kleeck, S.A. Stahl, & E.B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 114139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Valdez-Menchaca, M.C., & Whitehurst, G.J. (1992). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: A systematic
extension to Mexican day care. Developmental Psychology, 28,
11061114.
125
Wasik, B.A., & Bond, M.A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book:
Interactive book reading and language development in preschool
classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 243250.
Wells, G. (1985). Preschool literacy-related activities and success in
school. In D.R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy,
language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and
writing (pp. 229255). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Whitehurst, G.J., Arnold, D.S., 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 Psychology, 30, 679689.
Whitehurst, G.J., Epstein, J.N., Angell, A.L., Payne, A.C., Crone, D.A.,
& Fischel, J.E. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,
542555.
126
Whitehurst, G.J., Falco, F.L., Lonigan, C.J., Fischel, J.E., DeBaryshe,

B.D., Valdez-Menchaca, M.C., et al. (1988). Accelerating language
development through picture book reading. Developmental
Winsler, A., Daz, R.M., Espinosa, L., & Rodrguez, J.L. (1999). When
learning a second language does not mean losing the first: Bilingual
language development in low-income, Spanish-speaking children
attending bilingual preschool. Child Development, 70, 349362.
Submitted March 7, 2007
Final revision received November 2, 2007
Accepted November 5, 2007
Theresa A. Roberts teaches in the Department of Child

Development, California State University, Sacramento, USA;
e-mail robertst@csus.edu.
Appendix A
Storybook-Vocabulary Test Items

Books 16
Books 712
POND
SCARE
WOKE-UP
MOUSE
STREET
MOUNTAIN
WATCHMAN
FATHER
STICK
DOOR
SLEEPING
WHISTLE
ESCALATOR
GROCERIES
SHADOW
HEN
UNDER
MONKEY
BREAK
BUTTON
CAPS
BEEHIVE
FENCE
HOUSE
ANGRY
SNOWBALL
FRIEND
OVER
TEDDY BEAR
POCKET
CARTON
LAMP
WINDOW
TREE
GRANNY
ANGEL
STIR
OVEN
CUTTING
HOUSEWORK
SWEEP
PEAR
CHAIRS
BREAD
CRUMB
MARBLES
CHEESE
LEAF
KITE
CATERPILLAR
MAILBOX
COCOON
WASHED
UMBRELLA
WHEAT
SEWING
WATERED
CLIMB
JAR
WIND
PUDDLE
DRYING
PAINT
YARN
MICE
BUBBLES
CLOAK
LEAVING
SHEEP
LIE DOWN
GATE
BUTTERFLY
127
Appendix B
Family-Caregiver Surveys
Survey 1
1. How many people in your family speak some
English?
2. How many people in your family speak no English?
3. How much English do the adults who take care of
_____ most speak? (little = 1, some = 2, a lot = 3)
4. What written materials in _____ do you usually have
in your home? (Hmong, Spanish)
Follow-up:
Adult books?
Newspaper?
Magazines?
5. How many ____ (Hmong, Spanish) childrens books
do you have in your home?
Survey 2
1. How many people in your family speak some English?
2. How many people in your family speak no English?
3. How many times a week do you read books with
______?
4. What language did you like best for reading books that
came home from school?
5. What language of books did you choose to keep for your
child?
6. Who read the books that came from school to _______
most often?
7. Who also read the books that came from school to
_______sometimes?
8. What did you like about the books coming home from
school for reading with your child?
6. What written materials in English do you usually

have in your home?
Follow-up:
Adult books?
Newspaper?
Magazines?
7. How many English childrens books do you have in
your home? __15 __610 ___1120 __more than
20
8. How many times a week do you read books with
______?
9. What are the most important things you can do to
help ______ learn to speak English?
10. What are the most important things you can do to
help ______learn to read English?
11. How important is it for ______ to keep his/her ability to speak_____?
12. How important is it for ______ to learn English?
128
Appendix C
List of Books Used in Program Sessions 1 and 2

Please note that these books are available in many different formats and that more than one edition of each book
may have been used in this study.
Books for Weeks 16
Books for Weeks 712
Rosies Walk
Pat Hutchins
The Very Hungry Caterpillar

Eric Carle
The Snowy Day

Ezra Jack Keats
Mouse Paint
Ellen Stoll Walsh
The Napping House

Audrey Wood
Charlie Needs a Cloak

Tomie dePaola
Whistle for Willie

Ezra Jack Keats
Noisy Nora
Rosemary Wells
Caps for Sale: A Tale of a Peddler,

Some Monkeys, and Their Monkey Business
Esphyr Slobodkina
Gilberto and the Wind

Marie Hall Ets
Corduroy
Don Freeman
The Little Red Hen

Paul Galdone
129
Appendix D
English Translations of Caregiver Responses

to the Question What Did You Like About the
Books Coming Home From School for Reading
With Your Child?
Specific Responses
1. He would ask me about the books.
2. The stories were funny and interesting.
3. They were happy stories.
4. The time we spend together when I was reading
with him.
5. It helps David learn more than before.
6. It was great. It was good for the children
to learn more.
7. The books were funny and kept communication between our child and us.
8. It was good because it is important for my daughter
to have reading most every day.
9. It kept her busy at what she needs.
10. They motivated imagination and helped
with reading.
11. I could practice with her.
12. The stories were interesting. like very much, because
it helps my son tell about the story a little more and
know a little more about reading.
13. It kept her busy with reading stories instead of playing and wandering around.
14. Helps my son look at the words and read
some words.
15. It helps my son know more and to know more about
how to read.
16. Books did not have violence.
17. The books that had animals.
18. The books are interesting and she learned a lot from
the books.
19. It helps my son know how to tell the story to me.
20. The books are very important for my son. He learned
new things on each story.
21. It kept my son busy and he would like to read to me.
22. It helps my daughter and these are new books for
me too.
23. I like that my daughter knows more about the story
from reading.
24. It makes me feel better that my daughter is learning
on each day.
130
25. It kept my son reading books every two days.

26. It helps my daughter to tell what the story is about.
27. I like that the books tell a story and show pictures
that go with what it says in the book.
Nonspecific Responses
28. I like everything about it.
29. It helped my daughter read and write.
30. I like everything about it. Sometime we go to
the library.
31. We like a lot because it helps my son know how to
read more.

Home Storybook Reading in Primary or Secondary Language With Preschool Children, Evidence For Equal Effectiveness For Second-Language Vocabulary Acquisition PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Home Storybook Reading in Primary or Secondary Language With Preschool Children, Evidence For Equal Effectiveness For Second-Language Vocabulary Acquisition PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Home Storybook Reading in Primary

or Second Language With Preschool

in English-only children (Dickinson & Smith, 1994).

Roberts & Neal, 2004). An important component of oral

Reading Research Quarterly 43(2)

By implementing this sequential vocabularydevelopment model, I examined two expectations related

Home Storybook Reading in Primary or Second Language With Preschool Children

Combining and Switching

Reading Research Quarterly 43(2)

Selinker, 2001). However, there has been very limited

Home Storybook Reading in Primary or Second Language With Preschool Children

included on the same card. The set of nine cards was

Weekly Vocabulary Tests

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

Test de Vocabulario en Imgenes Peabody

Preschool IDEA Oral Language

Reading Research Quarterly 43(2)

1517 out of 20) are limited English speaking, and levels

Family-Caregiver Book Selection

Caregiver Language and Literacy Surveys

as well as the book-reading program, were also probed

Home Storybook Reading in Primary or Second Language With Preschool Children

for each child was the alternative to what it had been in

Table 1. Sequence of Pretests, Posttests, and Program Implementation

Posttest for weeks 16

Weeks 712 of program

Cohort A, Primarylanguage storybooks

Cohort A, Englishlanguage storybooks

Cohort B, Englishlanguage storybooks

Cohort B, Primarylanguage storybooks

Pretests on each weeks

Pretests on each weeks

After at-home reading,

After at-home reading,

After class lesson, test on

After class lesson, test on

Reading Research Quarterly 43(2)

target word was also written underneath the picture in

Language of Storybook Reading

Home Storybook Reading in Primary or Second Language With Preschool Children

Spanish primary language

17.33 (11.36) 23.67 (14.67)

10.67 (9.81) 20.50 (11.67)

23.67 (14.67) 35.67 (11.15)

20.50 (11.67) 28.50 (8.98)

Hmong primary language

18.11 (9.55) 20.89 (11.94)

12.20 (7.63) 19.70 (11.56)

20.89 (11.94) 30.78 (19.13)

19.70 (11.56) 21.20 (9.17)

3.80 (3.65) 10.40 (8.37)

after home reading and again from after home reading

Reading Research Quarterly 43(2)

Means for children whose primary language is Spanish.

There was, however, a significant time treatment

Home Storybook Reading in Primary or Second Language With Preschool Children

mean for English-language storybooks = 4.36 (1.52), but

Figure 1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Overall

Number of Words Correctly Recognized

Before home reading

After home reading

After class reading

.63* .65* .63* .69*