Action Research Oral Language Skills For Kindergarten Students

Running head: ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
Best Practices And Strategies To Increase Oral Language Skills For Kindergarten
Students
Connie Crandall
University of New England
April 8, 2016
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
2
Abstract
This action research investigated the best strategies to use to help improve kindergarten
students oral language skills. This paper compares the results of the Clinical Evaluation of
Language Fundamentals 4 (CELF) an oral language pre and post test, after five weeks of
interventions. The interventions that were implemented were daily interactive read-alouds with a
focus on vocabulary, daily- shared readings and retellings of familiar stories using props. The
participants in the study were fourteen five - year old kindergarten students. A mixed methods
approach to data collection was utilized which included rating scales, observations, a student
survey and a pre and post test. The findings support the continued implementation of daily oral
read alouds, daily shared readings and retellings of stories using props.
Table of Contents
Abstract...........................................................................................................2
Table of Contents.............................................................................................3
Table of Figures................................................................................................5
Introduction.....................................................................................................7
Rationale......................................................................................................7
Problem Statement.......................................................................................8
Research Questions......................................................................................8
Hypothesis....................................................................................................8
Literature Review.............................................................................................9
Summary....................................................................................................12
Methodology..................................................................................................13
Statement of the Problem...........................................................................13
Primary Research Questions.......................................................................13
Hypothesis..................................................................................................13
Research Design.........................................................................................13
Interventions..............................................................................................14
Instruments Used to Obtain Data...............................................................15
Data Validity...............................................................................................16
Data Analysis..............................................................................................17
Participants.................................................................................................18
Results...........................................................................................................18
Findings......................................................................................................18
Discussion...................................................................................................26
Conclusions.................................................................................................33
Limitations..................................................................................................34
Summary and Further Research.................................................................34
Action Plan.....................................................................................................35
Conclusions....................................................................................................35
References.....................................................................................................37
Appendix A....................................................................................................39
Appendix B....................................................................................................40
Appendix C....................................................................................................42
Appendix D....................................................................................................43
Table of Tables and Figures
Table 0...........................................................................................................16
Triangulation Matrix.................................................................................16
Table 1...........................................................................................................19
SOLOM Observation Week 1....................................................................19
Table 2...........................................................................................................20
Table 3...........................................................................................................20
Table 4...........................................................................................................21
Table 5...........................................................................................................22
Table 6...........................................................................................................23
CELF Pre-Test...........................................................................................23
Table 7...........................................................................................................24
CELF Post-Test..........................................................................................24
Table 8...........................................................................................................25
Student Reading Survey..........................................................................25
Table 9...........................................................................................................26
Observation of Student Prop Usage.........................................................26
Table 10.........................................................................................................27
CELF Score Difference Between Post-Test and Pre-Test............................27

Figure 1..........................................................................................................28
CELF Pre and Post Test Score Difference from Criterion Score.................28
Figure 2..........................................................................................................29
Percentage of Relative CELF Section Increase.........................................29
Table 11.........................................................................................................30
SOLOM Total and Weekly Change in Scores.............................................30
Figure 3..........................................................................................................30
SOLOM Observation Change per Week per Category..............................30
Figure 4..........................................................................................................32
Students That Said They Enjoy Using Props CELF Score Change.............32
Figure 5..........................................................................................................32
Students That Said They Dont Enjoy Using Props CELF Score Change...32
Best Practices And Strategies To Increase Oral Language Skills For

Kindergarten Students
Introduction
Rationale
The number of students who enter kindergarten with unintelligible speech is alarming.
Incoming students have a varied level of language ability. Children enter with varied levels of
oral language proficiency. Some children can already speak in complete sentences, and others
still give one-word answers or an answer that is not understandable. This study will focus on
learning new techniques and strategies that will improve oral language development in young
children. Parents will be asked to take a survey to determine how and how often they talked to
and read to their children before they entered school. This study will use a classroom of 14 at the
John F. Kennedy Kindergarten Center. All of the kindergarten students will benefit from
reinforcement and encouragement to improve their oral language skills. Children need
opportunities to practice talking in order to develop their understanding of spoken language. The
kindergarten classroom is an ideal place to improve oral language through activities that expand
vocabulary and support the use of spoken words. Oral language skills are important for
communication. Children need to be able to take part in a conversation where they answer
questions, share personal stories and retell stories they have heard using details. Oral language
improves phonemic awareness -- the knowledge that each letter has a corresponding sound and
that blending these individual sounds makes words. Children with developed oral language
ability are able to recognize and produce rhyming words and identify beginning sounds in words,
two crucial skills for learning to read.
Problem Statement
More and more kindergarten students are coming to school with poor oral language skills.
Some cant tell you their name, some are unintelligible and are not receiving any kind of early
intervention speech services, and many have difficulty speaking in complete sentences. On the
Dial-4, An individually administered developmental screener used at kindergarten screening,
many students score well below the national average in language. In the area of language, items
include answering simple personal questions (name, age, and sex), articulation, naming
(expressive) or identifying (receptive) objects and actions, plus phonemic awareness tasks such
as rhyming and I Spy.
Research Questions
1. What are the best practices and activities to improve oral language skills and vocabulary
of kindergartners?
2. Will children benefit from play activities as well as structured
academic activities?
3. What successful strategies do parents use before children enter
kindergarten?
Hypothesis
Using a five- week study of specific selected fun and interactive strategies, students will
develop the type of everyday communication skills that facilitate learning. Using timed
observations, pre and post-tests and a questionnaire, I expect to see significant growth in my
students ability to communicate effectively with each other.
Literature Review
Kirkland and Patterson (2005) demonstrate the connection between a childs oral
language development and their literacy development, including, listening, speaking, reading and
writing. Oral language competencies developed in the preschool years are related to reading
competence when children transition to elementary school (Massey, 2012). However, Neuman
and Dwyer (2009) concluded that in a review of preschool curricula, vocabulary instruction was
virtually non-existent and that strategies that introduce young children to new words and entice
them to engage in meaningful contexts through semantically related activities are much needed
(p.384).
Impact of the Home. Oral language development, narrative and the subsequent early
literacy success begins at home and is affected by poverty. Early language skills are impacted by
race and socio-economic status (Neblett and Iruka, 2015). Children in poverty often begin
school a full standard deviation below the national average in vocabulary skills making their
early academic success unlikely (Administration for Children and Families, 2011; Lee &
Burkham, 2002 ). Neuman and Wright (2014) state that environmental factors associated with
vocabulary development are present in children as early as 15 months old. By the time children
from high-income families enter first grade they know twice as many words as children from
low-income families.
Opportunities to Develop Skills. Children need opportunities to practice
talking in order to develop their understanding of spoken language. The
kindergarten classroom is an ideal place to improve oral language through
activities that expand vocabulary and support the use of spoken words.
10
Consistent modeling and many opportunities for talk in the classroom will
help all students develop critical oral-language foundations for spoken and
written communication (Rog, 2011). Oral language skills, the ability to
provide a narrative, is important for appropriate development. Children need
to be able to take part in a conversation where they answer questions, share
personal stories and retell stories they have heard using details. Waisk and
Campbell (2012) believe that teachers need to engage children in
purposeful, strategic conversations that focus on developing vocabulary
words and then giving the children the opportunity to use these words in
meaningful activities. Kindle (2009) and Waisk and Campbell (2012)
reiterate the importance of choosing new vocabulary words carefully and in
advance of the lesson. Words needed to understand texts that are being
read should be the words that are chosen for children to learn. It is
important for children to connect the new words with words they already
know. Grouping words into categories or clusters help children retain the
meaning of new words. (Neuman and Wright, 2012).
Read-alouds. Another effective strategy to develop early language skills is reading out
loud. The classroom is the place to teach oral language through interactive read-alouds in a
print-rich environment with many opportunities for shared reading (Rog, 2011). Interactive
read-alouds encourage the children to participate in the reading by answering questions or
making comments as the story is being read. Children should be encouraged to participate in the
read-aloud to help with their understanding of the story by making connections to the story and
by learning new vocabulary (Kindle, 2009). While storybook reading is necessary for oral
11
vocabulary development, the read-aloud needs to be supplemented with teacher strategies that
require students to gain a depth of knowledge about their new vocabulary words (Neuman and
Wright, 2012). Vocabulary words that are introduced during read-alouds should be taught
directly (Wait and Campbell, 2012). After teaching the new word, asking children open-ended
questions and asking them to make connections about the new word will help solidify the
meaning of the word. When reading aloud teachers should initiate purposeful, strategic
conversations to guide childrens learning new vocabulary and concepts and provide
opportunities to talk about what they are learning and use language in meaningful ways. (Wasik
& Campbell, 2012, p. 328). Repeated readings of the story help children understand new words
and comprehension of the story.
Varied Skills. The National Early Literacy Panel, (NELP) 2008, did not put as much
emphasis on teaching oral language skills as teaching discrete reading skills. The NELP states
that learning letter knowledge and letter sounds are the most important elements of learning to
read. The NELP lists oral language, concepts of print, and print knowledge as a moderate to
weak predictors in learning to read. Phonemic awareness and all the associated alphabetic skills
are imperative to teach children to decode. Decoding is only the first step in learning to read,
making meaning or gaining comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading. It is easy to respect
the NELPs findings in their the study but, they certainly underestimate the crucial importance of
oral language to reading (Dickerson, Golinkoff & Hirsh Pasek, 2011). Structured instruction
that stresses overall language development is essential to engage and instruct children.
Authentic Engagement. One central theme in much of the research stresses the
importance of authentic active engagement. Read-alouds are crucial to oral language
development in young children but extended instruction through discussions and interactions
12
with the word outside of the reading. Nielsen, Friesen, and Fink (2011) found that children made
greater gains in vocabulary in classrooms where the children were engaged in meaning based
activities such as dramatic play. Classroom activities that invite children to talk help young
children develop oral language skills naturally (Kalmer, 2008). In addition, Kalmer (2008) and
Rog (2011) describe the importance of play based learning to foster childrens oral language
development. Sensory play, dramatic play, blocks centers, and cooking centers get children
talking. Waisk and Campbell (2012) believe in the importance of teacher-child conversations,
high quality conversations during center or free choice time. Teachers need to plan ahead of time
the vocabulary they want the children to learn and provide many opportunities for children to
talk in purposeful conversations for them to hear new words repeatedly. A carefully prepared
environment combined with strategic instruction will help children increase their oral language
skills through play and meaningful activities.
Summary
Research has shown that strong oral language development at an early age means that the
likelihood of the child becoming strong in literacy is very high. Those who start strong in oral
language skills get farther and farther ahead, while those who start with weak oral language fall
far behind and have a difficult time catching catch up. The best hope is that at an early age steps
are taken to strengthen oral language. Children develop early oral language skills through
observation and interaction. Kalmar (2008), lists the important components of effective oral
language as:
Creating a language-centered learning environment
Vocabulary development
Listening skills
Conversation skills
Shared reading read aloud
Shared writing
Retelling and sequencing
Dramatic play
Art and music activities
13
Methodology
Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study is to find out if the strategies of interactive read alouds with a
focus on vocabulary, structured play activities and retellings of stories using props will improve
oral language skills.
Primary Research Questions
3. What are the current oral language levels of the 14 participants in the study?
4. Will the use of daily-shared readings and daily interactive read alouds with a focus on
vocabulary and retelling of stories using props improve oral language skills of
kindergarten students?
3. Will students engage in reading activities during choice time when props
are available?
Hypothesis
Interactive read alouds with a focus on vocabulary, shared readings and retellings of
stories using props, will improve students oral language skills to help them develop the type of
14
everyday communication skills that facilitate learning.

Research Design
This study will focus on learning new techniques and strategies that will improve oral
language development in young children. This study will use a classroom of 14 kindergarten
students. All of the kindergarten students will benefit from reinforcement and encouragement to
improve their oral language skills.
Parents will be asked to take a parent questionnaire at the beginning of the study to
determine how they rate their childs speech and language skills.
The student population will be given a screening test (CELF-4) at the beginning of the
study and again at the end to assess students' language. Students oral language will be observed
weekly using a rubric focusing on comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, and
grammar.
The strategies that will be implemented will be daily interactive read alouds with a focus
on vocabulary, daily-shared readings, and retellings of stories using props.
Interventions
During the study the researcher will use daily interactive read alouds with the 14 students in
the kindergarten classroom. The teacher will pre-select vocabulary words from each text that
will help the children have a better understanding of the story used in the interactive read aloud
and create a setting where the children in the study will have conversations using the pre selected
vocabulary words through open ended questions from the teacher. The teacher will stop
frequently during the read aloud to clarify whats happening in the story and ask questions like:
What will happen next?
What are you thinking right now?
This reminds me ofWhat does it remind you of?
What picture do you see in your mind right now?
What does this make you wonder about?
How is this story like other stories we have read?
15
The teacher will read each book several times to expose children to the new vocabulary
words again and to encourage more students to participate in the discussion. The books will be
on display in the classroom to encourage students to look at them during independent reading.
The teacher researcher will do a daily-shared reading in the kindergarten classroom using
weekly poems. The shared reading may include echo reading (students echoing the words after
the teacher), choral reading (students reading at the same time as the teacher), or fill in the gap
reading (teacher reading the majority of the text and then pausing for students to fill in and say
rhyming words or other predictable words in the story). All of these ways of reading are ways to
encourage early reading enjoyment and success with a high level of teacher support.
The third intervention the teacher researcher will implement will be weekly retelling of stories
using props. The teacher will read the story aloud at least four times before releasing it into this
center. We will retell it as a class on the last reading. The kindergarten children will use a
personal, storytelling voice.
Instruments Used to Obtain Data
There are many instruments to use while conducting an action research. Researchers
should consider using more than one way to collect data. The decision about what data are
collected for an action research area of focus is largely determined by the nature of the problem
(Mills, 2014,p.83).
16
Data will be collected using a mixed-methods design with both qualitative and
quantitative methods. Prior to the study, the researcher will give the students a screening
assessment to determine their present level of performance and at the end of the four week study
to determine their growth during the study using the Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals- Fourth Edition Screening Test (CELF-4Screening Test) an individually
administered clinical tool designed to screen students ages 5-21 for language disorders. This
screen is designed to assist in the identification of students who may need in-depth assessment of
their language abilities.
Weekly observations using the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix, SOLOM
(Appendix C), will be conducted during share time as part of the daily Morning Meeting. The
SOLOM is a rating scale that is used to assess students command of oral language on the basis
of what the researcher observes. The five domains of the SOLOM are: listening comprehension,
vocabulary, fluency, grammar and pronunciation.
Students in the study will be asked to take a brief survey regarding reading with the use
of props (Appendix A). The teacher observer will track daily the student retelling of stories
using props during choice time (Appendix E).
Data Validity
The teacher researcher and the educational technician working in the kindergarten
classroom will be the only people collecting observational data to ensure reliability. All
observations will be recorded to avoid the potential to lose important data or trends. Reliability
will also be addressed by having participants answer the questionnaire one-on-one with the
teacher or educational technician to ensure participants understand what is being asked.
Table 0
17
Triangulation Matrix
Data Sources
Research Questions
1. Pre-existing Speech
Initial Teacher
Parent
Observation
Questionnaire
CELF Pretest
Ability
2.Will interactive readalouds, shared readings
and retelling stories
SOLOM
using props increase
Teacher Observation
oral language
CELF Post Test
Matrix
development?
3.Will students engage

in reading activities
during choice time
when props are
Pre and Post Student

Teacher Observation
Survey
available?
Data Analysis
The CELF Screening will have a criterion-referenced score that the researcher will chart.
CELF Pretest and initial observations will give a baseline for analysis of student growth. The
study will be able to determine the effects of the strategies relative to a students current ability
level. Students progress will be charted weekly on the SOLOM Teacher Observation and the
18
results will be graphed against time and other relevant data points. The researcher will track
daily usage of props during reading activities at choice time for each student and display the data
in a table. Data will be analyzed over time. The pre and post student survey results will be
analyzed and reported. The researcher will compare usage of props to growth to determine prop
effectiveness.
Participants
The participants will be 14 5-year-old students in a kindergarten classroom in Maine.
More and more kindergarten students are coming to school with poor oral language skills. Rog
(2011) reports hearing from teachers across the United States that more and more children come
to kindergarten with more articulation issues and are having more trouble communicating their
ideas. Some cant tell you their name, some are unintelligible and are not receiving any kind of
early intervention speech services, and many have difficulty speaking in complete sentences. On
the Dial-4, An individually administered developmental screener used at kindergarten screening,
three students in the research population scored well below the national average in language. In
the area of language, items include answering simple personal questions (name, age, and sex),
articulation, naming (expressive) or identifying (receptive) objects and actions, plus phonemic
awareness tasks such as rhyming and I Spy.
Results
Data was collected before and during the implementation of the intervention strategies
that were designed to help students improve their oral language skills. Data was collected during
share time on comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar. Data was also
collected on student usage of props and student perception of using props to tell stories. The
CELF test was given at the beginning and end of the observation period.
19
Findings
Solom Observation. Data on comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation and
grammar was collected weekly for five weeks using the SOLOM Observation rating scale
(Appendix C). The students shared on Monday mornings about something they did over the
weekend. Participants then answered questions from their peers regarding their share that
morning. The weekly observations were analyzed to help the examiner be aware of how the
participants were progressing. There was an increase in all areas over the five-week study. In
the area of comprehension, students average increased the least with only a 2% increase.
Vocabulary increased by 6%, fluency increased by 8.5%, pronunciation also increased by 10%
and the biggest increase was in the area of grammar with an 11% increase. Average increase in
all five areas was 7.6% (Tables 1 5).
Table 1
SOLOM Observation Week 1
Week 1
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Comprehens
Fluen
Vocabul Pronunciatio Gramm
Avera
5
ion
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
cy
3
3
5
4
3
3
4
ary
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
n
3
3
5
5
4
3
3
ar
3
3
4
4
4
4
3.8
ge
3.2
3.2
4.4
4.2
3.8
3.4
5
2
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
2.8

Student
Student
Student
Student
K
L
M
N
Class
20
2
5
3
4
2
5
3
4
2
5
3
4
2
5
3
4
2
4
2
4
2
4.8
2.8
4
3.8462
3.615
3.6154
3.6923
3.4615
3.646
Average
Table 2
Week 2
Comprehens
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Class
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Fluen Vocabula
Pronunciati
Gramm
Avera
5
ion
2
5
cy
3
4
ry
3
5
on
3
3
ar
3
4.4
ge
2.8
5
5
4
2
2
5
5
5
2
3
4
5
4
2
3
5
5
5
3
3
4
4
4
2
3
4.6
4.8
4.4
2.2
2.8
2
2
5
3
4
2
3
5
3
5
2
3
5
3
4
2
3
5
2
5
2
2
4
2
5
2
2.6
4.8
2.6
4.6
3.4167
3.833
3.5000
3.8333
3.1667
3.550
Average
Table 3
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
21
Week 3
Comprehens
Fluen
Vocabul
Pronunciati
Gramm
Avera
4
ion
3
4
5
cy
4
4
5
ary
4
4
5
on
4
4
4
ar
3
4
4.6
ge
3.6
4
5
4
3
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
4.8
3
4
2
2
5
3
5
5
2
3
5
3
4
5
2
3
5
3
5
5
2
3
5
2
4
5
2
3
4
2
4
4.8
2
2.8
4.8
2.6
4.4
3.6667
4.000
4.0833
3.9167
3.6667
3.866
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Class
Average
Table 4
Comprehens Fluen
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
ion
Week 4
Vocabul
Pronunciati
Gramm Avera
5
cy
4
4
4
5
5
ary
4
4
4
5
5
on
4
3
4
5
5
ar
4
3
4
5
4
4.8
ge
3
3.8
3
3.4
4
4
5
5
3
3
5
3
3
5
3
3
4
3
3
5
3
3
5
3
3
4.8

Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
J
K
L
M
N
Class
22
2
3
5
4
5
2
3
5
3
5
2
3
5
3
5
3
3
5
2
5
2
3
5
3
5
2.2
3
5
3
5
4.0000
3.923
3.7692
3.8462
3.6923
3.846
Average
Table 5
Comprehen
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Class
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
sion
Fluen
Week 5
Vocabul
Pronunciati
Gram
Avera
5
cy
4
4
5
5
ary
4
4
5
5
on
4
3
5
5
mar
5
4
5
5
5
ge
4
4.2
4
3.8
5
5
5
3
3
5
3
2
5
2
5
5
3
3
5
3
2
5
2
5
5
3
3
5
3
2
5
2
5
5
3
3
5
3
3
5
2
5
5
3
3
5
3
2
5
2
4
5
3
3
5
3
2.2
5
2
4.8
3.9231 3.923
3.8462
4.0769
3.8462
3.923
Average
1
1
CELF Pre-Test Results. Prior to beginning the study on February 29, 2016 students in
the researchers class were given a screening test (Appendix B) to determine present level of
23
performance. Fourteen students took the screening individually with the researcher. Table 6
shows the results from the CELF Screening Test. The Criterion is the expectation of a students
score based on that students age. From the results we can see that on average the students were
about a point below their criterion score, however the standard deviation of the scores difference
from the criterion is above six, which indicates that the scores varied widely.
Table 6
CELF Pre-Test
Pre-Test
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Sum
Average
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Section 1
4
1
2
5
4
5
3
3
5
0
1
6
2
4
Section 2
4
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
5
0
1
5
1
5
Section 3
2
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
2
1
0
4
1
2
Section 4
4
2
2
2
3
2
0
0
7
0
0
7
2
5
Total
14
5
6
12
11
11
5
4
19
1
2
22
6
16
45
3.2
36
2.6
17
1.2
36
2.6
134
9.6
Note: Section 1: Assessing word structure. Section 2: Expressive language-word classes. Section 3: Concepts and
following directions. Section 4: Recalling sentences.
24
CELF Post-Test Results. After five weeks of intervention strategies, a post assessment
was given to all student participants (Appendix B). The post-test shows that Students D and J
slightly regressed and Students G, H and L stayed the same. All other students made progress
with the highest increase being 11 points.
Table 7
CELF Post-Test
Post-Test
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Sum
Average
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Section 1
7
2
4
4
5
6
1
2
6
0
3
7
2
5
Section 2
6
3
2
5
6
5
2
2
5
0
3
5
3
6
Section 3
3
0
2
0
2
1
1
0
3
0
0
3
2
2
54
3.9
53
3.8
19
1.4
Section 4 Total
6
22
3
8
2
10
2
11
9
22
5
17
1
5
0
4
9
23
0
0
0
6
7
22
1
8
9
22
54
3.9
180
12.9
25
Student Questionnaire. A student questionnaire was given postintervention to assess

students perceptions of storytelling using props (Appendix A). Eleven students enjoy reading,
eleven students enjoy retelling stories using props, all but one student felt they are good
storytellers and all but one student felt that storytelling was easy. The one respondent felt
storytelling was somewhat easy.
Table 8
Student Reading Survey
Enjoy
Enjoy Retelling w/
Good
Storytelling
Student
Student
A
Student
B
Student
C
Student
D
Student
E
Student
F
Student
G
Student I
H
Student J
Student
Yes Reading Yes

Props YesStoryteller Yes
Easy
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Somewhat Yes
Yes
Yes
Somewhat Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Student L Somewhat Yes
Yes
Somewhat
K
Student
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Student
Yes
Somewhat
Yes
Yes
M
N
Observation of Student Usage of Props During Choice Time. During the collection of
the data, the teacher researcher became a passive observer to watch how students interacted with
props to retell familiar stories. The researcher noted that only 5 students chose the activity of
26
retelling familiar stories using props during the five-week study. All of the children also chose
the same story to retell.
Table 9
Observation of Student Prop Usage
Week 1
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Week 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Week 3
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Week 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Week 5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Discussion
Overall, student scores on the CELF pre and posttests increased by an average of 3.3
points. Section 1, Assessing Word Structure, saw only a small increase. Three students scored
lower on the post-test in this area, two students showed no change and the greatest increase was
by one student who improved by 3 points. Six students increased by 1 point and two students
increased by 2 points. This section saw the lowest increase overall, with an increase of 9 points
overall (Table 10).
27
Sections 2 and Section 4 saw the greatest increases in scores. All participants either
stayed the same on Section 2, Expressive Language Word Classes, or increased their scores.
Student Es score saw a 4 point increase, five students scores increased by 2 points, three
students scores increased by 1 point and five students scores showed no change. Section 3,
Concepts and Following Directions was the most difficult section on the pre-test and saw the
least growth on the post-test (Figure 2). Two students decreased their scores by one point on the
post- test, one student decreased their score by 2 points, six students saw no change in their
scores and four students increased their scores by 1 point. One student showed the biggest
increase, which was by 2 points. Section 4, Recalling Sentences, saw the greatest gains. Student
Es score increased by 6 points, making this the greatest gain overall. The next biggest increase
was by Student N, with a 4-point gain. One student increased their score by 3 points and two
students saw a 2-point or 1-point increase. Six students scores stayed the same and one
students score decreased by 1 point.
Table 10
CELF Score Difference Between Post-Test and Pre-Test
CELF Score Difference

Student
Student
A
Student
B
Student
C
Student
D
Student F
E
Student
G
Section 1
3
1
2
-1
1
1
-2
Section 2
2
1
0
2
4
2
0
Section 3
1
0
2
-2
0
0
1
Section 4
2
1
0
0
6
3
1
Total
8
3
4
-1
11
6
0

Student
Student I
H
Student J
Student
Student L
K
Student
Student
M
N
Average
Sum
28
-1
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
1
-1
0
-1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
-1
4
0
4
-1
4
0
2
6
0.6428571
1.2142857
0.1428571
1.2857142
3.2857142
9
43
17
14
2
43
18
86
46
86
Total scores for all sections only saw two students scores decrease. Overall the strategies
used correlated with an increase in CELF scores over the five-week period. Most students that
either met or scored above their criterion score on the pre-test increased their increased their
post-test score. Most students with scores below their criterion score on their post-test scored the
same or a point better, but always still below the criterion score, except for once student that met
their criterion score (Figure 1). While it seems the CELF scores increased overall it also seems
that the students that benefited the most were students already above their criterion score.
Figure 1
CELF Pre and Post Test Score Difference from Criterion Score
29
CELF Pre and Post Score vs. Criterion

15
10
Pre Test
5
0
Post Test
1
10
11
12
13
14
-5
-10
-15
Figure 2
Percentage of Relative CELF Section Increase
CELF Percentage of Increase per Section
20%
Section 1
Section 2
39%
Section 3
Section 4
4%
37%
Table 11 shows an increase in all areas of the SOLOM observational checklist. Students
made the greatest growth in the area of grammar and the least growth in comprehension. This
30
score correlates with the findings of the CELF, with the weakest area overall being concepts and
following directions. These findings are of concern. Are the weak oral language development
skills presented due to a lack of understanding of what is being asked or is there another reason
for this lack of growth in this area? Figure 3 shows a large dip in comprehension during week 2
and then a steady increase for weeks 3 and 4. It is clear that the strategies that were implemented
helped in areas other than comprehension.
Table 11
SOLOM Total and Weekly Change in Scores
SOLOM Five Week Change

Comprehensi Fluen Vocabula Pronunciati
on
Week 1
Week 2
to 2
Week 3
to 3
Week 4
to 4
to 5
Figure 3
Gramm
Avera
0.08
0.31
0.23
0.38
0.38
0.28
cy
ry
on
ar
ge
2.00% 8.51%
6.38%
10.42% 11.11% 7.59%
-0.43
0.25
0.33
-0.08
SOLOM Weekly Change

0.22
-0.12
0.17
0.58
-0.08
-0.31
0.00
0.08
SOLOM Observation Change per Week per Category
0.14
0.08
-0.07
0.23
-0.29
0.50
0.03
0.15
-0.10
0.32
-0.02
0.08
31
SOLOM Class Weekly Average

4.2
Comprehension
4.0
Fluency
Vocabulary
3.8
Pronounciation
3.6
Grammar
3.4
Average
3.2
3.0
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Students didnt actually use props except for five students during week two (Table 9).
The researcher observed that all 5 students used the props to retell the same part of the story. The
main character yelled Boo and scared the animals. The students threw the animals in the air and
laughed uncontrollably. The researcher then changed the way students were using props on
weeks 4 and 5 by adding a picture of the students themselves as the main character in the story to
try to increase involvement. This did not motivate students to retell stories using props during
free choice time. Twelve students identified themselves as enjoying using props, even though
they didnt end up using them. The three students who answered negatively about using props to
retell stories scored higher on the CELF post-test (Figure 5). The greatest increase on the CELF
(11 points) was a student who reported not liking to use props. Two students who reported liking
to use props to retell stories saw a one point decrease on the CELF post-test, three students who
reported liking to use props had no change on the CELF and six of the twelve students saw
improvement on the CELF (Figure 4).
32
A students self-identified interest in using a prop seems to have no correlation on their

scores as the results were varied for the students.
Figure 4
Students That Said They Enjoy Using Props CELF Score Change
Students that Enjoy Props CELF Score Change

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
Figure 5
Students That Said They Dont Enjoy Using Props CELF Score Change
10
11
12
33
Students that Don't Enjoy Props CELF Score Change

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
Conclusions
Strategies that were used appear to have increased scores in both the SOLOM and CELF.
However, improvements tended to come from students that were already strong in oral language.
Also, comprehension lacked improvement as compared to other measures in both tests. Based on
the results of the student reading survey, it would be fair to say that five year olds have not had
much experience evaluating themselves as even those students who felt they didnt like to retell
stories using props made significant growth on the CELF post-test.
The hypotheses that interactive read alouds with a focus on vocabulary, shared readings
and retellings of stories using props, improving students oral language skills to help them
develop the type of everyday communication skills that facilitate learning was proven to be true
given the results on the weekly SOLOM Observation checklist and the CELF post-test with the
34
exception of the retellings of stories using props. Some of the students in the study would
benefit from more intensive interventions.
Limitations
To increase oral language skills of kindergartners more than five weeks would be
optimal. Time was a factor in implementing all of the strategies and the researcher felt that
significant time was not always spent on the interventions due to the rigor of todays
kindergarten curriculum. Participants were not interested in the activity of retelling stories using
props during choice time. If the students were given the opportunity to retell stories using props
during the literacy block there may have been more participation. Lack of adult supervision
during literacy time made it difficult to observe students retellings during the literacy block.
The same CELF test was used for both the pre-test and post-test. Ideally, a different posttest would have been used to eliminate the chance that students remembered the questions from
the pre-test given five weeks earlier.
Five students were absent for one week each during the study. Six students were absent
on the day of the weekly SOLOM observations.
Summary and Further Research
Students made growth in oral language skills with the exception of the area of
comprehension. Those students who scored low on the pre-test also made the least progress over
the five-week study. The results of this action research suggest that further research should be
done into why comprehension lagged behind other measures and how you might research that.
Those students who scored below the criterion score on the CELF should have more intensive
intervention implemented.
35
Action Plan
The purpose of this research was to improve the oral language skills of kindergarten
students. This research took place within the period of five weeks. During this period, the
researcher was able to collect data that answered all three of the research questions. The findings
based on the data, show that using daily interactive read alouds with a focus on vocabulary, and
daily-shared readings helped to increase the oral language skills of the participants. The data
showed that those who scored the lowest on the pre-test made the least amount of growth during
the five-week study. Based upon this study, the researcher hopes to change the way information
for kindergarten screenings is used. The researcher is proposing that those students, who score
below the criterion on the Dial-4, a speech and language evaluation at kindergarten screening, be
targeted for interventions at the beginning of the school year. The researcher will share the
results of the testing with colleagues in the hopes that more read alouds will become interactive
for students and that shared readings will become a component of the daily literacy block.
Conclusions
This research study was conducted to find strategies to help kindergarten students
improve their oral language skills. This study has found that the use of daily interactive read
alouds with a focus on vocabulary and daily shared readings helped students improve their oral
language skills except in the area of comprehension.
The findings from the data that was collected and analyzed indicated
that those students who scored low on the pre-test made the least progress over the five-week
study. The one student who scored the lowest on the CELF pre-test scored one point lower on the
CELF post-test, indicating more interventions should be provided to this student.
36
The results from this study also showed that students did not enjoy re-tellings of stories
using props even when the researcher changed the main character to a picture of the student.
This did not motivate students to retell stories using props during free choice time. Twelve
students identified themselves as enjoying using props, even though they didnt end up using
them.
The researcher will continue to use daily interactive read alouds with a focus on
vocabulary and daily shared readings during literacy lessons. The researcher will also continue
the use of retelling stories using props but will include it as part of the daily literacy stations
rather than at choice time.
37
References
Dickinson, D. K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2010). Speaking out for language:
Why language is central to reading development. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 305
310. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27764601
Gardner-Neblett, N. & Iruka, I. U. (2015). Oral narrative skills: Explaining the languageemergent literacy link by race/ethnicity and SES. Developmental Psychology. 51(7), 889
904. doi:10.1037/a0039274.
Kalmar, K. (2008). Let's give children something to talk about! Oral language and
preschool literacy. YC Young Children, 63(1), 8892.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42730238
Kindle, K. J. (2009). Vocabulary development during read-alouds: Primary practices. The
Reading Teacher, 63 (3), 202211. doi:10.1598/rt.63.3.3
Lee, V.E. & Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate. Social background differences
in achievement as children begin school. Washington, D.C: Economic Policy Institute.
Massey, S. L. (2012). From the reading rug to the play center: Enhancing vocabulary and
comprehensive language skills by connecting storybook reading and guided play. Early
Childhood Education Journal. 41 (2), 125131.
Mills, G.E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5
th
ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.

Neuman, S. B., & Dwyer, J. (2009). Missing in action: Vocabulary instruction in pre-k. The
Reading Teacher, 62(5), 384-392.
38

Neuman,S.B. & Wright, Tanya S. (2013). The magic of words: Teaching vocabulary in
the early childhood classroom. American Educator. 38 (2).4-13.
Nielsen, D. C., Friesen, L. D., & Fink, J. (2011). The effectiveness of a model of
language-focused classroom instruction on the vocabulary and narrative development of
kindergarten children. The Journal of Education, 192(2/3), 6377.
Paciga, K. A., Hoffman, J. L., & Teale, W. H. (2011). The national early literacy panel and
preschool literacy instruction: Green lights, caution lights, and red lights. YC Young
Children, 66(6), 5057.
Rog, L. J. (2011). Read, write, play, learn: Literacy instruction in todays kindergarten. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Wasik, B. A., & Iannone-Campbell, C. (2012). Developing vocabulary
through purposeful, strategic conversations. The Reading
Teacher, 66(4), 321332.
39
Appendix A
Student Reading Survey

Student Name:
Date:
1. Do you enjoy reading?
YesSomewhat
No
2. Do you enjoy retelling stories using props?
Yes
Somewhat
No
3. Are you a good storyteller?
YesSomewhat
No
4. Is storytelling easy for you?
YesSomewhat
No
40
Appendix B
CELF Screening Test
41
42
Appendix C
Observation Matrix
43
Appendix D
Student Prop Usage Recording Instrument

Week 1
Student A
Student B
Student C
Student D
Student E
Student F
Student G
Student H
Student I
Student J
Student K
Student L
Student M
Student N
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5

Action Research Oral Language Skills For Kindergarten Students

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Action Research Oral Language Skills For Kindergarten Students

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

University of New England

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

Table of Tables and Figures

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

CELF Score Difference Between Post-Test and Pre-Test............................27

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

Best Practices And Strategies To Increase Oral Language Skills For

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

Creating a language-centered learning environment

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

Shared reading read aloud

Retelling and sequencing

Art and music activities

Statement of the Problem

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

everyday communication skills that facilitate learning.

What will happen next?

What are you thinking right now?

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

This reminds me ofWhat does it remind you of?

What picture do you see in your mind right now?

What does this make you wonder about?

How is this story like other stories we have read?

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

using props increase

CELF Post Test

3.Will students engage

Pre and Post Student

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

Vocabul Pronunciatio Gramm

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

SOLOM Observation Week 2

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

SOLOM Observation Week 4

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

SOLOM Observation Week 5

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

Student Questionnaire. A student questionnaire was given postintervention to assess

Yes Reading Yes

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

CELF Score Difference

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

CELF Pre and Post Score vs. Criterion

CELF Percentage of Increase per Section

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

SOLOM Five Week Change

SOLOM Weekly Change

SOLOM Observation Change per Week per Category

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT