Read-alouds in preschool – A matter of discipline?

Abstract

The enquiries in this study were directed towards the reading of children’s literature in preschool with the aim of describing and analysing how read-alouds were carried out in 39 preschools in the northern and southern parts of Sweden. How often were read-alouds performed? How long were they? How was literature chosen? Who initiated the read-alouds? Did dialogues and follow-up activities occur? In what context did the read-alouds take place? Student preschool teachers and preschool teachers in in-service training carried out observations over the course of one week. The results indicate that read-alouds mostly occurred once each day and that they were seldom planned or embedded in a context. Books were chosen randomly. Follow-up activities occurred on 27% of reading occasions. Thus, we conclude that read-alouds had primarily a disciplinary focus. The negative effects of these findings are discussed in relation to an ideological versus an autonomous view of literacy.

Keywords

Emergent literacy children's books picture books reading interaction preschool children phonics

Introduction

The reading of literature has a given place in preschools, it is to entertain or offer children knowledge about the world, about language as well as experiences of the relations between humans and other people’s living conditions. The doors of unexplored worlds open and processes of envisioning literature may socialise children into trusting their own experiences, the text and their own knowledge (Langer, 1995). The processes of meaning-making stimulate children's thinking and are constantly affected by the interactions and experiences in the classroom, thus creating conditions for change while fostering the ability to think from multiple perspectives (Vasquez, 2003).

Encountering literature is an important aspect of children's emergent literacy; the relationship between the child and literacy information from the environment and home literacy practices, before formal schooling sets in, thus focuses literacy events in children's day-to-day lives (Barton, 2007; Sulzby and Teale, 1991). In addition, the social practice in preschool offers experiences and interactions to enhance children's reflective competence, thus enhancing language development and communicative competence (Barton, 2007; Fast, 2008; Harle and Trudeau, 2006). Preschools support for children's socialisation into readers and writers is thus critical for children's later literacy development (Burchinal et al., 2011).

In Sweden, educational equity is affected by an increasing socioeconomic gap, with effects for both home literacy environments and schools (Brandell, 2011). The linkages between children's development of vocabulary and early literacy development are well documented (Burchinal et al., 2011; Halle et al., 2009). Therefore, integrated approaches to early literacy where by preschool teachers feel free to bridge literacy-focused interactions and play-based learning in order to create literacy-promoting interactions characterising a high-quality literacy environment are crucial (Barton, 2007; Guo et al., 2012). This study will highlight and discuss the characteristics of observed read-alouds, and how fertile ground may be created for preschool children's literacy exploration and active participation in a community of learners where children and adults interact in meaning-making related to print (Rogoff, 1994).

Theoretical framework

With a sociocultural approach to literacy, literacy competence may be seen as a precondition for participating in a democratic society. We view meaning-making as a foundation for literacy activities and we adhere to the idea that it is a historical and cultural environment in which literacy is situated and socially constructed (Barton, 2007; Gee, 1996; Street, 1995). According to Barton (1994), reading is not about simply applying a skill, but ‘involves knowing, bringing knowledge to a text’ (p. 83). In addition, there is a critical dimension involved in print encounters, drawing on the ability to perceive texts as selected versions of the world which it is possible to question (Freire, 1972; Janks, 2010; Luke, 2005).

Street (1995) describes an ideological perspective of literacy, in which political and economic circumstances are seen as affecting people's usage of literacy. Thus, it is important to acknowledge that all individuals have different literacy histories. The functions of literacy are viewed as cultural capital and the reader's prior experiences of the world, attitudes and the surrounding society and culture will all contribute to negotiations of meaning. Different constructions of meaning are possible, as language, identity and culture are seen as dynamic entities (Street, 1995).

The autonomous perspective on literacy, on the other hand, views literacy as a transmittable substance, such that the effects of being literate are emphasised, based on the assumption that literacy will, autonomously, affect other social practices. From this perspective separate sub-skills, such as letter-sound correspondences, often attract educators' primary attention (Street, 1995). According to Malmgren (1996), both teachers having a holistic, experience-based view of literacy learning and teachers viewing literacy events as autonomous activities may be discerned among Swedish teachers (cf. Ivanič, 2004). Also, Säljö (2006) concludes that the reading acquisition process in itself, without the teacher's consciousness of reading about the world, is frequently represented in Swedish educational settings.

In preschool, similar tensions between different views on how early literacy should be taught exist (Hall, 2013). On the one hand, there are emergent literacy perspectives whereby literacy learning is perceived as taking place when the child encounters print in a social practice and engages in spontaneous print activities, e.g. trying to produce writing, without explicit teaching being involved (Fast, 2008; Sulzby and Teale, 1991). On the other hand, literacy learning is perceived from a reading readiness perspective with a linguistic, rather than a social focus. The explicit teaching of basic skills, such as letter sounds when copying letters, plays a prominent role (Lundberg, 2006). However, metaphors of acquisition and participating may also be employed on a continuum, where both social and linguistic aspects of literacy learning are observed (Guo et al., 2012; Lenz-Taguchi, 2010).

The four resources model, as described by Freebody and Luke (2003), presents a theoretically independent trial-and-error approach to literacy and literacy education ‘for weighing, critiquing and balancing the claims of arts and sciences of pedagogy and literacy education’ (p. 56). The framework aims to make use of and situate such different claims in actual practice. According to Freebody and Luke (2003), emergent readers undergo parallel development in four different knowledge resources, namely code breaker, meaning-maker, text participant and text critic. The analyses of text build on the notion of print not being neutral or ideologically natural, which opens it up for critique and the redesign of texts and discourses (Janks, 2010). Thus, preunderstanding what print is and perceptions of who is invited into the literate community become crucial issues in preschool.

Background

Phonological awareness, as a prerequisite for deciphering the alphabetic code, is often conveyed through language games, similar to ‘Jolly Phonics’, in Swedish preschools. However, children's meaning-making competences and text-related social interactions are not paid the same attention, as skills focus often prevail (Barton, 2007; Säljö, 2006). Therefore, the meaning-making functions of emergent literacy activities are focused on in this study as there are many children who acquire decoding skills, yet do not appear to become readers who read with interest and understanding (Skolverket, 2007).

A model frequently used to describe the relationship between reading comprehension (R), decoding skills (D) and language comprehension (C) is the so-called Simple View of Reading, which depicts reading comprehension as the product of decoding and language comprehension, R = D × C (Gough and Tunmer, 1986). Thus, in Sweden, this frequently employed definition concerns the technical process of reading, whereas the social aspects of concerns are not emphasised (Barton, 2007; Street, 1995) Therefore, questions about engagement in, and commitment to reading, are important as such qualities exceed the domains of the equation. Reading literature also ‘involves a consideration of the text's social context and an evaluation of its worth in terms of its practical, intellectual or imaginative contribution to our understanding of the world’ (Dombey, 2009: 6).

In this study, we wanted to explore the conditions for children's emergent literacy development in preschool. One of the members of the research team discovered that student teachers reported very low frequencies of read-alouds in the preschools they were placed in during in-service practice. This discovery prompted the question of how young children become socialised into engaged and curious readers from an early age, and how preschools may contribute to this process by instilling a genuine interest in reading.

Family literacy practices and literacy development

Earlier research indicates that the literacy environment in which children grow up is vital for both language and literacy development (Sénéchal, 2006; Sénéchal and LeFevre, 2002; Sénéchal et al., 1996). Adams (1990) was among the first to discuss the importance of literacy cuddling, and Sénéchal (2006) provides evidence of a direct link between parents' storybook reading, children's preschool vocabulary and the frequency of children's reading for pleasure in middle school. Moreover, reading comprehension in grade 4 was found to be indirectly linked to early storybook exposure. As automation of the reading process, which is built on extensive reading, is a prerequisite for gaining fluency and thereby allocating enough cognitive resources to comprehending the text, interest in reading emerges as a major component of later reading success (Ehri, 2005; Stanovich, 2000). However, becoming a reader also includes taking on the role of a creative and reflecting subject so that, for example, knowledge of and access to the standard variety of the dominant language does not build on misrecognition of children's own languages and funds of knowledge (Janks, 2010).

Literacy development is thus dependent both on discourses at societal and institutional levels as well as on the ability to decipher the alphabetic code (Gee, 1996). To build up children's sense of self-worth, to make use of their own experiences, their funds of knowledge and the varying literacy experiences children bring to preschool, read-alouds appear to be a key tool that allows children to encounter literature, experience the joy of reading and gain the insight that text represents meaning (Bialystok, 2007; Levy, 2008).

Earlier studies of read-alouds in preschool

As with all literature, children's literature offers discoveries hidden in the gaps between the text and the experiences of the reader. As Rosenblatt (1978) argues:

The literary work exists in a live circuit set up between the reader and the text; the reader infuses intellectual and emotional meanings into the pattern of verbal symbols and these symbols channel his thoughts and feelings. Out of this process emerges a more or less imaginative experience. (p. 25)

Children are, as early as the age of three, beginning to develop their narrative self, as Stern (2000) calls it. They are able to see themselves not only as part of the stories they take part in but also as part of the stories about others, thus understanding that shifting perspectives may be employed in meaning-making. The intentions and feelings of others become accessible in the fictional worlds they enter (Freebody and Luke, 2003; Lawson, 2012).

Perhaps the never-ending opportunities for novel understanding, gained by digging deeper and deeper into a book's meaning, explain why children often demand that the same story be read to them over and over again (Fry, 1985). Every classroom displays a diversity of different experiences which lead to multiple interpretations when the children feel confident to take risks, thus developing their spoken language and challenging their thought processes (Arizpe and Styles, 2003).

Didactically, the main issue is to engage the children in analytical dialogues, to explore the meaning of the text and identify its central ‘big’ ideas (Beck and McKeown, 2001). Preschool children are apt to engage in such challenges, as their listening comprehension skills are well developed and interactive read-alouds may result in extended knowledge, about both meaning-making and story structures (Beck and McKeown, 2001). By focusing children's attention on the content through the use of open, meaning-based questions, the amount of talk about the content will increase. Children's text-processing involves the identification of new pieces of textual information and its integration with that provided in the text, as well as with their background knowledge (McKeown, Beck and Blake, 2009).

Effective reading aloud in preschool is characterised by eliciting dialogues before, during and after the reading session (Beck and McKeown, 2001; Neu, 2013). Drawing pictures and other creative tasks exemplify how children may alternatively process the decontextualised language of literature in follow-up activities.

A major challenge for preschool teachers is to expand children's vocabulary. To meet this challenge, teachers need to direct their activities towards vocabulary and invite the children to use new words themselves in meaningful contexts, e.g. within the realms of thematic work. In such coherent learning contexts, words appear repeatedly in connection to real-life experiences as well as in the stories that adults read with children (Hargrave and Sénéchal, 2000). The observed unsatisfactory use of the opportunities for language development that read-alouds offer could thus be improved upon (Beck and McKeown, 2001).

To read aloud to children does not, in itself, affect language development or early literacy development with regard to vocabulary, insights into narrative structures, acquisition of the complex grammatical structures of written language and so on (McGee and Schickedanz, 2007; Meyer et al., 1994; Robbins and Ehri, 1994). According to Meyer et al. (1994), these shortcomings may be linked to rooted patterns of reading to children, and not with them. In Denmark, Eskebaek Larsen et al. (2008) concluded that Danish preschool teachers display an unsatisfactory level of professionalism in their choices of literature, and that read-alouds were seldom designated a didactic function in practice, but were instead performed for the purposes of entertainment and/or discipline which links to analysis of knowledge in terms of power (Cohen, 2008; Thomas et al., 2011).

Accordingly, inviting children into a dialogue is not sufficient for the positive effects of a reading session to remain. Instead children should be given a platform from which to predict what is going to happen next, to make inferences from different parts of the text, to try to detect patterns in the text and to make connections to their own experiences (Chambers, 2011; Hargrave and Sénéchal, 2000; McGee and Schickedanz, 2007).

Furthermore, effective read-alouds may result in increased world knowledge which, in turn, is circularly linked to reading comprehension (Stanovich, 2000). To help children gain the insight that absorbing information from a text is a different task to constructing meaning on the basis of the central ideas in a text is yet another challenge which has the potential to stimulate children's cognitive development. As mentioned above, preschool teachers may mediate activities which enable children to integrate new knowledge with existing background knowledge emanating from their earlier experiences, thus raising meaning-making processes to higher cognitive levels (cf. Cummins, 2012).

Framework for analysis

The three researchers involved in this research project were teacher educators, one of whom had observed that students found that a majority of preschool teachers considered children's encounters with literature very important, yet they only seldom performed or planned reading sessions. Read-alouds were seldom used as an opportunity to expand the children's world knowledge or linguistic knowledge. His observations of the foci in activities observed in different practices are illustrated in Figure 1, which visualises how linguistic knowledge (e.g. linguistic awareness), world knowledge (e.g. societal and historic understanding) and social aspects (e.g. identity formation) are linked to one another. Within the spectrum delineated by the triangle, we believe it is possible to visualise how our mapping of read-alouds can depict different foci in activities, a skills focus, a content focus and a social focus, thus also indicating different theoretical perspectives on early literacy (cf. Barton, 2007; Ivanič, 2004; Malmgren, 1996; Säljö, 2006; Street, 1995). A skills focus would, in our interpretation, reveal an autonomous view of literacy, whereas content-oriented, holistic approaches would indicate the presence of ideological perspectives (Street, 1995). We expected to find how questions and talk about texts are used to shed light on the occurrence of critical perspectives in practices for which a social dimension is also required (Cummins, 2012; Freebody and Luke, 2003; Janks, 2010).

Figure 1.

Difference foci literacy activities observed by former students.

The question we asked ourselves at the beginning of this research project was: How is children's literature used to support language development and knowledge development, as well as identity formation and other social aspects of the learning processes in literacy activities?

Against this background, we set out to explore read-alouds in 39 preschools in different parts of Sweden, and the preschools’ pedagogical rationale for their literary activities. We wondered who had agency in read-alouds, how read-alouds were conducted and how language versus content focus was distributed. We also wondered about the employment of thematic work as a learning context for the activities accompanying read-alouds. The following questions guided our explorations:

How often are read-alouds conducted and how long are they?

How are books chosen?

Who initiates read-alouds?

In what learning context do read-alouds take place?

What activities precede, accompany and follow on from reading sessions?

How are language-stimulating activities linked to read-alouds?

Method

Thirty-one preschool teachers in in-service training and eight preschool teacher trainees were, within the context of literacy courses, given the professional development task to observe and reflect on the read-alouds that took place in their preschools during one week in October/November 2010; thus all data were collected in naturalistic settings. The universities involved are, henceforth, referred to as University South and University North. Inspired by action research, we wanted to enhance our students' ability to reflect and analyse in order to make them able to take on new practices. Like Leung (2009), we believe that:

The vitality of the teaching profession, if teachers are to be more than mechanical operators of pedagogic procedures, requires practitioners to reflect critically on their practice with reference to wider educational and social issues. (p. 55)

Read-alouds were brought up as a topic for discussion during an initial lesson and our students considered read-alouds worthy of investigation, in order to bring about critically informed changes in their practices (cf. Burns, 2010). All the trainee teachers, as well as the staff in the targeted preschools, were informed about the purpose of the project, that participation was voluntary and that parental consent was required.

An observation schedule was introduced during a lesson a few weeks prior to the observations, where observation techniques, action research and the functions of writing about one's own practice were discussed as the students, in addition to their observations, were to write narratives about their practices. First, the observation schedule was tested by the students so that any ambiguities therein could be resolved and consistency of use was secured, before the actual data collection took place. During the following lesson, the observation schedule was scrutinised, with minor changes being made in order to make it more user-friendly. The preschool teachers performed data collection in their own preschools, and the trainee teachers performed data collection in the preschools where they did their in-service training period.

Students and preschools

The literacy courses were administered by the Humanities Department of the researchers’ affiliated institutions. As the researchers’ affiliations were located in different parts of the country, preschools in southern and northern, rural and urban areas were included in the study. The trainee teachers as well as the preschool teachers in in-service training represented different age groups, from early 20s to middle age. Some of the trainee teachers lacked work experience, whereas some of the preschool teachers had up to 30 years of experience, thus the narratives represent different traditions concerning theory and practice. Similar diversity was displayed among the informants in the preschools.

We believe that our sample displays sufficient variation to draw valid conclusions from the results, as our aim was to describe and explore read-alouds as social phenomena in natural settings, so as to further develop theory perhaps for educational purposes, thus adding pragmatic validity to our procedures (Hargreaves, 1998; Larsson, 1994).

Materials

The students were provided with an observation schedule whereby they documented how often read-alouds took place, the duration of reading sessions, the number of children attending a reading session, which texts were read, dialogues before, during and after reading sessions and follow-up activities (both teacher-initiated activities as well as children's play and spontaneous reading and writing activities after read-alouds). The students were also asked to record whether read-alouds were performed as part of the structured development of knowledge or if they were stand-alone features in pedagogical practice. Even though it may seem difficult to remain neutral in a familiar setting, the observation schedules guided the students to focus on manifest dimensions of behaviour, such as the length and frequency of events (Ballinger et al., 2004). The observation schedules, one for each reading session, were then collected, compiled and analysed, a procedure described in the following section.

In addition, their students were asked to write narratives describing the literacy practices in the preschools; they were asked to include information on phonics exercises, letter knowledge and other activities directed towards enhancement of the technical aspects of literacy development. Therefore, many of the observed activities were documented both in the observation schedules and further described in the narratives. All students were provided with the same verbal information during lessons and with identical written information and instructions to maintain procedural validity.

Analysis

The initial step towards analysis of the data was taken when our students presented their findings in class. The students were also given the opportunity to take part in and comment on the findings from the two other universities. The outcomes presented of the students’ observations seemed credible to the groups of students (cf. Burns, 2010).

All data were then compiled before the final analysis. Triangulation was used to strengthen validity of the results and analyses, both methodological triangulation (observations and students’ narratives) and investigator triangulation, as we were three researchers who first performed individual and then joint analyses of the data (Yin, 2003).

The data set was first reviewed for valid responses. Thereafter, the observation schedules (one for each observation) were reduced to descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were then merged with the descriptive statistics. The search for patterns proceeded with individual analyses of the statistics and the narratives, whereby statements in the narratives were arranged into themes, after which joint analyses were performed at a physical meeting, where the themes were adjusted and quotations for further joint analysis were chosen. Both patterns and indicators were thoroughly discussed during these sessions (Greene, 2007; Joffe and Yardley, 2004). In the last step of data analysis Figure 1 was used as a framework in order to pinpoint the foci from which each read-aloud and language activity emanated.

Results

In the following section, the main features of the patterns that emerged from the data will be accounted for. We found very similar patterns in data from both southern and northern parts of the country. Nor did we find any substantive differences between urban and rural areas. First, summaries of the data provided in the observation schedules are presented (Tables 1, 2 and 3). The following subsections also include quotations from the students’ narratives that support the analyses.

Table 1.

Mean and standard deviations (SDs) of the total number of read-alouds, number of read-alouds included in thematic work, number of read-alouds as solitary activities, dialogues during reading, follow-up activities, read-alouds initiated by children and read-alouds initiated by preschool teachers.

Total number (n = 39)	Mean per week	SD
Number of read-alouds	243	6.23	3.95
Part of thematic work	15	0.38	0.94
Solitary read-alouds	228	5.85	3.72
Dialogues during reading	161	4.13	3.61
Follow-up dialogues	65	1.67	2.06
Follow-up play^a	20	0.65	1.14
Other follow-up activities^a	11	0.35	0.71
Follow-up initiated by child^a	17	0.55	1.00
Follow-up initiated by adult^a	54	1.74	1.88

Missing information from eight informants.

Table 2.

Who chooses the book and who initiates reading?.

The child (n = 39)	The adult (n = 39)	Together (n = 39)	No answer (n = 31)
Choice of book	145	81	5	12
Initiates reading	84	147	–	12

Table 3.

Length of reading sessions.

1–5 min	6–10 min	11–15 min	16–20 min	21	No answer
Counts	24	69	53	48	39	10
Percentage	10	28	22	20	16	4

Percentage calculated from the total number of read-alouds.

The supply of literature

Our findings indicate great variation in the supply of children's literature. There are examples of preschools where the bookshelves are filled and placed within reach of the children. Nevertheless, there were also preschools with a very small number of books, and preschools with the books placed out of the reach of the children:

As there are one-, two- and three-year-olds in this department, the books aren’t displayed because the children tend to chew on them, so that the books get ruined. Therefore, the books are out of sight and out of reach of the children. (Student teacher, University South)

Many preschools made use of a nearby library, and in the northern, sparsely populated, parts of Sweden the students’ observations gave evidence of the link between the supply of books and reading interest by describing how the interest in reading escalated when the book bus paid its monthly visit:

… then the children spend their time on the sofas with the new books. The children are eager and interested and want us to read the new books at once. (Preschool teacher, University North)

The record for worst access to literature was set by one preschool without any books. A majority of the students described how the lack of preschool libraries made the provision of novel books problematic.

Frequency and length of reading sessions

The data indicated that reading occurred on a regular basis, but the frequency of reading sessions was often low, and the preschool teachers who collected data expressed surprise that reading did not occur more often (see Table 1). On average, read-alouds were conducted six times a week, but the variance was large, from zero to 16 times per week. In the southern preschools, read-alouds generally occurred once or twice a week, but in two of them, no read-alouds were conducted at all during the observed week. A very distinct pattern emerged in that read-alouds occurred mainly once a day, either before or after lunch, during the so-called ‘reading rest’ time.

The most common length of reading sessions was between five and ten minutes, with a minimum of two minutes and a maximum of 45 minutes. Closer scrutiny of the observation schedules revealed that in the preschools with higher reading frequencies the reading sessions were more likely to be only a few minutes in length. The relatively small numbers of read-alouds prompted reactions from the student teachers: ‘I find it frightening that they [the preschool teachers] read so seldom.’ In the northern preschools, read-alouds were more frequent, but the following quotation modulates the over-all impression:

We read often, but the read-alouds are seldom planned or thought through/… /On average the reading sessions last for two minutes. The problem is that we don’t have that much time to read aloud, as we have so few adults working here in this department. (Preschool teacher, University North)

According to the narratives, reading seems more likely to occur when there are few children in preschool, often in the afternoon while waiting for the parents to collect their children.

Who chooses what to read?

A pattern of allowing the children to choose books for reading emerged (see Table 2). On 65% of reading occasions, the children chose the book; joint decisions on reading material were only recorded on five occasions. Irrespective of whose choice the books were, the students’ narratives reveal a constant lack of any underlying consideration regarding the purpose of the exercise, leaving the content of subordinate interest, the result being that choices of books were entirely coincidental, as the following quotation illustrates:

… when the young ones were going to sleep, they [the preschool teachers] placed the older children on the sofa and told them to pick a book to be read aloud. It didn’t work out very well, as the children started arguing about which book to read, and then there wasn’t time enough to read all the books. (Student teacher, University South)

The narratives also gave evidence of the fact that read-alouds were not often prioritised when competing activities called for attention. New children's introductory periods and Christmas preparations exemplify activities that replaced reading sessions.

Who initiates reading?

A different pattern to that of book choices was displayed regarding initiating reading. The preschool teachers took the initiative in 60% of reading sessions, whereas read-alouds were initiated by the children on 35% of occasions. However, many instances where adults took the initiative occurred during the ‘reading rest’ time:

We, as adults, take the initiative to read every day. We have a reading rest. The children themselves take the initiative to read when they play. (Preschool teacher, University North)

Our data indicate that children frequently initiated time unplanned, spontaneous read-alouds. In the narratives, several of the students gave accounts of occasions when children had approached them with a request to read. From the narratives, we also understand that the teachers very often had neither the time nor the opportunity to meet those requests:

They [the preschool teachers] did not have much time to read to the children, actually. In particular, not spontaneously. /…/ The saddest thing I saw was when one boy asked a preschool teacher to read to him. She explained that she had to help another child [to change their nappy]. Then the boy sat down on a sofa and looked at the front page of the book for a long, long time. Then he threw the book away onto the floor. (Student teacher, University South)

The fact that the children frequently initiated read-alouds indicates that there was an interest in listening to children's books among the children. How widespread this interest was is, nonetheless, hard to determine from our data, as preschool teachers’ spontaneous read-alouds often seemed to involve just one or two children. Children were also observed to have brought their own books from home to be read out loud. One of the teacher trainees who made this observation also noticed that these were the same children who asked for reading sessions: ‘… it was often the same little group of three to four children’ (Student teacher, University South).

In what contexts do read-alouds take place?

As mentioned above, reading sessions most often occurred on a routine basis, in connection with meals and the so-called ‘reading rest’ time. Following scrutiny of the observation schedules and the students’ narratives, we were able to conclude that the occurrence of a ‘reading rest’ time was explicitly mentioned in 22 preschools. This number could be higher, as many of the students wrote that they read ‘as they normally do’, without any mention of a ‘reading rest’. In 94% of the total number of reading sessions, the read-aloud was a standalone event, without further connection to other activities taking place within the boundaries of the curriculum. Instead, the purpose often seemed to be a matter of discipline:

One morning the 4-5-years-olds were gathered for a read-aloud. /…/ The main intention, as I perceived it, was to keep the children gathered while the other adults prepared breakfast. (Student teacher, University South)

Several other student teachers gave similar accounts. Again, the contents of the reading material appeared to be of subordinate interest.

In a few examples, all from northern Sweden, reading materials connected with an overarching theme were mentioned. When read-alouds took place within the context of thematic work, preschool teachers were the ones who took the initiative to choose the books and the follow-up activities. On every occasion in our data where thematic work was referred to, follow-up dialogues accompanied the read-aloud, and as one of the students stated: ‘follow-up activities are not that common, with the exception of thematic work’. One of the student teachers reflected on the absence of read-alouds that were embedded in a larger context:

There was this thematic work which focused on friendship and feelings, and perceptions associated with friendship … But apart from that, I have not perceived that reading has been embedded in contexts directed at learning, or that reading materials have been chosen with a purpose, or followed up in any way. (Student teacher, University South)

Dialogues in connection with read-alouds

In the data, there were indications that dialogues were taking place during reading sessions; still, the narratives revealed that such dialogues were seldom developed as part of a context or linked to the children's lives or experiences. The dialogues mainly focused on the meaning of words, in a lexical sense.

Follow-up activities, including art or drama, occurred following 5% of the read-alouds. Follow-up dialogues took place after 27% of the reading sessions. Normally, the children started to play following the reading sessions, but it was an exception if the play was linked to the content of the book. One plausible explanation for the lack of follow-up dialogues is the pattern of reading as part of a ‘reading rest’ time. This rationale is illustrated by the following quotations:

We have observed that the children find it easier to rest when we don’t show them the pictures in the book. Now [when no pictures are shown] they don’t have to worry about facing the reader, so that they can see the pictures. (Preschool teacher, University North)

We read on a routine basis, to get some peace and quiet after lunch. Language development is not part of the project. (Preschool teacher, University North)

The message of the book is seldom, if ever, discussed. /…/ When the read-aloud is over, the children get up and run off to play. The children know that the activity is over when the teacher stops reading.

The data unambiguously indicate that reading aloud is an established routine in most preschools, whereas follow-up dialogues or other follow-up activities are not.

Phonics

Even though exploration of reading practices was our main focus in this study, we also enquired about activities that aim to stimulate language development (i.e. phonological awareness). In all the reports from University North's language games, including rhyming, memory games and phonics programmes were mentioned as planned activities, taking place as gatherings, preferably at a scheduled time in the morning, and lasting for 10–30 minutes.

Analysis and discussion

In all of the students’ narratives, there is evidence of the students’ perceptions of read-alouds being important, core activities in preschool. Several students mention how read-alouds may stimulate children's conceptual and linguistic development. However, taking a closer look at the students’ narratives, we found that the comments concerning the benefits of read-alouds were generally vaguely formulated and did not provide detailed examples of actual learning situations. No descriptions of activities aimed at enhancing the children's understanding of the different functions of print were given (cf. Barton, 2007; Bialystok, 2007). As the pattern describes, a daily ‘reading rest’ time, to a greater extent, generally provided the formula for reading sessions; the implications of the present format of ‘reading rests’ will be discussed in the following.

Reading rest

A multitude of studies provide evidence for the fact that reading aloud, in and of itself, has few effects on children's language development or conceptual development or their early ability to read or write (Meyer et al., 1994; Scarborough and Dobrich, 1994; Whitehurst et al., 1994). On the other hand, the major aspects of importance are, according to earlier research, the context in which the reading session takes place and the ways in which the reading of a text is followed up (Freebody and Luke, 2003; Hall, 2013; McGee and Schickedanz, 2007). In particular, the social practice, which reading constitutes, seems to affect how the purpose and affordances of learning are perceived by the children (Barton, 2007).

The empirical data conjure up a picture of the ‘reading rest’ as a disconnected activity which was not embedded in any learning context. The read-alouds were followed by dialogues in only 27% of reading sessions, implying that the use of analytical dialogues as didactic tools, where explorations of meaning may take place, was neglected by the preschool teachers (Arizpe and Styles, 2003; McGee and Schickedanz, 2007). In addition, there are several examples in the narratives which strengthen the impression that follow-up activities are not something that the children expect in connection with read-alouds. Furthermore, the data describe a failure to optimise the language learning opportunities for language-delayed children or second language learners (cf. Cummins, 2000; Hargrave and Sénéchal, 2000). In addition, the habit of letting the children choose the texts and the lack of preparation and planning involved in reading sessions indicate the teachers’ subordinated interest in the content.

In one of the narratives referred to in the results section, the issue of illustrations was brought up. The student describes how the pictures were hidden so that the children could not get too interested in the content of the story, which brings us to the purposes of read-alouds.

Of course we cannot exclude the possibility that the children's general level of knowledge or language development was positively affected by read-alouds. Nonetheless, the purpose of read-alouds seems to have been to create peace and quiet or, with a somewhat sharper formulation, disciplinary focus (Eskebaek Larsen et al., 2008). We see disciplinary technologies of power producing docile bodies to be controlled in an institutional setting (Cohen, 2008; Thomas et al., 2011).

The varying range and scope of the supply of children's literature also indicate a scattered focus of interest in creating up-to-date and well-stocked preschool libraries, despite our data providing indications as to the positive effects of newly supplied books on children's reading interest.

Though a reading rest time was a frequent activity, thematic work, where reading and connected activities are carried out in a context, was almost invisible in our data. Thematic work was primarily described in the narratives as an approach that had been employed in earlier years. The implications of this state of affairs are discussed in the concluding section.

Language skills

In the collected data, there are several indicators demonstrating purposeful exercises aimed at developing the children's language skills, in particular in terms of enhancing phonological awareness. Such exercises were planned and took place recurrently at set times, but they were carried out in isolation without any connection to other activities taking place in the preschools. Activities aimed at enhancing language skills were initiated by the teachers and gave the impression of having high pedagogical ambitions, in contrast to the ‘reading rest’ time when such ambitions were not visible. Even though books are formed from words, combined into sentences, thereby offering opportunities for explorations of the functions of print, as well as a deeper understanding of the content of a book, this way of making use of reading did not occur in our data. Nor did we find any examples of pretend writing, linked to reading, as a way for the children to become phonologically aware (Hall, 2013). Furthermore, we did not find any evidence of there being language skills exercises that were linked to reading in the cases of thematic work that were reported. Time was designated for both reading and phonics, but the two types of activity were not combined or linked to one another. Thus, the synergetic effects of cross-fertilisation between different activities, e.g. in terms of vocabulary learning, were diminished.

Why do read-alouds not attract more attention?

Another pattern which emerged in descriptions of practices was that reading literature was an activity that would be cancelled when other activities, such as Christmas preparations, demanded attention. This was not the case with phonics exercises. Our interpretation is that read-alouds seem to be ranked lower as pedagogical activities by preschool teachers in comparison to phonics exercises. Phonics exercises are thus driven by common pedagogical ambitions, whereas more elaborate reading sessions appeared to be the outcome of individual teachers' ambitions. The predominant view of literacy is an autonomous view (Street, 1995).

As stated above, we found indications that read-alouds are handled as a routine activity which does not attract the preschool teachers’ thoughts or pedagogical ambitions to any great extent. Why this is the case is not something that we have sufficient data to discuss. However, we are able to list several possible explanations which may contribute to the picture built up from the data. Larger groups of children, in combination with a reduced workforce, were often mentioned in the students’ narratives as a cause for the limited number of read-alouds. So was a lack of supply preschool teachers to cover for those on sick leave and a heavier work load due to more administrative tasks. From the narratives, we also understand that preschool principals have, in recent years, received directives, either from the municipal school board or from the National Board of Education, that development projects and in-service training should focus on mathematics and natural sciences, as international comparative studies have indicated poor results in these subjects among Swedish pupils (cf. OECD, 2011). Still, the discussions among the preschool teachers and the feedback that was given regarding the section of the course during which this study was performed displayed a lack of knowledge among preschool teachers of how to perform text talk and other exercises aimed at engaging children in meaning-making activities tied to the reading of literature. We were also given signals that this competence was eagerly sought by both students and preschool teachers in the field.

Conclusion and a way forward

The arrows in Figure 2 illustrate the foci of interest that we identified in the preschool practices studied. Figure 1 was affected by the results, as the interactive, social focus we had expected instead turned out to be regulatory in nature with a physically embodied character (cf. Cohen, 2008; Thomas et al., 2011). Thus, Figure 2 was adapted to illustrate how the teachers, through reading, made the children conform to the prevalent organisational preschool structure, requiring docile children during the reading rest time. The arrow at the bottom of Figure 2 illustrates this regulatory focus, a result in accordance with earlier Scandinavian studies (Eskebaek Larsen et al., 2008) describing read-alouds as a matter of discipline.

Figure 2.

Different purposes of read-alouds observed by the students.

Evidence was found for the systematic practice of phonological awareness (as rendered by the arrow to the left, pointing out linguistic focus), but without there being any attempt to embed such exercises into a larger communicative learning context, leaving the exercises disconnected from the functions of print, apart from simply preparing the children for learning to decode (cf. Freebody and Luke, 2003), thus reflecting an autonomous view of literacy (Street, 1995).

Concerning the few read-alouds within the realms of thematic work, there is a lack of data when it comes to more detailed descriptions of the purposes and procedures involved. As thematic work involves social interaction and has the potential to include a focus on language, the third arrow is placed somewhat to the left in the upper-right corner. However, thematic work always includes a focus on knowledge, with the potential to develop children's understanding of phenomena linked to their own experiences (Malmgren, 1996). Our belief is that thematic work, incorporating both read-alouds and language activities, has the potential to stimulate children's development of general knowledge, reflexive competence and language skills when they explore the functions of print in a supportive learning context (cf. Freebody, and Luke, 2003).

In order to enhance children's knowledge, children's literature provides a shared learning context, a meaningful context which provides recurring opportunities to use new vocabulary in different statements and varying situations. The small extent to which thematic work was employed in the preschools studied certainly indicates that a change in direction is required. In contrast to reading sessions being denoted as ‘reading rests’, thematic reading is planned and consciously initiated by a team of teachers, not solitary teachers. It is up to the team to discuss and decide which texts to read within the context of a thematic project. Learning objectives are collectively formulated. Therefore, two things are stated: first, content is the primary consideration; and second, the thematic content needs to be appropriate to the educational requirements of the specific group of children and the literature must be compatible with the theme. The scene is thus set for content approaches to texts (Malmgren, 1996).

Within the realms of thematic work, dialogues have their place, which our data also reflect. With learning as the objective, not simply the objective to read or to write, but reading and writing used as a means by which to expand knowledge, questions, comments and reflections will arise naturally. The more or less total absence of spontaneous literacy activities in relation to read-alouds strengthens our view that there is a great need for coherent learning contexts, which may trigger children's explorations of print as well as story content. The fact that follow-up dialogues and other follow-up activities, such as drama and art, occurred more frequently when reading was part of a thematic project speaks for itself. Reading conducted as a routine activity is exchanged for reading that is conducted because the texts have specific purposes in a learning context. Reading integrated into a theme and with follow-up activities establishes the social arena, discussed by Dyson (1993), where knowledge is interactively created, with text, teacher and children as active participants in the meaning-making processes. Such arenas create opportunities for the expression of children's thoughts and experiences to meet and develop.

Preschool teachers and teachers need to embrace meaning-making and emergent literacy activities aimed at preparing children to decipher the alphabetic code, as well as real-world engagement (Freebody and Luke, 2003). To instil an interest in literature is an act which aims not only at children's personal development or the enhancement of literacy skills, but to take an important step in the creation of a foundation for children's engagement in words as well as in the world (Freire, 1972). Without being given the opportunity to experience meaning-making from different perspectives, without interaction, how do children develop their ability to critique texts and redesign discourses (Janks, 2010)? Further research on how literary experiences are implemented in preschools and on the role of children's literature in preschools is certainly needed.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

My warmest thanks to my knowledgeable and committed research fellows, Jan Nilsson, Malmö University and Camilla Ohlsson, Kristianstad University, who made this study possible.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Adams

(1990) Beginning to Read. Thinking and Learning About Print, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Arizpe

Styles

(2003) Children Reading Pictures. Interpreting Visual Texts, London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Ballinger

Yardley

Payne

(2004) Observation and action research. In: Marks

Yardley

(eds) Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology, London: Sage, pp. 102121.

Barton

(1994, 2007) An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Beck

McKeown

(2001) Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher 55(1): 1020.

Bialystok

(2007) Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language Learning 57(Suppl 1): 4577.

Brandell

(2011) De svenska PISA-resultaten i en annan tolkning [lilahe.com.] . Available at: http://ncm.gu.se/node/5574(accessed 27 January 2013).

Burchinal

McCartney

Steinberg

(2011) Examining the black-white achievement gap among low-income children using the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Child Development 82(5): 14041420.

Burns

(2010) Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners, New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Chambers

(2011) Tell Me: Children, Reading and Talk With the Reading Environment, Stroud: Thimble Press.

11.

Cohen

(2008) Foucault and the early childhood classroom. Educational Studies 44(1): 721.

12.

Cummins

(2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy. Bilingual Children in the Crossfire, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

13.

Cummins

(2012) The intersection of cognitive and sociocultural factors in the development of reading comprehension among immigrant students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 25(8): 19731990.

14.

Dombey

(2009) The simple view of reading. Available at: www.ite.org.uk/ite_readings/simple_view_reading.pdf (accessed 27 January 2013).

15.

Dyson AH (1993) Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary school. NY: Teachers' College Press.

16.

Ehri

(2005) Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading 92(2): 167188.

17.

Eskebaek Larsen

Basse

Sehested

(2008) Den levende bog. Rapportering og evaluerande undersøgelse, Copenhagen: Center for Børnelitteratur.

18.

Fast

(2008) Literacy – Familj i förskola och skola, Lund: Studentlitteratur.

19.

Freebody

Luke

(2003) Literacy as engaging with new forms of life: The ‘four roles’ model. In: Bull

Anstey

(eds) The Literacy Lexicon, 2nd ed. Sydney: Prentice Hall, pp. 5257.

20.

Freire

(1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

21.

Fry

(1985) Children Talk About Books. Seeing Themselves as Readers, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

22.

Gee

(1996) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, London: Falmer Press.

23.

Gough

Tunmer

(1986) Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education 7: 610.

24.

Greene

(2007) Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry, San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

25.

Guo

Justice

Kaderavek

(2012) The literacy environment of preschool classrooms: contributions to children's emergent literacy growth. Journal of Research in Reading 35(3): 308327.

26.

Hall

(2013) Effective literacy teaching in the early years of school: A review of evidence. In: Larson

Marsh

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, 2nd ed. London/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 523541.

27.

Halle

Forry

Hair

(2009) Disparities in Early Learning and Development: Lessons From the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort (ECLS–B), Washington, DC: Child Trends.

28.

Hargrave

Sénéchal

(2000) Book reading interventions with language-delayed preschool children: The benefits or regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 15(1): 7590.

29.

Hargreaves

(1998) Improving research to improve teaching. Professional Development Today 1(2): 4755.

30.

Harle

Trudeau

(2006) Using reflection to increase children's learning in kindergarten. Young Children 61(4): 101104.

31.

Ivanič

(2004) Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and Education 18(3): 220245.

32.

Janks

(2010) Literacy and Power, London: Routledge.

33.

Joffe

Yardley

(2004) Content and thematic analysis. In: Marks

Yardley

(eds) Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology, London: Sage, pp. 5668.

34.

Langer

(1995) Literature and learning to think. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 10(3): 20226.

35.

Larsson

(1994) Om kvalitetskriterier i kvalitativa studier. In: Starrin

Svensson

P-G

(eds) Kvalitativ metod och vetenskapsteori, Lund: Studentlitteratur, pp. 163187.

36.

Lawson

(2012) The real power of parental reading aloud: Exploring the affective and attentional dimensions. Australian Journal of Education 56(3): 257272.

37.

Lenz-Taguchi

(2010) Going Beyond the Theory/Practice Divide in Early Childhood Education, Abingdon: Routledge.

38.

Leung

(2009) Second language teacher professionalism. In: Burns

Richards

(eds) The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4958.

39.

Levy

(2008) “Third Spaces” are interesting places: Applying “Third Space Theory” to nursery-aged children's constructions of themselves as readers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 8(1): 4366.

40.

Luke

(2005) Evidence-based state literacy policy: A critical alternative. In: Bascia

Cumming

Datnow

(eds) International Handbook of Educational Policy, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 661675.

41.

Lundberg

(2006) Early child development as related to reading acquisition. European Review 14: 6579.

42.

Malmgren

L-G

(1996) Svenskundervisningen i grundskolan, Lund: Studentlitteratur.

43.

McGee

Schickedanz

(2007) Repeated interactive read-alouds in preschool and kindergarten. The Reading Teacher 60(8): 742751.

44.

McKeown

Beck

Blake

(2009) Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly 44(3): 218253.

45.

Meyer LA, Stahl SA, Linn RL, and Wardrop JL (1994) Effects of reading storybooks to children. The Journal of Educational Research 88(2): 69–85.

46.

Neu

(2013) An exploration of oral language development in Spanish-speaking preschool students. Early Childhood Education Journal 41(3): 211218.

47.

OECD (2011) OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education Sweden. Available at:http://www.oecd.org/edu/preschoolandschool/47169533.pdf (accessed 27 January 2014).

48.

Robbins

Ehri

(1994) Listening to stories helps kindergartners learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology 86: 5464.

49.

Rogoff

(1994) Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture and Activity 1(4): 209229.

50.

Rosenblatt

(1978) The Reader, the Text and the Poem. The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work, Carbondale, IL: Southern University Press.

51.

Scarborough

Dobrich

(1994) On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review 14: 145302.

52.

Sénéchal

(2006) Testing the Home Literacy Model. Parent involvement in preschool is differentially related to grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency, spelling, and reading for pleasure. Scientific Studies of Reading 10(1): 5987.

53.

Sénéchal

LeFevre

J-A

(2002) Parental involvement in the development of children's reading skill: a five-year longitudinal study. Child Development 73(2): 445460.

54.

Sénéchal

LeFevre

J-A

Hudson

(1996) Knowledge of storybooks as a predictor of young children's vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology 88(3): 520536.

55.

Skolverket (2007) PIRLS 2006. Läsförmågan hos elever i årskurs 4- i Sverige och i världen. Rapport 305.

56.

Stern

(2000) Introduction to the paperback edition. In: Stern

(ed) The Interpersonal World of the Infant, New York, NY: Basic Books.

57.

Street

(1995) Social Literacies. Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education, Harlow: Longman Group Ltd.

58.

Stanovich

(2000) Progress in Understanding Reading. Scientific Foundations and New Frontiers, New York, NY: Guilford Press.

59.

Sulzby

Teale

(1991) Emergent literacy. In: Barr

Kamil

Mosenthal

(eds) Handbook of Reading Research Vol II. New York, NY: Longman, pp. 727757.

60.

Thomas

Warren

deVries

(2011) Play-based learning and intentional teaching in early childhood contexts. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 36(4): 6975.

61.

Säljö

(2006) Presentation i Literacygruppen, Gothenburg: Literacygruppen.

62.

Vasquez

(2003) Getting Beyond ‘I Like the Book’: Creating Space for Critical Literacy in K-6 Classrooms, Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

63.

Whitehurst

Arnold

Epstein

(1994) A picture book intervention in daycare and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology 30: 679689.

64.

Yin

(2003) Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 3rd ed. London: Sage.