Running head: ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 1

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.
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 3

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
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 4

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
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 5

Table of Tables and Figures

Table 0 .................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Triangulation Matrix ............................................................................................................................... 16

Table 1 .................................................................................................................................................................... 19

SOLOM Observation Week 1 ................................................................................................................ 19

Table 2 .................................................................................................................................................................... 20

SOLOM Observation Week 2 ................................................................................................................ 20

Table 3 .................................................................................................................................................................... 20

SOLOM Observation Week 3 ................................................................................................................ 20

Table 4 .................................................................................................................................................................... 21

SOLOM Observation Week 4 ................................................................................................................ 21

Table 5 .................................................................................................................................................................... 22

SOLOM Observation Week 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
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 6

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 Don’t Enjoy Using Props CELF Score Change .............................. 32
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 7

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.

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 8

Problem Statement

More and more kindergarten students are coming to school with poor oral language skills.

Some can’t 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.

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 9

Literature Review

Kirkland and Patterson (2005) demonstrate the connection between a child’s 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. Consistent modeling and many opportunities for talk in the
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 10

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

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
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 11

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 children’s 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 NELP’s 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

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
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 12

children develop oral language skills naturally (Kalmer, 2008). In addition, Kalmer (2008) and

Rog (2011) describe the importance of play based learning to foster children’s 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
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 13

 Retelling and sequencing

 Dramatic play

 Art and music activities

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

everyday communication skills that facilitate learning.

Research Design

This study will focus on learning new techniques and strategies that will improve oral
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 14

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 child’s 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 what’s happening in the story and ask questions like:

 What will happen next?

 What are you thinking right now?

 This reminds me of…What does it remind you of?

 What picture do you see in your mind right now?

 What does this make you wonder about?

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 15

 How is this story like other stories we have read?

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).

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
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 16

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

Triangulation Matrix

Data Sources

Research Questions 1 2 3
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 17

1. Pre-existing Speech Initial Teacher Parent

CELF Pretest
Ability Observation Questionnaire

2.Will interactive read-

alouds, shared readings

and retelling stories SOLOM

using props increase Teacher Observation CELF Post Test

oral language 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 student’s current ability

level. Students’ progress will be charted weekly on the SOLOM Teacher Observation and the

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
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 18

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 can’t 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.

Findings

Solom Observation. Data on comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation and

grammar was collected weekly for five weeks using the SOLOM Observation rating scale
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 19

(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
Comprehension Fluency Vocabulary Pronunciation Grammar Average
Student A 5 4 4 3 3 3.8
Student B 4 3 3 3 3 3.2
Student C 4 3 3 3 3 3.2
Student D 4 5 4 5 4 4.4
Student E 4 4 4 5 4 4.2
Student F 4 3 4 4 4 3.8
Student G 4 3 3 3 4 3.4
Student H
Student I 5 5 5 5 5 5
Student J 2 3 3 3 3 2.8
Student K 2 2 2 2 2 2
Student L 5 5 5 5 4 4.8
Student M 3 3 3 3 2 2.8
Student N 4 4 4 4 4 4
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 20

Class Average 3.8462 3.6154 3.6154 3.6923 3.4615 3.6462

Table 2

SOLOM Observation Week 2

Week 2
Comprehension Fluency Vocabulary Pronunciation Grammar Average
Student A 5 5 4 5 3 4.4
Student B 2 3 3 3 3 2.8
Student C
Student D 5 5 4 5 4 4.6
Student E 5 5 5 5 4 4.8
Student F 4 5 4 5 4 4.4
Student G 2 2 2 3 2 2.2
Student H 2 3 3 3 3 2.8
Student I
Student J 2 2 2 2 2 2
Student K 2 3 3 3 2 2.6
Student L 5 5 5 5 4 4.8
Student M 3 3 3 2 2 2.6
Student N 4 5 4 5 5 4.6

Class Average 3.4167 3.8333 3.5000 3.8333 3.1667 3.5500

Table 3

SOLOM Observation Week 3

Week 3
Comprehension Fluency Vocabulary Pronunciation Grammar Average
Student A 4 5 5 5 4 4.6
Student B 3 4 4 4 3 3.6
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 21

Student C 4 4 4 4 4 4
Student D
Student E 5 5 5 5 5 5
Student F 4 5 5 5 5 4.8
Student G 3 3 3 3 3 3
Student H
Student I 4 5 5 5 5 4.8
Student J 2 2 2 2 2 2
Student K 2 3 3 3 3 2.8
Student L 5 5 5 5 4 4.8
Student M 3 3 3 2 2 2.6
Student N 5 4 5 4 4 4.4

Class Average 3.6667 4.0000 4.0833 3.9167 3.6667 3.8667

Table 4

SOLOM Observation Week 4

Week 4
Comprehension Fluency Vocabulary Pronunciation Grammar Average
Student A 5 5 5 5 4 4.8
Student B 4 4 4 4 3 3.8
Student C 4 4 3 3 3 3.4
Student D 4 4 4 4 4 4
Student E 5 5 5 5 5 5
Student F
Student G 3 3 3 3 3 3
Student H 3 3 3 3 3 3
Student I 5 5 4 5 5 4.8
Student J 2 2 2 3 2 2.2
Student K 3 3 3 3 3 3
Student L 5 5 5 5 5 5
Student M 4 3 3 2 3 3
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 22

Student N 5 5 5 5 5 5

Class Average 4.0000 3.9231 3.7692 3.8462 3.6923 3.8462

Table 5

SOLOM Observation Week 5

Week 5
Comprehension Fluency Vocabulary Pronunciation Grammar Average
Student A 5 5 5 5 5 5
Student B 4 4 4 5 4 4.2
Student C 4 4 3 4 4 3.8
Student D 5 5 5 5 5 5
Student E
Student F 5 5 5 5 5 5
Student G 3 3 3 3 3 3
Student H 3 3 3 3 3 3
Student I 5 5 5 5 5 5
Student J 3 3 3 3 3 3
Student K 2 2 2 3 2 2.2
Student L 5 5 5 5 5 5
Student M 2 2 2 2 2 2
Student N 5 5 5 5 4 4.8

Class 3.9231 3.9231 3.8462 4.0769 3.8462 3.9231

Average
CELF Pre-Test Results. Prior to beginning the study on February 29, 2016 students in

the researcher’s class were given a screening test (Appendix B) to determine present level of

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 student’s

score based on that student’s age. From the results we can see that on average the students were
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 23

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
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Total
Student A 4 4 2 4 14
Student B 1 2 0 2 5
Student C 2 2 0 2 6
Student D 5 3 2 2 12
Student E 4 2 2 3 11
Student F 5 3 1 2 11
Student G 3 2 0 0 5
Student H 3 1 0 0 4
Student I 5 5 2 7 19
Student J 0 0 1 0 1
Student K 1 1 0 0 2
Student L 6 5 4 7 22
Student M 2 1 1 2 6
Student N 4 5 2 5 16

Sum 45 36 17 36 134
Average 3.2 2.6 1.2 2.6 9.6
Note: Section 1: Assessing word structure. Section 2: Expressive language-word classes. Section 3: Concepts and

following directions. Section 4: Recalling sentences.

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
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 24

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
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Total
Student A 7 6 3 6 22
Student B 2 3 0 3 8
Student C 4 2 2 2 10
Student D 4 5 0 2 11
Student E 5 6 2 9 22
Student F 6 5 1 5 17
Student G 1 2 1 1 5
Student H 2 2 0 0 4
Student I 6 5 3 9 23
Student J 0 0 0 0 0
Student K 3 3 0 0 6
Student L 7 5 3 7 22
Student M 2 3 2 1 8
Student N 5 6 2 9 22

Sum 54 53 19 54 180
Average 3.9 3.8 1.4 3.9 12.9
Note: Section 1: Assessing word structure. Section 2: Expressive language-word classes. Section 3: Concepts and

following directions. Section 4: Recalling sentences.

Student Questionnaire. A student questionnaire was given post–intervention to assess

students’ perceptions of storytelling using props (Appendix A). Eleven students enjoy reading,
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 25

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 Reading Enjoy Retelling w/ Props Good Storyteller Storytelling Easy

Student A Yes Yes Yes Yes
Student B Yes No Yes Yes
Student C Yes Yes Yes Yes
Student D Yes Yes Yes Yes
Student E Yes No Yes Yes
Student F Yes Yes Yes Yes
Student G Yes Yes No Yes
Student H Somewhat Yes Yes Yes
Student I Somewhat Yes Yes Yes
Student J Yes Yes Yes Yes
Student K Yes Yes Yes Yes
Student L Somewhat Yes Yes Somewhat
Student M Yes Yes Yes Yes
Student N Yes Somewhat Yes Yes

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

retelling familiar stories using props during the five-week study. All of the children also chose

the same story to retell.

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 26

Table 9

Observation of Student Prop Usage

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5

Student A 0 1 0 0 0
Student B 0 1 0 0 0
Student C 0 1 0 0 0
Student D 0 1 0 0 0
Student E 0 1 0 0 0
Student F 0 0 0 0 0
Student G 0 0 0 0 0
Student H 0 0 0 0 0
Student I 0 0 0 0 0
Student J 0 0 0 0 0
Student K 0 0 0 0 0
Student L 0 0 0 0 0
Student M 0 0 0 0 0
Student N 0 0 0 0 0

Discussion

Overall, student scores on the CELF pre and post–tests 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).

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 E’s score saw a 4 point increase, five students’ scores increased by 2 points, three
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 27

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

E’s 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

student’s score decreased by 1 point.

Table 10

CELF Score Difference Between Post-Test and Pre-Test

CELF Score Difference

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Total
Student A 3 2 1 2 8
Student B 1 1 0 1 3
Student C 2 0 2 0 4
Student D -1 2 -2 0 -1
Student E 1 4 0 6 11
Student F 1 2 0 3 6
Student G -2 0 1 1 0
Student H -1 1 0 0 0
Student I 1 0 1 2 4
Student J 0 0 -1 0 -1
Student K 2 2 0 0 4
Student L 1 0 -1 0 0
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 28

Student M 0 2 1 -1 2
Student N 1 1 0 4 6

Average 0.642857143 1.214285714 0.142857143 1.285714286 3.285714286

Sum 9 17 2 18 46
Note: Section 1: Assessing word structure. Section 2: Expressive language-word classes. Section 3: Concepts and

following directions. Section 4: Recalling sentences.

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
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 29

CELF Pre and Post Score vs. Criterion

15

10

5
Pre Test
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Post Test
-5

-10

-15

Figure 2

Percentage of Relative CELF Section Increase

CELF Percentage of Increase per Section

20%

39% Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4

37%
4%
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 30

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

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

Comprehension Fluency Vocabulary Pronunciation Grammar Average
0.08 0.31 0.23 0.38 0.38 0.28
2.00% 8.51% 6.38% 10.42% 11.11% 7.59%

SOLOM Weekly Change

Week 1 to 2 -0.43 0.22 -0.12 0.14 -0.29 -0.10
Week 2 to 3 0.25 0.17 0.58 0.08 0.50 0.32
Week 3 to 4 0.33 -0.08 -0.31 -0.07 0.03 -0.02
Week 4 to 5 -0.08 0.00 0.08 0.23 0.15 0.08

Figure 3

SOLOM Observation Change per Week per Category

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 31

SOLOM Class Weekly Average

4.2

4.0
Comprehension
3.8 Fluency
3.6 Vocabulary
Pronounciation
3.4
Grammar
3.2 Average

3.0
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5

Students didn’t 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 didn’t 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).

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 32

A student’s 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

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-2

Figure 5

Students That Said They Don’t Enjoy Using Props CELF Score Change
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 33

Students that Don't Enjoy Props CELF Score

Change
12

10

0
1 2 3
-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 didn’t 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
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 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 today’s

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 post-

test 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.
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 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.

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 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 didn’t 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.

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 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 language-

emergent 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), 88–92.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42730238

Kindle, K. J. (2009). Vocabulary development during read-alouds: Primary practices. The

Reading Teacher, 63 (3), 202–211. 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), 125–131.

th
Mills, G.E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5 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.

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 38

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23321270

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), 63–77.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42744235

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), 50–57.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42731100

Rog, L. J. (2011). Read, write, play, learn: Literacy instruction in today’s kindergarten. Newark,

DE: International Reading Association.

Wasik, B. A., & Iannone-Campbell, C. (2012). Developing vocabulary

through purposeful, strategic conversations. The Reading

Teacher, 66(4), 321–332.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23321314

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 39

Appendix A

Student Reading Survey

Student Name:

Date:

1. Do you enjoy reading?

Yes Somewhat No

2. Do you enjoy retelling stories using props?

Yes Somewhat No

3. Are you a good storyteller?

Yes Somewhat No

4. Is storytelling easy for you?

Yes Somewhat No
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 40

Appendix B

CELF Screening Test

ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 41
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 42

Appendix C

Observation Matrix
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 43

Appendix D

Student Prop Usage Recording Instrument

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5

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