See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222994702

Using story dictation to support young children's vocabulary development:

Outcomes and process

Article  in  Early Childhood Research Quarterly · January 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.06.002

CITATIONS READS

7 351

3 authors, including:

Tanya Christ Ming Ming Chiu

Oakland University The Education University of Hong Kong
38 PUBLICATIONS   186 CITATIONS    133 PUBLICATIONS   3,314 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Culturally Relevant Teaching View project

Conceptual Understanding of Linear Functions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tanya Christ on 27 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 30–41

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Using story dictation to support young children’s vocabulary development:

Outcomes and process
Tanya Christ a,∗ , X. Christine Wang b , Ming Ming Chiu b
a
Oakland University, Department of Reading and Language Arts, 2200 N. Squirrel Rd., Rochester, MI 48309, United States
b
State University of New York at Buffalo, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Creating opportunities for children to apply newly learned vocabulary in meaningful contexts is an
Received 30 July 2009 important aspect of supporting vocabulary development. However, previous research has not adequately
Received in revised form 8 June 2010 examined how this can be accomplished in preschool classrooms. To address this issue, we explored using
Accepted 19 June 2010
story dictation to support preschoolers’ expressive vocabulary development. Thirteen children in a Head
Start classroom were videotaped dictating a total of 38 stories. Scribed stories and videos of story dicta-
Keywords:
tion sessions were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively to examine the outcomes and process.
Vocabulary
Results indicated that children used and learned target vocabulary during story dictations, and that target
Early childhood
Literacy
word use increased in number and complexity over time. How the teacher supported story dictations
and target word use is discussed.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A vocabulary gap emerges early in children’s development.
There is a 600-word gap between children of low- and high-socio-
economic status (SES) by age three (Hart & Risley, 1995), and
this gap widens to about 4000 words by fourth grade (Biemiller
& Slonim, 2001). This disparity places low-SES children dispro-
portionately at risk for school difficulty, because limited word
knowledge can lead to poor reading comprehension (e.g., Chall,
Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990). Thus, it is important to facilitate young
children’s vocabulary development in meaningful ways, especially
in early childhood programs, such as Head Start, that serve mostly
children from low-SES backgrounds.
To facilitate young children’s vocabulary development, we need
to provide them with authentic opportunities to apply and prac-
tice their newly learned words (e.g., Beck, McKeown, & Kucan,
2002). Children typically develop receptive knowledge of a word
first, based on word exposure and direct word-meaning instruc-
tion, prior to developing the expressive knowledge needed for
appropriate use of that word in speech (e.g., Clark, 2009). With-
out opportunities for children to use newly learned vocabulary,
this transition from receptive to expressive knowledge may not
be assured.
Despite the recent surge in research on vocabulary teach-
ing methods for preschoolers (e.g., Blewitt, Rump, Shealy, &
Cook, 2009; Bond & Wasik, 2009; DeBaryshe & Gorecki, 2007;
Labbo, Love, & Ryan, 2007; Neuman, Dwyer, & Newman, 2008),
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 248 370 3091.
E-mail address: christ@oakland.edu (T. Christ).
research pertaining to the process and outcomes of providing
opportunities to use new vocabulary in authentic contexts is lim-
ited. As part of vocabulary intervention studies, researchers have
explored using activities such as “reading” in a book-reading cen-
ter (Schwanenflugel, Hamilton, Bradley, Ruston, & Restrepo, 2005),
acting out text with puppets (Nielsen, 2008), retelling text (Coyne,
Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2004; Labbo et al., 2007; Leung, 2008), and
“reading” using Big Book/little book combinations (Wasik & Bond,
2001).
Story dictation typically involves a child working one-on-
one with an adult to generate a recorded print version of the
child’s oral story. It has not been explored explicitly to support
children’s vocabulary development, except in PAVEd for Success
(Schwanenflugel et al., 2005), a preschool curriculum that includes
story dictation as a means of facilitating children’s vocabulary
learning. However, Schwanenflugel and her colleagues did not
explore the process or outcomes of these dictations in their
research. Therefore, there is a need to explore these issues in cur-
rent research.
1. Story dictation and children’s vocabulary learning
Our study of story dictation to support children’s vocabulary
learning is grounded in sociocultural theory (Cole & Wertsch, 1996;
Kozulin, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978). It is also informed by previous
research, which suggests that story dictation could provide mean-
ingful opportunities for preschoolers’ use of new vocabulary (e.g.,
Pontecorvo & Zucchermaglio, 1989; Spinillo & Pinto, 1994; Sulzby,
1985). Specifically, story dictation may provide opportunities for

0885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.06.002
 T. Christ et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 30–41
(1) socially constructing vocabulary knowledge, (2) applying the
principles of natural word learning to support children’s vocabulary
acquisition, (3) directly teaching word meanings, (4) supporting
children’s lexical network building when a theme-based curricu-
lum is used, and (5) developing and demonstrating both breadth
and depth of word knowledge.
1.1. Socially constructing vocabulary knowledge
Based on Vygotskian sociocultural theory, especially its empha-
sis on the interactive process of learning and the scaffolding of
participation in the zone of proximal development (ZPD), the
interactions between teacher and child during story dictation can
support acquisition of vocabulary knowledge. First, sociocultural
theory deems that learning and development are originated in the
social plane and are a result of an “interactive process” (Cole &
Wertsch, 1996; Litowitz, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978). The interactive
process, according to Kozulin (2003), occurs as a psychological
function twice; in a form of actual interactions between people,
and as an inner internalized form of interaction. This view steers
us to focus on the development of individual children’s vocabulary
use as a result of the interactions that occur during story dicta-
tion events. Although we do not study the internalization process
directly, we can potentially infer the process from the examination
of how vocabulary use changes over time.
Second, we find Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal
development (ZPD) especially relevant in examining the interac-
tion between the teacher and the students. Vygotsky (1978, p. 90)
stated, “An essential feature of learning is that it creates the zone of
proximal development; that is, learning awakens a variety of inter-
nal development processes that are able to operate only when the
child is interacting with people in this environment and in coopera-
tion with his peers.” Therefore, we concentrate on how teacher and
student jointly construct stories that utilize newly learned vocab-
ulary.
1.2. Applying principles of natural word learning
Three principles of natural word learning might be applied in
story dictations to facilitate children’s vocabulary use and acquisi-
tion. First, young children predominantly learn vocabulary through
exposure to words by more advanced speakers (e.g., Bloom, 2002).
Second, repeated exposures to a word in a variety of meaningful
contexts result in greater depth of word knowledge (e.g., Christ,
2007; Wieland, 2008). Third, using a child’s attentional focus (i.e.,
what child is focused on), semantic contingency (i.e., adult response
is related to the child’s intended meaning) (e.g., Barnes, Gutfreund,
Satterly, & Wells, 1983; Snow, 1972; Wells, 1980), and fine-tuning
of speech to meet children’s language-learning needs (e.g., Snow
et al., 1976), support children’s word learning. All three of these
principles might be applied to the construction of conversations
between the teacher and child during story dictation.
1.3. Directly teaching word meanings
Four effective direct-teaching methods can potentially be imple-
mented in one-on-one story dictations. First, asking questions
about word meanings, which has been often implemented in the
context of read-alouds, can be transferred to story dictation eas-
ily. This method is effective because questioning may (a) require
a child to point to the representation of a word in the illustration
or to produce the word in response to its depiction in the illus-
tration (e.g., Senechal, 1997; Senechal, Thomas, & Monker, 1995),
(b) elicit information about the concept represented by a word
(e.g., Walsh & Blewitt, 2006), and (c) be tailored based on how
much a child already knows about a word’s meaning (Blewitt et
31
al., 2009). Second, embedded definitions (i.e., giving brief explana-
tions of word meanings when new words are encountered) (e.g.,
Coyne, Simmons, Kame‘enui, & Stoolmiller, 2004) can be provided
by the teacher to extend or clarify a child’s understanding of words’
meanings during story dictations. Third, although children nat-
urally repeat unfamiliar words that they hear about 50% of the
time (Estigarribia & Clark, 2007), it is important for the teacher
to intentionally ask the child to repeat the word aloud (e.g. Beck
& McKeown, 2007) to help her create a phonological imprint (i.e.,
memory of the word’s sound). When the teacher introduces a new
word during story dictation, she can support the child in creat-
ing a phonological imprint by asking the child to say the word.
Finally, teachers can use a Gradual Release of Responsibility Model
(Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) to engage children in learning new
word meanings. To apply the Gradual Release of Responsibility
Model to word-meaning instruction, one might use the following
steps: (1) teacher modeling the use of a word, (2) teacher support
of a child’s use of the word, and (3) a child’s independent use of the
word.
1.4. Building lexical networks
Vocabulary understanding becomes more complete over time
(e.g., Carey, 1978; Clark, 1993) through lexical network building
(e.g., Aitchinson, 1994; Haastrup & Henriksen, 2000). However, it
is generally accepted that semantic and lexical knowledge develop
independently, and that enhancing semantic knowledge does not
necessarily lead to lexical retrieval (e.g., McGregor, Sheng, & Ball,
2007). Therefore, employing teaching methods specifically aimed
at supporting lexical development, such as distributed exposure
(e.g., cycles of word exposure) and explicit organization of words
and concepts are critical for enhancing children’s lexical integra-
tion. Theme-based story dictation may be one way to provide both
distributed exposure and organization of newly learned words and
concepts. Theme-based curriculum has been found to provide chil-
dren with opportunities to learn in conceptually connected ways
by presenting interconnected content in a meaningful contexts
through rich and diverse activities (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking,
2000; French, 2004; Katz & Chard, 2000).
1.5. Developing depth and breadth of word knowledge
Semantic knowledge, one of many aspects of vocabulary knowl-
edge, has two important dimensions—breadth and depth. While
breadth of semantic knowledge is often measured by the volume
of words one knows (i.e., the sum of words in one’s lexicon), depth
is defined as how much one knows about a word’s meaning. Depth
of word knowledge spans from no knowledge to the most devel-
oped understanding. This depth of semantic knowledge develops
incrementally over time and through multiple exposures across a
variety of contexts (e.g., Anderson & Nagy, 1991; Carey, 1978; Dale,
1965; Miller, 1999; Nagy & Herman, 1987; Vygotsky, 1962).
While many studies in vocabulary research focus on breadth of
word knowledge, far fewer pay attention to the depth (Verhallen
& Schoonen, 1998). Lack of a framework to understand the depth
of young children’s word knowledge has contributed to this sit-
uation. To address this need, Christ (submitted for publication)
developed a continuum of young children’s semantic knowledge,
which is based on an analysis of research literature across the
fields of education, developmental psychology, and linguistics,
together with an analysis of empirical data. The continuum pro-
vides a conceptual framework of five hierarchical levels related
to children’s demonstrations of word knowledge produced during
researcher–child interviews—(1) demonstrates no understanding
or knowledge of a particular word’s meaning, (2) demonstrates
some peripheral understanding connected to the word’s mean-
32 T. Christ et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 30–41
ing, but not the essential meaning of the word, (3) demonstrates
word-meaning understanding by using the word appropriately
in context that demonstrates understanding of word’s essential
meaning, (4) demonstrates understanding by providing a syn-
onym or description of the word’s essential meaning, and (5)
demonstrates word-meaning understanding by using the word
appropriately in context and providing a synonym or description
of the word’s essential meaning. This conceptual framework can
be modified to evaluate children’s demonstrations of word knowl-
edge in other contexts as well, since its organization is based on
principals of word learning (see Christ, submitted for publication).
Therefore, we use the semantic continuum to provide a conceptual
framework to inform our development of categories that repre-
sent the increments of children’s semantic knowledge that children
demonstrate during story dictations. Both breadth and depth of
word knowledge are important to the development of semantic
vocabulary knowledge; thus, in this study, we focus on both dimen-
sions.
2. Research questions
Both sociocultural theory and previous studies provide strong
rationales as to why story dictation may be an effective context for
supporting young children’s vocabulary learning. Building on this
previous research, we used a mixed-method design to examine the
outcomes and process of story dictation as an instructional method
to support children’s learning of word-meanings targeted during
instruction (i.e., target words). The following three sets of questions
guided our research:
Concerning story dictation outcomes:
(1a) What kinds of vocabulary knowledge do children
demonstrate during story dictations?
(1b) To what extent do children demonstrate depth and breadth
of vocabulary knowledge?
Concerning story dictation process:
(2a) What kinds of supports are provided by the teacher during
story dictations?
(2b) How are these teacher supports used?
Concerning potential links between the process and learning out-
comes:
(3) What are the potential relations between story dictation pro-
cess and outcomes?
Understandings gained by our study will extend the field’s cur-
rent knowledge base in two important and interrelated ways. First,
our study meets the research community’s urgent call for devel-
opment of research-based methods for vocabulary instruction in
early childhood classrooms (Beck et al., 2002; Biemiller, 2004;
Coyne, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2004; Coyne, Simmons, Kame‘enui,
& Stoolmiller, 2004; Stahl & Nagy, 2006; Stahl & Stahl, 2004;
Weizman & Snow, 2001). Second, our findings suggest potential
implications for classroom implementation of story dictation to
support vocabulary development.
3. Methods
We employed case study design and statistical analysis to study
young children’s story dictation in a low-SES Head Start classroom.
Case study, as a methodology (Merriam, 1988), focuses on explor-
ing a problem that exists within a bounded system to gain in-depth
understanding (Creswell, 1998). Due to the exploratory nature of
our queries about whether and how the story dictation event may
provide an opportunity for children to use newly learned vocab-
ulary, a single classroom case study was best suited to answering
our research questions. Through observation, we were better able
to focus on the complex interactions (via event observation, video
viewing, and transcripts) that occurred during these events and
their outcomes (i.e., the story artifact documents) (Bogdan & Biklen,
2003). Through statistical analysis, we explored the potential cor-
relations between process and outcomes. We choose to use a case
study methodology to understand the story dictation process and
outcomes for a particular group of Head start children in the hope of
improving the instructional method, not to suggest generalizations
of the findings for all classrooms or all children.
3.1. Site and participants
The study was conducted in a Head Start preschool classroom
that served low-income working families living in a northeast-
ern city. Participants included fourteen preschoolers (ages 3–5),
nine boys and five girls. One of these boys, however, chose not
to dictate any stories. Therefore, there were thirteen participants
that engaged in story dictations. Children were from diverse cul-
tural backgrounds: six were Caucasian, two were Indian, six were
Hispanic, and one child was biracial (African American and His-
panic). Three children were bilingual. These children spoke fluently
both a language that was spoken in their home and English. One
child was a dual language learner in the speech emergence stage
of English language production (i.e., the child produced simple
phrases and sentences, with some grammatical deviance from
Standard English). The first author regularly participated in provid-
ing classroom instruction alongside the classroom’s lead teacher,
and was the teacher-participant that scribed the children’s dictated
events.
3.2. Broader research context
Our study of story dictation is part of a larger research project
that aimed to develop and integrate instructional methods for
supporting vocabulary development into the existing Head Start
curriculum (Creative Curriculum) (Wang et al., 2009). Creative Cur-
riculum uses thematic topics to teach across domains. While our
instructional methods for teaching vocabulary would work with
any domain or topic of study, the lead classroom teacher selected a
rainforest theme for instruction during our project. In cooperation
with the classroom teachers, we purchased books and props to sup-
port instruction for this theme. Some examples of texts selected for
the study included Red-Eyed Tree Frog (Cowley, 1999), Over in the
Jungle: A Rainforest Rhyme (Berkes, 2007), and A Color of His Own
(Lionni, 1975).
3.2.1. Target vocabulary
Based on the books and props, 89 vocabulary words were jointly
selected by the researchers and classroom teachers for instruction
using three criteria: (1) the words had to be likely to be unfamil-
iar to preschoolers, (2) the teacher had to be able to use or teach
these words multiple times (i.e., words occurring multiple times
in a single book, or occurring multiple times across books, or eas-
ily useable across multiple classroom activities), and (3) the words
had to be important to understanding the rainforest theme. These
words will hereafter be referred to as target words. Some examples
of target words included parrot, boa constrictor, flee, perch, capable,
and carnivore.
Use of frequency counts as indicators of potential difficulty
are well established both for recognition of graphic representa-
tions of words (e.g., in the Dale Chall Readability Formula) and for
 T. Christ et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 30–41
word-meaning understanding (e.g., Dale & O’Rourke’s Living Word
Vocabulary). Since preschoolers access words primarily through
oral language, we felt that the Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA; http://www.americancorpus.org) spoken language
frequencies were most appropriate for estimating the difficulty of
the words we used in our study. To estimate the approximate dif-
ficulty level of each target word, we obtained the COCA frequency
of occurrence in spoken language and used the following formula:
log([max freq + 1]/[target freq + 1])
Difficulty = . dictated three or less stories. Complete story dictations were cap-
log(max freq + 1)
In the formula, max freq denotes the frequency of the most common
word, and target freq denotes the frequency of the target word. This
formula places all words on a scale from zero to one, with the easiest
word at zero and the most difficult word at one.
3.2.2. Instructional methods
Across eight weeks during the summer of 2008, the 89
word-meanings related to the rainforest theme were targeted
for vocabulary instruction. Four instructional approaches were
used: (1) multimedia and expanded contexts for word expo-
sure and direct word-meaning instruction; (2) concept mapping;
(3) word-learning strategy instruction; and (4) word applica-
tion opportunities, such as story dictation. Vocabulary instruction
occurred daily, and across classroom contexts. For example, one
day the teacher read the text, A Color of His Own (Lionni, 1975),
about a chameleon that constantly changes color depending upon
his surroundings. This concept of being camouflaged was revisited
later that afternoon through an art project in which children were
given a colored chameleon and colored tissue paper and told to
camouflage their chameleon. This is a brief example of how just two
target words—chameleon and camouflage—were spiraled across the
curricular activities on a given day.
3.3. Story dictation sessions
Story dictations were conducted over the course of five weeks
during free-choice time. The teachers had not previously engaged
the children in story dictations before our implementation of this
center in their classroom. The task was presented to the children as
an opportunity to contribute a story to help create a class anthology
on a given topic each week. Although children were not required
to contribute a story, most of them were motivated to participate
because we read and shared these anthologies during circle time.
Children dictated stories related to the instructional theme for each
week (in sequential order): the rainforest habitat, rainforest tales
(these story dictations were primarily fiction), rainforest birds and
reptiles, rainforest plants, and rainforest ecology.
During a story dictation session, a maximum of three children
were allowed to come to the table to work with the first author. One
child dictated at a time. Broad questions, such as, “Tell me a story
about the birds in the rain forest,” were used to elicit children’s sto-
ries. After children dictated the text, which the first author scribed,
they were prompted to illustrate their story. While the first child
illustrated her story, the second child dictated her story, and so
forth. When a child’s illustration was complete, the teacher dis-
cussed the illustration with the child, offered to label objects in the
illustration, and asked the child to identify objects in the illustra-
tion. All the individual stories about the same theme were then put
in a binder to create a class anthology (a total of five anthologies
were created).
33
3.4. Data collection
Data collected at the story dictation center included 49 artifacts
of stories dictated by the thirteen participating children and scribed
by the first author. These were collected across twelve sessions.
Children participated in story dictation events with varying fre-
quency, because the story dictation activity was one choice among
many centers during free-choice time. On average, children dic-
tated 3.71 stories. The range of stories dictated by each of the
thirteen participating children was 1–8. Almost half of the chil-
dren dictated five or more stories. Just over half of the children
tured on video for 38 of these stories. Teacher–child interactions
during the story dictation sessions were transcribed verbatim from
these videos. Transcripts, videos, and story artifacts were used in
data analysis.
3.5. Overview of data coding and analyses
To answer our research questions, we applied three sets of
analysis. First, to answer research questions 1a, 2a, and 2b, we qual-
itatively analyzed the kinds of knowledge children demonstrated
during story dictations, and how the teacher supported these out-
comes, through emergent and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Second, to answer research question 1b, we used descriptive statis-
tics to analyze the extent to which children demonstrated breadth
and depth of target-word-knowledge during story dictations. Third,
to explore the possible links between teacher support of children’s
story dictation process and their demonstrations of breadth and
depth of word knowledge, and thus answer research question 3,
we conducted an exploratory statistical analysis.
To facilitate our presentation and discussion of the findings, we
describe the details of data coding and analyses at the beginning of
each results section. Results are organized in three major sections,
each corresponding to one of the three sets of research questions.
First, we present the results related to story dictation outcomes, to
answer research questions 1a and 1b. Next, we present the results
related to the story dictation process, to answer research ques-
tions 2a and 2b. Then, we present the results related to possible
links between the story dictation process and outcomes, to answer
research question 3.
4. Results: story dictation outcomes
4.1. Kinds of vocabulary knowledge
Transcripts of the interactions between children and the teacher
during story dictations were the main source for our analyses of
their demonstrations of vocabulary knowledge. All instances of tar-
get word use were first identified across all the transcripts. For each
instance of target word use, we then used emergent and axial cod-
ing (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to categorize the different kinds of
vocabulary knowledge. The continuum of young children’s seman-
tic knowledge (Christ, submitted for publication) was used as a
conceptual framework to inform our hierarchical organization of
these categories.
Two coders, the first author and a graduate assistant, engaged in
the iterative process of code generation, assessment of goodness-
of-fit between the codes and the data, and code revision, until codes
were adequate to describe the kinds of knowledge demonstrated
by children during story dictations. Our analysis resulted in five
categories, ordered from least to greatest increments of vocabu-
lary knowledge: (1) emerging word knowledge, (2) receptive word
knowledge, (3) simple expressive word knowledge, (4) intermedi-
ate expressive word knowledge, and (5) complex expressive word
34 T. Christ et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 30–41

Table 1
Children’s demonstrations of depth of vocabulary knowledge.

Level Category Description Example

1 Emerging word knowledge
Demonstration of emerging word knowledge as evidenced by any of the following:
(a) Child repeats a target word that the teacher used, (a) Child repeats: chameleon.
for which he didn’t seem to know the word before the
teacher used it.
(b) Child is unable to accurately articulate the word, (b) Child says: chamah for chameleon.
but approximates the word.
(c) Child uses the word inappropriately. (c) Child says: Chameleons fly in the tree tops.

2 Receptive word knowledge Demonstration of receptive word knowledge is Teacher asks, “Where is your canopy?”.
evidenced by a child pointing to the target object in Child points to canopy in her illustration.
the illustration, or identifying the object by pointing to
a prop, without producing the word in his speech.

3 Simple expressive word Simple expressive word knowledge can be demonstrated in three ways:
knowledge
(a) A child produces a target word to appropriately (a) Child points to illustration and says:
label an object. Chameleon.
(b) A child uses the target word in response to a (b) Teacher asks, What kind of lizard? Child
teacher question, or responds: Chameleon.(c) There was a
chameleon.
(c) A child uses the target word in context without
identifying any characteristics or examples of the
word’s meaning.
4 Intermediate expressive word Intermediate expressive word knowledge is The chameleon was camouflaged.
knowledge demonstrated by using the target word in appropriate
context that includes a target word characteristic or
example.
5 Complex expressive word Complex expressive word knowledge is demonstrated The cheetah was chasing the chameleon to eat
knowledge by using a target word in a manner that is interrelated him, but he lost him in the understory because
with the use of other theme-related words within a he was camouflaged in the leaves.
developed storyline.

knowledge (see Table 1 for definitions and examples of each cate- knowledge of the word tapir, she does know that this is the word
gory). that represents the plastic figurine when she hears the teacher say
We illustrate these categories of word knowledge using two the word. This is receptive word knowledge. Typically, receptive
excerpts from the story dictation transcripts. In the first excerpt, word knowledge develops before expressive word knowledge (e.g.,
Abby dictated a story about a tapir and a snake. She demonstrated Clark, 2009).
emergent (level 1) and receptive (level 2) depths of vocabulary In the second transcript, Benny dictated a story about a fish and
knowledge during this dictation. a bird. He demonstrated simple (level 3), intermediate (level 4), and
[1] Abby: (Begins story) The snake jumped over expressive (level 5) vocabulary knowledge through this story.
(pause)—what’s this (pointing to a plastic [1] Benny: I want to write about a piranha (holds up the
figure of a tapir)? piranha figurine) and a bird.
[2] Teacher: Tapir. [2] Teacher: Okay. That’s perfect. Tell me a story about a
[3] Abby: (Begins again) The snaked jumped over the piranha and a bird.
tapir and the tapir tried to eat the snake, but it [3] Benny: A bird was chasing a fishy.
couldn’t. [4] Teacher: How was the bird flying over the water to
chase a fish—What do you call that? (Teacher
[Later in dictation event]
uses arm gesture to show flapping.)
[4] Teacher: Which one is a boy? The snake’s a boy? [5] Benny: The fishy was flyin’ over the water to catch
[5] Abby: No (holding up the tapir to designate that it is another fishy. Then he was camouflaged.
the boy). [6] Teacher: The fish was camouflaged, or the bird was
[6] Teacher: The tapir’s a boy and the snake’s a girl. camouflaged?
[7] Abby: Yes. [7] Benny: A fishy.
In this event, Abby begins the story wanting to include the [8] Teacher: Okay.
[9] Benny: He landed on the seaweed and he was
tapir, but not knowing its name [turn 1]. After the teacher pro-
camouflaged. Then he—
vides the word tapir for Abby [line 2], Abby uses the word tapir [10] Teacher: Okay, slow down for a second I can’t keep up
twice in the next sentence of her story [turn 3]. This use of the with you. (Rereads) The bird was flying over
word tapir demonstrates only emerging knowledge because Abby the water—
simply repeats the word provided by the teacher. That is, she did [11] Benny: And he got on seaweed—he got green!
[12] Teacher: He was flying over the water and—what did
not generate the word herself. However, this is an important first
you say—following a piranha?
step in vocabulary development because Abby has demonstrated [13] Benny: Yes, he was following a piranha and he
an interest in learning the word, and repeated the word to create wanted to eat a piranha.
a phonological imprint. Near the end of her story, Abby forgets the [14] Teacher: (Repeating while scribing) . . .following the
piranha and he wanted to eat a piranha—
word tapir, and holds up her plastic figure to designate that this
[15] Benny: Then he landed on the seaweed and he
is the concept she means [turn 5]. When the teacher provides the camouflaged.
word tapir for her [turn 6], Abby immediately identifies that this Benny began his story by simply labeling the objects of his
is the word she sought [turn 7]. This sequence of events [turns 15- story—a piranha and a bird [turn 1]. His correct use of the word
17] demonstrates that although Abby has not solidified expressive piranha to identify the figurine demonstrated simple expressive
 T. Christ et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 30–41
vocabulary knowledge. He used the word to correctly label the
concept, but did not demonstrate any additional conceptual infor-
mation. Later in the dictation, Benny demonstrated intermediate
expressive knowledge for the word piranha. He used piranha in an
appropriate context (i.e., “He [the bird] was following a piranha
and he wanted to eat a piranha.”) that included a characteristic of
the concept (i.e., piranhas can be prey) [turn 19]. Benny’s complex
expressive word knowledge for the word camouflage was demon-
strated by his use of the word in a way that was interrelated with
other words within a developed storyline. As Benny weaves a nar-
rative about a bird stalking a piranha, he cleverly has the bird land
on seaweed and become camouflaged [turn 9], likely improving his
chances of catching the piranha. The use of camouflage here is inter-
related with the characters of the bird and piranha in the story, and
the plot that the bird is trying to catch the piranha.
4.2. Extent to which children demonstrated depth and breadth of
vocabulary knowledge
Our qualitative findings describe the kinds of vocabulary knowl-
edge children demonstrated during their story dictations. Two
graduate assistants coded all the target words used by children in
the transcripts to determine the depth of word knowledge for each.
The levels used for coding depth of word knowledge were (from
least to greatest): (1) emerging word knowledge, (2) receptive word
knowledge, (3) simple expressive word knowledge, (4) intermedi-
ate expressive word knowledge, and (5) complex expressive word
knowledge (see Table 1 for definitions and examples of each cat-
egory). Coders settled coding disagreements by consensus. High
inter-coder reliability was shown through Krippendorff’s ˛ (0.86)
and percentage coder agreement (79%). Krippendorff’s (2004) ˛
applies to incomplete data, any sample size, any measurement
level, any number of coders or categories, and scale values. Ranging
from −1 to 1, an ˛ exceeding 0.7 shows satisfactory agreement.
We then used simple descriptive statistics to illustrate the
extent to which children demonstrated depth and breadth of word
knowledge across all the story dictations. Children’s mean demon-
stration of depth of word knowledge, across a continuum ranging
from 1 (emerging word knowledge) to 5 (complex expressive word
knowledge), was 3.38. That is, simple expressive word knowledge was
the average depth of knowledge demonstrated by children. All cate-
gories of depth of target-word-knowledge were demonstrated (i.e.
the range of depth scores was 1–5). There was wide variation in the
depths of knowledge demonstrated by children (SD = 4.23).
Children’s demonstration of breadth of word knowledge was
assessed by calculating the number of target words used by a child
within each story dictation event. On average, children used 3.08
target words per event. The range of unique target words used per
story was 0 to 11. There was wide variation in number of unique tar-
get words used by children (SD = 3.22) (see Table 2 for all summary
statistics).
Table 2
Summary statistics.
Variable Mean
Number of target words used in each story 3.08
Total depth of target words 3.38
Total weight of unique target words 0.07
# Days after the first story dictation event 17.97
# Past dictations by the student 1.42
# Teacher’s questions for identification 1.53
# Teacher’s feedback modeling use of word 1.39
# Teacher’s story rereading 1.63
# Teacher’s prompts for phonological imprint 0.29
35
We examined the number of target words used by each stu-
dent in each story dictation, adjusting for each word’s difficulty
(weighted number of unique target words). To estimate the approxi-
mate difficulty level of each target word, we obtained the frequency
of occurrence in spoken language (based on the Corpus of Contem-
porary American English, COCA; http://www.americancorpus.org)
and used the following formula:
log([max freq + 1]/[target freq + 1])
Difficulty = .
log(max freq + 1)
In the formula, max freq denotes the frequency of the most common
word, and target freq denotes the frequency of the target word. This
formula places all words on a scale from zero to one, with the easiest
word at zero and the most difficult word at one.
For robustness testing, we also repeated the analysis with the
outcome variable (a) unweighted, unique target words, (b) total
unweighted, target words, and (c) total weighted, target words. All
results were similar.
5. Results: story dictation process
To answer both parts of our second research question—(2a)
What kinds of supports are provided by the teacher during story
dictations? and (2b) How are these teacher supports used?—we
examined the kinds of teacher supports that were used, and how
they were used, to facilitate children’s story dictations and target
word use.
The coding scheme for the kinds of teacher support that were
used during story dictations was informed by our review of relevant
theory and research literature and developed through an emergent
and axial coding approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Two coders,
the first author and a graduate assistant, engaged in the iterative
process of code generation, assessment of goodness-of-fit between
the codes and the data, and code revision, until codes were ade-
quate to describe the kinds of support that teachers used across
all dictated stories. Four categories of teacher support emerged:
repetition, questions, prompts, and feedback (see Table 3
for subcategories, descriptions, and examples of each).
The teacher’s use of repetition cohered with the research lit-
erature that concluded that young children predominantly learn
vocabulary through exposure to words by more advanced speak-
ers (e.g., Bloom, 2002) and repeated exposures to a word in a
variety of meaningful contexts result in greater depth of word
knowledge (e.g., Christ, 2007; Wieland, 2008). In our study, teacher
repetition occurred in two ways. First, the teacher reread the
child’s story to make sure that she had scribed it accurately.
Second, the teacher repeated the child’s dictation aloud as she
scribed.
Some of the questions asked by the teacher to support children’s
vocabulary use and learning during story dictation were consis-
tent with the types of questions examined by previous research.
For example, word-eliciting questions and questions to elicit iden-
SD Min Median Max
3.22 0 2 11
4.23 1 2.75 5
0.11 0 0.03 0.46
11.66 0 21.5 35
1.35 0 1 5
2.18 0 0 7
1.39 0 1 5
1.50 0 1 6
1.47 0 0 9
36 T. Christ et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 30–41

Table 3
Teacher support.

Subcategory Description Examples

Repetitions
Rereading for accuracy Teacher rereads story to allow child to check for
transcription accuracy, think about the illustration
contents, or revise by adding or changing details.
Sometimes the teacher provides a recap of the
story to the support child’s engagement in these,
without rereading the whole story.
Repeating the child’s dictation while scribing The teacher repeats what child says while scribing.
This is usually line-by-line, or phrase-by-phrase.
(Rereads whole of story dictated up to this
point) Hibiscus is some kind of flower. Some
kinds of things are poison and have bright
colors so you never touch it.
(Repeats child’s dictation while scribing) The
vine comes with the tree on the branch.

Questions
Broad question Broad question or prompt to begin dictating a Alright, you’re going to tell me a story about
story on the weekly theme. rainforest plants.
What story will you tell about rainforest plants?

Question for details Question for details about what was dictated or What happens next?
about the next story event.
What else?
How does the sun help the plants?

Word-eliciting question Question meant to elicit the child’s use of a specific What is the name of the very top layer of the
word. rainforest? (emergent layer).
What kind of lizard? (chameleon, gecko, etc.).

Question for clarification Question for clarification are asked when the What did you say?
teacher doesn’t hear or understand what the child
said, or when the teacher isn’t sure she has
understood the information correctly and is
checking her understanding of what the child said.
I didn’t hear the last part—Can you tell me again?
What (did you say)?

Question about accuracy Question that prompts child to consider accuracy Do we have watermelon and roses in the
of their statement or whether what they said rainforest?
makes sense.
Question to elicit identification Question/prompt requests child to identify Show me where the leopard is.
something in his/her illustration or an object/prop
that has been brought to the dictation table.
Where is your leopard?

Prompts
Prompt to repeat word to create Teacher asks the child to repeat a word that she Say “parrots.”
phonological imprint said to help the child create a phonological imprint
of the word’s sound.
Sentence starter Teacher provides a sentence starter to support the A blue morpho butterfly is flying and he eats .
child in dictating their story.
Prompt to recall read-alouds Teacher suggests that the child think about What kind of lizard have we read about?
information that was read aloud to generate
relevant information for the story.
Prompt to illustrate Teacher directs the child to illustrate the dictated Alright, now illustrate your story.
story.
Offer to label Teacher offers to scribe labels for the illustration. Do you want me to label your picture for you?
The child chooses whether or not they want to
have their illustration labeled.
Is there anything else in the picture you want me
to label?
What else (should I label)?

Feedback
Correction of misinformation Teacher provides conceptual information to Well, a tiger has stripes and they don’t live in the
correct a child’s misunderstanding (i.e., the teacher rainforest.
provides more than just a word).
Explanation of engagement in writing Teacher provides an explanation, comment or Write your name on the bottom.
process response to assist the child in understanding some
aspect of the story dictation process. These
comments are related to engaging in the activity,
and are not related to specific content in story.
Is that it? Are you done (dictating)?
I’m writing your word right here.

Provision of content information
Teacher provides additional content information Leopards live in the rainforest. They have spots.
about a word that was already presented (by
teacher or child). Sometimes this is in the form of a
rhetorical question.
A chameleon can hide itself by camouflaging,
right?
 T. Christ et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 30–41 37

Table 3 (Continued).

Subcategory Description Examples

Recasting The teacher either (a) pulls together ideas that
have been previously articulated by the child or
herself, or (b) revises what child says to reflect
Standard American English.
Teacher: What’s in the rainforest?
Child: Parrot
Teacher: (recasting) Parrots are in the rainforest.
Child says: And it growed and growed.
Teacher: (recasting) And it grew and grew.

Affirmation or praise Teacher affirms or praises child’s engagement or Okay, yes, alright, good job, you’re right, very
products related to story dictation. good, etc.

Teacher labeling Teacher labels an object in the child’s illustration. I’m going to write “parrot” for you.
The teacher initiates these labels and does not ask
the child whether or not he wants the illustration
labeled.
(labels without asking): Parrots.

Teacher models use of a specific word
Teacher models use of a specific word new word as Child says: Rainbow lizard.
part of her response. This word can be embedded
in a sentence or question.
Teacher says: You mean a chameleon?
Child says: Red and blue birds.
Teacher says: Red and blue parrots.

tification had been used in several studies of direct vocabulary 1 Teacher: What do you want to tell me about the
instruction (e.g., Senechal et al., 1995; Senechal, 1997; Walsh & rainforest habitat?
2 Moses: I like the canopy.
Blewitt, 2006). However, other questions were unique to facilitat- 3 Teacher: Why? What do you like about the canopy?
ing the dictation itself. For example, broad questions were used to (Pause while waiting for Moses’s response.)
initiate the dictation, questions for details were used to solicit more Well what’s the canopy made out of? Do you
information in the dictation, questions for clarification were used know?
4 Moses: Yeah.
to support effective communication between dictator and scriber,
5 Teacher: It’s made out of all kinds of. . ..(pause for Moses
and questions about accuracy were used to support the child in to finish sentence)
considering whether her dictation made sense. 6 Moses: Leaves!
Similarly, one prompt cohered with previous research litera- Most story dictations began with the teacher asking a broad
ture: prompt to repeat a word to create a phonological imprint question [turn 1]. Based on Moses’s general statement on his
(e.g. Beck & McKeown, 2007). Other prompts were specific to the selected topic, the “canopy” [turn 2], the teacher asked a few
story dictation task. Each prompt attempted to support the child in questions to elicit details [turn 3]. This supported his continued
telling her story (e.g., sentence starter and prompt to recall informa- dictation. When Moses demonstrated difficulty in providing details
tion from read-alouds) or extending her story through illustration about the canopy, the teacher used a sentence starter (kind of
(e.g., prompt to illustrate and offer to label). prompt) to scaffold his ability to continue the story [turn 5]. This
Finally, feedback provided by the teacher such as recasting, supported Moses in adding more detail to his story—“leaves” [turn
teacher labeling, and teacher modeling use of a specific word, 6].
was also consistent with the literature on natural word learn- Next, Moses proceeded to illustrate his story. The follow conver-
ing. Recasting uses attentional focus and semantic contingency. sation occurred when the teacher thought that Moses was almost
Teacher labeling of illustrations and teacher modeling of words finished with his illustration.
provided exposures to target words. Correction of misinformation 7 Teacher: What are you making that is red?
8 Moses: Birdies.
and provision of content information cohere with direct instruc- 9 Teacher: Birdies, okay. Are they parrots?
tion practices, in which concepts are explained and clarified (e.g., 10 Moses: Yeah.
Beck et al., 2002). Explanation of the writing engagement process 11 Teacher: Parrots live in the rainforest, and they can be
was unique to the story dictation activity. Affirmation and praise red. They can be all different colors. (The
teacher thinks that Moses is finished with his
are regular tenants of effective instruction.
illustration.) Write your name at the bottom.
These categories and subcategories of teachers support (see 12 Moses: I’m not done. I need to put down the other
Table 3) were then applied to further analyze how these moves birds.
were used during story diction sessions. The first author and a 13 Teacher: Okay. Parrots. Say parrots.
graduate assistant coded all the story dictation transcripts. High 14 Moses: Parrot.

inter-coder reliability was reached. Krippendorff’s ˛ was 0.88 and
the percentage of coder agreement was 89%. Coders settled coding
disagreements by consensus.
Given the intertwined nature of the kinds of teacher supports,
and how they were used, we use transcript excerpts from two
story dictation sessions to illustrate both findings. We purpose-
fully selected excerpts that featured a wide range of the teacher
supports.
The first excerpt, in which Moses dictated a story about the rain-
forest habitat, is from the first week during which story dictations
were implemented in the classroom.
First, the teacher asked Moses a word-eliciting question [turn 7]
to help him identify the red figure in his illustration. When Moses
identified the red figure as a “birdie” [turn 8], the teacher used this
opportunity to model the use of a target word (a kind of feedback)
by asking, “Are they parrots?” [turn 9]. After Moses agreed, she pro-
ceeded by providing more content information (a kind of feedback)
about parrots: “Parrots live in the rainforest, and they can be red.
They can be all different colors” [turn 11]. This teacher’s request
at the end of turn 11 (asking Mosses to write his name because
she thought he was finished) was unrelated to the story content,
but a necessary explanation of engagement in the writing process
38 T. Christ et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 30–41

(kind of feedback). After Moses told the teacher he needed to illus- labeling his story.
trate more “birds” [turn 12], she used this opportunity to model 9 Teacher: Okay, let me read your story to make sure I
the use of the target word parrots again (“Okay, parrots”). She also have it right. A plant grew and grew and grew.
A flower grew, a pineapple grew a banana
prompted Moses to repeat the word to support him in creating a
grew, and it grew and grew. Once there was a
phonological imprint [turn 13]. seed. The rainforest grew all around all around
When Moses finished his illustration, the teacher discussed it and the tree grew all around. The vines come
with him again and helped him label it. with the tree on the branch. Other flowers
15 Teacher: What kind of birdies are those? come, and a gorilla comes to eat the fruit.
16 Moses: A parrot. 10 Vindir: Yep!
17 Teacher: Alright, I’m going to write parrot for you. (Writes 11 Teacher: Good job Vindir! Now will you illustrate both
parrot by the red figure that they had previously of your pages?
discussed.) Where else are the parrots? I’ll label 12 Teacher: [Several minutes pass while Vindir illustrates
them for you. his story. The teacher scribes another child’s
18 Moses: (Points to the parrots in his drawing.) story in the meantime.] Okay Vindir, tell me
The teacher used a word-eliciting question in turn 15, hop- what you want me to label.
13 Vindir: A butterfly and (uses hand to show claws) and
ing to elicit the target word that they had discussed previously
a camouflaged lizard.
(parrots). Moses responded with a clear recall of this target word.
After the teacher reread the dictation to allow Vindir to check the
Here, the teacher did not offer to label the illustration, but used
accuracy of her scribing [turns 9 and 10], the teacher praised Vindir
a more teacher-directed approach by labeling the parrots herself
and prompted him to illustrate his story [turn 11]. When Vindir
and asking Moses a question to elicit identification: “Where else
finished illustrating, the teacher offered to label his illustration (this
are the parrots?” [turn 17]. Moses pointed to the other parrots in
is one kind of prompt). He requested labels for his butterfly and
his illustration (turn 18), which demonstrated his receptive word
camouflaged lizard [turns 12 and 13]. Notice that the teacher did
knowledge.
not chose what would be labeled in the illustration, as was the case
Notice that across this dictation event the teacher has used
in Moses’s earlier dictation event.
a Gradual Release of Responsibility Model (Pearson & Gallagher,
Across all the transcripts, as illustrated above, we found that
1983). That is, the use of the target word parrot shifted from the
the teacher used these support moves in dynamic ways to facili-
teacher modeling the word’s use [turns 9, 11, and 13], to the teacher
tate both children’s story dictations and their use and learning of
supporting Moses’s use of the word [turns 13 and 14], to Moses’s
vocabulary. We identified four general patterns regarding how the
independent use of the word [turn 16]. This gradual release of
teacher used these supports.
responsibility provided scaffolding based on the child’s shifting
First, teacher supports applied natural word-learning principles.
word knowledge.
For example, the teacher used natural word-learning principles,
Teacher labeling and questions to elicit identification were
such as attentional focus and semantic contingency, during Moses’s
used predominantly in early story dictations. The children quickly
dictation. She did this by focusing on a concept initiated by Moses
became enculturated to identify and label objects in their illustra-
(“birdies”) and modeling a related target word (parrots). Atten-
tions themselves, and then the teacher’s role shifted more to that
tional focus and semantic contingency were not only used to model
of scribe. This is shown in the next set of transcript excerpts, in
target words, but also to provide content information, clarification,
which Vindir dictated a story about rainforest plants. This excerpt
and other kinds of feedback as well.
occurred in the fourth week of the study.
Second, teacher supports were used based on how children
1 Teacher: Tell me a story about the rainforest plants.
engaged in story dictations. For example, at the beginning of
2 Vindir: What happened [was] a flower growed, a
pineapple growed, a banana growed. . . Moses’s dictation the teacher asked a broad question. When Moses
3 Teacher: (Recasts and repeats while scribing) Okay, a flower provided limited details in his response, the teacher provided more
grew—and what next—pineapple did you say? support by asking Moses a question to elicit details. Since Moses
4 Vindir: Pineapple. was unable to respond to this question, the teacher used a sentence
5 Teacher: (Repeats while scribing) A pineapple grew, a
banana grew. . .
starter to provide increasingly more support for Moses’s engage-
6 Vindir: Yes, and watermelon and a rose. ment in the story dictation. The teacher’s provision of increasingly
7 Teacher: Do we have watermelon and roses in the more support was based on Moses’s engagement in his story dicta-
rainforest? tion, and the individual kind and amount of support that he seemed
8 Vindir: (Shakes head no.)
to need based on his engagement. Most of the teacher’s use of
As the standard opening, the teacher asked a broad question
questioning and prompts across story dictations was based on the
[turn 1]. Notice the teacher did not use questions to elicit details
teacher’s response to the child’s engagement during dictations.
because Vindir understood at this point in the study that the idea
Related to the teacher’s provision of supports based on chil-
was to tell an ongoing story [turn 2]. This is a shift toward child-
dren’s actions, the third pattern was that the teacher’s ability to
centered control as compared to Moses and Gina’s stories in the
provide appropriate supports was based on her understanding of
first two weeks of the study. In the first half of Turn 3, the teacher
the ‘kinds of knowledge” each child possessed about target con-
repeated and recast what Vindir had dictated so far. Her recasting of
cepts and words. For example, in Moses’s story, the teacher realized
“growed” for “grew” modeled Standard English. Generally, recast-
that he understood the concept of birds, and knew that brightly col-
ing provided an opportunity for broader language development,
ored birds lived in the rainforest. She provided the word parrots to
including syntax and pragmatics. The teacher then asked a ques-
more aptly describe these birds.
tion for clarification (“Pineapple did you say?”) to be sure that she
The final trend that we noticed was that the kinds of teacher
heard and recorded Vindir’s dictation correctly [turn 3]. Vindir con-
moves were not evenly distributed across story dictations events.
tinued to extend his story to include watermelon and a rose [turn
Rather, there was a shift in the locus-of-control during these events
6]. In response, the teacher asked a question about accuracy: “Do
from more teacher-directed in the early sessions to more child-
we have watermelon and roses in the rainforest?” [turn 7]. Vindir
directed in later sessions. This shift seemed to occur as children
responded by shaking his head no [turn 8].
became enculturated into the event process. In early stories, a lot of
Later, near the end of the dictation, the teacher reread Vin-
teacher support was needed to elicit stories and target word use. For
dir’s story to him and supported his engagement in illustrating and
example, recall the many questions and prompts the teacher used
 T. Christ et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 30–41
Table 4
Correlations for five random draws of weighted number of unique target words used by children with explanatory variables that exceeded 0.15 on average (N = 13).
Explanatory variables
# Days after the first story dictation event
# Past dictations
# Teacher’s feedback modeling use of word
# Teacher’s prompt to repeat word for phonological imprint
to support Moses. With practice, over time, the children were able
to dictate stories and apply target words with much less teacher
support. As a result, in Vindir’s case, the teacher used much less
questioning and prompting. It seemed that children became more
adept at dictating stories and using target words with continued
practice over time.
6. Results: possible links between story dictation process
and outcomes
Our descriptive statistical results suggest the positive outcomes
of story dictation for children’s expressive vocabulary use and
learning. It is important to understand the possible links between
teacher support of children’s story dictation process and children’s
demonstrations of breadth and depth of word knowledge. Thus,
to answer our third research question—What are the potential
relations between story dictation process and outcomes?—we con-
ducted an exploratory statistical analysis.
To determine the impact of teacher support of children’s story
dictation process on their demonstrations of breadth and depth of
word knowledge, we used correlation analyses of students, rather
than regressions of stories, for two reasons. First, as the 38 stories
were contributed by 13 students, the stories were not indepen-
dent (two stories by the same student are likely more similar than
two stories by different students). Thus, standard ordinary least
square regressions, which assume independent residuals, cannot
be done on the story dictations. Instead, we chose the student as
the unit of analysis. Using a computer program to randomly select
a story for each subject, we did five random draws to create five
data sets. Second, a sample size of 13, which has a statistical power
of 0.27 to detect an effect of 0.40 at ˛ = .05, it is too small to run a
regression (Cohen, West, Aiken, & Cohen, 2003). Thus, we computed
correlations.
We consider whether (a) student performance improved over
time and (b) whether student performance improved with assis-
tance from the teacher. Specifically, we computed the correlations
of each outcome variable (weighted number of unique target words
and total depth of understanding of target words) with time vari-
ables (number of past dictations and number of days after first story
dictation) and numbers of teacher support behaviors. The variable
“number of days after the first story” explored changes in chil-
dren’s outcomes over time—regardless of how many stories they
had dictated over this time. The variable “number of past dictations”
explored changes in children’s outcomes based on the number of
times that they had engaged in story dictations. The importance
of looking at each of these variables was to determine whether
outcomes are due to changes based on passing time or changes
based on increased numbers of story dictations. The teacher sup-
Table 5
Correlations for five random draws of total depth of target words with explanatory variables that exceeded 0.15 on average (N = 13).
Explanatory variables Total depth of target words
Draw 1
# Teacher’s questions for identification −0.45
# Teacher’s story rereading 0.21
39
Weighted # target words (unique)
Draw 1 Draw 2 Draw 3 Draw 4 Draw 5
−0.34 −0.41 −0.34 −0.43 −0.36
0.27 0.29 0.24 0.35 0.29
0.20 0.17 0.37 0.19 0.17
0.19 0.25 0.16 0.17 0.20
port behaviors were repetitions (rereading for accuracy, repeating
child’s dictation while scribing), questions (broad, for details, to
elicit words, for clarification, about accuracy, to elicit identifica-
tion), prompts (to repeat word to create phonological imprint, to
start sentence, to recall read-alouds, to illustrate, to label), and feed-
back (to correct misinformation, to explain engagement in writing
process, to provide content information, to recast, to affirm or
praise, to label, and to model use of word). We reported correla-
tions whose absolute values exceeded 0.15 on average across the
five data sets.
The results indicate that the weighted number of unique target
words is negatively correlated with number of days after the first
story dictation event and positively correlated with the number of
past story dictations. These results suggest that students use more
target words after more story dictations, not simply as time passes.
The weighted number of unique target words is also positively cor-
related with the number of times the teacher models the use of a
target word, and the number of times the teacher prompts chil-
dren to repeat a target word to create a phonological imprint (see
Table 4). The total depth of target words is negatively correlated
with the number of teacher’s questions for identification and posi-
tively correlated with the number of teacher’s story rereading (see
Table 5). These findings are discussed in the following section.
7. Discussion
Our findings indicate that children demonstrated a range of
vocabulary knowledge. Their use of target words during story dicta-
tions, and the complexity with which they were used, increased as
children engaged in more story dictations. These findings cohere
with the research literature on vocabulary development, which
suggests that word knowledge develops incrementally over time
and through multiple exposures across a variety of contexts (e.g.,
Anderson & Nagy, 1991; Carey, 1978; Dale, 1965; Miller, 1999; Nagy
& Herman, 1987; Vygotsky, 1962), and that these understandings
become more complete over time (e.g., Carey, 1978; Clark, 1993)
through lexical network building (e.g., Aitchinson, 1994; Haastrup
& Henriksen, 2000). Variance across children’s story dictation per-
formance corresponds with the research literature that suggests
vocabulary learning is highly individual by learner (Wieland, 2008).
Our exploratory statistical analysis suggested three potential
links between teacher support and children’s demonstrations of
target vocabulary use and learning. These supports included mod-
eling target words, prompting the child to repeat a word to create
a phonological imprint, and using story dictations over time.
These results concerning the potential relation between the
teacher’s modeling of target words are consistent with research
literature on natural word learning, which suggests that children
Draw 2 Draw 3 Draw 4 Draw 5
−0.42 −0.45 −0.39 −0.36
0.12 0.21 0.29 0.25
40 T. Christ et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 30–41
learn most of their vocabulary through exposure to words used
by more advanced language users (e.g., Bloom, 2002) and that
mothers’ use of children’s existing attentional focus and semantic
contingency supports children’s language acquisition (e.g., Barnes
et al., 1983; Snow, 1972; Wells, 1980). Since use of semantic con-
tingency has been discussed in previous research literature, our
finding that this is important for supporting target word use dur-
ing story dictations is not surprising. However, the use of the
Gradual Release of Responsibility Model, while widely applied in
reading comprehension instruction (e.g., Almasi, 2003; Gunning,
2005; McCormick, 2007), to the best of our knowledge has not been
applied specifically in studies pertaining to vocabulary instruction.
Our findings suggest that using a Gradual Release of Respon-
sibility Model may be an effective way to support children’s
application of newly learned vocabulary in authentic contexts.
Future research might examine the impact of a Gradual Release
of Responsibility Model approach to vocabulary instruction and
activities.
Our finding that teacher’s use of prompts to repeat words to
create phonological imprints was related to children’s use and
learning of target vocabulary coheres with research on direct
instruction (e.g., Beck et al., 2002). However, these findings should
be interpreted cautiously because there were relatively few of
these prompts across the data set. Future research might exam-
ine whether repeatedly prompting children to repeat new words
that they hear to create a phonological imprint results in children’s
internalization of this word-learning strategy and recall or applica-
tion of these words.
The findings that questions for identification are negatively cor-
related with target-word knowledge and rereading is positively
correlated with target-word-knowledge support the fact that there
is a relation between the teacher’s use of certain supports and
the child’s story dictation engagement. A careful transcript anal-
ysis did not suggest that rereading resulted directly in children
expanding their stories and using more target words. Instead, it
seems that the teacher reread children’s stories more frequently
when children engaged in longer, more complex stories. That is,
the teacher used rereading to help manage long complex stories
that happened to contain demonstrations of greater target-word-
knowledge. Similarly, the teacher used questions for identification
primarily when working with children who had lower receptive
vocabulary knowledge and dictated shorter stories that demon-
strated less target-word-knowledge. Since these questions were of
low cognitive demand, and required less target-word-knowledge
(they required receptive, not expressive knowledge), they were
easier for children with less-developed vocabularies to answer.
The significant variation in the use of questions for identification
(SD = 2.18) and rereading (SD = 1.50), and the broad ranges for teach-
ers use of these (0–7 and 0–6, respectively) suggest that the teacher
is differentiating her support based on the engagement of the
learner in each story dictation. The teacher’s use of differentiated
moves during story dictation coheres with Blewitt et al.’s (2009)
finding that vocabulary questioning-techniques should be tailored
based on how much a child already knows about a word’s meaning.
Further research on the importance of differentiated vocabulary
instruction is warranted.
While only three kinds of teacher support significantly corre-
lated with increases in children’s demonstrations of breadth or
depth of vocabulary knowledge (i.e., modeling target word use,
prompting a child to repeat a word to create a phonological imprint,
and rereading the story), we conjecture that many of the other sup-
ports used by the teacher contributed to children’s engagement in
story dictation and vocabulary learning in other ways. For exam-
ple, we expect that questioning, scaffolding, some kinds of feedback
(e.g., explanation of engagement in the writing process and affir-
mation/praise) and repeating while scribing may all contribute
to children’s engagement in the story dictation process. Also, it
is worth considering whether these supports impacted children’s
receptive vocabulary development. That is, just because a child
does not apply a word within their story dictation does not mean
that they have not gained any understanding of the word. Teacher
supports such as questioning for accuracy, providing content infor-
mation, and labeling may contribute to children’s receptive word
knowledge. Additionally, recasting may potentially impact more
general language development such as syntax, especially for dual
language learners. While these issues were beyond the scope of this
paper, they present ideas for future research.
Given the nature of our case study approach, and focus on under-
standing the outcomes and process of story dictation, we need to
interpret our findings with caution and keep in mind two possible
limitations. First, generalizations cannot be made for all classrooms,
or all children, based on our findings, because the data were not col-
lected from a broad sample of preschoolers. Second, we have not
compared the outcomes of story dictation to the outcomes of target
word use across other classroom contexts, such as general use of
these vocabulary words across all classroom activities. These issues
may be explored in future research.
8. Implications for classroom practice
Our findings suggest two potential implications for early child-
hood classroom practices. First, since children’s use of vocabulary
in story dictations improved with increased numbers of dictations,
it seems important to provide children regular opportunities to
engage in story dictations. Such opportunities might support chil-
dren’s vocabulary production and knowledge development over
time.
Second, it seems that several teacher supports are needed
to facilitate children’s engagement in story dictations and their
use and learning of target words. Teachers’ use of natural word-
learning principles, such as modeling word use, attentional focus,
and semantic contingency may all support children’s word learning
during story dictations. Also, a teacher’s scaffolding of children’s
emerging target word use based on their vocabulary knowledge,
as evidenced by their story dictation engagement, may facilitate
vocabulary learning. Using a Gradual Release of Responsibility
Model may support children’s increasingly more independent use
of target words over time. Direct instruction, such as prompting
children to repeat words to create a phonological imprint, may also
play an important role in supporting children’s vocabulary learning.
Using modeling, prompting, and differentiated support when
working with children during story dictations does not require spe-
cial training beyond that which most teachers already posses. Early
childhood educators typically use modeling, prompting, and dif-
ferentiated support in their teaching practices. Since most Head
Start and other early childhood classrooms have multiple teach-
ers (lead teacher and assistant teachers), due to state mandates on
teacher–child classroom ratios. Therefore, it is quite feasible for one
teacher to engage children in story dictations during center time.
The lead teacher in the Head Start classroom in which we conducted
this study regularly facilitated a small-group or individual activity
during center time (e.g., art projects, reading, etc.).
In summary, story dictations provide meaningful and authentic
opportunities for children to generate and practice early literacy
skills, including weaving increasingly complex stories with theme-
related vocabulary. This practice merits further consideration in
future research and instruction.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the funding support for this project from our
respective universities: the University Research We are grateful for
 T. Christ et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 (2011) 30–41
the funding support for this project from our respective universi-
ties: the University Research Committee Faculty Research Support
Grant and School of Education and Human Services Research Sup-
port Grant from Oakland University, and the Graduate School of
Education Seed Grant and Teacher Education Institute Research Fel-
lowship from University at Buffalo. We also would like to extend
our gratitude to our graduate assistants, Ashelin Currie and Ersoy
Erdemir, for their assistance coding this paper. Finally, we would
like to thank our colleagues for their ongoing support.
References
Aitchinson, J. (1994). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon (2nd
ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Almasi, J. (2003). Teaching strategic processes in reading. New York, NY: Guilford.
Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1991). Word meanings. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum, pp. 690–724
Barnes, S., Gutfreund, M., Satterly, D., & Wells, C. (1983). Characteristics of adult
speech which predict children’s language development. Journal of Child Lan-
guage, 10, 65–84.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocab-
ulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School
Journal, 107(3), 251–271.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: Guilford.
Berkes, M. (2007). Over in the Jungle. Nevada City, CA: Dawn Publications.
Biemiller, A. (2004). Teaching vocabulary in the primary grades. In J. Bauman, & E.
Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 28–40). New
York: Guilford.
Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in
normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of
vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498–520.
Blewitt, P., Rump, K., Shealy, S., & Cook, S. (2009). Shared book reading: When and
how questions affect young children’s word learning. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 101(2), 294–304.
Bloom, P. (2002). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bond, M., & Wasik, B. (2009). Conversation stations: Promoting language develop-
ment in young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 467–473.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind and
experience & school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Carey, S. (1978). The child as word learner. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. Miller (Eds.),
Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chall, J., Jacobs, V., & Baldwin, L. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall
behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Christ, T. (submitted for publication). More than “right” or “wrong”: A look at chil-
dren’s vocabulary knowledge across the semantic continuum.
Christ, T. (2007). Oral language exposure and incidental vocabulary acquisition: An
exploration across kindergarten classrooms. Unpublished dissertation. Buffalo,
NY: University at Buffalo, The State University of New York.
Clark, E. (2009). First language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Clark, E. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J., West, S. G., Aiken, L., & Cohen, P. (2003). Applied multiple regres-
sion/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. (1996). Beyond the individual–social antinomy in discussions
of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250–256.
Cowley, J. (1999). Red-eyed tree frog. New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc.
Coyne, M., Simmons, D., & Kame’enui, E. (2004). Vocabulary instruction for young
children at risk of experiencing reading difficulties. In J. Bauman, & E. Kame’enui
(Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 41–58). New York: Guil-
ford.
Coyne, M. D., Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Teaching
vocabulary during shared storybook readings: An examination of differential
effects. Exceptionality, 12(3), 145–162.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five tra-
ditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dale, E. (1965). Vocabulary measurement: Techniques and major findings. Elemen-
tary English, 42, 895–901.
DeBaryshe, B., & Gorecki, D. (2007). An experimental validation of a preschool emer-
gent literacy curriculum. Early Education and Development, 18(1), 93–101.
Estigarribia, B., & Clark, E. (2007). Getting and maintaining attention in talk to young
children. Journal of Child Language, 34, 799–814.
French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent integrated early childhood
curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 138–149.
Gunning, T. G. (2005). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties (3rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn and Bacon.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.
View publication stats
41
Haastrup, K., & Henriksen, B. (2000). Vocabulary acquisition: Acquiring depth of
knowledge through network building. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,
10(2), 221–240.
Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (2000). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach (2nd
ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis,
V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp.
39–64). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Labbo, L., Love, M., & Ryan, T. (2007). A vocabulary flood: Making words “sticky”
with computer-response activities. Reading Teacher, 60(6), 582–588.
Leung, C. (2008). Preschoolers’ acquisition of scientific vocabulary through repeated
read-aloud events, retellings, and hands-on science activities. Reading Psychol-
ogy, 29(1), 65–193.
Lionni, L. (1975). A color of his own. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Litowitz, B. (1993). Deconstruction in the zone of proximal development. In E. A. For-
man, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics
in children’s development (pp. 184–197). New York: Oxford University Press.
McCormick, S. (2007). Instructing students who have literacy problems (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
McGregor, K., Sheng, L., & Ball, T. (2007). Complexities of expressive word learning
over time. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 353–365.
Merriam, S. (1988). The case study research in education. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Miller, G. (1999). On knowing a word. Annual Reviews Psychology, 50, 1–19.
Nagy, W., & Herman, P. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Impli-
cations for acquisition and instruction. In M. McKeown, & M. Curtis (Eds.), The
nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 37–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Neuman, S., Dwyer, J., & Newman, E. (2008). Developing vocabulary and concep-
tual knowledge for low-income preschoolers: An intervention study. Unpublished
paper. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Nielsen, D. (2008, December). A study of the effectiveness of small-group intervention
delivered whole group by the classroom teacher on the vocabulary and narra-
tive development of at-risk kindergarten children. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
Pontecorvo, C., & Zucchermaglio, C. (1989). From oral to written language: Preschool
children dictating stories. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21(2), 109–126.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3.), 317–344.
Schwanenflugel, P., Hamilton, C., Bradley, B., Ruston, H., & Restrepo, M. (2005).
Classroom practices for vocabulary enhancement in prekindergarten: Lessons
from PAVEd for success. In E. Hiebert, & M. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning
vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 155–177). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Senechal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers’
acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language,
24, 123–138.
Senechal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. (1995). Individual differences in 4-year-old
children’s acquisition of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 87(2), 218–229.
Snow, C. (1972). Mothers’ speech to children learning language. Child Development,
43, 549–565.
Snow, C., Arlman-Rupp, A., Hassing, Y., Jobse, J., Joosten, J., & Vorster, J. (1976).
Mothers’ speech in three social classes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5,
1–20.
Spinillo, A., & Pinto, G. (1994). Children’s narratives under different conditions:
A comparative study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 177–
193.
Stahl, S., & Nagy, W. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stahl, S., & Stahl, K. (2004). Word wizards all! In J. Bauman, & E. Kame’enui (Eds.),
Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 59–78). New York, NY: Guilford.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory proce-
dures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sulzby, E. (1985). Kindergarteners as writers and readers. In M. Farr (Ed.), Children’s
early writing development (pp. 127–200). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Verhallen, M., & Schoonen, R. (1998). Lexical knowledge in L1 and L2 of third and
fifth graders. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 452–470.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walsh, B., & Blewitt, P. (2006). The effect of questioning style during storybook read-
ing on novel vocabulary acquisition of preschoolers. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 33(4), 273–278.
Wang, X. C., Christ, T., & Chiu, M. (2009, December). Exploring a model for mean-
ing vocabulary instruction in early childhood classrooms: A formative experiment.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Wasik, B., & Bond, M. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book read-
ings and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(2), 243–250.
Weizman, Z., & Snow, C. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s vocabulary
acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 37, 265–279.
Wells, G. (1980, July). Language and learning: Talk between adults and children at home
and at school. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the International
Congress of Psychology, Leipzing, Germany.
Wieland, K. (2008). Toward a unified theory of contextual vocabulary acquisition
(Doctoral dissertation State University of New York at Buffalo, 2008). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 69, 1719.