981399

research-article2020
LTR0010.1177/1362168820981399Language Teaching ResearchChow et al.

LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Article RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

Dialogic teaching in
1­–23
© The Author(s) 2021

English-as-a-second-language Article reuse guidelines:

classroom: Its effects on first sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820981399
DOI: 10.1177/1362168820981399
graders with different levels journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr

of vocabulary knowledge

Bonnie Wing-Yin Chow

Anna Na-Na Hui
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Zhen Li
The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Yang Dong
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Abstract
As an effective teaching approach that allows teachers and students to interact collaboratively
and actively build on each other’s ideas, dialogic teaching can enhance classroom engagement
and learning outcomes. This study addresses the use of dialogic teaching for improving English
language learning among Chinese children with varied levels of English vocabulary. It focuses on
the effects of dialogic teaching on vocabulary knowledge and phonological awareness. Seventy-
two first graders from Hong Kong primary schools were tested on English vocabulary knowledge
and phonological awareness and were assigned to control and experimental conditions. A 12-
week dialogic teaching intervention was implemented in daily English lessons. Results from
repeated measures ANOVA showed that students in the experimental condition with dialogic
teaching implemented exhibited significantly greater growth in expressive vocabulary knowledge
on textbook items in both low and high vocabulary groups, and greater gain in phonological
awareness in the high vocabulary group, than those in the control condition. These results suggest
that dialogic teaching in English-as-a-second-language (ESL) classroom enhances English language

Corresponding author:
Bonnie Wing-Yin Chow, Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences, City University of Hong Kong,
Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China.
Email: wychow@cityu.edu.hk
2 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

development in young ESL learners. In addition, when assessing the effectiveness of dialogic
teaching in young children’s second language classroom context, it is important to consider its
differential effects on children with diverse vocabulary levels.

Keywords
dialogic teaching, English as a second language, phonological awareness, vocabulary knowledge,
children

I Introduction
Teacher–student dialogue is central to language teaching because it not only functions as
a linguistic exchange between teacher and students but also creates a community of
speakers and listeners who use the target language purposefully. For most young lan-
guage learners in the Asia-Pacific region, classroom interaction is one of the primary
means by which they acquire early competencies to develop target language skills such
as vocabulary knowledge and phonological awareness (Gonzalez et al., 2014, 2016;
Spencer et al., 2015). Past research has found that dialogic teaching – an effective teach-
ing approach that allows teachers and students to interact collaboratively and actively
build on each other’s ideas – can increase classroom engagement and enhance children’s
language development (Alexander, 2008; Hammond & Gibbons, 2005; Haneda & Wells,
2008). However, it is unclear whether dialogic teaching influences language learning
differently in learners with varied levels of language skills. Young language learners are
a heterogeneous group with different levels of language proficiency (Humes-Bartlo,
1989). In this light, investigating the factors underlying language development in chil-
dren of different ability levels can offer insight into their cognitive profiles and learning
needs (Carretti et al., 2016).
For the purpose of facilitating learning of English as a second language (ESL), this
study investigates the effects of dialogic teaching on English vocabulary knowledge and
phonological awareness among Chinese children with varied levels of vocabulary
knowledge. This study extends past research from two perspectives. First, this research
is one of the few studies that examine the effectiveness of dialogic teaching among
young ESL learners. Second, this study investigates the effects of dialogic teaching on
language development in learners with different vocabulary abilities. Findings from this
study can improve our understanding of the effectiveness of dialogic teaching on young
learners with diverse language ability levels in classroom settings.

II Literature review
1 Dialogic teaching
Dialogic teaching is a pedagogical approach that allows teachers and students to interact
collaboratively and build on each other’s ideas to improve learning outcomes (Hennessy
et al., 2011). It focuses on pinpointing the dialogic processes wherein both teachers and
students act as inquirers in dialogic exchanges during classroom instruction (Haneda &
Chow et al. 3

Wells, 2008; Lyle, 2008). In contrast, in traditional didactic teaching, teachers tend to
disseminate information while students act as passive receivers of knowledge with lim-
ited participation in classroom dialogues (Alexander, 2008; Hennessy, 2017; Lee, 2016;
Skidmore, 2006; Wells, 1999a, 1999b). By integrating dialogic teaching in the curricu-
lum, both teachers and children can participate in the co-construction of curriculum
knowledge in the target language. Thus, students and teachers work collaboratively to
co-construct meanings over successive utterances to achieve teaching and learning goals.
In this way, students are likely to encounter varied perspectives on a topic under discus-
sion (Haneda & Wells, 2013).
Dialogic reading has been shown to be an effective dialogic teaching approach in
facilitating children’s language development (e.g. Hargrave & Sénéchal, 2000). Dialogic
reading is an adult–child reading technique that encourages the child to speak and use
increasingly sophisticated language with support from adults (Whitehurst et al., 1988;
Zevenbergen & Whitehurst, 2003). The principal technique of dialogic reading is the
PEER sequence (prompt, evaluate, expand, and repeat) and the CROWD question design
structure (completion, recall, open-ended, wh-, and distancing), which encourages the
use of different question types to prompt students’ participation. For example, in lan-
guage teaching, the PEER strategy starts with a teacher prompting students to use the
target language to describe a picture using one of the CROWD questions. The teacher
then evaluates the students’ responses, providing positive and constructive feedback.
The teacher also expands on the initial response of students by adding extra linguistic
components, such as vocabulary or phrases to enrich the students’ responses. Finally, the
teacher asks students to repeat the expanded utterances. This dialogic approach improves
the oral language skills of students in a natural and unobtrusive manner, turning them
into active speakers and users (Chow et al., 2010). It provides a motivating context for
children to learn word meanings effectively through extended illustrations, further clari-
fication, repetition and reference over time, and multiple exposures to new vocabulary
(Wasik et al., 2016). Similar to other approaches like Instructional Conversations and
Academic Conversations, dialogic reading encourages students’ involvement. These
approaches encourage teachers to actively prompt students’ contribution in the dialogue,
which is guided by the students’ responses to teacher’s questions. However, compared to
Instructional Conversations and Academic Conversations, dialogic reading is more sys-
tematic with its PEER sequence and the CROWD question design structure. In the PEER
sequence, repetition ensures that the students understand and have a chance to practice
the responses which the teacher have evaluated and expanded on. These are important in
helping teachers to pursue the learning objectives.
The feasibility of combining dialogic reading with other types of strategies in lan-
guage instruction has been demonstrated in previous research (e.g. Chow et al., 2008;
Landry et al., 2017; Sim et al., 2014). In the present study, the addition of creative liter-
acy activities to dialogic reading aims to promote children’s creative use of second lan-
guage vocabulary. Such creative activities mainly include using creative learning
materials as stimuli to generate novel and interesting teacher–student interactions (Chow
et al., 2018). Creative activities allow children to critique, embellish, and develop their
ideas through active classroom interaction (Hallam et al., 2011; Mayesky, 2014). Studies
on language education show that a classroom context with planned creative activities can
4 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

generate a dialogic context that enables children to produce novel and creative utterances
(Chow et al., 2018; Hui et al., 2013). For instance, a creative activity may encourage
students to imagine an ideal fictional place or situation and use the target language to
describe it, providing a stimulus that may prompt a large volume of novel responses from
students (Chow et al., 2018).

2 Effects of dialogic teaching on language learning

Past research has identified several key benefits of dialogic teaching in facilitating the
language development of children. First, dialogic teaching provides impactful scaffold-
ing through diverse forms of semiotic mediation to help enhance children’s language
competence and develop new linguistic resources (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005; Jones,
2010; Klingelhofer & Schleppegrell, 2016). Second, dialogic teaching equips teachers
with rich metalanguage to raise the linguistic awareness of students, affords opportuni-
ties for students to engage with texts in the target language, and maximizes their roles
to explore meaning (Schleppegrell, 2013; Schleppegrell & Moore, 2018). Third, dia-
logic teaching can improve teacher–student communication by facilitating interactive
exchanges, during which students can obtain more opportunities to develop their cogni-
tive skills within their zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Alexander, 2008;
Kinginger, 2002; Wells, 1999a). Fourth, dialogic teaching allows teachers to use crea-
tive activities to facilitate production of creative discourse in students (Cremin, 2009;
Kremer, 2016).
Dialogic teaching is known to have positive effects on vocabulary acquisition among
young children (e.g. Cabell et al., 2015; Lowman et al., 2018; Wasik & Hindman, 2014).
A study conducted by Wasik and Hindman (2014) evaluated an intervention program
called ExCELL, in which teachers were encouraged to use dialogic reading as the key
instructional approach to teach language and literacy to a group of young children, the
majority of whom were native English-speaking. The results showed that children in the
dialogic reading intervention program significantly outpaced their counterparts in typi-
cal reading settings in vocabulary gains. Wasik and Hindman (2014) explained that the
greater vocabulary gains were associated with increased teacher talk about the target
vocabulary. Another study conducted by Gonzalez et al. (2014) pointed out that the
types of dialogic reading activities played an important role. They found that extra-
textual talk brought about deeper processing of the target vocabulary as compared with
text-focused talk in ESL learning. In addition, a study conducted by Petchprasert (2014)
on the effectiveness of a home-based dialogic reading among Thai ESL learners found
that dialogic reading was useful for promoting children’s English lexical learning, as it
allowed children to act as storytellers as well as masters of their own learning such that
their motivation and autonomy of ESL learning increased after the intervention.
While more is known about the impact of dialogic teaching on vocabulary knowl-
edge, relatively little is understood about its influence on phonological awareness. Mixed
findings have been obtained. For instance, Whitehurst et al. (1994) found that a program
with dialogic reading and sound-and-letter-awareness training did not facilitate chil-
dren’s phonological skills. However, the majority of participating children in this study
Chow et al. 5

were from families with English as the spoken language at home. Another study con-
ducted on a sample of largely African Americans in the U.S. found a positive effect for
dialogic reading on phonological awareness skills following a 12-week dialogic reading
intervention (Lonigan et al., 1999). Elmonayer (2013) also found that dialogic reading
promoted Egyptian children’s phonological awareness in learning Arabic as the first lan-
guage. In addition, Chow et al. (2010) reported an increase in Chinese ESL children’s
phonological skills following a home-based dialogic reading program. Vocabulary
knowledge and phonological awareness are two significant indicators of children’s lan-
guage ability (Lipka & Siegel, 2012; Morgan & Meier, 2008; Tong & Deacon, 2017;
Walter, 2008). Therefore, it is important for this study to examine the effects of dialogic
teaching on both vocabulary knowledge and phonological awareness in ESL children.

3 Chinese ESL learners

Although existing research presents evidence for the effectiveness of dialogic teaching,
the effects of dialogic teaching could vary due to contextual, cultural, and institutional
factors (Haneda, 2017). Intervention research on dialogic teaching in second language
teaching contexts remains limited, especially its application in classroom settings. In
particular, the effects of dialogic teaching in young Chinese ESL classrooms remain
unclear. Additionally, how dialogic teaching differentially benefits young learners with
varied vocabulary skills remains unknown. To this end, the present study employs an
intervention to examine whether children with varied levels of vocabulary knowledge
benefit from dialogic teaching in different ways. In Hong Kong, formal ESL classes in
schools are the primary means for young learners to acquire the English language. The
traditional teacher-centered, direct-instruction pedagogy, in which teachers adopt an
active role in imparting knowledge to the class while students passively listen, is the
predominant approach to ESL teaching in Hong Kong primary schools (Cheung, 2014).
This traditional pedagogical approach characterized by rote learning, tedious exercise,
and grammar drilling, perpetuates in Hong Kong classrooms with an exam-oriented cur-
riculum (Chan & Yuen, 2014). Limited interaction with peers and teachers means that
students are not able to maximize classroom opportunities to communicate in English
and are thus likely to remain passive in the English classroom (Cheung, 2014). This
‘one-size-fits-all’ instruction continues to prevail in school settings, and few strategies
are adopted to cater for learner diversity (Wan, 2017). Learning English as a second lan-
guage can be particularly challenging for Chinese children due to the wide linguistic
distance between their first language (Chinese) and second language (English). Therefore,
research on dialogic teaching in the Chinese context is important as it considers learning
situations and difficulties that these students have, which may not be encountered by
their western ESL counterparts. Given that dialogic teaching centers on establishing
meaningful communication and participation in class, this line of research is prominent
in identifying feasible pedagogical approaches to maximize Chinese students’ English
learning.
6 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

III The present study

This study addresses the effects of dialogic teaching on ESL learning among young
learners with varied levels of English vocabulary knowledge within a 12-week dialogic
teaching intervention. It focuses on two aspects of ESL learning (i.e. vocabulary knowl-
edge and phonological awareness). We aim to answer two research questions. First, does
dialogic teaching enhance vocabulary knowledge and phonological awareness in Chinese
ESL children? Second, does the effect of dialogic teaching differ among Chinese ESL
children with varied levels of vocabulary knowledge? We adopt both receptive and
expressive vocabulary as an index of children’s vocabulary knowledge of the target lan-
guage. As noted by researchers, vocabulary knowledge is not only an important indicator
of young learners’ reading competence (Chondrogianni & Marinis, 2011; Grøver et al.,
2018) but also a significant predictor of listening, reading, and writing skills (Schmitt,
2014). By investigating the effects of dialogic teaching in children with varied levels of
vocabulary knowledge, this study aims to enhance existing knowledge on the individual
differences in second language acquisition and the effects of dialogic teaching on young
learners with different language ability levels.

IV Methods
The participants, measures, experimental and control group conditions for this quasi-
experimental study are described in this section.

1 Participants
Participants were 72 first graders (Age: M = 6.59 years, SD = .33, Min = 5.90, Max =
7.50) attending local primary schools in Hong Kong. All participants were Cantonese-
speaking and were taking daily ESL classes at school. Students in Hong Kong begin
formal English lessons at primary one, but most begin to listen to English stories, sing
English songs, and learn English letters and words either in kindergarten or at home.
Participants were selected from a larger sample of 253 first graders across two schools
(school A, N = 120, school B, N = 133), both of which were typical Hong Kong primary
schools that offered daily ESL classes to native Cantonese-speaking children. This study
aims to investigate whether dialogic teaching influences language learning differently in
learners with high and low levels of vocabulary knowledge. To achieve this aim, partici-
pants with high and low levels of vocabulary knowledge were selected and included in
this study. To select children with low and high ESL vocabulary, all of the 253 first grad-
ers took English receptive vocabulary and English expressive vocabulary tests. Average
z-scores of children’s performance in an English Receptive Vocabulary test and an
English Expressive Vocabulary test were computed. Children who scored below the 25th
percentile were assigned to the group with low vocabulary knowledge, whereas those
who scored above the 75th percentile were designated to the group with high vocabulary
knowledge. Given that the schools preferred having students receive the intervention,
there were more students in the experimental condition than in the control condition.
As ANOVA is sensitive to unequal sample sizes (Fitts, 2010; Howell, 2009; Liu,
2003), we used the SPSS Select Cases function to randomly select an equal number of
Chow et al. 7

students in each condition. This method of selecting an equal number of participants

across conditions has been used successfully in past research (e.g. Sadler & Fowler,
2006; Scarpati et al., 2009). To include an equal number of students across conditions,
participants in the experimental condition were randomly selected to match with the
number of participants in the control condition of the corresponding vocabulary groups
using the SPSS Select Cases function. As the main aim of this study is to examine the
effects of dialogic teaching, statistical analyses were conducted to compare across the
experimental and the control conditions (where the sample sizes of the comparison
groups were equal), but not across the low and the high vocabulary groups. In this study,
the group with low vocabulary knowledge comprised 32 students, including 10 boys and
6 girls in the control condition and 7 boys and 9 girls in the experimental condition. The
group with high vocabulary knowledge comprised 40 students, including 10 boys and 10
girls in the control condition and 7 boys and 13 girls in the experimental condition.

2 Measures
a  English receptive vocabulary. The Receptive Vocabulary test was adapted from the
Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary tests (ROWPVT; Brownell, 2000). For each of
the 20 items, the experimenter presented a word orally and students were required to
select the corresponding illustration from four options. The items in this test were ran-
domly selected from the first 60 items in the ROWPVT. Items of lower difficulty level
in the ROWPVT were included because the participants were learning English as a sec-
ond language and had just begun their formal English lessons at school. The items have
been previously successfully administered to test receptive vocabulary in Hong Kong
kindergarteners and primary school students (Wong et al., 2014). The maximum score of
the Receptive Vocabulary test was 20, and its Cronbach’s α was .89.

b  English receptive vocabulary with textbook items.  To further investigate the effect of the
intervention on the vocabulary taught during the intervention period, a test of English
Receptive Vocabulary with Textbook Items was administered. The testing procedure of
this test was similar to that of the Receptive Vocabulary test. For each of the 16 items, the
experimenter presented a word orally, and students were required to select the corre-
sponding illustration from four options. The vocabulary items in this test were obtained
from the English textbook used in students’ English classes during the intervention
period. Example items in this test include sleep, hike, bedroom and bench. These words
were different from those in the English Expressive Vocabulary with Textbook Items
test. The maximum score of the Receptive Vocabulary-Textbook test was 16, and its
Cronbach’s α was .81.

c  English expressive vocabulary.  The Expressive Vocabulary test was adapted from the
English Expressive Vocabulary Test–Second Edition (EVT-2) (Williams, 2007). For
each of the 18 items, children were asked to say an English word that best represented
the picture shown by the experimenter. These items were randomly selected from the
first 60 items in the EVT-2. Items of lower difficulty level in the EVT-2 were included
because the participants were learning English as a second language and had just begun
their formal English lessons at school. Similar English expressive vocabulary tests have
8 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

been administered to Hong Kong children in past studies (Liu et al., 2017; Yeung
et al., 2013). The maximum score on this task was 18, and the Cronbach’s α was .92.

d  English expressive vocabulary with textbook items.  To better understand the interven-
tion effect on the vocabulary taught during the intervention period, a test of English
Expressive Vocabulary with Textbook Items was administered. This test comprised 16
items. The test approach of Expressive Vocabulary-Textbook was similar to that of the
Expressive Vocabulary test. The words in this test were sourced from the English text-
book that the students used in their English classes during the intervention period. Exam-
ple items of this test include pond, bicycle, draw and sing. These words were different
from those in the English Receptive Vocabulary with Textbook Items test. The maximum
score on this task was 16, and the Cronbach’s α was .88.

e  English phonological awareness.  The English Phonological Awareness test consisted of

12 English syllable deletion items. The experimenter presented the three-syllable words
orally one by one, following which students were required to remove one syllable from
each three-syllable word. For example, ‘butterfly’ without ‘ter’ is ‘but’ and ‘fly’. Similar
English syllable deletion tests have been administered to Hong Kong kindergarteners
and primary school students in past studies (Chow et al., 2010; Chung et al., 2013). Test-
ing stopped when the student failed to answer five consecutive items. The maximum
score of this task was 12, and its Cronbach’s α was .85.

3 Procedure
Parental consent was sought for all students before data collection. Students were then
individually tested on English receptive vocabulary, receptive vocabulary-textbook,
expressive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary-textbook, and phonological awareness in
a 30-minute session. Following intervention methods in past studies (e.g. Chow et al.,
2018; Hargrave & Sénéchal, 2000), at the beginning of our intervention program, a 1.5-
hour workshop was provided for teachers in the experimental condition to empower
them to teach ESL using dialogic teaching methods. The workshop provided the teachers
with guidelines containing dialogic reading techniques and detailed teaching and learn-
ing materials for interactive dialogue and creative activities. The length of the current
intervention program (12 weeks) was based on the successful implementation of previ-
ous dialogic teaching intervention programs in past studies (e.g. Chow et al., 2018). In
some studies on dialogic teaching, the implementation period of dialogic teaching was as
short as 4 weeks (e.g. Opel et al., 2009). In this study, we considered 12 weeks to be
practical for implementation and long enough to allow us to detect changes in children’s
vocabulary knowledge and phonological awareness. During the 12-week intervention
program, three class visits were conducted in total, with one conducted every four weeks.
Furthermore, teachers were contacted regularly to ensure that they were able to smoothly
employ dialogic teaching techniques in their classrooms, and that active teacher–student
interaction took place in their class teaching. At the end of the intervention period, stu-
dents retook the five tests on English receptive vocabulary, receptive vocabulary-text-
book, expressive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary-textbook, and phonological
awareness. Four out of five classes in school A and three out of five classes in school B
Chow et al. 9

were randomly assigned to the experimental condition. The remaining three classes were
assigned to the control condition. Both conditions received the same duration of English
instruction. In total, 10 teachers were involved in this study and they were not privy to
items in the tests.

4 Experimental condition
Students in the experimental condition received 12 weeks of dialogic instruction that was
designed to foster teacher–student interaction and discussion of topics related to text-
book content. The dialogic instruction contained two major components: interactive dia-
logue and creative activities. Classroom learning incorporating dialogic teaching replaced
the traditional school curriculum for an average of 80 minutes each week. Teachers con-
ducted the classes using teaching and learning materials for interactive dialogue and
creative activities provided by the research team. Students in the experimental condition
received the same duration of English instruction as those in the control condition.

5 Control condition
Students in the control condition followed the traditional English curriculum. This cur-
riculum focuses on the acquisition of core and concrete knowledge, such as grammar and
vocabulary. Similar to typical English classes in most local schools in Hong Kong,
emphasis is placed on rote learning and drilling exercises such as recitation, dictation,
and other strategies focusing on vocabulary memorization (Lau & Rao, 2013; McBride-
Chang & Treiman, 2003).

6 Analysis
Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients of the tests were computed. The reliabil-
ity coefficient was above .80 in all tests, indicating these tests had good reliability. Chi-
square tests and independent-samples t-tests were conducted to test if the experimental
and the control conditions differed in age, gender composition, and task performance
before the intervention. Then, repeated measures ANOVA tests were conducted on
English measures to compare inter-condition differences across time. Effect sizes were
interpreted based on Cohen’s (1988) rule of thumb for effect sizes which indicates that a
partial eta-squared (ηp2) value of .01, .06, and .14 corresponds to a small, medium, and
large effect respectively. These analyses shed light on the effectiveness of the interven-
tion and the differential effects that the intervention may have on students with different
levels of vocabulary knowledge.

V Results
1 Pre-test measures
To test if the experimental and the control conditions differed in age, gender composition,
and task performance before the intervention, Chi-square tests and independent-samples
t-tests were conducted for both low and high vocabulary groups. Chi-square tests were
10 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 1.  Descriptive statistics, independent samples T-tests of age and Chi-square tests of
gender between the experimental and the control conditions by vocabulary groups.

N M SD T p d 95% CI for
mean difference
Age
Low vocabulary group: .75 .45 .26 [–.17, .38]
Experimental 16 6.52 .36  
Control 16 6.62 .40  
Total 32 6.57 .38  
High vocabulary group: –.14 .88 –.06 [–.20, .18]
Experimental 20 6.61 .33  
Control 20 6.59 .26  
Total 40 6.60 .29  
Gender Male Female χ2 p φ
Low vocabulary group: 1.12 .28 .18
Experimental 7 9  
Control 10 6  
Total 17 15  
High vocabulary group: .92 .33 .15
Experimental 7 13  
Control 10 10  
Total 17 23  

conducted to compare gender between conditions for the low and high vocabulary groups
respectively. Results showed no significant differences in gender across conditions (see
Table 1). Additionally, independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the per-
formance and chronological age of the two conditions at pre-test for the low and high
vocabulary groups respectively. Results showed no significant differences between con-
ditions on any of the pre-test measures (all ps > .05, see Tables 1 and 2).

2 Comparing the improvement in control and experimental conditions

over time
The descriptive statistics for the post-test scores across the two conditions are shown in
Table 2. These scores indicate participants’ performance in the experimental and the
control conditions after the intervention. Using repeated measures ANOVA, inter-condi-
tion differences across time were compared based on results of interaction effects and
effect sizes. Specifically, we examined changes across time (pre-test to post-test), differ-
ences across conditions (experimental vs. control), and the interaction between time and
experiment condition. In examining the effectiveness of the intervention for the low and
high vocabulary groups, five separate repeated measures ANOVAs with time as a within-
participant factor and condition as a between-participant factor were carried out to assess
students’ improvement in English receptive vocabulary receptive vocabulary-textbook,
 Chow et al.

Table 2.  Descriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test measures and independent samples T-test of Pre-test measures between the
experimental and the control conditions by vocabulary groups.

Measures Group Experimental Control Independent samples t-test

of pre-test measures
Pre-test Post-test Rate of Pre-test Post-test Rate of
change change
M SD M SD M SD M SD t p d 95% CI
for mean
difference
Receptive Low 6.94 3.06 9.50 4.01 0.37 7.19 3.14 9.88 3.68 0.37 .22 .82 .08 [–1.99, 2.49]
vocabulary High 16.45 1.27 16.30 2.10 –0.01 16.50 1.39 17.05 2.08 0.03 .11 .90 .03 [–.80, .90]
Receptive Low 5.44 2.63 10.25 3.29 0.88 6.13 2.33 9.31 4.31 0.52 .78 .44 .27 [–1.10, 2.48]
vocabulary- High 10.95 1.87 14.90 1.02 0.36 11.80 2.50 14.75 1.37 0.25 1.21 .23 .38 [–.56, 2.26]
textbook
Expressive Low 1.13 1.62 3.44 1.67 2.04 0.75 1.23 3.63 2.47 3.84 –.73 .46 –.26 [–1.41, .66]
vocabulary High 9.40 1.87 10.75 1.80 0.14 10.40 2.01 11.25 2.17 0.08 1.62 .11 .51 [–.24, 2.24]
Expressive Low 2.63 2.06 8.94 1.98 2.40 3.25 2.04 6.69 3.47 1.06 .86 .39 .30 [–.85, 2.10]
vocabulary- High 9.80 2.21 14.95 1.39 0.53 11.05 2.46 14.10 1.48 0.28 1.68 .09 .53 [–.24, 2.74]
textbook
Phonological Low 6.44 3.34 7.00 2.87 0.09 7.50 3.24 8.06 3.13 0.07 .91 .36 .32 [–1.31, 3.44]
awareness High 7.95 3.18 10.10 2.51 0.27 8.75 2.57 8.80 2.64 0.01 .87 .38 .27 [–1.05, 2.65]

Note. Rate of change was computed by the post-test and pre-test score difference divided by the pre-test score.
11
12 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 3.  Repeated measures analysis on Pre-test vs. Post-test scores between the
experimental and the control conditions by vocabulary groups.

Measure Group Repeated measures

(time * condition interaction effects)

F p ηp2
Receptive vocabulary Low .00 .94 .00
High 1.21 .27 .03
Receptive Low 1.16 .28 .03
vocabulary-textbook High 1.76 .19 .04
Expressive vocabulary Low .38 .54 .01
High 1.09 .30 .02
Expressive Low 7.25** .01 .19
vocabulary-textbook High 9.54** .00 .20
Phonological awareness Low .00 1.00 .00
High 5.31* .02 .12

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

expressive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary-textbook, and phonological awareness

before and after the 12-week intervention for low and high vocabulary groups respec-
tively. Results showed that the main effect for time was significant for all variables,
except expressive vocabulary and phonological awareness whereby the main effect for
time was significant in the high vocabulary group only. This indicated that participants’
performance differed at pre-test and post-test for expressive vocabulary-textbook, recep-
tive vocabulary-textbook, and expressive vocabulary in both vocabulary groups, and for
expressive vocabulary and phonological awareness in high vocabulary group only. No
significant main effect for condition was found, indicating the overall performance of the
experimental and the control conditions is similar for all variables. Most interestingly, a
significant interaction effect was found for expressive vocabulary-textbook in both
vocabulary groups and for phonological awareness in the high vocabulary group, indi-
cating that participants who had undergone the intervention showed greater improve-
ment than those who had not (see Table 3). Details of the results are indicated in the
following sub-sections.

a  Vocabulary knowledge. In examining expressive vocabulary-textbook, a significant

main effect for time was observed in both low and high vocabulary groups. This indi-
cated that participants’ performance improved across time, F(1, 30) = 83.45, p < .001,
ηp2 = .73 for the low vocabulary group, and F(1, 38) = 145.59, p < .001, ηp2 = .79 for
the high vocabulary group. The main effect for condition was not significant, F(1, 30) =
1.37, p > .05, ηp2 = .04 for the low vocabulary group, and F(1, 38) = .15, p > .05,
ηp2 = .004 for the high vocabulary group. A significant interaction effect between condi-
tion and time was observed for the low and high vocabulary groups respectively, F(1, 30)
= 7.25, p < .05, ηp2 = .19 for the low vocabulary group, and F(1, 38) = 9.54, p < .01,
ηp2 = .20 for the high vocabulary group (see Figures 1 and 2). This indicated greater
Chow et al. 13

Figure 1.  Change of English expressive vocabulary-textbook scores across time in the
experimental and the control conditions in the low vocabulary group.

improvement in expressive vocabulary-textbook for students who had undergone the

intervention than those who had not in both low and high vocabulary groups, suggesting
that dialogic teaching was more effective than the traditional didactic instruction in fos-
tering children’s expressive vocabulary of the textbook. Based on Cohen’s (1988) rule of
thumb for effect sizes, a large interaction effect was observed for both low and high
vocabulary groups in expressive vocabulary-textbook (all ηp2s > .14).
A significant effect for time was found for both vocabulary groups in receptive vocab-
ulary, receptive vocabulary-textbook, and expressive vocabulary (all ps < .01),
except for the high vocabulary group in receptive vocabulary, F(1, 38) = .39, p > .05,
ηp2 = .01. This indicated that participants’ performance improved across time in the low
vocabulary group, F(1, 30) = 9.35, p < .001, ηp2 = .23 for receptive vocabulary,
F(1, 30) = 28.19, p < .001, ηp2 = .48 for receptive vocabulary-textbook, and F(1, 30)
= 32.42, p < .001, ηp2 = .51 for expressive vocabulary, and the high vocabulary group,
F(1, 38) = 83.79, p < .001, ηp2 = .68 for receptive vocabulary-textbook, and F(1, 38) =
21.11, p < .001, ηp2 = .35 for expressive vocabulary. However, no significant interaction
effect or main effect for condition was observed in both vocabulary groups in receptive
vocabulary, receptive vocabulary-textbook, and expressive vocabulary (all ps > .05). This
showed that the growth in these vocabulary skills was similar for students who had under-
gone the intervention and those who had not. As the control condition in this study followed
the traditional English curriculum, these results indicated that dialogic teaching worked as
well as the traditional didactic instruction in enhancing these vocabulary skills in children.

b  Phonological awareness. In examining phonological awareness, a significant main

effect for time was observed in the high vocabulary group, F(1, 38) = 5.82, p < .05,
14 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Figure 2.  Change of English expressive vocabulary-textbook scores across time in the
experimental and the control conditions in the high vocabulary group.

ηp2 = .13. This indicated that their performance improved across time. However, the
main effect for condition was not significant, F(1, 38) = .11, p > .05, ηp2 = .003. A
significant interaction effect between condition and time was observed for the high
vocabulary group, indicating greater growth in phonological awareness for students who
had undergone the intervention than those who had not in the high vocabulary group,
F(1, 38) = 5.31, p < .05, ηp2 = .12 (see Figure 3). A medium to large effect was found
for this interaction effect. For the low vocabulary group, no significant effect was found
for time, condition or interaction (all ps > .05).

VI Discussion
This study extends previous research by investigating the effectiveness of dialogic teach-
ing pedagogy on ESL development among first graders with low and high levels of
vocabulary knowledge. The findings show significantly greater growth in expressive
vocabulary knowledge on textbook items in learners with low and high vocabulary, and
greater gain in phonological awareness in learners with high vocabulary after a 12-week
dialogic teaching intervention program.

1 English expressive vocabulary with textbook items

Results suggest that students in the experimental condition are more successful in learn-
ing English expressive vocabulary-textbook than their control group counterparts after
Chow et al. 15

Figure 3.  Change of English phonological awareness scores across time in the experimental
and the control conditions in the high vocabulary group.

the 12-week intervention. In dialogic teaching, teachers are encouraged to create

extended exposure to vocabulary. When teachers successfully elicit the meaning of target
vocabulary from students, more interactional opportunities allow students to practice the
target vocabulary, thus enhancing their vocabulary learning (Ong, 2017). No statistical
differences across conditions were observed for English expressive vocabulary. As the
Expressive Vocabulary-Textbook task included items selected from the textbooks stu-
dents used during the intervention and the Expressive Vocabulary task included general
items, this finding shows that children, including both low and high vocabulary learners,
benefit more from dialogic teaching on learning textbook vocabulary rather than extra-
textual ones. There is a possibility that the Expressive Vocabulary test administered in
this study is not granular enough to allow detecting significant improvements in general
expressive vocabulary knowledge in the 12-week intervention. Further research can con-
firm the finding with a more extensive expressive vocabulary test.
Findings from previous research reveal that early second language learners show typi-
cal progress in learning vocabulary from textbooks than from other sources (Davidson
et al., 2008). The reason is that textbook vocabulary is more frequently used than other
vocabulary during classroom instruction. This is particularly true for beginning learners
who have just started receiving formal ESL instruction. Given their small vocabulary
base, beginning learners tend to rely more on their knowledge of textbook vocabulary,
which is more readily accessible, than extra-textual vocabulary in their interaction with
teachers.
Compared with traditional didactic instruction, dialogic teaching provides children
with more opportunities to use textbook vocabulary during classroom learning. As men-
tioned, the dialogic teaching approach can create a motivating context for children to learn
16 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

word meanings effectively through extended illustrations, further clarification, repetition,

and multiple exposures to new vocabulary over time (Wasik et al., 2016). Thus, their
knowledge of the textbook vocabulary is enhanced through active classroom engagement.
Future research can collect data on the frequency of the target vocabulary discussed in
classes to examine the underlying mechanisms of the positive effects on ESL vocabulary
knowledge in dialogic teaching. Another possible interpretation of this finding is that the
examination-driven education culture in Hong Kong emphasizes textbook vocabulary as
opposed to extra-textual ones. Even though the intervention program encouraged the use
of extra-textual vocabulary through extended discussion with dialogic reading strategies
and creative literacy activities, textbook vocabulary might still be more frequently used in
classes. It should be noted that while students’ performance in the Expressive Vocabulary-
Textbook test significantly improved over time, given the relatively small number of
items of the Expressive Vocabulary-Textbook test, the absolute number of gains could be
small in some groups (Low Control: 3.44; Low Experimental: 6.31; High Control: 3.05;
High Experimental: 5.15). Yet, short vocabulary tests have been successfully used in past
research to measure vocabulary knowledge in young ESL children. For example,
Petchprasert (2014) administered a 14-item English vocabulary test on three to six year-
old Thai ESL children to measure their vocabulary gains across pre-test and post-test. As
the items in the test were randomly selected, the statistically significant growth differ-
ences on these items across conditions suggest intervention effects. Similarly, past
research using longer vocabulary tests showed a significant positive effect of dialogic
reading on children’s expressive vocabulary but not receptive vocabulary, though it should
also be noted that the absolute gain is small (Expressive vocabulary: Experimental: 4.7;
Control: 1.2) (Hargrave & Sénéchal, 2000). The reference to absolute number of gains is
necessary for a useful interpretation of the claims and inferences. In addition, the high
pre-test scores obtained in the tests in the high vocabulary group, especially in the
Receptive Vocabulary test, may leave little room for growth across time. There is a pos-
sibility that the tests may not be sensitive enough to capture an increase in general vocabu-
lary knowledge. Further research can confirm the finding with more extensive vocabulary
tests. It is also important to note that in the present study, learners in both the high vocabu-
lary experimental and the high vocabulary control conditions had similar performance on
expressive vocabulary-textbook at post-test. Though no significant difference was
observed between conditions in expressive vocabulary-textbook pre-test scores, there is a
possibility that the slightly lower pre-test performance of learners in the high vocabulary
experimental group provides more room for improvement than for learners in the high
vocabulary control group. Further research is needed to confirm the finding of the positive
intervention effects on expressive vocabulary-textbook in children with high vocabulary
knowledge.
The present study shows significant interaction effects for expressive vocabulary gains
but not for receptive vocabulary gains in both groups across conditions. Some studies on
dialogic reading intervention have found that the interactive dialogue approach is particu-
larly useful in improving expressive language skills in children (Burchinal et al., 2010;
Hargrave & Sénéchal, 2000). By studying the differential effects of storybook reading in
preschoolers, Sénéchal (1997) found that book reading enhances receptive and expressive
vocabulary in children in similar ways. However, active dialogic interaction can enhance
Chow et al. 17

expressive vocabulary in children more than receptive vocabulary. A meta-analysis study

has indicated that dialogic reading has stronger effects on children’s expressive vocabu-
lary than receptive vocabulary, and this is likely because dialogic reading is particularly
effective in stimulating children’s active verbal involvement (Mol et al., 2008). In this
study, we have extended our findings to ESL children, adding to the results from previous
studies focusing on first language acquisition. Findings support the notion that expressive
language skills in children are positively correlated with their active participation in high-
quality interactions (Gonzalez et al., 2014; Logan et al., 2011; Mashburn et al., 2008).
According to Gonzalez et al.’s (2010) explanation, this may be because the dialogic talks
particularly facilitates active verbal involvement in children, thus allowing them to prac-
tice their expressive vocabulary more frequently via their responses. Though didactic
instruction does not encourage the same high level of children’s active verbal involvement
and teacher–student verbal exchange as dialogic teaching does, teachers using didactic
approach directly instruct English knowledge to their students through reading aloud and
explaining target vocabularies, which creates opportunities for students to listen and learn
these vocabularies thus enhancing students’ receptive vocabulary development. It pro-
vides a plausible explanation of why the dialogic teaching condition and the control using
more didactic and less interactive instruction facilitated receptive vocabulary acquisition
to a similar extent, though dialogic teaching yielded more obvious gains in expressive
vocabulary in this study.

2 English phonological awareness

In the present study, greater gains in English phonological awareness were observed in
students who had undergone the intervention than those who had not in the high vocabu-
lary group. However, in learners with low vocabulary, similar performance in phonologi-
cal awareness was observed for those who had undergone the intervention and those who
had not. Given the relatively small number of items of the Phonological Awareness test,
the small absolute number of gains observed should be taken into consideration when
interpreting the results. Given that the low vocabulary group and high vocabulary group
had a similar duration of exposure to English classes, the difference in phonological
awareness is noteworthy. The results suggest that levels of English vocabulary knowl-
edge appear to be particularly important for the development of phonological awareness
in ESL children. Although children with low vocabulary knowledge still show similar
progress in expressive vocabulary-textbook as those with high vocabulary knowledge,
their phonological processing skill remains the same under the dialogic intervention. In
line with previous research, this finding demonstrates that high vocabulary knowledge
may support the developmental progression of children’s phonological awareness
(Ouellette, 2006; Strom & Neuman, 2016; Walley, Metsala, & Garlock, 2003). Vocabulary
has been always believed to be a strong predictor of language and literacy development
in early years of schooling (Cheung, 2007; Chondrogianni & Marinis, 2011; Grøver
et al., 2018). In beginning learners, a basic level of vocabulary knowledge seems to be
fundamental in supporting in the development of phonological awareness through inter-
active dialogue. Without the support of a sufficient level of vocabulary knowledge, it
may be difficult to engage children in interactive dialogues to an extent that promotes
18 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

phonological awareness. This notion warrants further investigations to explore the extent
and specific levels of overall vocabulary knowledge that can support the phonological
processing skills of children.

3 Suggestions for further research

There are several suggestions for further research. First, future research may include
other indexes of language skills such as reading, speaking, or writing, to provide a more
comprehensive picture of children’s language development. Second, the tests used in this
study consisted of a relatively small number of items and no delayed post-test was
administered. These tests may not be granular enough to allow detecting significant
improvements across time, especially in those with a high pre-test score. Further studies
may use the full version of the assessment batteries and investigate the long term effects
of the intervention. Third, future studies may consider a longer intervention period.
Lastly, future research may adopt a larger sample involving more schools and conduct
mixed effect model analysis with this larger sample. This will help explore random
effects of higher level units, such as school, on the intervention outcomes and increase
the generalizability of the results.

VII Conclusions
This study shows that dialogic teaching, an approach that focuses on interactive dialogue
and the use of creative activities, can be successfully implemented in the ESL classroom.
Dialogic teaching enhances English language development in young ESL learners,
whether they have low or high vocabulary knowledge. Significantly greater gain in pho-
nological awareness was also observed for children with high vocabulary knowledge
who completed the intervention than those who did not. This finding indicates that the
positive effects of dialogic teaching can also be extended to the metalinguistic level of
children’s English language learning. Though statistically significant gains are observed,
the absolute number of gains is small given the short tests used. Nevertheless, this study
extends past research from two perspectives. First, this research is one of the few studies
on the effectiveness of dialogic teaching among young ESL learners. Second, this study
investigates the effects of dialogic teaching on the English language development among
learners with different vocabulary abilities. Altogether, the findings indicate the feasibil-
ity of incorporating dialogic teaching in ESL education in schools, while taking into
account children’s diversity in vocabulary knowledge. It is important for educators to
consider the differential effects of dialogic teaching on children with diverse language
ability levels in second language classroom settings.

Acknowledgements
We thank the teachers and the students for their participation in this study.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: The work described in this paper was supported by a grant from the
Chow et al. 19

Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (CityU
11603819), and a grant from the Hong Kong Quality Education Fund (EDB/QEF2013/0307).

ORCID iD
Bonnie Wing-Yin Chow https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3995-7358

References
Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge:
Dialogos.
Brownell, R. (2000). Receptive one-word picture vocabulary test. 2nd edition. Novato, CA:
Academic Therapy.
Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., & Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis of association
between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergarten
programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 166–176.
Cabell, S.Q., Justice, L.M., McGinty, A.S., DeCoster, J., & Forston, L.D. (2015). Teacher–child
conversations in preschool classrooms: Contributions to children’s vocabulary development.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30, 80–92.
Carretti, B., Motta, E., & Re, A.M. (2016). Oral and written expression in children with reading
comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 65–76.
Chan, S., & Yuen, M. (2014). Personal and environmental factors affecting teachers’ creativity-
fostering practices in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 69–77.
Cheung, H. (2007). The role of phonological awareness in mediating between reading and listen-
ing to speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 130–154.
Cheung, W.F. (2014). A critical analysis of English language teaching in Hong Kong mainstream
primary schools: The interplay between curriculum development, assessment and classroom
practices. Asian Englishes, 16, 239–248.
Chondrogianni, V., & Marinis, T. (2011). Differential effects of internal and external factors on
the development of vocabulary, tense morphology and morpho-syntax in successive bilingual
children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 318–345.
Chow, B.W.-Y., Hui, A.N.N., & Chui, B.H.-T. (2018). Creative literacy activities promote posi-
tive reading attitude in children learning English as a foreign language. Journal of Research
in Reading, 40, 278–289.
Chow, B.W.-Y., McBride-Chang, C., & Cheung, H. (2010). Parent–child reading in English as a
second language: Effects on language and literacy development of Chinese kindergarteners.
Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 284–301.
Chow, B.W.-Y., McBride-Chang, C., Cheung, H., & Chow, C.S.-L. (2008). Dialogic reading and
morphology training in Chinese children: Effects on language and literacy. Developmental
Psychology, 44, 233–244.
Chung, K.K.H., McBride-Chang, C., Cheung, H., & Wong, S.W.L. (2013). General auditory pro-
cessing, speech perception and phonological awareness skills in Chinese–English biliteracy.
Journal of Research in Reading, 36, 202–222.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cremin, T. (2009). Developing speakers and listeners creatively. In Cremin, T., Bearne, E.,
Dombey, H., & M. Lewis (Eds.), Teaching English creatively (pp. 12–25). London: Routledge.
Davidson, D.J., Indefrey, P., & Gullberg, M. (2008). Words that second language learners are
likely to hear, read, and use. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 133–146.
Elmonayer, R.A. (2013). Promoting phonological awareness skills of Egyptian kindergarteners
through dialogic reading. Early Child Development and Care, 183, 1229–1241.
20 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Fitts, D.A. (2010). The variable-criteria sequential stopping rule: Generality to unequal sample
sizes, unequal variances, or to large ANOVAs. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 918–929.
Gonzalez, J., Pollard-Durodola, S., Saenz, L., et al. (2016). Spanish and English early literacy
profiles of preschool Latino English language learner children. Early Education and
Development, 27, 513–531.
Gonzalez, J.E., Pollard-Durodola, S., Simmons, D.C., et al. (2010). Developing low-income pre-
schoolers’ social studies and science vocabulary through content-focused storybook reading.
Journal of Educational Effectiveness, 4, 25–52.
Gonzalez, J.E., Pollard-Durodola, S., Simmons, D.C., et al. (2014). Enhancing preschool chil-
dren’s vocabulary: Effects of teacher talk before, during and after shared reading. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 214–226.
Grøver, V., Lawrence, J., & Rydland, V. (2018). Bilingual preschool children’s second-language
vocabulary development: The role of first-language vocabulary skills and second-language
talk input. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22, 234–250.
Hallam, J., Das Gupta, M., & Lee, H. (2011). Shaping children’s artwork in English primary
classes: Insights from teacher–child interaction during art activities. International Journal of
Early Years Education, 19, 193–205.
Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding
in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20, 6–30.
Haneda, M. (2017). Dialogic learning and teaching across diverse contexts: Promises and chal-
lenges. Language and Education: An International Journal, 31, 1–5.
Haneda, M., & Wells, G. (2008). Learning an additional language through dialogic inquiry.
Language and Education, 22, 114–136.
Haneda, M., & Wells, G. (2013). Dialogic inquiry and teacher talk in second language classrooms.
In Chapelle, C.A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hargrave, A.C., & Sénéchal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention with preschool children
who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 75–90.
Hennessy, S. (2017). International experiences with intergrating interactive whiteboards: Policy,
practice, pedagogy and professional development. In Maclean, R. (Ed.), Life in schools and
classrooms: Past, present and future (pp. 633–650). Singapore: Springer.
Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., & Warwick, P. (2011). A dialogic inquiry approach to working with
teachers in developing classroom dialogue. Teachers College Record, 113, 1906–1959.
Howell, D.C. (2009). Unequal cell sizes do matter. Available at: http://www.uvm.edu/~dhowell/
StatPages/More_Stuff/Unequal-ns/unequal-ns.html (accessed December 2020).
Hui, A.N.N., He, M.W.-J., & Liu, E.C.L. (2013). Creativity and early talent development in the
arts in young and school students. In Tan, A.G. (Ed.), Creativity, talent and excellence
(pp. 75–87). Singapore: Springer.
Humes-Bartlo, M. (1989). Variation in children’s ability to learn second languages. In Hyltenstam,
K., & L.K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity,
and loss (pp. 41–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, P. (2010). Teaching, learning and talking: Mapping ‘the trail of fire’. English Teaching:
Practice and Critique, 9, 61–80.
Kinginger, C. (2002). Defining the zone of proximal development in US foreign language educa-
tion. Applied Linguistics, 23, 240–261.
Klingelhofer, R.R., & Schleppegrell, M. (2016). Functional grammar analysis in support of dia-
logic instruction with text: Scaffolding purposeful, cumulative dialogue with English learn-
ers. Research Papers in Education, 31, 70–88.
Chow et al. 21

Kremer, J.B. (2016) Giving learners a voice: A study of the dialogic ‘quality’ of three episodes
of teacher–learner talk-in-interaction in a language classroom. In Skidmore, D., & K.
Murakami (Eds.), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning
(pp. 135–152). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Landry, S.H., Zucker, T.A., Williams, J.M., et al. (2017). Improving school readiness of high-risk
preschoolers: Combining high quality instructional strategies with responsive training for
teachers and parents. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 40, 38–51.
Lau, C., & Rao, N. (2013). English vocabulary instruction in six early childhood classrooms in
Hong Kong. Early Child Development and Care, 183, 1363–1380.
Lee, R. (2016). Implementing dialogic teaching in a Singapore English language classroom. RELC
Journal, 47, 279–293.
Lipka, O., & Siegel, L.S. (2012). The development of reading comprehension skills in children
learning English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 25, 1873–1898.
Liu, X. (2003). Statistical power and optimum sample allocation ratio for treatment and control
having unequal costs per unit of randomization. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 28, 231–248.
Liu, Y., Yeung, S.S., Lin, D., & Wong, R.K.S. (2017). English expressive vocabulary growth and
its unique role in predicting English word reading: A longitudinal study involving Hong Kong
Chinese ESL children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 195–202.
Logan, J.A.R., Piasta, S.B., Justice, L.M., Schatschneider, C., & Petrill, S. (2011). Children’s
attendance rates and quality of teacher–child interactions in at-risk preschool classrooms:
Contribution to children’s expressive language growth. Child & Youth Care Forum, 40,
457–477.
Lonigan, C.J., Anthony, J.L., Bloomfield, B.G., Dyer, S.M., & Samwel, C.S. (1999). Effects of
two shared-reading interventions on emergent literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers. Journal
of Early Intervention, 22, 306–322.
Lowman, J., Stone, L.T., & Guo, J.G. (2018). Effects of interactive book reading for increas-
ing children’s knowledge of instructional verbs. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 39,
477–489.
Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic teaching: Discussing theoretical contexts and reviewing evidence from
classroom practice. Language and Education, 22, 222–240.
Mashburn, A.J., Pianta, R.C., Hamre, B.K., et al. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in pre-
kindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child
Development, 79, 732–749.
Mayesky, M. (2014). Creative activities and curriculum for young children. 11th edition. Boston,
MA: Cengage Learning.
McBride-Chang, C., & Treiman, R. (2003). Hong Kong Chinese kindergartners learn to read
English analytically. Psychological Science, 14, 138–143.
Mol, S.E., Bus, A.G., De Jong, M.T., & Smeets, D.J.H. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent–
child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19, 7–26.
Morgan, P.L., & Meier, C.R. (2008). Dialogic reading’s potential to improve children’s emergent
literacy skills and behavior. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children
and Youth, 52, 11–16.
Ong, J. (2017). A case study of classroom discourse analysis of teacher’s fronted reading compre-
hension lessons for vocabulary learning opportunities. RELC Journal, 50, 118–135.
Opel, A., Ameer, S.S., & Aboud, F.E. (2009). The effect of preschool dialogic reading on vocabu-
lary among rural Bangladeshi children. International Journal of Educational Research, 48,
12–20.
22 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Ouellette, G.P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading
and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 554–566.
Petchprasert, A. (2014). The influence of parents’ backgrounds, beliefs about English learning, and
a dialogic reading program on Thai kindergarteners’ English lexical development. English
Language Teaching, 7, 50–62.
Sadler, T.D., & Fowler, S.R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socio-
scientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.
Scarpati, S.E., Wells, C.S., Lewis, C., & Jirka, S. (2009). Accommodations and item-level analy-
ses using mixture differential item functioning models. The Journal of Special Education,
45, 54–62.
Schleppegrell, M.J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language develop-
ment. Language Learning, 63, 153–170.
Schleppegrell, M.J., & Moore, J. (2018). Linguistic tools for supporting emergent critical lan-
guage awareness in the elementary school. In Harman, R. (Ed.), Bilingual learners and social
equity: Critical approaches to systemic functional linguistics (pp. 23–43). Cham: Springer
International.
Schmitt, N. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language
Learning, 64, 913–951.
Sénéchal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers’ acquisition of
expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 24, 123–138.
Sim, S.S.H., Berthelsen, D., Walker, S., Nicholson, J.M., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2014). A
shared reading intervention with parents to enhance young children’s early literacy skills.
Early Child Development and Care, 184, 1531–1549.
Skidmore, D. (2006). Pedagogy and dialogue. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 503–514.
Spencer, M., Muse, A., Wagner, R.K., et al. (2015). Examining the underlying dimensions of
morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge. Reading and Writing, 28, 959–988.
Strom, C.H., & Neuman, S.B. (2016). Seizing the sounds: Considering phonological awareness
in the context of vocabulary instruction. In Schiff, R., & R.M. Joshi (Eds.), Interventions in
learning disabilities: A handbook on systematic training programs for individuals with learn-
ing disabilities (pp. 105–118). Cham: Springer International.
Tong, X., & Deacon, S.H. (2017). Understanding poor comprehenders in different orthographies:
Universal versus language-specific skills. Journal of Research in Reading, 40, 119–124.
Walley, A.C., Metsala, J.L., & Garlock, V.M. (2003). Spoken vocabulary growth: Its role in the
development of phoneme awareness and early reading ability. Reading and Writing, 16, 5–20.
Walter, C. (2008). Phonology in second language reading: Not an optional extra. TESOL Quarterly,
42, 455–474.
Wan, S.W.-Y. (2017). Differentiated instruction: Are Hong Kong in-service teachers ready?
Teachers and Teaching, 23, 284–311.
Wasik, B.A., & Hindman, A.H. (2014). Understanding the active ingredients in an effective pre-
school vocabulary intervention: An exploratory study of teacher and child talk during book
reading. Early Education and Development, 25, 1035–1056.
Wasik, B.A., Hindman, A.H., & Snell, E.K. (2016). Book reading and vocabulary development: A
systematic review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37, 39–57.
Wells, G. (1999a). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (1999b). Language and education: Reconceptualizing education as dialogue. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 135–155.
Whitehurst, G.J., Epstein, J.N., Angell, A.L., et al. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy inter-
vention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 542–555.
Chow et al. 23

Whitehurst, G.J., Falco, F.L., Lonigan, C.J., et al. (1988). Accelerating language development
through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24, 552–559.
Williams, K.T. (2007). Expressive Vocabulary Test. 2nd edition. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.
Wong, S. W.L., Chow, B. W.-Y., Ho, C. S.-H., Waye, M. M. Y., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2014).
Genetic and environmental overlap between Chinese and English reading-related skills in
Chinese children. Developmental Psychology, 50, 253–2548.
Yeung, S.S., Siegel, L.S., & Chan, C.K. (2013). Effects of a phonological awareness program on
English reading and spelling among Hong Kong Chinese ESL children. Reading and Writing,
26, 681–704.
Zevenbergen, A. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2003). Dialogic reading: A shared picture book reading
intervention for preschoolers. In A. Van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On read-
ing books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 177–200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.