Using a narrative-and play-based activity to promote low-income preschoolers' oral language, emergent literacy, and social competence

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Early

Childhood

Research

Quarterly

Using

a

narrative-

and

play-based

activity

to

promote

low-income

preschoolers’

oral

language,

emergent

literacy,

and

social

competence

Ageliki

Nicolopoulou

_,

_Kai

_Schnabel

_Cortina

_,

_Hande

_Ilgaz

_,

Carolyn

Brockmeyer

Cates

_,

_Aline

_B.

_de

_Sá

a_{LehighUniversity,UnitedStates} b_{UniversityofMichigan,UnitedStates} c_{BilkentUniversity,Ankara,Turkey} d_{NewYorkUniversity,UnitedStates} e_{InstitutoAlfaeBeto,RiodeJaneiro,Brazil}

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received12August2011

Receivedinrevisedform9January2015 Accepted18January2015

Availableonline31January2015 Keywords: Storytelling Story-acting Paley Schoolreadiness Low-income Preschool

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thisstudyexaminedwhetherastorytellingandstory-actingpractice(STSA),integratedasaregular com-ponentofthepreschoolcurriculum,canhelppromotethreekeydimensionsofyoungchildren’sschool readiness:narrativeandotheroral-languageskills,emergentliteracy,andsocialcompetence.Atotalof 149low-incomepreschoolers(almostall3-and4-year-olds)participated,attendingsixexperimental andsevencontrolclassrooms.TheSTSAwasintroducedintheexperimentalclassroomsfortheentire schoolyear,andallchildreninbothconditionswerepre-andpost-testedon11measuresofnarrative, vocabulary,emergentliteracy,pretendabilities,peerplaycooperation,andself-regulation.Participation intheSTSAwasassociatedwithimprovementsinnarrativecomprehension,printandwordawareness, pretendabilities,self-regulation,andreducedplaydisruption.Foralmostallthesemeasures,positive resultswerefurtherstrengthenedbythefrequencyofparticipationinstorytellingbyindividualchildren, indicatedbynumberofstoriestold(NOST).TheSTSAisastructuredpreschoolpracticethat exempli-fieschild-centered,play-based,andconstructivistapproachesinearlychildhoodeducation,andthat canoperateasacurriculummoduleinconjunctionwithavarietyofdifferentpreschoolcurricula.This studyconfirmedthatitcancontributetopromotinglearning,development,andschoolreadinessfor low-incomeandotherwisedisadvantagedchildren.

©2015ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.

Thestudyreportedhereexaminedwhetheranactivity

com-biningvoluntarystorytellingwithgroupstory-acting,carriedout

asa regular partofthepreschool curriculum,can promotethe

abilitiesofpreschoolchildrenfromlow-incomeandotherwise

dis-advantagedbackgroundsinthreemajorareasthatcontributeto

theirreadinessforsuccessinformaleducation:narrativeandother

orallanguageskills,emergentliteracy,andsocialcompetence.The

researchquestions framingthis analysisbear onlargerdebates

aboutthemosteffectiveanddevelopmentallyappropriate

prac-ticesby whichpreschooleducationcan helptopromote young

children’sschoolreadiness.

Thecommitmenttopromotingschoolreadiness,agoalaffirmed

forseveraldecadesbyeducators,researchers,andpolicymakersin

∗ Correspondingauthorat:PsychologyDepartment,LehighUniversity,17 Memo-rialDriveEast,Bethlehem,PA180153068,UnitedStates.Tel.:+16105254330; fax:+16107586277.

E-mailaddress:agn3@lehigh.edu(A.Nicolopoulou).

theU.S.(Meisels,1999),hasbeenfueledbyamixtureofoptimism

andalarm.Ontheonehand,thereisincreasingconfidencethat

dur-ingthefirstfiveyearsoflife,preschooleducationcanandshould

playapositiverole,alongwithearlycareandsocialization,inlaying

criticalfoundationsforlaterlearninganddevelopment(National

ResearchCouncil&InstituteofMedicine,2000;NationalResearch Council, 2001).On theotherhand, there is concernthat many

youngchildren,especiallyfromlow-incomeandotherwise

disad-vantagedbackgrounds,enterschoolnotreadytobenefiteffectively

fromformaleducation(Dickinson,McCabe,&Essex,2006;Hart&

Risley,1995).Althoughthereisnofirmconsensusontheprecise

componentsofschoolreadiness,thereiswidespread(thoughnot

universal)recognitionoftheimportanceandinterconnectedness

ofthethreebroadareasnotedearlier.

Fewwouldquestionthecrucialroleofreadingandwritingin

allaspectsofeducation.Itisnowwidelyacceptedthatyoung

chil-dren’sacquisitionofearlyliteracy-relatedskillsplaysakeyrole

in preparingfor and facilitatingtheirtransition toliteracy,and

ispowerfullyaffectedbytheexperiences,resources,stimulation,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.006 0885-2006/©2015ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.

andsupportthattheyencounterbeforebeginningformal educa-tion(Snow,Burns,&Griffin,1998).Extensiveresearchalsosuggests

that, in this respect, training children in the kinds of

techni-calskills relatedmost obviouslyand directlyto literacy–such

asletterandwordrecognitionand phonologicalprocessing–is

importantbutnotsufficient.Youngchildren mustalsomastera

broaderrangeofcognitiveandlanguageskills,sincereadingfor

comprehensionrequiresmorethansimpledecoding (Dickinson,

McCabe,Anastosopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg,&Poe,2003;NICHD EarlyChildCareResearchNetwork,2005;Snow,1999;Whitehurst &Lonigan, 2001).In particular,a growingbody ofresearchhas

argued convincingly that children’s acquisition of certain

oral-languageskillsintheirpreschoolyears,includingnarrativeskills,

isan important foundationof emergent literacyand long-term

school success (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Griffin, Hemphill,

Camp,&Wolf,2004;Kendeou, vanden Broek,White, &Lynch, 2009;Lynch etal., 2008;Reese, Suggate,Long, &Schaughency, 2010).

Furthermore,therearegoodreasonstobelievethatsocial

com-petence,includingself-regulationandtheabilityandwillingness

forcooperation,alsoconstitutesakeydimensionofschool

readi-ness(Denham,2006;Dickinsonetal.,2006;Raver&Zigler,1997).

Promoting these abilities and dispositions in youngchildren is

widelyregarded as desirable,not only for itsown sake and as

preparationforschoollife,butalsobecauseelementsofsocial

com-petenceplayimportantrolesinenablingandpromotingcognitive

development,learning,andacademicsuccess(Coolahan,Fantuzzo,

Mendez,&McDermott,2000;Dickinsonetal.,2006;Raver,Garner, &Smith-Donald,2007).Thisconcernforpromotingpreschoolers’

socialcompetencehasfoundpracticalexpressioninprogramslike

theREDI(Research-based,DevelopmentallyInformed)HeadStart

intervention(Biermanetal.,2008)andtheChicagoSchool

Readi-nessProject(CSRP;Raveretal.,2011).

Thoughthereiswidelysharedagreementaboutthevalueof

using preschool education to promote school readiness,

espe-cially for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged children,

theconcretepractical implicationsforthepreschoolcurriculum

have been more contentious. One response has been a broad

pushto emphasize the transmissionof specific academic skills

throughdirectinstruction(Kagan&Kauerz,2007).Inmany

cir-cles,this emphasison moredidactic, academic,and skill-based

approachestopreschooleducationhasbeenlinkedtoarejectionof

morechild-centered,play-oriented,andconstructivistapproaches

(Hirsh-Pasek,Golinkoff,Berk,&Singer,2009;Zigler&Bishop-Josef,

2004).Pressuretogenerategoodscoresonnarrowlyskill-focused

standardizedtestshasfurtheracceleratedthe“pushingdown”of

didactic/academicinstructionintoearlychildhoodeducationand

thesqueezing-out of more playfuland child-centered forms of

learning(Miller&Almon,2009).Thosepressureshavebeen

espe-ciallystrongforpreschoolsandkindergartensservinglow-income

children.

Otherresearchersand educators have arguedthat, although

teacher-directedand skill-basedinstruction canbevaluable for

certainpurposesinthepreschoolyears,thetendencytorelyon

itexclusivelyhasbecometooone-sided,unbalanced,and

devel-opmentallyinappropriate.Furthermore,thepolarizationbetween

teacher-directed,skill-basedapproachesandmorechild-centered,

play-based,andconstructivist approachestoooftentreatsthese

approachesasmutuallyexclusive.Thereisalsoaneedfor

edu-cationalpractices thatare simultaneously“childregulated” and

“teacherguided”(Golbeck,2001),which canmobilizechildren’s

engagement, enthusiasm, and creativity while promoting their

learninganddevelopment.Indeed,thereisevidencetosuggestthat

earlychildhoodeducationcanbemosteffectivewhenit

success-fullycombinesbothtypesofeducationalactivities(Graue,Clemens,

Reynolds,&Niles,2004).Thisisespeciallytrueifoneconsiders

long-term,not just short-term,effects (Schweinhart &Weikart,

1997).

Growinguneasiness withrecent trendshelpsto explainthe

widespreadinterestgeneratedbytheToolsoftheMind

curricu-lum(Bodrova&Leong,2009).ThisVygotskian-inspiredcurriculum

seeks topromote intellectualskills – in language,literacy, and

mathematics– and social competencein an integrated way. It

makes extensiveuse of play and combines child initiative and

cooperationwithteacherguidanceandsupport,withapervasive

emphasisonthepromotionofself-regulation.Sofar,evaluations

ofitseffectiveness haveyieldedmixed results(more

encourag-ingfromBarnett etal.,2008;more disappointingfromLonigan & Phillips, 2012; Wilson, Farran, Lipsey, & Turner, 2012), and

it is probably too soon to draw firm conclusions one way or

another.

Tools of theMind is a full-scale alternative curriculum. The

storytelling and story-acting practice (STSA) evaluated by the

present study also exemplifies child-centered, play-based, and

constructivistapproachestoearlychildhoodeducation,but itis

considerably more modestin scope. The present study

consid-ereditspotentialvalueasacurriculummodulethatcanoperate

inconjunction witha varietyofdifferentpreschoolcurricula.A

combinationoftheoreticalconsiderationsandpracticalexperience

suggestedthat ithasthepotentialtopromote youngchildren’s

school readiness abilities across thedomains of oral language,

includingnarrative;emergentliteracy;andsocialcompetence.It

hasbeenusedinpreschoolsservingbothmiddle-classand

low-incomechildren,butmorefrequentlyintheformer;sothisstudy

focusedonassessingitsvalueforchildrenfromlow-income

back-grounds.The restofthis section willintroduce this curriculum

moduleandexplainthetheoreticalrationaleforexpectingittohave

thosebeneficialeffects;reviewtheverysparseresearchthathas

sofarattemptedtostudyitseffects;thenmoveontothepresent

study.

Thestorytellingandstory-actingpractice:its developmentalandeducationalpromise

Thecurriculummoduleunderconsiderationisanactivity

com-bining storytelling and story-acting – also described as story

dictationanddramatization–developedbytheteacherandwriter

Vivian Paley (1990) and used in many preschool and

kinder-gartenclassesintheUnitedStatesandabroad(Cooper,2005,2009;

McNamee,McLane,Cooper,&Kerwin,1985;Nicolopoulou,1997a,

2002).Althoughthispracticeisconductedwithvariationsin

dif-ferentplaces,itsmainoutlinestendtobeconsistent.Atacertain

periodduringtheday(usuallyatimewhenchildrencanchoose

freelybetweendifferentavailableactivities),anychildwhowishes

candictateastorytoadesignatedteacherorteacher’saide,who

writesdownthestoryasthechildtellsit.Althoughchildrenarenot

requiredtocomposeanyspecifictypeofstoryorguidedtoward

suggestedtopics,theseareusuallyfictionalorfantasystories.Later

thatday,eachofthesestoriesisreadaloudbytheteachertothe

entireclass,assembledforgrouptime,whilethechild/authorand

otherchildren,whomheorshechooses,actoutthestory.

Thisisanapparentlysimpleactivitywithcomplexand

poten-tiallypowerfuleffects.Severalfeaturesareespeciallyworthnoting.

Althoughthisisastructuredandteacher-facilitatedactivity,the

children’sstorytellingisvoluntary,child-initiated,andrelatively

spontaneous.Becausethispracticerunsthroughtheentireschool

yearandthechildrencontroltheirownstorytelling,it provides

themwiththeopportunitytoworkover,refine,andelaboratetheir

narrativesandtousethemfortheirowndiversepurposes–

cog-nitive,symbolic,expressive,andsocial-relational (Nicolopoulou,

Nicolopoulou,2001).Atthesametime,havingtheirstorieswritten

downbyanadultandthenlaterreadtotheclasscanhelp

famil-iarizechildrenwithwritinganditsusesinaconcreteandengaging

manner(Nicolopoulou,McDowell,&Brockmeyer,2006).

Furthermore,thewaythatthisSTSAcombinesastorytellingwith

astory-actingcomponenthasseveralimportantimplications.

Chil-drentypicallyenjoystorytellingforitsownsake,buttheprospect

ofhavingtheirstoryactedout,togetherwithotherchildrenwhom

theychoose,offersthemadditionalmotivationstocomposeand

dictatestories.Andoneresultofhavingthestoriesreadtoand

dramatizedfortheentireclassatgrouptimeisthatthechildren

telltheirstoriesnotonlytoadults,butprimarilytoeachother;

theydo sonotinone-to-oneinteraction,butinasharedpublic

setting.Childrenarethusgivenopportunitiestoborrowelements

fromeachother’sstoriesandreworkthem,facilitatingnarrative

cross-fertilization.(Theyalsodrawonandreworkelementsfrom

storybooks,fromvariousmediaof popularcultureincludingTV

andvideogames,andfromtheirownexperiences:Nicolopoulou,

1997b; Nicolopoulou, Scales, & Weintraub,1994; Nicolopoulou et al., 2014;Richner & Nicolopoulou,2001.)Whenthe STSA is

establishedasaregularpartoftheclassroomactivities,allchildren

typicallyparticipateovertimeinthreeinterrelatedroles:(1)

com-posinganddictatingstories;(2)takingpartinthegroupenactment

ofstories(theirownandthoseofotherchildren);and(3)listening

toandwatchingtheperformanceofthestoriesofotherchildren.

Thus,thechildren’sstorytellingandstory-actingareembeddedin

theongoingcontextoftheclassroomminicultureandthechildren’s

everydaygrouplife,withtheirstrongrelationalandemotional

sig-nificance (seeNicolopoulou,2002,fromwhich thisaccount has

beenpartlydrawn).Furthermore,theSTSAincludeselementsof

playandnarrative, twosymbolicactivitiesofspecialinterestto

children,inanintegratedway.Somereasonswhythatmightbe

valuablearesuggestedbyVygotsky’stheoryofplayandits

devel-opmentalandeducationalsignificance.

Vygotsky:play,self-regulation,anddevelopment

Paleydoesnotseemtohavecomprehensivelyorexclusively

basedherclassroompracticesonVygotsky’stheory,asdoesthe

Toolsof theMindearlychildhood curriculum(Bodrova&Leong,

2009),andsheoffersonlyintermittentremarksaboutthe

theo-reticalinfluencesonherwork.Butanawarenessandappreciation

ofVygotskyisapparentthroughout herwritings.Acareful

con-siderationofthelogicofherSTSA,inparticular,bringsoutstrong

affinitieswithimportantVygotskianideas,especiallywith

Vygot-sky’stheoryofplay(McNameeetal.,1985;Nicolopoulou,1997a;

Nicolopoulou,deSá,Ilgaz,&Brockmeyer,2010).AndVygotsky’s

theoryoffersfurthergroundsforexpectingthatparticipationin

thispracticemighthelptopromoteyoungchildren’slearningand

development.Wethereforeofferabriefexpositionofthattheory

andconsidersomeofitsimplications.(Formoreextensive

treat-ments,seeNicolopoulou,1993;Nicolopoulou&Cole,1993.Some

formulationsinthediscussionthatfollowsarealsodrawnfrom

Nicolopoulouetal.,2014.)

Incharacterizingplay,Vygotskystressesthepresenceoftwo

essentialand interconnectedcomponents:(1) animaginary

sit-uation,and(2) therules inherentintheimaginarysituation.In

thisrespect,fantasyorpretendplayandgameswithrulescanbe

seenastwopolesofasinglecontinuum:fromanexplicit

imag-inarysituationwithimplicit rules (pretendplay)toan implicit

imaginarysituationwithexplicitrules(gameswithrules).When

a child pretendsto bea mother or father, for example, sheor

he cannot adopt just any behavior but must try to grasp the

implicitrulesofmaternalorpaternalbehaviorasperceivedand

understoodbythechildorothers.Animportantcognitiveeffort

isinvolvedhere.“Whatpassesunnoticedbythechildinreallife

becomesaruleofbehaviorinplay”(Vygotsky,1933/1967,p.9).

Thatisevenmoretrueforthecoordinatedactivityofsocialpretend

play.

From this perspective, play fuses elements often treated as

contradictory:imaginationandspontaneityontheonehand,and

rule-governedactionontheother.Playisenjoyable,flexible,and

intrinsicallyvoluntary,butit isalsoanessentiallyrule-governed

activity.Systemsofrulesarecentraltoconstitutingtheplayworld

itself,andatthesametimetheserulesderivetheirforcefromthe

child’senjoymentof,andcommitmentto,thesharedactivityof

theplayworld.Indeed,asVygotskyemphasized,acrucialaspect

ofthesignificanceofplayisthatitisoneofthefirstactivitiesin

whichchildrenself-consciouslyimposerulesonthemselves,rather

thanmerelyreceivingthemfromothers.Thisisthecase,heargues,

becausethechild learnsthat achievingthesatisfactionssought

intheimaginarysituationrequiresadheringtotherulesimplicit

in that situation. The rules of play thus become “rulesof

self-constraintandself-determination”(Vygotsky,1933/67,p.10).In

terminologyusedbymuchcurrentresearch,playrequiresand

pro-motesself-regulation.Andplayisalwaysalearningactivitybecause

itrequireslearningandgraspingtheserules,seeingthattheyform

asystem,elaboratingonthem,andmasteringthepossibilitiesof

theformofpracticethattheyhelpconstitute.Moreover,

insert-ingelementsfromthelargercultureintothesymbolicuniverseof

theplayworldforcesthechildtotrytomakesenseofthem,even

astheyarestylizedandtransformed.Evenmorefundamentally,

increasingcapacitiesforself-regulationinthoughtandinaction

arecloselylinkedandmutuallyreinforcing(anideasupportedby

recentresearchinseveralareas,includingUrsache,Blair,&Raver,

2012).

Inshort,accordingtoVygotsky,playisnotsimplyfrivolous.If

properlyunderstood,itcanserveasaprototypeofaformof

activ-ityconstitutedbysharedandvoluntarilyacceptedrules, within

whichchildren(oradults)canexperienceanintrinsic(ratherthan

merelyinstrumental)motivationtostriveformasteryofthe

pos-sibilities inherent in that practice.And in childhood, especially

earlychildhood,playisacrucialmatrixfordevelopment(Vygotsky,

1933/1967,p.16).Researchdrawingdirectlyorindirectlyon

Vygot-skianideashasthereforearguedthatplayactivitiessimultaneously

requireandhelptopromotebothcognitiveabilitiesand

capaci-tiesforsocialcompetence,suchascooperationandself-regulation

(Berk,1994;Bodrova&Leong,2003;Creasey,Jarvis,&Berk,1998; Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009).

Furtherimplicationsandpossibleapplications

Vygotsky’silluminatinganalysisofplaysuggeststhatweshould

notabandoneffortstomobilizeelementsofplayandimagination

ineducation.Butifthatargumentisaccepted,itdoesnot

neces-sarilyfollowthatsimplyalternatingdidactic/academicinstruction

withfree-playperiodswouldbesufficient.Itisalsoimportantto

designstructurededucationalpracticesthateffectivelyintegrate

theplayelementintothecurriculuminwaysthatcanpromote

chil-dren’sdevelopmentandeducation.Paley’sSTSAoffersoneconcrete

exampleofhowthisgoalcanbepursued.

Furthermore,theinterrelatedfeaturesofplayemphasizedby

Vygotsky’s analysis are equally characteristic of theirnarrative

activity(Nicolopoulou,1997a):bothrepresenttheunionof

expres-siveimaginationwithrule-governedculturalforminthecontext

ofsociallife.Inimportantrespects,infact,itisusefultoseeboth

pretendplay and storytellingasmodesof narrativeactivity,on

acontinuumrangingfromthediscursiveexpositionofnarratives

instorytellingtotheenactmentofnarrativescenariosinpretend

play.Whiletheanalyticaldistinctionbetweenthetwoisimportant,

enrichinginchildren’sexperienceanddevelopment(Nicolopoulou, 2007;Paley,1990).AnotherkeyfeatureofPaley’sSTSA,therefore,

isthatitintegratesthesetwoformsofchildren’snarrative

activ-ityinapotentiallyfruitfulway.Thelogicofthisanalysissuggests,

onceagain,thatthecombinationofthetwomajorcomponentsof

thispractice,individualstorytellingandthedramaticenactmentof

thosestoriesbyandfortheclassroompeergroup,maybecritical

foritsoperationandeffectiveness.

Previousresearchonthisstorytelling/story-actingpractice

AlthoughversionsofthisSTSAhavebeenwidelyadopted,andit

hasattractedconsiderableinterestinschoolsofeducationaswell

asamongteachersandotherpractitioners,therehavebeenvery

fewsystematicattemptstoassessitseffectsonyoungchildren’s

learninganddevelopment.Paley’srichethnographicaccountsof

theworkingsof this activityinher preschooland kindergarten

classroomsovertheyears(summedupespeciallyinPaley,1990)

remainindispensable.Theysuggestthatithelpedpromote

chil-dren’scognitiveandlanguageskillsaswellastheirsocioemotional

development. But Paley’s insightful examinations of children’s

developingabilitiesinandthroughtheirplayandnarrative

activi-tiesdonotincludesystematicmeasuresofthosechildoutcomesor

comparisonsbetweenherclassroomsandcontrolclassroomsthat

werenotusingherSTSA.Childoutcomemeasuresorcontrolled

comparisons,andusuallyboth,arealsomissingfrommostother

workconcernedwiththeeducationalanddevelopmentalvalueof

thisactivity,includingresearchthatisusefulinotherrespectsand

forotherpurposes(Cooper,2005;Fein,Ardila-Rey,&Groth,2000;

Groth&Darling,2001;Nicolopoulouetal.,2006).

So far, the only research that has systematically examined

whetherthisSTSApromotesskillsandcapacitiesrelatedtoyoung

children’s school readiness has been a handful of studies by

McNamee et al. (1985) and Nicolopoulou (1996, 2002). These

studieswereencouraging,but allhad importantlimitations.An

exploratorystudybyNicolopoulou(1996)madeaverypreliminary

attempttoassesstheimpactofthispracticeonyoungchildren’s

narrativedevelopmentbycomparingthequalityofstories

gen-eratedthroughtheSTSAinonemiddle-classpreschoolclassroom

withfindingsaboutthestoryproductionofchildrenatsimilarages

reportedbyotherresearchinnarrativedevelopment.Thepositive

resultsweresuggestive,buthardlyconclusive.Astrongerstudy

usingacontrolledcomparison,reportedinNicolopoulou(2002),

studied a Head Start class of children from low-income

back-groundsinwhichtheSTSAwasintroducedandconductedforan

entireschoolyear;acontrolclassinthesameHeadStartprogram

continueditsusualcurriculum.Theresultsconfirmedthat

partic-ipationintheSTSAsignificantlyenhancedthedevelopmentofthe

children’snarrativeskills(asmeasuredbyanarrativeproduction

task)andotherdecontextualizedorallanguageskills(asmeasured

bytheExpressiveVocabularyTask).Butthatstudywaslimitedin

size.

The one other study that used controlled comparisons,

McNameeetal.(1985),includedtenclassroomsfromfivedifferent

preschool,kindergarten,anddaycaresites,withoneexperimental

andonecontrolclassineach.(Thesamplewasethnicallydiverse,

butotherdemographicinformationsuchassocioeconomicstatus

wasnotprovided.)Thestudyfocusedonexaminingwhetherthe

story-dramatizationportionoftheSTSAwascriticaltoits

effec-tivenessinpromotingnarrativedevelopment.Duringa12-week

interventionperiod,theexperimentalclassesimplementedthefull

Paley-styleSTSA,withbothstorydictationandstory

dramatiza-tion,twiceperweek.Inthecontrolclasses,therewasalsostory

dictationtwiceperweek,butthestorieswerenever actedout.

Inbothtypesofclasses,adult-authoredstorieswerereadtothe

classtwiceaweek,andintheexperimentalclassesthesewerealso

actedout.TheresultsconfirmedboththeeffectivenessoftheSTSA

forpromotingnarrativedevelopmentandtheimportanceofthe

story-actingportionofthepractice.Applebee’sscaleofnarrative

complexityandcoherencewasappliedtostoriescomposedand

dictatedbythechildren–specifically,tothefirst20andlast20

storiesdictatedineachclass.Among3-year-olds,improvements

inscoresforbothexperimentalandcontrolclassesoverthe

inter-ventionperiodweresimilarandrelativelysmall.Forboth4-and

5-year-olds,however,childrenintheexperimentalclassesshowed

substantiallymorenarrativeimprovementthanthoseinthecontrol

classes. Twosecondary findings were alsoreported.

Unsurpris-ingly,childreninclasseswithstory-actingborrowedconsiderably

moreelementsfromeachother’sstoriesthanchildreninthe

con-trolclasses(thoughinformationaboutwhattheyborrowedwas

sketchy). Thecomplexity ofchildren’s conversations withadult

story-takersduringstorydictation,and indicationsofchildren’s

awarenessofthewritingprocess,alsoincreasedinthe

experimen-talclassesmorethaninthecontrolclasses–anintriguinganalysis

that,again,maybeworthfleshingoutmorefully.Thekeyfinding

wasthat participationin thispracticestronglypromotedyoung

children’snarrativedevelopment,butonlyifboththestorytelling

andthestory-actingcomponentswereincluded.

McNamee et al. (1985) was an ambitious, conceptually

sophisticated, and very promising study, but it also had some

methodologicalandstatisticalweaknesses.In particular,its

sta-tistical analysiswas limited. Thestrongest analysis, concerning

narrativedevelopment,reliedonpercentage-difference

compar-isonswithouttestsofsignificance.Inaddition,choosingthefirst

20andlast20storiesineachclasstoanalyze,combinedwiththe

useofstraightpercentagesratherthanmeanproportions,leaves

openthe possibility that changes reportedbetween the

begin-ningand end of theintervention period mightreflect different

distributionsof child storytellersatdifferenttimes ratherthan,

orin additionto,narrative developmentbyindividualchildren.

Inthisandotherrespects,itishardtofullyassessthevalidityof

theanalysisbecauserelevantinformationaboutproceduresand

aboutthe sample (e.g.,theamounts of turnover or attrition in

classesduringtheinterventionperiod,totalnumbersofstoriestold,

variationsinstoriesperchild)ismissingorincomplete.Itisalso

worthnotingthatintermsofchildoutcomes,thekeyfindingsof

bothMcNameeetal.(1985)andNicolopoulou(2002)focusedon

onedimensionofschoolreadiness:orallanguageskills,primarily

narrativeskills.

Thepresentstudy

Thepresentstudysoughttofollowupthepreviousresearchand

togobeyonditslimitationsbothsubstantivelyand

methodologi-cally.ItexaminedwhetherthisSTSA,integratedasacurriculum

module within the regular preschool curriculum, can enhance

the abilities of low-income preschool children in three major

dimensions of young children’s school readiness: (a) narrative

and other oral language skills, (b) skills related more directly

to emergent literacy, and (c) social competence. This

curricu-lum modulewas introduced for an entire school year into six

preschoolclassroomsinanestablishedchild-careprogramserving

children fromlow-income backgrounds, and sevenother

class-roomsinthesameprogramwereusedascontrols.Weexpected

that participation in theSTSA would promote key elementsof

the children’sschool readiness in all three areas just outlined.

Wealsoexpected,asa corollary,thatthemorefrequently

indi-vidual children participated in this activity (indicated by the

numberofstoriestheytold),thegreatertheseeffectswouldbe

Table1

Means(andstandarddeviations)forEarlyLanguage&LiteracyClassroomObservation(ELLCO)byyearandcondition.

Year1 Experimental(n=3)M(SD) Control(n=3)M(SD) F p

LiteracyEnv.Checklist(range:1–41) 15.33(4.04) 21.67(3.79) 3.92 .119

ClassroomObservations(range:16–80) 42.00(3.64) 36.67(4.73) 2.49 .190

LiteracyActivitiesRatingScale(range:0–13) 2.67(2.31) 2.33(2.52) .03 .874

Year2 Experimental(n=3)M(SD) Control(n=4)M(SD) F p

LiteracyEnv.Checklist(range:1–41) 20.33(2.31) 18.25(4.03) .63 .465

ClassroomObservations(range:16–80) 35.33(3.01 37.00(10.23) .07 .800

LiteracyActivitiesRatingScale(range:0–13) 5.33(1.16) 3.75(2.50) 1.00 .362

Method

Researchsites

Thestudywasconductedinpreschoolclassroomsinsixcenters which were part of a child care/preschool organization serv-ing low-incomechildren fromdiverse ethnicbackgrounds in a medium-sizedurbanareainthenortheastern U.S.Using a ran-domized waitlist design, six classrooms were assigned to be experimental(orintervention)classroomsinwhichtheSTSAwas introducedandconductedthroughouttheschoolyear.Sevenother classrooms,whichcontinuedtheirusualactivitieswithoutchange, wereusedascontrols.Thestudywasconductedovertwoyears (2005–2007),buteachparticipatingclassroomwasstudiedforone year,andnochildwasincludedinthestudyformorethanoneyear. Therewerethreeexperimentalandthreecontrolclassroomsinthe firstyear,threeexperimentalandfourcontrolclassroomsinthe second.Attheendofthefirstyearweinvitedthethreeteachersof thecontrolclassestocontinueinthestudyforthesecondyear,with theirnewclassesbeingusedasexperimentalclasses.Twoaccepted, butthethird teacherleftthischildcare/preschool organization; herreplacementrequestedthatherclassbeusedasacontrolclass, sincethiswasherfirstyearwiththisorganization(thoughnother firstyearasapreschoolteacher).Theotherfourclasses partici-patinginthesecondyearwerenew,andwererandomlyassigned toexperimentalorcontrolconditions,withaneffortto(roughly) equalizetheoverallnumberofchildrenineachcondition.

Allclassroomsprovided full-time,full-year,preschool educa-tion and care for a minimum of 6.5hoursper day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year. In principle, the basic instructional programwastheTeachingStrategiesCreativeCurriculum,but nor-malpracticesdidnot includesubstantialamountsofstructured educationalactivities.ScoresontheEarlyLanguageandLiteracy ClassroomObservationToolkit(ELLCO;Smith&Dickinson,2002)

administered to all theclassrooms in the middle of each year

(February/March)indicatedthat,exceptfortheSTSA,therewereno

significantdifferencesinclassroomlanguageandliteracyactivities

acrossconditionsandacrossyears(seeTable1).Onaverage,

class-roomsinbothconditionsandbothyearswereratedasmediumin

theLiteracyEnvironmentChecklist(range:15–22fromapossible

rangeof1–41),mediumonClassroomObservations(range:35–42

froma possiblerangeof 16–80), andlow onLiteracy Activities

(range:2.33–5.33fromapossiblerangeof0–13).

Participants

Atthebeginningofeachschoolyear,parentalconsentforms

wereobtainedfor97–100%ofthechildrenineveryclassbeing

stud-ied.Thisyieldedatotalof216children,almostall3-and4-year-olds

(meanagesinmonthsinSeptember:48.59experimentaland48.94

control).Therewere119childreninthefirstyear,52

experimen-taland 67control, and97 inthesecond year,59 experimental

and38control.(Formoredetailsontheseandotherdemographic

characteristics,seeTable2.)

Thissamplewasethnicallydiverseandotherwisenot

demo-graphicallyunusualforlow-incomepreschoolclassrooms inthe

northeasternU.S.AbouthalfofthesechildrenwereNon-Hispanic

White (49%), 24.5% Hispanic, 24% African American, and 2.5%

fromother ethnicminorities. (Forstatistical analyses, the

cate-goriesofAfricanAmerican,Hispanic,andOtherwerecombined

asMinority:thus,1=Non-Minority;2=Minority.)Althoughsome

childrenspokeSpanishaswellasEnglish,Englishwasthedominant

languageforallchildrenwhoparticipatedinthestudy

(informa-tionobtainedfromthechild-care/preschoolprogram,confirmed

byclassroomteachers,andsupportedbyourownobservations).

Allthechildrencamefromlow-incomefamilies.Morethanhalf

werepoorenoughtoqualifyforHeadStart(62%ofexperimental

Table2

Percentage(&numberofcases)ofsampledemographiccharacteristicsbycondition.

Experimental (n=111) Control (n=105) T/2 _p Childcharacteristics Totalmeanage

(months)in September 48.59 48.94 T=.65 .516 Age 2 (2)=2.16 .334 3-Year-olds 43%(48) 43%(45) 4-Year-olds 52%(58) 48%(50) 5-Year-olds 5%(5) 10%(10) Gender 2 (1)=1.19 .274 Boys 47%(52) 54%(57) Girls 53%(59) 46%(48) Race/ethnicity 2 (3)=4.89 .180 Non-hispanic white 43%(45) 55%(54) Hispanic 25%(26) 24%(23) AfricanAmerican 31%(32) 18%(18) Other 2%(2) 3%(3) Language 2 (1)=.37 .541 Englishonly 91%(95) 93%(91) Bilingual 10%(10) 7%(7) Familycharacteristics Household Structure 2 (1)=7.33 .007 Singleparent 72%(76) 54%(53) Bothparents 28%(29) 46%(45) Siblings 2 (2)=6.66 .036 0 35%(37) 34%(33) 1–2 52%(55) 63%(62) ≥3 12%(13) 3%(3) Headstart eligibility 2 (1)=.81 .368 Yes 62%(65) 56%(54)

and56%ofcontrol);thefeesforthesechildrenwerecoveredby federalandstatefundsthroughapartnershipbetweenthelocal HeadStart program and this child care/preschool organization. Mostoftherestalsoreceivedsomefinancialaid,intheformof subsidiesfundedbythefederaland/orstategovernmentsorother sources.HeadStarteligibilityvs.non-eligibilitywasusedasarough indicatortocapturerelativelevelsofsocio-economicstatusforthis population.(Parentsgavepermissionfortheorganizationtoshare thisinformationwithus.)Althoughchildrenintheexperimental andcontrolconditionswerebroadlysimilarinotherdemographic characteristics,therewereafewexceptions.Childreninthe experi-mentalconditionweremorelikelytocomefromsingle-parent(i.e., single-mother)familiesthanchildreninthecontrolcondition(72% vs.54%).

Predictably,therewasattritionintheseclasses,oftenforreasons connectedwithpoverty,insecureemployment,andfamily instabil-ity.Atotalof149children(81experimentaland68control)who remainedintheirclassforthefullyear(andthusreceivedboth pretestsatthebeginningandposttestsattheend oftheschool year,asexplainedbelow)wereincludedinthestudyforpurposes ofanalysis.Theattritionratewashigherforcontrolclasses(35%) thanforexperimentalclasses (24%),butthedifferencebetween theratesforthesetwoconditionswasnotstatisticallysignificant, 2

(1)=.04,p=.841.

Therewerevariable-specificmissingdatainthespringfor var-iousreasons (e.g., thechild wassick or absent for partof the two to three weeks of data collection). To confirm that these data could be considered missing at random, we carried out comparisons between mean fall scores of children with com-plete data in both fall and spring and of children for whom somespring data were missing (see Table 3). Given that only

one out of 11 test results was significant, there was nobasis

forconcernthatvariable-specificmissingdatawereproblematic.

Therefore,wetreatedthosemissingdataasrandominsubsequent

analysesandusedthefull-informationmaximum-likelihood

esti-matesinHLManalysis(asrecommendedbyRaudenbush&Bryk,

2002,p.199).

Intervention:thestorytelling/story-actingpractice

TheSTSAwasconductedbytheteachers intheintervention

classrooms,usuallywithcooperationbyresearchassistantsfrom

thestudy.Itgenerallyoccurredabouttwiceperweek,although

theaveragefrequencywasgreateroverallduringthesecondyear

thanduringthefirst year(asdiscussedbelow).Afterpretesting

(inSeptember–October)wascompleted,theSTSAwasintroduced

intheinterventionclassroomsbythefirstauthorandremained

inoperationthroughout theschool yearuntil theend of April.

Thecontrolclassescarriedonwiththeirusualactivities.Priorto

theintroductionoftheSTSA,teachersandtheirteachers’aidesin

theinterventionclassesweretrainedasagroupfortwohoursin

carryingouttheactivityandalsoreceivedadetailedmanualfor

guidance.Allclassroomsinbothconditionswerevisitedtwiceper

weekbyteamsoftwotrainedresearchassistants,usuallya

grad-uateandanundergraduatestudentinpsychology.Theyassisted

incarryingouteithertheSTSAornormalclassroomactivitiesin

theinterventionclassrooms andcarrying outnormal classroom

activitiesinthecontrolclassrooms(e.g.,helpingchildrenwithart

orpuzzles,doingliteracy-relatedactivitiesincludingbookreading,

playingwithsmallgroupsofchildren).Teachersandteachers’aides

inbothtypesofclassroomswelcomedthehelpthatresearch

assis-tantsprovided,whichfurnishedoneincentivetoparticipateinthe

study.Theresearchassistantsalsomonitoredtheoperationofthe

STSAandotherclassroomactivities,andthegraduateassistants

providedteachersintheinterventionclassroomswithfurther

con-sultationandadviceabouttheSTSAduringweeklymeetings.(The

firstauthoralsovisitedclassroomsoccasionallyforthesame

pur-poses.)

HowtheSTSAwasconducted

ThestorytellingpartoftheSTSAtookplaceduring“choicetime,”

whenchildrenwerefreetoengageindifferentactivitiesavailable

tothem.Theteacheroraresearchassistantmadeherself

avail-abletotakestories fromchildren whowanted tocomposeand

dictatethem. Thesestorydictationswerevoluntaryandlargely

self-initiated;nochildwasrequiredtocomposeastory,though

someofthemorereticentoneswereoccasionallyencouraged(but

notprodded)todoso.Childrenwereallowedtotellanykindof

storytheywished,buttherewasalimitofonepageperstoryto

allowasmanychildrenaspossibletobeaccommodatedeachday.

Thestory-takerwrotedownthestoryverbatimwithminimal

inter-vention,repeatingthechild’swordsasshewaswritingthemand

readingthestorybacktothechildwhenitwascompleted.

Story-takers occasionally requested necessaryclarifications onpoints

relevanttoenactingthestory,andtheymightaskquestionslike

“Whathappenednext?”or“Isthattheend?”ifchildrenpaused

during theirdictation.(In someother versionsof this practice,

story-takers sometimesplay amore active editorialrole.) After

completingthestory,thechildfirstchosewhichcharacterheor

shewantedtoplayandthenpickedotherchildreninthe

class-roomtoactinotherroles.Thenamesandrolesoftheactorswere

recordedalongwiththestory.Thestory-takerusuallytookdown

2–4stories during each session. If there were several children

presentwhowantedtotellastory,awaitinglistwascreatedso

thatthesechildrencouldgoonwiththeirotheractivities.Some

children,however,waitedandlistenedwhileotherchildrentold

theirstories.Ifnotallchildrenonthewaitinglistcouldbe

accom-modatedthatday,theywouldbeofferedachancethenextdaythat

storieswerebeingrecorded.

Thestory-actingportionoftheSTSAtookplaceduringgroup

time,withtheentireclassassembled.Theclassroomteacheralways

ledthisactivity.Onebyone,allthestoriesdictatedduringthatday

werereadaloudand enactedintheorderdictated.Theteacher

firstreadthestorywhileallthechildrenlistened.Thenshecalled

outthenamesandrolesofthechild-actors,whostoodoutsidethe

areadesignatedasthestage.Asthestorywasreadonceagain,it

wasactedoutbythechild-authorandtheotherchild-actors.This

processwasrepeateduntilallthestoriesdictatedduringthatday

hadbeenenacted.

Ineachclassroom,thestory-taker(teacherorresearchassistant)

wrotethestoriesdowninasingleclass“storybook”asthechild

dictatedthestory,alsoindicatingtheauthor,thedateofdictation,

andwhichchildren werechosentoactwhich rolesin thestory

performance.ThisprovidedarecordofhowoftentheSTSAtook

placeandhowmanychildrenparticipatedinitaseithertellersor

actors.Theclassroomstorybooksweregiventousattheendofthe

yearforanalysis.(Parentshadsignedconsentformstomakethe

storiesoftheirchildrenavailabletous.)Withveryfewexceptions

(threechildreninyear1;fourchildreninyear2),allchildrenin

theinterventionclassesparticipatedinthestorytellingportionof

theSTSA.Exceptforonechildwhowasveryshyandrefusedto

participateinthisandmostotheractivities,thenon-storytellers

werechildrenwhocametoclasslaterintheday(closertonoon),

afterthestorytellinghadalreadytakenplace.Allchildreninthe

interventionclassesparticipatedinstory-acting.

Monitoring,support,andoneproceduraladjustment

The two research assistants in each team that visited each

classroom(interventionandcontrol)twiceperweekeachwrote

oneor two pagesoffield notesdealing withtheirownactions

and with activitiesin the classroom more generally. The

Table3

Missingdataanalysis:comparisonoffallscoremeansbasedondataavailability.

Fulldataavailablefor fallandspringM(SD)

Fulldatafallonly(missing somespringscores)M(SD)

t p EVT 37.83(9.1) 38.15(10.4) −.199 .842 n=137 n=46 Narrativecomp 18.64(10.9) 11.00(–) – – n=130 n=1 PALS-PWA 5.09(2.76) 4.65(3.10) .651 .842 n=76 n=23 PALS-BSA 4.26(3.8) 4.56(4.05) −.340 .734 n=74 n=25 PALS-RA 4.26(3.58) 3.00(3.41) 1.501 .842 n=76 n=23 Pretendabilities 12.98(4.61) 10.70(6.01) 2.286 .026 n=123 n=44

Peerplaydisruption 1.55(2.21) 1.54(2.17) .026 .979

n=112 n=46

Peerplaydisconnect 1.33(1.89) 1.57(1.84) −.714 .476

n=112 n=46

Peerplayinteraction 3.26(2.39) 3.00(2.38) .624 .534

n=112 n=47

Self-regulation:inhibition 7.13(3.86) 7.21(4.87) .930 .319

n=60 n=24

Self-regulation:assertion 3.82(1.82) 3.42(2.04) .511 .521

n=60 n=24

monitorclassroomactivities,includingtheoperationoftheSTSA, and to provide furtherinput and training as needed to main-tainfidelityinimplementingtheintervention.Thebasicminimum requirementsforimplementationwerethefollowing:theSTSAwas conductedeveryweekduringtheperiodbetweenpretestingand posttesting;children’sstorydictationwasvoluntary,andthe story-takerfacilitateditinanon-directivemanner;thestory-takerwrote downthechild’sstoryverbatimasitwasbeingdictated,readitback tothechildwhenitwascompleted,andindicatedtheauthor,the dateofdictation,andthenamesandrolesofthechildrenselected forstory-acting;andeverystorywasenactedthesamedayitwas dictated.

ThefrequencyoftheSTSAwassomewhatmorevariable. Tea-chersintheinterventionclassroomswereencouragedtoconduct thisactivityasoftenaspossible,butatleastduringthetwodays perweekwhentheresearchassistantsvisitedtheclassroom. Tea-cherscouldscheduletheactivityattheirdiscretion,butinpractice itwasusuallyconductedondayswhenresearchassistantswere present.Inourongoingdiscussionsandyear-endinterviewswith interventionteachers,theyallreportedthattheyenjoyed conduct-ingtheSTSA,butmostalsowelcomedhelpwithstory-takingfrom theresearchassistants.Inotherpreschoolswherethisactivityis partof thenormal curriculum,it occurswithdiffering frequen-cies,sometimesasoftenaseveryday(Cooper,2009;Nicolopoulou, 1997b,2002;Nicolopoulouetal.,1994;Paley,1990);forthisstudy,

wethoughtthattwiceaweekwasareasonableminimumtoaim

for.Duringthefirstyearofthestudy,theactivitydidtakeplace

consistentlytwodaysperweekinoneinterventionclassroom,but

itvariedbetweenonceandtwiceperweekintheothertwo

inter-ventionclassrooms.Forthesecondyearofthestudy,wedecidedit

wouldbebettertoinsistonconductingtheSTSAuniformlytwice

perweek,andduringyear2thiswasdoneconsistentlyinall

inter-ventionclassrooms. On days when theSTSA wasconducted, it

usuallygeneratedaboutthreerecordedstoriesperdayinyear1

andaboutthreetofourstoriesperdayinyear2.

Datacollection:pretestandposttestassessments

All children in both conditions were given pretests and

posttestsfor 11 measures covering expressivevocabulary,

nar-rative skills, emergent literacy, pretend abilities, and elements

ofsocialcompetence(peerplaycooperationandself-regulation).

Pretestswereadministered atthebeginning oftheschool year

(September/October)andposttestsattheend(May).Inthe

inter-vention classrooms, the STSA wasconducted during theentire

periodbetweenpretestingandposttesting.Attheendofeachyear,

wealsoreceivedthestorybookforeachclassroom,containingall

storiesgeneratedaspartoftheactivity,theauthoranddateof

dic-tationforeachstory,andthenamesandrolesofchildrenselected

toactduringthestoryperformance.

Testing was carried out by trained graduate students and

undergraduates.Formostofthesemeasures,childrenweretested

individually in a quiet room adjacent to their classroom by

researchers.Twoobservationalmeasures,assessingpeerplayand

self-regulation,werecarriedoutintheclassroomitself.

Orallanguagemeasures

Twotaskswereadministeredtocapturechildren’sorallanguage

skills.

Vocabularyskills:ExpressiveVocabularyTest(EVT). Earlyvocabulary

developmenthasbeenshowntobeanimportantfoundationfor

emergentliteracy(Whitehurst&Lonigan,2001).Ofthe

vocabu-larytestsavailableforusewithyoungchildren,weselectedthe

ExpressiveVocabularyTest(Williams,1997),whichmeasures

chil-dren’sabilitiestoretrieveanduseappropriatewords(“Whatdo

you see?,”whilethechild isshown a colorfulpicture) and also

togeneratesynonyms(“Tell meanotherword for ?”).TheEVT

thusappeared usefulfor capturingacombinationofvocabulary

knowledge and vocabulary-relatedoral-language skills thatcan

contributetoschool readiness.A previousstudy(Nicolopoulou,

2002)foundthatparticipationintheSTSAsignificantlyincreased

children’s EVT scores. The EVT has good test–retest reliability

(rtt=.77)overintervalsrangingfrom8to203daysfor

preschool-aged children (Williams, 1997). Raw scores were used in the

analysis.

Narrativecomprehension. Anarrativetaskwedevelopedwasused

tomeasurechildren’snarrativecomprehensionabilities.Thistask

was an adaptation of the Test of Narrative Language (Gillam

&Pearson, 2004)and includedthree subtasks:tellingthechild

a story (a) without picture cues, (b) withfour sequenced

pic-tures, and (c) with a single complex picture. In each subtask,

comprehensionquestions,bothfactualandinferential.Each

cor-rectanswerreceivedtwopointsandapartiallycorrectanswerone

point.Inthispaper,wereportthetotalnarrativecomprehension

scoresbyaddingthescoresforallstorytypes(range0–42;

Cron-bach’salphafall/spring=.91/.84; all Cronbach’salpha reliability

coefficientswerecalculatedfromthestudydata).

Emergentliteracymeasures

ThreesubscalesofthePhonologicalAwarenessLiteracyScreening:

PreK(PALS;Invernizzi,Sullivan,Meier,&Swank,2004)wereused

to assess skills that have been shown to predict future

read-ing success: Beginning Sound Awareness (asks child to respond

verballyby soundingoutthefirst soundof aword;Cronbach’s

alphafall/spring=.94/.93), RhymeAwareness (askschildtopoint

toapicturethatrhymeswithastimulusword;Cronbach’salpha

fall/spring=.91/.94),andPrintandWordAwareness(asksanumber

ofquestionsmeasuringchildren’sbook,word,andsyllable

knowl-edge;Cronbach’salphafall/spring=.81/83).Thescorespersubscale

rangefrom0to10andarereportedseparately.Tobeadministered

thistest,achildhadtobeatleast4yearsofageatthebeginningof

theschoolyear,sincethePALSisnotdesignedforusewithchildren

belowthatage.

Pretendabilitiesmeasure

Thecapacityfor imaginativepretensemeasuredbythistask

doesnotfitneatlyorexclusivelyintoanyoneofthethreemajor

dimensionsofschoolreadinesstargetedforconsiderationinthis

study.Thereisevidencethatitisrelatedatleastindirectlytothe

developmentofnarrativeskills,emergentliteracy,andsocial

com-petence(Sachet&Mottweiler,2014).Itwasincludedintheanalysis

ofchildoutcomesprimarilybecauseofitslinktothedevelopment

ofsocial competence,sincethecognitiveand symbolicabilities

itentailsareconsideredtobeamongthenecessaryfoundations

forchildren’ssocialpretendplayandself-regulation(Harris,2000;

Sachet&Mottweiler,2014).Weadoptedawidelyusedtaskwith

threesubtasksoriginallydesignedbyOvertonandJackson(1973):

Childrenwereaskedtopretend(i.e.,toimagineandenact)three

simpleacts(a)directedtowardoneself(e.g.,suckingonalollipop)

andthesamethreeacts,(b)directed towardanother(e.g.,

pup-petmonkey)–theorderofthesetwosubtaskswassystematically

alternated.Thethird subtask(c)testedchildren’sabilityto

pre-tendsomewhatmorecomplexactions(e.g.,cuttingapaper)which

askedthemtoimaginetwoobjectssimultaneously(e.g.,scissors

andpaper)andrelatethemtoeachother.Asupportingprop(e.g.,

paper)wasprovidedifthechildwasnotabletoperformthese

pre-tendactionswithoutit.Thetotalscoresfromthethreesubtasks

rangedfrom0to21;Cronbach’salphafall/spring=.91/.86.

Socialcompetencemeasures

Thesemeasuredtwoclustersofskills relatedtoelementsof

socialcompetence:cooperationandself-regulationskills.

Peerplayassessment. Thiswasusedtoevaluatechildren’s

capac-ityandwillingnessforcooperationwithpeers.Weemployedan

observationalplay assessment measure adapted fromthePenn

PeerInteractionScale,aratinginstrumentdevelopedbyFantuzzo

andcolleaguesforusebyteachersoflow-incomeurbanchildren

(Fantuzzoetal.,1995).Twothree-minuteobservationsperchild

wereconductedwithinaperiodofaweekbytrained

undergradu-ateandgraduatestudentswhoobservedachildinasetofspecified

settingsthatbest affordedplay interactions (e.g.,free play

cor-ner).The observerwrote an accountof the entire episode and

thenrated thechild’s behaviorby checking“yes”or “no” for a

totalof 18behavioral items; each“yes”wasscored1andeach

“no”wasscored−1. Threedistinctsetsofsixitemsapiece

con-stitutedthree factors: play disruption (e.g., disruptsthe play of

others,destroysothers’things,startsfightsandarguments;

Cron-bach’salphafall/spring=.79/.68),playdisconnection(e.g.,wanders

aimlessly,refusestoplaywheninvited,isignoredbyothers;

Cron-bach’salphafall/spring=.70/.63),andplayinteraction(e.g.,shares

toyswithothers,helpsotherchildren,comfortsotherswhenhurt;

Cronbach’salphafall/spring=.77/.68).Thesethreecategoriesare

thesameasthoseintheoriginalPennPeerInteractionScale.The

18itemsusedforthismeasurewereselectedfromthelonger

34-itemoriginalPPISscalebychoosingthosethatloadedmoststrongly

(atleast=.50)onthethreerespectivefactorsinaconfirmatory

factoranalysis.Totalscoresforeachsubscalerangedfrom−12to

12andwerereportedseparately.Toensurecodinguniformity,we

createddetailedcodinginstructionstotraintheresearchassistants.

Takingadvantageofthefactthattheepisodeswerewrittendown,

about50%ofthemwerecodedbymorethanoneobserver(Cohen’s

kappa=.75).Disagreementswereresolvedthroughdiscussionby

thetwocodersandthefirstauthor.

Self-regulation assessment. Children’s self-regulation was

evalu-atedwithanotherobservationalmeasure wedevised,based on

Kashiwagi’steacherratingscale(Olson&Kashiwagi,2000).The

observationsfollowedaproceduresimilartothatjustdescribed

forthemodifiedPeerPlayInteractionScale:trainedundergraduate

andgraduatestudentsobservedeachchildfortwothree-minute

periods on different days in a set of specified situations that

requiredself-regulation(e.g.,clean-uptimeorlarge-grouptime).

Afterwritinganaccountoftheobservedepisode,theobserverrated

thechild’sbehaviorbychecking“yes”or“no”(scored1or−1)fora

totalof15items,10measuringself-inhibition(e.g.,acceptsassigned

rolesinproperways,abletowaitpatientlyforhis/herturn,ableto

inhibitowndesires;totalscoresrangedfrom−20to20,Cronbach’s

alphafall/spring=.81/.82),and5measuringself-assertion(e.g.,

ini-tiatescontactwithothers,abletosaywhats/hewants,abletoaskto

borrowthings;totalscoresrangedfrom−10to10,Cronbach’salpha

fall/spring=.51/.49).Theseitemswereselectedfromthe37-item

originalscale,usingthosethatloadedmoststrongly(atleast_=.70)

onthesetwofactorsinaconfirmatoryfactoranalysis.Althoughthe

Cronbach’salphafortheself-assertionsubscaleindicatedrelatively

weakreliability,weretainedthedistinctionbetweenthetwo

fac-torstoremainconceptuallyconsistentwithOlsonandKashiwagi

(2000),whosetwo-factorstructurewasconfirmedbyourdata.To

ensurecodinguniformity,wecreateddetailedcodinginstructions

totraintheresearchassistants.About50%oftheepisodeswere

codedbymorethanoneobserver(Cohen’skappa=.77).

Disagree-mentswereresolvedthroughdiscussionbythetwocodersandthe

firstauthor.

Results

Inallinterventionclassrooms,childrenparticipated

enthusias-ticallyintheSTSA.Therewerealwaysvolunteersforstorytelling

ondayswhen that option wasavailable,and allchildren inall

theinterventionclassroomsparticipatedfrequentlyinstory-acting.

Overall,thechildrenintheinterventionclasseswhowereincluded

inthestudyforpurposesofanalysiscomposedandenacted551

stories.(Someillustrativeexamplesareavailableasonline

supple-mentarymaterial.)Thatnumberdoesnotincludeanadditional70

storiesfromchildrenwholefttheclassroombeforetheposttests

andthuswereexcludedfromanalysis.Onaverage,each

partici-patingchildtoldaboutfourstoriesinyear1,M=3.7(SD=2.9),and

aboutsixstoriesinyear2,M=6.3(SD=5.1).Themaximumnumber

ofstoriesrecordedforindividualchildrenwas11inyear1and30

inyear2.Thereweremorestoriesduringthesecondyear,despitea

Table4

Descriptivestatisticsofpretestsandposttestsfororallanguage,emergentliteracy,pretend,andsocialcompetencebyexperimentalandcontrolgroups.

Exppretest Expposttest Controlpretest Controlposttest

Measures M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Orallanguage(EVT:n=137;NarrComp:n=130)

EVT 37.31 (8.58) 44.78 (10.92) 38.05 (9.78) 44.73 (9.2)

Narrativecomptotal(range:0–42) 18.65 (10.5) 24.00 (8.88) 18.62 (11.51) 22.84 (8.56)

Emergentliteracy:PALS-PreKa_(n=76)

PWA(range:0–10) 4.86 (2.80) 7.21 (2.30) 5.38 (2.72) 6.09 (3.05)

BSA(range:0–10) 4.90 (3.58) 7.78 (3.38) 3.45 (3.93) 6.64 (3.62)

RA(range:0–10) 3.93 (3.62) 5.73 (3.83) 4.67 (3.47) 6.24 (4.00)

Pretendabilities(n=123)

Totalpretend(range:0–21) 12.70 (4.55) 15.26 (2.86) 13.35 (4.71) 14.35 (3.46) Socialcompetence:peerplay(n=112)

Disruption(−12to12) 1.81 (2.56) 1.53 (1.70) 1.26 (1.72) 2.02 (2.25)

Disconnect(−12to12) 1.20 (1.89) .97 (1.43) 1.47 (1.90) .64 (1.18)

Interaction(−12to12) 3.51 (2.58) 3.85 (2.10) 2.98 (2.15) 2.85 (2.02)

Socialcompetence:self-regulationb_(n=60)

Inhibition(−20to20) 7.91 (3.98) 10.35 (3.81) 6.12 (3.53) 5.50 (2.96)

Assertion(−10to10) 3.38 (1.86) 3.18 (1.66) 3.38 (1.63) 2.45 (1.27)

a_{Administeredonlyto4-and5-year-olds.} b_{Datafromyear2only.}

takenstepswhichhelpedincrease thefrequency oftheactivity

thatyear.

Preliminaryanalyses

Descriptivestatisticsforpre-andposttestsofall11childability

measures(inorallanguage,emergentliteracy,pretend,andsocial

competence) for experimental and control classrooms are

pre-sentedinTable4.Correlationsamongthesemeasuresbeforeand

aftertheinterventionarepresentedinTable5.Notethatthe

cor-relationcoefficientsaresimilarforpre-andposttest;therepeated

measurementdidnotchangetheinter-correlationsofsubscales.

Toexaminepre-interventiondifferencesbetweenthe

experi-mentalandthecontrolgroups,hierarchicallinearmodels(HLM)

were estimated, accounting for the nesting of children within

classroomsand classroomswithincenters.Childgender,

major-ity/minoritystatus, and HeadStart eligibility were includedas

Level-1covariates.Experimentalvs.controlcondition,year,and

theinteractionbetweenthem wereincludedas Level-2

covari-ates.Becauseclassroomswerepartlynestedwithincenters,centers

wereincludedasdummyvariablesatLevel2.Centerwastreated

asa fixedeffectsince theywererecruited insteadof randomly

chosen.Hence,wecontrolledforvariabilityacrosscenters

with-outattemptingtoformallygeneralizetothepopulationofsites.No

significant(p≤.05)pretreatmentexperimentalvs.controlgroup

differencesemergedforthe11measuresofchildabilities.Overall,

thequalifiedrandomizationprocessappearedeffectiveincreating

equivalentgroupspriortotheintervention.

Post-interventiongroupdifferences

Thefirstsetofanalysesexaminedthe11measuresfororal

lan-guage,emergentliterary,pretend,andsocialcompetencethatwere

targetedbythestudyand measuredusingdirect assessmentof

childabilities.Similartwo-levelhierarchicallinearmodel(HLM)

analyseswere estimatedas in thepre-intervention analyses to

account forthe nestedstructure of thedata.Students (level 1)

werenestedwithinclassrooms(level2).Centerwasagainincluded

asasetoffixed-effectdummyvariables.Thecriticalindependent

variableCondition(experimentalvs.control)wastestedaslevel-2

predictor.Becauseofthepossibilitythattheeffectsoftheactivity

mightbedifferentindifferentyears(duetogreatermeanfrequency

of implementationin year2),we added YearofStudy and the

interactionYearXConditionasadditionallevel-2predictors.The

posttestmeasurewasmodeledaslevel1dependentvariablewith

pretestmeasure asalevel-1predictortocontrolfordifferences

atpretest(autoregression).Effectsoflevel-2predictorsare

inter-pretedaseffectsonchangeoverthecourseoftheschoolyear.Age,

Gender,HeadStartEligibility,andMajority/MinorityStatuswere

introducedascontrolvariables.Asignificancelevelofalpha=.05

wasadoptedtotestallpredictedpositiveeffectsofthetreatment

forone-tailedtests(seeTable6).

Table5

Correlationsamongpretest(abovethediagonal)andposttest(belowthediagonal)measuresforfallandspring.

Pretests Posttests 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.EVT .43** _.49** _.31** _.39** _.24** _{.09 −.22}* _{.13 −.01 .10} 2.Narrcomp .32** _.45** _.31** _.50** _.50** _{.02 −.02 .19}* _{.03 .13} 3.PALS-PWA .48** _.51** _.34** _.21* _.40** _−.35** _{−.17 .19 .04 −.08} 4.PALS-BSA .32** _.38** _.30** _.24* _.24* _{−.09 −.25}* _{.15 .12 .20} 5.PALS-RA .51** _.41** _.54** _.39** _{.19 .06 −.05 .12 .13 .01} 6.Pretend .14 .33** _.27** _{.16 .24}* _{−.10 .00 .01 −.09 −.08} 7.PP-disruption −.02 −.09 −.03 −.01 −.02 .10 .05 −.29** _{−.15 .12} 8.PP-disconnection −.12 −.26** _{−.20 −.13 −.11 −.17 −.18}* _−.36** _{−.10 −.18}* 9.PP-interaction .15 .13 .23* _{.16 .04 .19}* _−.18* _−.39** _.20* _.35** 10.SR-inhibition .10 .15 .17 .20 −.01 .14 −.16 −.12 .09 .25* 11.SR-assertion .18* _.20* _{.16 .08 .14 .23}** _{.04 −.19}* _.21* _.26** *_p<.05. **_p<.01.

Table6

HierarchicalLinearModel(HLM)analysespredictingspringoutcomescoresbyyearandcondition,controllingformajority/minoritystatus,gender,HeadStarteligibility, age,andfallscore(autoregression).

EVT NarrComp PALS-PWA PALS-BSA PALS-RA Pretend PP-DR PP-DC PP-IN SR-IN SR-ASS

b b b b b b b b b b b Level1 Pre-post 22.86*** _11.95** _8.68*** _7.02* _{2.77 11.74}*** _3.23** _{1.05 4.58}** _14.63*** _3.08** Maj/minstatusa _{.87 .44 −1.61}* _{−.38 −.84 −.20 −.09 −.26 −.40 0.56 −.31} Gender −2.93* _{−0.88 −.46 1.62 .61 .07 −.25 −.18 −.34 −1.31 .49} Headstartb _{2.06 1.82 −.22 −1.08 1.53 −1.39}* _{−.69 .12 −.42 −2.87}* _−.53 Age 2.03 1.22 −.50 .13 1.08 .65 .52 −.57** _.90* _{0.52 .91}* Autoregression .63*** _.55*** _.32** _.23† _.47*** _.40*** _.23** _.20** _{.07 0.08 .05} Centerd1 −4.80 −2.79 1.26 −2.65 −1.56 −.40 −.23 .06 .48 −1.00 .23 Centerd2 −4.40 3.08 .40 −2.51 −2.31 −1.24 −.13 −.02 −.87 −0.36 1.11 Centerd3 −2.07 −2.22 .02 −1.79 −2.05 .66 −.43 .42 .76 −0.19 1.08 Centerd4 −1.86 −1.06 −.57 −2.44† _{−1.74 −.32 −.1.20}* _{−.11 .71 −0.04 .20} Level2 Year .30 −0.32 0.38 .06 .16 −.29 −.29 −.18 .07 −† ₋† Condition 1.16 0.61 0.69* _1.02* _{.40 .72}* _{−.29 .16 .39 2.43}** _.32 InteractionY/C 1.62 2.33** _{0.30 1.36}* _{.84 −.36 −.52}* _{−.29 −.38 −}† ₋† ICC(Fall) .10 .10 .13 .13 .00 .11 .09 .13 .08 .21 .22 ICC(Spring) .19 .40 .10 .18 .08 .18 .07 .04 .09 .24 .15 Residual Level1 46.13 24.86 5.67 11.43 11.71 6.26 3.27 1.49 4.04 10.15 2.02 Level2 3.81 2.12 <.001 .03 .01 .01 .001 .21 1.72** _1.99* _.10

a_{Majority/minoritystatuscodedas1=“non-minority”and2=“minority”.} b _{Headstarteligibilitycodedas1=“yes”and2=“no”.}

* _p≤.05.

** _p<.01.

***_p<.001.

† _Year2only.

Orallanguagemeasures

Expressive vocabulary (EVT). The results did not support our

hypothesis.While therewasoverall improvementonchildren’s

EVTscoresfrompre-toposttests(b=22.86,p<001),thisdidnot

differasafunctionofCondition(p=.27)orYearXCondition

inter-action(p=.22).

Narrativecomprehension. Theresultspartlyconfirmedour

hypoth-esis. Narrative comprehension scoresfor all children improved

frompre-toposttests(b=11.95,p=.003),andtheimprovement

wasgreaterfortheexperimentalthanforthecontrolgroup,but

thatdifferencewassignificantonlyforyear2,YearXCondition

interaction,b=2.33,p=.028 (M=5.43andM=3.15pre-to

post-interventiondifferencescoresinyear2fortheexperimentalgroup

and comparison group, respectively; effect size was moderate,

Cohen’sd=.35).

Emergentliteracyskills.Forallthreesubtests,childrenneededto

beatleast4yearsofageatthebeginningoftheyeartobetested;

thisreducedthesamplesizeto76.

Printandwordawareness. Theseresultsconfirmedour

hypothe-sis.Whilechildren’sscoresimprovedoverallfromfalltospring,

b=8.68,p<001,thiswasdifferentiatedbyasignificantCondition

effect,b=.69,p=.043,indicatingthattheimprovementwas

signif-icantlymorepronouncedfortheexperimentalthanforthecontrol

group(M=2.35and M=.71pre- topost-interventiondifference

scoresforexperimentalandcomparisongroups,respectively;

mod-eratetostrongeffectsize:Cohen’sd=.58).

Beginningsoundawareness. Theseresultsconfirmedour

hypoth-esis only for thesecond year.Children’s scores improvedfrom

falltospring,b=7.02,p=.04. Surprisingly,theoverall

improve-mentwasgreaterforthecontrolgroupthanfortheexperimental

group(M=2.88andM=3.19pre-topost-interventiondifference

scoresfor experimental and control groups, respectively),with

asignificantConditioneffect,b=1.02,p=.049.However,inyear

2therewasasignificantly greaterimprovementforthe

experi-mentalthanforthecontrolgroup(M=3.27andM=−.50pre-to

post-intervention differencescores for year 2 for experimental

andcomparisongroups,respectively;strongeffectsize: Cohen’s

d=.74),witha significantConditionXYearinteraction,b=1.36,

p=.045.

Rhymingawareness. Theseresultsdidnotconfirmourhypothesis.

Therewasnosignificantimprovementinrhymingscoresfromfall

tospringforeitherConditionorYear.

Pretendabilities.Theresultssupportedourhypothesis.While

chil-dren’spretendscoresimprovedoverallfromfalltospring,b=11.74,

p<.001,childrenintheexperimentalgroupimprovedmorethan

those in thecontrol group(M=2.59and M=1.00 pre- to

post-interventiondifferencescoresforexperimentaland comparison

groups,respectively;moderateeffectsize: Cohen’sd=.31),with

asignificantConditioneffect,b=.72,p=.039.

Socialcompetencemeasures

Peerplayinteractionassessment. Thisinstrumentmeasuredthree

components:PlayDisruption,PlayDisconnection,andPlay

Inter-action.

Peer play disruption. These results partly confirmed our

hypothesis. Adesirable effectherewould bea decrease in

dis-ruption. Overall, mean levels of disruption decreased for the

experimental group and increased for the control group (see

Table4), in accordwiththehypothesis, butthis overall

Condi-tioneffectwasnotstatisticallysignificant(seeTable6).Foryear

1,however,thedifferenceinoutcomesbetweentheexperimental

andcontrolgroupswasstatisticallysignificant,withasignificant

YearXCondition interactioneffect,b=.52,p=.05(M=_−.54and

M=1.30pre-topost-interventiondifferencescoresforyear1for

Table7

Regressionanalysesforexperimentalgrouppredictingspringoutcomescoresfromnumberofstoriestold(NOST),controllingforautoregression,HeadStarteligibility(HS), andage.

Measure bfallscore(autoregression) bHS bAge bNOST NOSTR2

Narrcomp .72*** _{.10 .08 .16}** _2.5% EVT .62*** _.13* _{.07 .06} PALS-PWA .44*** _{.08 −.11 .27}** _7.5% PALS-BSA .18 −.13 .01 .22† _(4.7%) PALS-RA .47*** _.26* _{.07 .03} Pretend .55*** _−.26** _{.12 .08} PPI-disruption .27** _.21* _.20* _−.20** _3.8% PPI-disconnection .28** _{.01 −.24}** _.03 PPI-interaction .03 −.06 .04 .31*** _9.2% SR-inhibition .02 −.10 −.15 .35*** _11.7% SR-assertion .03 −.05 .23** _.15 †_p<.06. *_p<.05. **_p<.01. ***_p<.001.

Peer play disconnection. These results did not confirm our

hypothesis.Disconnectionscoresremainedthesamethroughout

theyear.

Peerplayinteraction. Theseresultsdidnotconfirmour

hypoth-esis. Whilethere wasa significantincrease forplay interaction

fromfalltospringassessments,b=4.58,p=.011,thisincreasedid

notdifferasafunctionofCondition(p=.23)orYearXCondition

interaction(p=.26).

Self-regulationassessment. Thisinstrumentmeasuredtwo

compo-nents,self-inhibitionandself-assertion. Notethatonlythedata

forthesecondyearofthestudywereanalyzedhere.Pretestsand

posttestswereadministeredbothyears,buttheposttestforthe

firstyeartookplaceinFebruary(insteadofMay),resultinginan

overlyrestrictedtimeintervalbetweenpre-andposttest.(The

orig-inalintentionwastocarryoutthisassessmentthreetimesduring

theschoolyear,butattheendoftheyearanunanticipatedstaff

shortageprecludedathirdsetofobservations.Inyear2,this

assess-mentwas administeredtwice, atthe beginningand end ofthe

year.)

Self-inhibition. The results supported our hypothesis.

Self-inhibition scores increased for the experimental group but

decreased for the control group, with a significant Condition

effect, b=1.29, p=.029 (M=2.44 and M=−.62 pre- to

post-interventiondifferencescoresforexperimentaland comparison

groups, respectively; moderate to strong effect size; Cohen’s

d=.61).

Self-assertion. The results did not support our hypothesis.

While there was an overall increase of self-assertion from fall

to spring, b=3.15, p<05, this did not vary as a function of

Condition.

Summary. Overall,thoughnotuniformly,theresultssupportedour

generalhypothesisthatchildrenintheexperimentalgroupwould

showgreaterimprovementsthanchildreninthecontrolgroupfor

abilitiesfallinginallthreedimensionsofschoolreadinesstargeted

forconsideration.Specifically,participationintheSTSAwas

signif-icantlyassociatedwithimprovementsinthefollowingmeasures:

inorallanguageskills,narrativecomprehension(resultspositivein

bothyearsandsignificantinyear2);inemergentliteracy,printand

wordawareness;insocialcompetence,greaterself-inhibitionand

reducedplaydisruption(playdisruptionwasreducedinbothyears,

andtheassociationwassignificantinyear1);andpretend

abili-ties,whichforpurposesofthisstudyarelinkedprimarilythough

notexclusivelytosocialcompetence.Resultsforoneother

emer-gentliteracymeasure,beginning soundawareness,werepositive

andsignificantonlyinyear2.

Individualdifferencesinoutcomesbyfrequencyofparticipation

Tofurtherprobethehypothesisthattheobserveddifferences

inoutcomesbetweentheexperimentalandcontrolgroupswere,

infact,theresultofparticipationintheSTSA,weperformedan

additionalanalysistoexaminewhethergreaterfrequencyof

par-ticipationin thisactivitybyindividualchildren enhanced these

effects.Focusingexclusivelyontheexperimentalgroup,we

exam-inedwhethertheNumberofStoriesTold(NOST)byeachchildover

thecourseoftheyearpredictedpositivechangesintherelevant

outcomesforthatchild.WeexpectedthathigherNOSTscoresper

childwouldbeassociatedwithgreaterimprovementsinoutcome

measures.

Strictlyspeaking,focusingonNOSTcapturesonlyoneaspect

ofparticipationintheSTSA.Childrenalsoparticipatedasactors

inthestory-actingportionoftheactivity,andallchildreninthe

class,includingtheaudience,wereexposedtothepublic

reading-outandenactmentofthestorieseachtimetheywereperformed.

(Itisworthnotingthatquietlywatchingandlisteningtoastory

enactmentasamemberoftheaudiencerequires,andmayhelp

promote,self-regulation.)However,eventakingallthosecaveats

intoaccount,therearegoodreasonstobelievethatNOSTisan

espe-cially usefulindicatorwithwhich tocomparedifferentdegrees

of children’sactiveinvolvement intheSTSA. Greaterfrequency

of storytellinggiveschildren more practicein constructingand

reconstructingtheirnarratives.Andwhileallchildrenparticipated

frequentlyasactorsandasaudiencemembers,thefrequencyof

storytellingvariedmoresubstantiallybetweenindividualchildren.

Table7showsthespecificeffectsofNOSTonall11

depend-entmeasuresaftercontrollingforautoregression(fallpretestscore

for each variable), age, and Head Start eligibility (used as an

indicatorofrelativesocioeconomicstatus).Weincludedageasa

controlvariabletoruleoutspuriousdevelopmentaleffects,since

olderchildrentendedtoscorehigheronseveraloutcomesandalso

totellmorestories(r=.26).Wefoundthatagreaternumberof

storiestoldwasasignificantpredictorof higherposttestscores

onfivemeasures,distributedacrossallthreedimensionsofschool

readiness targetedfor consideration:inoral language,narrative

comprehension,b=.16,p=.002(explaininganadditional2.5%ofthe

variance);inemergentliteracy,printandwordawareness,b=.27,

p=.009(explaininganadditional7.5%ofthevariance);insocial

competence,decreasein playdisruption, b=−.20,p=.013

(addi-tional3.8%ofvariance),andincreasesinplayinteraction,b=.31,

p=.001 (additional 9.2% of variance) and self-inhibition, b=.35,

p<0001(additional11.7%ofvariance).Foroneotheremergent

lit-eracymeasure,beginningsoundawareness,resultswerepositive

butnotquitesignificant(b=.22,p=.059).Thus,foralmostevery