Talking About Books With Young

Children: Analyzing the Discursive

Nature of One-to-One Booktalks
Xenia Hadjioannou
Social Sciences and Education Division, Penn State UniversityLehigh
Valley Campus
Eleni Loizou
Department of Education, University of Cyprus
Research Findings: Reading aloud to children is recognized as a pedagogically
valuable practice. The literature suggests that the conversations that surround
read-alouds are pivotal to their effectiveness. Yet teachers often find it difficult
to foster lively booktalks characterized by abstract, complex thinking,
especially with young children. This article presents a two-phase qualitative
study of one-to-one booktalks between young students and prospective tea-
chers. The study sought to examine the discursive nature of such interactions
and scrutinize the implementation of responsive booktalk practices. Three
booktalk categories were identified: (a) recitation booktalks, or conversations
fitting the InitiationResponseEvaluation pattern; (b) true booktalks, or
lively, reciprocal conversations involving high student engagement and fairly
sophisticated literary thinking; and (c) awkward booktalks, or conversations
with a distinct 1-sided pull from the preservice teacher. Further examination
of the 3 categories yielded 4 conceptually significant subcategories: skill-
focused and moralistic within the recitation category and analytical and
experiential in the true category. Practice or Policy: The study findings suggest
that literacy courses should provide opportunities for reexamining established
beliefs regarding literary analysis, for studying authentic discussion strategies
and reflecting upon the discursive nature of booktalks, and for reconsidering
the objectives of booktalks.
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Dr. Xenia Hadjioannou,
Social Sciences and Education Division, Penn State UniversityLehigh Valley Campus, 2809
Saucon Valley Road, Center Valley, PA 18034-8447. E-mail: xuh12@psu.edu
EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 22(1), 5376
Copyright # 2011 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-9289 print=1556-6935 online
DOI: 10.1080/10409280903544389
53
Reading aloud to children is a highly recommended practice for homes and
classrooms, as it has been demonstrated to be closely tied to childrens
school success (Wells, 2000) and general literacy development (Galda &
Cullinan, 2003; Mendoza, 1985). Gambrell, Morrow, and Pennington
(2002) noted that the lynchpin of the pedagogical power of read-alouds is
the presence of high-quality conversations about the book being read in
which students engage in meaning construction through abstract, complex
thinking. Facilitating such interactions, particularly with young children,
is an admittedly challenging task, even for experienced teachers. Therefore,
instruction and activities on fostering high-quality booktalks are common
components of in-service and preservice literacy courses. In this article, we
present the findings of a two-phase study in which we scrutinized the discur-
sive nature of one-to-one booktalks between prospective teachers and young
children and examined how prospective teachers implement the literature
discussion practices taught in their coursework.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Reading aloud is a common and daily practice in early childhood settings
that brings children in contact with literature. Research vividly illustrates
that reading aloud helps raise a reader and enhances literacy development.
More specifically, reading aloud reportedly
1. promotes a love for reading and cultivates childrens preferences of spe-
cific genres (Bean, 2000; Galda & Cullinan, 2003);
2. enhances expressive language (Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Pinnell &
Jaggar, 2003) and helps children develop a sense of the differences
between spoken and book language (Hedrick & Pearish, 2003);
3. increases childrens vocabulary (Beck & McKeown, 2001; Elley, 1998;
Morrow, 2002);
4. enhances childrens skills in listening to, comprehending, and recalling
stories (Morrow & Gambrell, 2002; Morrow & Smith, 1990); and
5. advances concept development (Wasik & Bond, 2001).
Various experts in the field have noted that the conversations that
accompany read-alouds are crucially significant and have suggested essen-
tial considerations to contemplate when preparing a read-aloud event.
Thoughtful planning of what will take place before, during, and after read-
ing aloud is of primary importance. Text selection is an essential part of
planning. According to Teale (2003), the selection of quality literature with
engaging characters and plots, of books that allow space for discussion and
54 HADJIOANNOU AND LOIZOU
text analysis, and of books that relate to childrens interests and age is a
significant factor in the effectiveness of read-alouds.
While reading a book aloud, besides employing a lively, animated way of
reading with gesture and voice alterations, it is important to encourage chil-
dren to make predictions, to ask questions, and to discuss the important
ideas of the text. A number of researchers have reported that effective
booktalks include the use of open questions and encourage elaboration
and connection of ideas, thus providing children with the opportunity to dis-
cuss the major ideas of the story and allowing them time to reflect (Beck &
McKeown, 2001; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Morrow, 2002; Snow, 1993;
Teale & Martinez, 1996).
Interactive booktalks, which involve children verbally interacting with
the text, peers, and the teacher, are particularly valuable (Barrentine,
1996; Mason, Peterman, & Kerr, 1988; McGee & Schickedanz, 2007). Sipe
(2000) advocated for allowing space for of the moment and in the moment
responses during the reading of a story, noting that saving all responses to the
end may lead to far less discussion and lower level of literary understanding
for the children (p. 272, italic in original). To further facilitate interactivity,
Barrentine recommended that teachers identify beforehand places in the text
where they can have children make predictions, connect the story to their per-
sonal experiences or knowledge, and in general develop meaning-centered
interactions (p. 43). In addition, Dickinson and Tabors (2001) suggested that
teachers involve children in both answering questions that directly refer to the
text (immediate talk) and talking beyond the text by making connections with
personal experience (non-immediate talk). Moreover, having children retell or
dramatize the story can help language development and promote story com-
prehension (Cornell, Senechal, & Brodo, 1988).
Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) found that in classes in which the kinds of
open-ended, dialogic discussions recommended by the literature were com-
mon, the learning of students surpassed in both breadth and depth the learn-
ing of students in traditionally run classrooms. Similarly, Applebee (2002)
reported a positive association between academic achievement and literature
discussions in which students are invited to critically consider the texts they
are reading and in which diverse perspectives are used to deepen discussion
and enhance learning (p. 32). In such discussions, students have the opport-
unity to be active agents in their own learning as they construct new con-
ceptions and acquire new ways of thinking (Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner,
2001, p. 378). However, Chinn et al. noted that for this to be accomplished,
students must have the opportunity to express their ideas. Regrettably, they
reported, often literature conversations do not yield these desirable results
because teachers maintain a tight control over conversations, dictating their
thematic content and positioning themselves as expert readers whose
DISCURSIVE NATURE OF BOOKTALKS 55
interpretations of the text are de facto privileged (Smith & Connolly, 2005).
In this way, student thinking is stunted and student voices are silenced as
everyone is merely waiting for the teacher to provide the purportedly defini-
tive answer to the question at hand.
Informed by their own educational experiences, prospective teachers typi-
cally enter teacher education programs espousing traditional-humanistic
views of literature, according to which instruction primarily aims to students
identifying and retaining what the teacher believes to be important
information about the text and the authors (McDiarmid, 1995, p. 2).
McDiarmid reported that this view is often not eliminated even after preser-
vice teachers have adopted significant aspects of the reader response per-
spective. The close correlation between preservice and in-service teacher
beliefs and their classroom practice has been documented through various
studies (Hampton, 1994; Kagan & Smith, 1988; Lonberger, 1992; Shavelson
& Stern, 1981; Solomon, Battistich, & Horn, 1996; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000).
These findings suggest that the success of professional development aiming
to bring about the adoption of a particular methodological approach should
involve a conscious effort to shape teachers beliefs and preconceived
notions in ways that are compatible with the proposed reform (Guskey,
1986).
To help move prospective teachers to a response-oriented belief system,
Hoewisch (2000) proposed involving them in activities and other course con-
tent that expands their knowledge of childrens literature through opportu-
nities to select, read, and analyze a wide variety of literature and helps
them develop sound pedagogical approaches based on well-articulated
theoretical underpinnings. According to Hoewisch, the effectiveness of this
effort in many ways hinges on prospective teachers having the opportunity
to try out this new knowledge and experience success with it through field
experiences with young children. As Hoewisch noted, I would suggest that
providing prospective teachers with opportunities simply to read aloud to
children is one of the best sorts of field experience in a childrens literature
course.
As teacher educators, we made sure to expose the prospective teachers in
our courses to the reader response theory, we presented responsive literature
discussion strategies proposed by the relevant literature (as delineated
above), and we assigned assignments that got them to try out the recom-
mended practices through read-alouds with young children. However, we
consistently observed that although many of our students took to this model
with success, a significant number struggled. The research presented here was
launched in an attempt to better understand this disparity and the possible
patterns that originated it, and to draw implications for literacy methods
courses.
56 HADJIOANNOU AND LOIZOU
METHODS
This article presents the findings of a two-phase qualitative study of one-to-one
booktalks between young children and prospective teachers. Both phases of
the study shared the following research question: How did the prospective tea-
chers implement the literature discussion practices taught in their coursework?
In addition, the first phase of the research was guided by the following
questions:
1. What typology can be developed to describe the one-to-one booktalks
between prospective elementary teachers and first-grade students?
2. What are the characteristics of each category?
The second phase of the research, which was developed in an effort to
better understand the discursive nature of such booktalks and further hone
our category system, involved the following research question:
1. (a) Does the typology developed through the Phase I data also describe
the Phase II data? (b) If not, how are they different?
Participants
For the first phase of the study, participants included 89 sophomores majoring
in elementary education. At the time of their involvement in the study, all
participants were taking an early reading methods course at a European state
university. The first phase of the study also involved 89 first-grade students
(6- to 7-year-olds), each of whom was paired with one of the prospective tea-
cher participants for a one-to-one booktalk that took place in the home or
the school environment of the child. Prospective teachers used their personal
relationships with families and=or in-service teachers to identify the children
with whom they worked and acquired the necessary guardian consent prior
to the activity.
The participants for Phase II were 57 sophomores fromthe same university
who were majoring in early childhood education and who were enrolled in a
course on Forms of Language Expression. In this phase, the prospective
teacher participants worked with 57 kindergartners (4.85.8 years old) to
conduct one-to-one booktalks. Similar to Phase I, the booktalks took place
in quiet rooms in the childrens schools or homes.
Data Collection
In Phase I, as part of an assignment in the early reading methods
course in which they were registered, the prospective elementary teacher
DISCURSIVE NATURE OF BOOKTALKS 57
participants were to hold a booktalk with one first-grade student with a
picture storybook of their choice using reader responseoriented strate-
gies taught in their course. The strategies, which reflected the ones
described in the literature review, were based on Avery (2002),
Rosenblatt (1995), Temple, Martinez, Yokota, and Naylor (2001), and
Langer (1995). They were asked to audio-record the session or take
detailed field notes and to submit a written report on the event, utilizing
extensive conversation excerpts. The data for Phase I consisted of the
reports submitted by the prospective teachers.
In Phase II, the same project was assigned to a group of 57 prospective
early childhood teachers who, unlike their elementary education counter-
parts in Phase I, (a) were to work with a kindergartner; (b) had received
more thorough instruction on book selection and on booktalk strategies
during their Forms of Language Expression course; and (c) were to
audio-record the booktalk, transcribe the recording verbatim, and submit
the transcript along with their report. The change in the age of the child par-
ticipant in Phase II was dictated by the early childhood major of the second
group of prospective teacher participants. However, the other two changes
came in response to our reflections on Phase I data collection: The more
intense instruction was introduced in the hopes of improving the general
quality of the booktalks, whereas the addition of the verbatim transcripts
to the assignment sought to jog the reflexivity of the prospective teachers
but also to provide a clearer and more complete view of the booktalks for
data analysis purposes. The submitted reports and verbatim transcripts of
the booktalks made up the data for Phase II.
Data Analysis
During Phase I, the 89 reports were examined with the purpose of creating a
typology of booktalks with a focus on their discursive characteristics. Early
coding attended to a number of readily observable interaction aspects, such
as the types of questions asked by the prospective teacher, topic initiation,
the presence of evaluative comments, and the length of student utterances
(Applebee, 2002; Lindfors, 1999; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991). In addition,
we noted the use of booktalk strategies recommended in class (e.g., predic-
tions, picture walks, personal connections, literary interpretation, infer-
ences; as described by Avery, 2002; Langer, 1995; Rosenblatt, 1995;
Temple et al., 2001). A review of the coded reports indicated that certain
codes consistently co-occurred (see Table 1). For example, booktalks in
which evaluative comments were pervasive and referred to the correctness
of the childs responses tended to also include mostly closed-ended questions
and comparatively infrequent use of course-recommended strategies. The
58 HADJIOANNOU AND LOIZOU
observed patterns of code co-occurrence pointed to the presence of three
distinct booktalk categories in the data: true, recitation, and awkward book-
talks. In the case of reports exhibiting characteristics of more than one
booktalk category, we classified each report in the category whose features
were more prevalent.
In a subsequent stage of analysis, the reports grouped in each category
were reexamined with a focus on the behavior of the prospective teacher
and the participating child to tease out a more comprehensive description
of category characteristics. This analysis involved attention to the literary
quality of the books used (original plots, rich language, interesting topics,
exceptional illustrations; Temple et al., 2001), the discursive practices of
the adult and child participants (topic length, transition across topics, trans-
action with the text on an emotional and cognitive level, wondering, inter-
pretive engagement), and the child participants engagement level (length
of utterances, topic initiation, emotional connection with the text).
1
To verify the reliability of the category system, an interrater reliability
check was conducted. An independent expert who holds an Ed.D. in early
childhood education, and who is experienced in interaction analysis, was
1
For a focused analysis of the discursive characteristics of the three categories, see
Hadjioannou (2006).
TABLE 1
Booktalk Typology
Variable Recitation Booktalks True Booktalks
Awkward
Booktalks
Types of questions
asked
Mostly closed-ended Significant number of
open-ended
Significant
number of
open-ended
Use of
recommended
booktalk
strategies
Infrequent, emblematic Frequent, pervasive Frequent
Topic initiation Only preservice teacher Frequent initiations by
child
Only preservice
teacher
Presence of
evaluative
comments
Pervasive, referring to
correctness of child
responses
Present, often referring to
the quality of thinking
process
Present
Length of child
utterances
Short, in immediate
response to preceding
question
Long, often longer than
preservice teachers
Very short
DISCURSIVE NATURE OF BOOKTALKS 59
given a description of each of the categories identified, along with five
unmarked reports from the data (including reports exhibiting characteristics
of more than one category), and was asked to sort the reports into the three
booktalk categories. The raters sorting represented 100% agreement with
the that of researchers.
In Phase II, we had more multifaceted access to the booktalks examined,
as our data included not only the event reports constructed by the prospec-
tive early childhood teachers but also verbatim transcripts of the interac-
tions. The report and transcript bundles were repeatedly read, and
comments describing each one individually were noted using open coding.
In addition, each report was considered against the typology constructed
in Phase I to determine whether the Phase II data could also be effectively
sorted using the same categories. All reports were straightforwardly classi-
fied into the Phase I categories. However, an overview of the typology clas-
sifications in conjunction with the open coding revealed patterns that
indicated the presence of two subcategories in the recitation category
(skill-focused and moralistic) and two in the true category (analytical and
experiential).
RESULTS
The booktalks depicted in the reports we analyzed were classified into three
descriptive categories based on their discursive nature: (a) recitation
booktalks, which involved conversations fitting the InitiationResponse
Evaluation pattern described by Mehan (1979). These represented 41% of
the reports in Phase I and 39% in Phase II; (b) true booktalks, which
included lively, reciprocal conversations involving high student engagement
and fairly sophisticated literary thinking (48% of the reports in Phase I and
49% in Phase II); and (c) awkward booktalks, which described conversations
with a distinct one-sided pull from the preservice teacher (11% of reports in
Phase I and 12% in Phase II).
Recitation Booktalks
The reports classified in the recitation category involved conversations that
fit the traditional IRE=IRF pattern in which the teacher Initiates, the stu-
dent Responds, and the teacher Evaluates or provides some other form of
Feedback for the students response (Cazden, 2001; Mehan, 1979). In reci-
tation booktalks, the indisputable purpose moving the conversation forward
was one of ascertaining that the participating child got the book both in
terms of the basic plot line and what the prospective teacher thought were
60 HADJIOANNOU AND LOIZOU
the core messages of the story. In fact, this was often explicitly stated in the
reports as the prospective teachers purpose for the read-aloud.
Though many of the reports classified in the recitation category involved
books that had received high praise from recognized authorities on chil-
drens literature such as The Horn Book and Kirkus Book Reviews, the
category showcased the highest number of poorly reviewed books. A signifi-
cant number of those books were watered-down retellings of traditional
stories that used oversimplified language and unexceptional illustrations.
Some did not even note the names of the author or the illustrator.
Unabashed didacticism was also a conspicuously common characteristic
of books that fueled the booktalks in this category.
The prospective teachers who participated in the recitation booktalks
held dominant discursive roles in the interactions. They typically initiated
all conversation topics and often failed to acknowledge or pursue the stu-
dents rare attempts at topic initiation. The incorporation of student com-
ments into subsequent utterances, termed uptake by Cazden (2001), was
also rare: Follow-up questions were infrequent, and utterances seeking clari-
fication or elaboration were minimal, leading to rapid topic succession. As
befitting the IRE=IRF pattern, with only a few exceptions, the prospective
teachers utterances took the form of information-seeking interrogatives or
evaluative statements. Many of the questions were closed ended and referred
to straightforward plot elements presented in the written text or the illustra-
tions:
Prospective Teacher (PT): Lets look at the picture. What do you see?
Child (C): Shes in bed with her dog and I see the light . . .
PT: Right . . . and look at the clock on the table . . . What
does it say?
Also frequent were questions that demanded the student to make infer-
ences and conjectures. What is interesting, however, is that in recitation
booktalks, rarely were those questions truly open ended. Rather, the evalua-
tive comments that invariably followed student responses clearly communi-
cated the existence of a preferred answer. A correct answer received
immediate praise (Good job, Thats right), whereas responses deemed
to be incorrect or incomplete were followed up by proddings to reconsider
the issue (Is that paint? What is on here? Do you think that its paint?)
or by utterances strongly hinting at the desired answer (Could be . . . or. . .
hmmm. . . maybe they are wondering how they will take their bath without
the water in their bird bath?). Leading questions, as in this last example,
were a particularly common kind of prospective teacher utterance, especially
when the child appeared to not be getting a particular point.
DISCURSIVE NATURE OF BOOKTALKS 61
The apparent objectives of ascertaining basic plot and core message com-
prehension led to the exclusion of many of the de facto exploratory and
open-ended course-recommended strategies, such as the encouragement of
personal connections, aesthetic responses, and alternative endings. Yet sev-
eral of the recommended strategies did find their way into recitation book-
talks. However, they appeared to serve only perfunctory functions or were
adapted to fit the prospective teachers objectives for the booktalk. So,
for example, though picture walks and questions about What was your
favorite part? were frequently used, they occupied minimal space in the
reports, suggesting that perhaps the prospective teachers used the strategies
for the course instructors benefit and not necessarily because they saw any
value in them. At the same time, questions regarding character situations,
feelings, and motives, though commonly present, were morphed into ques-
tions with predetermined correct responses.
Given the very dominant discursive roles the prospective teachers
adopted in recitation booktalks, the child participants were relegated to a
mostly reactive role. Their utterances were typically short, and they
attempted to directly answer the immediately preceding question, rarely
expanding their comments beyond what was necessitated by the question:
PT: Do doctors work on teeth?
C: Uh huh [Yes].
PT: Or do dentists work on teeth?
C: Dentists.
PT: What do doctors work on?
C: Um, I dont know.
The childrens level of engagement ranged from mild lack of interest to an
earnest effort to do well in the task. Even in the latter case, however, rarely
did the children appear to be genuinely interested in the book and its char-
acters. Rather, they seemed to primarily focus on trying to please the pro-
spective teacher and provide correct answers to the questions asked of
them. Unsurprisingly, this sometimes led to palpable frustration when it
was apparent that the responses they provided were not what the prospec-
tive teacher was looking for.
In general, the overall character of the recitation booktalks was one of a
rapid-fire oral test. As the prospective teachers who held these kind of book-
talks often stated in their reports, their purpose was to help the child
understand the message of the book and to make sure that the child com-
prehended the book. Consequently, they pushed toward ascertaining
surface-level comprehension, sought predetermined answers to the perceived
message content of the book, and declared the booktalk successful when
62 HADJIOANNOU AND LOIZOU
those answers were procured. Exploration and multiple interpretations were
irrelevant to such an exercise and were therefore not purposefully initiated
or pursued when they happened to crop up. Topics were raised and dropped
in rapid succession, and follow-up questions asking for clarifications were
rare, giving the conversation a disjointed feel: Once the desired response
was provided, there was no reason to dwell on the matter.
Through the analysis of Phase II data, we identified two distinct subca-
tegories to this class of booktalks, skill-focused and moralistic, which
involved similar practices but had palpably different end goals.
The skill-focused subcategory was created to describe the recitation
booktalks that were characterized by overt skills-teaching intentions. In
these reports, the prospective teachers seemed to misunderstand the nature
of booktalks and approached the book reading mostly as a tool for
teaching specific skills rather than a text to be felt, appreciated, and under-
stood. These sessions had an explicit literacy, language, or other skill-
development focus and felt more like lesson plan enactments than book-
talks. The pursuit of skills acquisition objectives was typically realized
through the use of specific instructional activities that were often sup-
ported by the employment of materials beyond the book (e.g., flashcards
with pictures or written words). Many of those activities were related to
rhyming, drawing, matching, and phonemic awareness. For the most part,
the children appeared to enjoy the games and followed the flow of the
activity, sometimes successfully answering and other times just guessing
the answers since they did not always have the kind of background knowl-
edge required by the activity.
PT: Would you like to play a game?
C: Yes!
PT: I will be telling you something from the story and you will finish the sen-
tence. Whatever you remember . . .
C: OK.
PT: Well . . . While Salomi was returning from school to her house she threw
this on the street [pause, waiting for the child to offer word banana].
C: She was eating a banana and she threw it on the street.
PT: Right. And when she went to her house . . .
The other subcategory of the recitation booktalks was moralistic book-
talks. In these, the booktalk seemed to be designed as a vehicle for getting
the child to understand the message of the story. To this end, throughout
the interaction, the prospective teachers used questions or statements to
guide the child toward a final conclusive comment regarding the moral of
the story (e.g., Did you understand that it was not right that the ants
DISCURSIVE NATURE OF BOOKTALKS 63
shunned Mimi because he had big feet?). As in this example, in moralistic
booktalks, the prospective teachers often used highly leading questions as
tools for guiding the children to the desired response.
True Booktalks
The category of true booktalks involved interactions that were in many
ways reminiscent of the kinds of conversations groups of adult readers have
when talking about a book: All participants work together in thinking and
trying to make sense of the book through explorations, wonderings, connec-
tions, and affective responses.
Many of the books used in the booktalks in this category had been given
high praise by widely recognized reviewing forums (The Horn Book, Kirkus
Book Reviews). Although there also were a number of cases involving less
favorably reviewed books, the one common feature characterizing all of
the texts used in true booktalks was that they were apparently enjoyed by
both the prospective teacher and the participating child.
Though the prospective teachers invariably maintained a more dominant
position in relation to the child by engaging in a higher number of discursive
acts of imposition (initiating topics, requesting information, etc.; Lindfors,
1999), in contrast to the recitation booktalks these kinds of discursive moves
were not the exclusive prerogative of the prospective teachers. Rather, the
children also engaged in similar acts. In addition, though the prospective
teachers also asked closed-ended questions seeking to ascertain that the
child had a basic understanding of the story, true booktalks were character-
ized by the frequent use of open-ended questions that invited the children to
engage in abstract, complex thinking through making inferences, expressing
opinions, making personal and intertextual connections, and so on. The
topics initiated through such invitations were often further pursued by
follow-up questions that invited the children to elaborate on their initial
response (Why do you think that? Any special reason why you like
them?). In general, contrary to the recitation booktalks, in true booktalks,
the prospective teachers communicated interest in what the child was think-
ing about the book and, through the use of uptake, showed an openness to
listening and appreciating comments and interpretations:
PT: Look at the tissues on the floor.
C: He did this!
PT: And why do you think he is doing that?
C: Because he doesnt want any help.
PT: He doesnt want any help to take his medicine.
C: Uh huh! Or his water! He is putting up his hand to say go away.
64 HADJIOANNOU AND LOIZOU
Though on occasion the prospective teachers in true booktalks did use
evaluative comments in response to childrens statements, most of those
comments could be characterized as high-level evaluation (Nystrand, Wu,
Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long, 2001), as they referred to the quality of the think-
ing rather than to the perceived correctness of the statement (That is a
great point! Yeah, that makes sense). This stance appeared to communi-
cate a sense of openness to multiple interpretations and an attitude of valu-
ing the thinking process and the childs literary insight and aesthetic
judgment (Rosenblatt, 1995).
Beyond questions and evaluative statements, in true booktalks the pro-
spective teachers frequently communicated their own responses and think-
ing about the book. These statements, however, did not seem to carry the
forbidding flavor of higher authority that prospective teachers interpretive
comments had in recitation booktalks. Rather, they appeared to be charac-
terized by tentativeness and were presented as the comments of an interested
reader who, much like the child, had things to say about the book. In this
case, rather than shutting the conversation down, the comments often
became part of a longer exchange:
PT: . . . And look at all the stuff she has stacked on top of her . . . shes even
got a pie up there!
C: Maybe she wants to eat it for lunch.
PT: Yeah. Maybe thats her lunch!
C: Maybe shell eat it WITH her lunch.
In general, the prospective teachers who led true booktalks showed
notable commitment to putting into practice a significant number of the
strategies recommended in their coursework. The prospective teachers used
both strategies related to basic plot comprehension and content analysis
(predictions, explanation of events, exploration of character motives) as well
as strategies through which the text was connected to the reader (emotions,
personal experience, aesthetic commentary), the world (Have you seen
people act this way?), and other texts (intertextual connections). Though
some of these strategies were also used in recitation booktalks, they tended
to exist in higher concentrations in true booktalks. In addition, the prospec-
tive teachers who led true booktalks preserved the open-endedness and the
exploratory spirit of many of the strategies and did not subjugate them to
the preferred-answer sensibilities of recitation booktalks.
As suggested above, the roles of the students participating in true book-
talks were substantially more complex than in the recitation category:
Beyond responding to closed-ended questions, students often initiated con-
versation topics, provided lengthy explanations for interpretive comments,
DISCURSIVE NATURE OF BOOKTALKS 65
and made both solicited and spontaneous connections to personal experi-
ences and other texts. These more complex roles were realized through
longer student utterances, which in some cases rivaled the utterance length
of the prospective teacher:
PT: Do you ever use your imagination and pretend your room turned into
something else like [the main character] did?
C: No. . . not my room. Sometimes we pretend the basement is other places.
PT: What type of places?
C: Um. . . Maybe like the grocery store or a school. I like to be the mom or
sometimes Ariel [The Little Mermaid]. I like to pretend about things.
Some of the true booktalks in Phase II were characterized by an analyti-
cal focus, principally pursuing what Sipe (2000) termed a within texts
stance. In such sessions, the text remained at the center of the conversation
throughout the booktalk and the prospective teachers used questions to
analyze the whole story (full analysis) or just the main idea (partial analysis).
PT: Which picture did you like most from the story?
C: The picture where he was peeling potatoes.
PT: Why do you like this specific picture?
C: Because I like funny pictures and the colors.
PT: What do you think makes the picture funny?
Experiential booktalks were another subcategory identified within true
booktalks. In contrast to analytical booktalks with their within the text
stance, here the focus of the interaction was moved outside of the text, with
the prospective teacher using the main idea of the story as a springboard for
discussing other issues and encouraging the child to make personal connec-
tions and express inner worries and feelings.
PT: Elisavet, now that we have finished reading the book, would you like to
tell me what you liked most in the story?
C: The little baby.
PT: That means you like babies?
C: Yes, I like them. Before, last week we went to the clinic to see my aunt
Skevi, who gave birth to a little girl and I wanted to bring her home with
us. But I was told that we couldnt because she had to be with her mom.
PT: Yes, little babies need to be with their mom to take care of them and give
them milk.
C: Yes, but I wanted to bring it home with us.
PT: I know. . . but you will soon have your own sibling, right?
C: Yes.
PT: Are you happy about that?
66 HADJIOANNOU AND LOIZOU
C: Yes.
PT: So you will be like Danae, in the book we read? You will be the older
sister and will take care of your sibling and help your mother?
C: Yes, but my sibling will be a girl. Danaes sibling was a boy.
Unlike the disjointed feel of recitation booktalks, true booktalks were
substantially more cohesive, as interaction topics were pursued through a
number of consecutive conversation turns. Participants in these interactions
did not rush from topic to topic but instead often took the time to explore
issues in depth, offering a variety of relevant ideas. Adding to the sense of
cohesiveness was the fact that, often, the successive topics were somewhat
related to each other, thus avoiding the jarring leaps observed in recitations.
Awkward Booktalks
The final booktalk category identified was primarily characterized by a gen-
eralized sense of discursive discomfort. The weight of the interactions in this
category fell squarely on the shoulders of the prospective teacher, who
invariably worked hard trying to engage the child with the book and the
conversation. Through this effort, the prospective teachers often attempted
to employ the kind of reader responseoriented strategies recommended in
their course. However, the conversation remained largely one sided, as the
participating children gave short responses that hinted at negative emotions:
Some children appeared to be simply bored, whereas others seemed to be
frustrated or confused. Very common were one-word answers, silences,
and responses of I dont know:
PT: Did you learn anything?
C: Yeah.
PT: Can you tell me one thing you learned?
C: I forgot.
PT: Well, what happens when you pass a law?
C: You get in trouble.
PT: [chuckling] No sweetheart, thats when you break the law. Did you learn
anything about the sites of [the capital]?
C: [No response]
Examination of the reports in this category suggested that in many of the
awkward booktalks, the discomfort was generated at least in part by the
awkward questioning techniques of the prospective teachers, who asked
complex, multi-pronged questions that seemed to confuse the students:
Can you remember if you were shy when you went to school and why?
DISCURSIVE NATURE OF BOOKTALKS 67
or Do you think the book will talk about the scarecrows friends, and do
you think they will like him? Also, we observed that in the awkward book-
talks, the prospective teachers often directly dove into challenging issues
that required between-the-lines reading without first ascertaining basic com-
prehension. For example, the very first question a couple of prospective tea-
chers asked right after reading a book was What was the message of this
story?, whereas another prospective teacher went with Who was the main
character in the story and why do you think so?
Another frequently encountered issue in many awkward booktalks was
the use of a book that was of little or no interest to the child or one that
was particularly long and=or complicated. The most common culprits in
such cases were information-heavy books thinly veiled as narratives (e.g.,
books on physical phenomena or civic processes) and books that demanded
continuous intertextual connections (e.g., re-imaginations of traditional
tales with significant use of postmodern elements). This led to fatigue and
loss of focus and often triggered frustration, which sometimes resulted in
children asking Are we done? or Can I go play now?
Comparison Between the Two Phases of Study
A comparison of the findings between the two study phases indicated that the
reports analyzed in Phase II comfortably fit the three categories identified in
the first phase of the study. In addition, the category percentages across the
two phases were quite similar. Notably, however, compared to the data from
Phase I, Phase II booktalks displayed an appreciably higher commitment on
behalf of the prospective teachers to selecting higher quality books and using
the book discussion strategies recommended in their course.
Cover-based predictions and picture walks prior to reading a book, which
are strategies commonly recommended as effective discussion starters and
interest activators (Avery, 2002), were very frequently used by the prospec-
tive teachers in Phase II to introduce books to children. Another strategy fre-
quently used by the prospective teachers was one that encouraged
predictions, comprehension checks, and plot analysis during reading. While
reading the book there were instances when the prospective teacher or the
child stopped the process in order to comment or pose a question. When
the teacher stopped the reading, he or she would ask whether the child under-
stood the meaning of a word (Do you know what hibernation means?),
have the child think of other solutions to a problem (So what do you think?
What do all of these things have in common?), or even have the child predict
the continuation of the story (What do you think will happen to the frog?).
When it was the children who stopped the process of reading the
story, they typically asked the prospective teacher to explain confusing story
68 HADJIOANNOU AND LOIZOU
situations (Now that he put his pajamas on, did they get torn? Didnt his
spines come out?), to elucidate the meaning of specific words (What does
it mean, he was wandering?), or to offer a response to the story or to an
illustration (Look at the long snake!).
After-reading conversations often involved comprehension checking, dis-
cussion of illustrations, character comparisons, as well as numerous opportu-
nities for connections to the childrens point of viewand personal experiences:
PT: Did you like the story?
C: Yes.
PT: What did you like most? Why?
C: That the wolf was good. That he did not eat the goats, the red-riding
hood, the three pigs and, most of all, that he ate the giant. I liked it
because it is weird to see a wolf to be good and not to eat the others
but feel sorry for them.
PT: Which picture did you like?
C: I liked the one that the whole family is gathered together.
In general, after reading, the prospective teachers in Phase II used closed-
and open-ended questions to elicit responses about the story content, the
childs preference of events, and the childs connection of those events to
his or her own experiences. The aim was to have the children express their
understanding of the story by retelling it and responding to it in different
ways.
It is interesting that the greater presence of strategies recommended by
the literature as appropriate for read-alouds did not necessarily lead to true
booktalks sessions. Rather, the percentage of true booktalk sessions was
similar across the two phases: 48% in Phase I and 49% in Phase II. Also,
we noted that, despite our hope that producing verbatim transcripts of
the interactions would help the prospective teachers who had produced reci-
tation booktalks grasp that their booktalks did not quite match what was
described in their coursework, no such pattern was found in the data.
DISCUSSION
The value of reading aloud to children has been well documented. However,
as Reutzel (2001) and Galda, Ash, and Cullinan (2001) noted, recent
research suggests that simply reading to children is not adequate for gener-
ating the multiple positive outcomes discussed in the literature review.
Rather, the interactions that develop around read-alouds are significant
determinants of the read-alouds capacity to support students literacy
development. Therefore, literacy courses in teacher preparation programs
DISCURSIVE NATURE OF BOOKTALKS 69
often involve content and activities that aim to coach prospective teachers in
conducting effective booktalks. Typically, this entails the presentation of
booktalk strategies and the involvement of prospective teachers in practice
activities (Hoewisch, 2000).
However, as shown by this study, the discursive nature of booktalks pro-
duced through such course practices can range drastically: the recitation
booktalks were teacher-controlled, fast-paced, test-like interactions seeking
predetermined answers to questions; the awkward booktalks were charac-
terized by a distinct one-sided pull by the preservice teacher and had a
forced feel; whereas the true booktalks were cohesive, exuded a shared sense
of ownership, and involved a lot of tentative, exploratory talk.
Are all three types of booktalks identified in this study of equal pedagogi-
cal potential? We would argue that they are not. Research evidence ascribes
higher value to dialogic literature discussions (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991)
in which students have opportunities to express their ideas (Chinn et al.,
2001) and to consider diverse perspectives (Applebee, 2002). Recitation
booktalks allow no discursive space for idea expression or consideration
of diverse perspectives, and though awkward booktalks often encompass
invitations for such pursuits, these invitations are very rarely taken up.
The only category that seems to fit the effective booktalk profile as
described in the literature is the one of true booktalks. Therefore, a vital
question for teacher educators is how to effectively prepare prospective tea-
chers to consistently aim for and facilitate the development of true book-
talks in their practice.
A significant starting point for such an endeavor seems to be the issue of
teacher beliefs. Teacher beliefs can influence teachers decisions and class-
room practice. Specifically in reference to reading, preservice and in-service
teachers are affected by their personal belief systems and frame their prac-
tice according to those systems (Hoewisch, 2000). Though an explicit exam-
ination of the beliefs, attitudes, and expectations of our prospective teacher
participants toward the objectives and the processes of read-alouds was not
within the scope of this research, it seems that they did play a role in the
development of the booktalks we studied. Our findings indicate that, for
the most part, the prospective teachers involved in recitation booktalks were
not dissatisfied with how their booktalks turned out. Rather, in their reflec-
tive comments, they typically declared the booktalk a success if the children
provided mostly correct responses to their questions, thus proving that
they got the book. Given this, a change of practice to true booktalks is
unlikely as long as the prospective teachers understanding of the objectives
of booktalks and the nature of appropriate responses remains rooted in
traditional-humanistic views of literature. It seems then that explicit
dialogue about teacher beliefs, considerations of contrasting theoretical
70 HADJIOANNOU AND LOIZOU
viewpoints of literary analysis, and discussions of how those viewpoints are
connected to instructional practices may be valuable in providing prospec-
tive teachers with the space and time to reconceptualize literature discus-
sions and orient themselves to the most appropriate practice, if needed.
Phase II preservice teacher participants came from an early childhood
background, where approaches to literacy tend to be less skills driven and
where read-alouds are considerably more common. Also, they received more
explicit instruction on responsive read-alouds and on book selection. How-
ever, our findings showed that though early childhood teachers tended to
select books of higher quality and to use more of the strategies recom-
mended in their course than their elementary education counterparts, the
occurrence of recitation booktalks remained high. These results suggest that
in addition to traditional-humanistic perceptions of literature, prospective
teachers beliefs were also brought to bear through preconceived perceptions
regarding the proper content of work with literary text. We suspect that
many of the prospective teachers participating in this study struggled with
the notion of responsive booktalks because they had trouble reconciling
them with their understanding of what counts as valid, useful knowledge
and skills to be gained from working with literature. Chatting about
the book without preordained knowledge and morals to be taught or with-
out skills to be drilled probably seemed like more or less a waste of time.
This, we believe, was closely connected to the high percentage of recitation
booktalks and precipitated the development of the moralistic and
skill-focused subcategories. To help move teachers away from recitation
booktalks, it may be valuable for literacy courses to invite participants to
consider the objectives of read-alouds and the booktalks that accompany
them. The pursuit of decoding and phonemic awareness objectives may be
valuable, but are read-alouds, and particularly one-to-one read-alouds, an
appropriate venue for them? Is a single-minded focus on the moral of
the story a desirable practice for a read-aloud? Or, alternatively, is there
space for pursuing various types of objectives through various readings of
the same text?
Another element that seemed to be related to both the prospective tea-
chers beliefs about literature and the nature of the booktalks produced
was book selection. Though poorly reviewed books were present across
all booktalk categories, their frequency was considerably higher in recitation
booktalks. Possibly because of their singular focus on the moral of stories
and their treatment of books as tools for skills instruction, the prospective
teachers who led recitation booktalks were often compelled to select certain
kinds of books, and not books recognized for their literary quality. After all,
different quality criteria can lead to very different perceptions of what is
excellent. On the counterbalance, the very fact that a booktalk was based
DISCURSIVE NATURE OF BOOKTALKS 71
on a low-quality text may have significantly dampened the potential for an
interactive conversation involving advanced literary thinking.
Probably the most unexpected finding of this study is the fact that the
usage of recommended strategies was not an accurate predictor of the type
of booktalk produced. As was particularly evident in the Phase II data, in
which we had access to the transcripts of the entire booktalks, merely using
such strategies did not necessarily lead to a true booktalk. Admittedly, true
booktalks exhibited a higher density in recommended strategy use as well as
a higher fidelity in the implementation of such strategies. However,
course-recommended strategies were featured across all three of the cate-
gories. What did appear to make a signifying difference was the prospective
teachers openness to the possibility of multiple appropriate responses, the
tentativeness with which they presented their statements, and their incli-
nation to listen to the children and to invite them to clarify or elaborate
upon their interpretive comments and the connections they brought to the
conversations. This had a defining role in a true booktalks cohesiveness
and produced a tenor of joined engagement in contrast to the practically
adversarial, test-giving tone of recitation booktalks in which, as noted in
the Results, even seemingly open-ended questions had a decisively
closed-ended function. Therefore, it may be important for literacy courses
to provide opportunities for teachers to experience, practice, and reflect
upon the discursive nature of the various booktalk categories and to exam-
ine not only booktalk strategies but also the issue of authentic discussion
strategies. Such strategies may include the use of uptake techniques, the invi-
tation and exploration of student-initiated topics, the distinction between
honestly open-ended questions and closed-ended questions masquerading
as open ended, and the close observation (through both childrens verbal
behavior and their nonverbal cues) and pursuit of student interest
(Hadjioannou, 2007).
STUDY LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH
In this study, we employed a two-phase design to examine the texture of talk
in one-to-one booktalks between prospective teachers and young children.
The relative discursive simplicity of two-person interactions as compared
to interactions with multiple participants facilitated the processes of analy-
sis, categorization, and description and allowed us to confidently make
statements as to the discursive role of each interlocutor within the booktalks
we analyzed. However, the educational reality is that most classroom-based
read-alouds occur in whole-class or small-group configurations. Aconstructive
72 HADJIOANNOU AND LOIZOU
follow-up study would be toexamine the validity of the category systemyielded
by this research in the context of various group sizes.
Another limitation is that, although the prospective participants in Phase
II submitted both verbatim transcripts of their booktalk and a reflective
report, the Phase I participants only provided reports. Consequently, in
Phase I, analysis had to be based only on the prospective teachers interpre-
tations of what had taken place during the booktalks and on the portions of
the booktalk they chose to discuss in their reports. Given this limitation, it
was not possible to retroactively investigate in the first set of data the appli-
cability of the subcategories identified in Phase II.
In addition, we need to note as a limitation an analytical decision we
made while sorting booktalks into the categories we identified in this study:
When categorizing booktalks that exhibited characteristics of more than one
category, we classified them in the category that they most closely matched.
Though we thought the presence of hybrid forms intriguing, we found that
in most cases the characteristics of one category tended to outshine the char-
acteristics of the secondary category in significant ways. This was evidenced
by the 100% agreement with the external rater, even when considering
hybrid booktalks. A thorough scrutiny of the presence of hybrid forms
and the potential connections of this presence to the prospective teachers
evolving beliefs and practices would necessitate research processes such as
a discourse analytical examination of booktalks as well as a data-based con-
sideration of the prospective teachers beliefs. Both of these are exciting
research directions that can be pursued in a future study.
CONCLUSION
In this study, we examined one-to-one booktalks between young students
and prospective teachers to better understand the texture of talk in such
conversations. Our findings suggest that though the literary merit of the
books read and the discussion topics initiated are significant in setting up
a promising background for effective read-alouds, one must also look at
how the interactions themselves are realized. Out of the three categories that
emerged from our data, only the true booktalks appear to match the
descriptions of effective literary discussions depicted in the literature. Early
childhood pedagogy suggests an open-ended, flexible framework in which
playful and structured activities are used to enhance childrens learning
and development. Within this framework, teachers of early childhood
should use strategies that allow for freedom of exploration and that are
not single-mindedly fixated on skills instruction and content-specific activi-
ties. True booktalks, as described here, vividly illustrate a purposeful but
DISCURSIVE NATURE OF BOOKTALKS 73
free-flowing social interaction between teacher and child fitting this culture,
a practice that can be beneficial in classrooms at all grade levels.
REFERENCES
Applebee, A. (2002). Engaging students in the disciplines of English: What are effective schools
doing? English Journal, 91(6), 3036.
Avery, C. (2002). . . .and with a light touch: Learning about reading, writing, and teaching with
first graders. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Barrentine, S. J. (1996). Engaging with reading through interactive read-alouds. The Reading
Teacher, 50, 3643.
Bean, T. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social constructivist dimensions. In M. L. Kamil,
P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2,
pp. 629644). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud experiences
for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 1020.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Chinn, C., Anderson, R., & Waggoner, M. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of litera-
ture discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378411.
Cornell, E., Senechal, M., & Brodo, L. S. (1988). Recall of picture books by 3-year-old children:
Testing and repetition effects in joint reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology,
80, 537542.
Dickinson, D., & Smith, N. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers book readings on
low-income childrens vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly,
13, 295318.
Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning literacy with language. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Elley, W. (1998). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly,
24, 176186.
Galda, L., Ash, G. E., & Cullinan, B. E. (2001). Research on childrens literature. Reading
Online, 4(9). Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.
asp?HREF=handbook/index.html
Galda, L., & Cullinan, B. (2003). Literature for literacy: What research says about the benefits
of using tradebooks in the classroom. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 640480). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Gambrell, L., Morrow, L., & Pennington, C. (2002). Early childhood and elementary
literature-based instruction: Current perspectives and special issues. Reading Online, 5(6).
Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/gambrell/index.html
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational
Researcher, 15(5), 512.
Hadjioannou, X. (2006). Talking about books with first-grade students. International Journal
of Experimental Research in Education (Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis), 43(1),
115133.
Hadjioannou, X. (2007). Bringing the background to the foreground: What do classroom envir-
onments that support authentic discussions look like? American Educational Research
Journal, 44, 370399.
74 HADJIOANNOU AND LOIZOU
Hampton, S. (1994). Teacher change: Overthrowing the myth of one teacher, one classroom. In
T. Shanahan (Ed.), Teachers thinking, teachers knowing (pp. 122140). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Hargrave, A., & Senechal, 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, 7580.
Hedrick, W., & Pearish, A. (2003). Good reading instruction is more important than who pro-
vides the instruction or where it takes place. In P. A. Mason, & J. S. Schumm (Eds.),
Promising practices for urban instruction (pp. 624). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Hoewisch, A. (2000). Childrens literature in teacher-preparation programs. Reading Online.
Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/past/past_index.asp?HREF..=critical=
hoewisch=index.html
Kagan, D. M., & Smith, K. E. (1988). Beliefs and behaviors of kindergarten teachers. Edu-
cational Researcher, 30(1), 2635.
Langer, J. (1995). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lindfors, J. (1999). Childrens inquiry: Using language to make sense of the world. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Lonberger, R. B. (1992). The belief systems and instructional choices of preservice teachers. In
N. D. Padak, T. V. Rasinksi, & J. Logan (Eds.), Literacy research and practice, foundations
for the year 2000 (pp. 7178). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association.
Mason, J., Peterman, C., & Kerr, B. (1988). Reading to kindergarten children. In D. S.
Strickland, & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Emerging literacy: Young children learn to read and
write (pp. 5262). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
McDiarmid, G. (1995). Studying prospective teachers views of literature and teaching literature
(Publication No. NCRTL-RR-95-3). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on
Teacher Learning.
McGee, L., & Schickedanz, J. (2007). Repeated interactive read-alouds in preschool and kinder-
garten: The repeated interactive read-aloud technique is a research-based approach to
comprehension and vocabulary development in preschool and kindergarten. The Reading
Teacher, 60, 742752.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Mendoza, A. (1985). Reading to children: Their preferences. The Reading Teacher, 38,
522527.
Morrow, L. (2002). The impact of a literature-based program on literacy achievement use of
literature, and attitudes of children from minority backgrounds. Reading Research Quar-
terly, 27, 250275.
Morrow, L., & Gambrell, L. (2002). Literature based instruction in the early years. In S. B.
Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 348360).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Morrow, L., & Smith, J. (1990). The effects of group size on interactive storybook reading.
Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 213231.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and litera-
ture achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261290.
Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. (2001). Questions in time: Inves-
tigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse (CELA Research
Report No. CELA-RR-14005). Albany, NY: National Research Center on English
Learning and Achievement.
DISCURSIVE NATURE OF BOOKTALKS 75
Pinnell, G., & Jaggar, A. (2003). Oral language: Speaking and listening in elementary class-
rooms. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teach-
ing the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 881913). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reutzel, R. (2001). New thinking on read alouds. Instructor, 110(8), 2324.
Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration. New York, NY: Modern Language Associ-
ation of America.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers pedagogical thoughts, judgements,
decisions, and behaviour. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455498.
Sipe, L. (2000). The construction of literary understanding by first and second graders in oral
response to picture storybook readalouds. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 252275.
Smith, M., & Connolly, W. (2005). The effects of interpretive authority on classroom discus-
sions of poetry: Lessons from one teacher. Communication Education, 54(4), 271288.
Snow, C. (1993). Families as social contexts for literacy development. In C. Daiute (Ed.), The
development of literacy through social interaction (No. 61, pp. 1124). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., & Horn, A. (1996). Teacher beliefs and practices in schools serving
communities that differ in socioeconomic level. Journal of Experimental Education, 64,
327347.
Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers experiences, beliefs,
and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 113121.
Teale, W. (2003). Reading aloud to young children as a classroom instructional activity: Insight
from research and practice. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading
books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 114139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Teale, W., & Martinez, M. (1996). Reading aloud to young children: Teachers reading styles
and kindergarteners text comprehension. In C. Pontecorvo, M. Orsolini, B. Burge, &
L. Resnick (Eds.), Childrens early text construction (pp. 321344). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Temple, C., Martinez, M., Yokota, M., & Naylor, A. (2001). Childrens books in childrens
hands: An introduction to their literature. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Wasik, B., & Bond, M. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and
language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
243250.
Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. Lee,
& P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research (pp. 5185). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
76 HADJIOANNOU AND LOIZOU
Copyright of Early Education & Development is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.