Developmental Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association

2005, Vol. 41, No. 3, 464 – 478 0012-1649/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.3.464

Narrative Development in Bilingual Kindergarteners: Can Arthur Help?

Yuuko Uchikoshi
Harvard University

This study examined the effects of the children’s TV program Arthur on the development of narrative
skills over an academic year for Spanish-speaking English-language learners. In October, February, and
June of their kindergarten year, children were asked to tell a story, in English, prompted by 3 pictures.
Before the 2nd and 3rd assessments, half of the 108 children were randomly assigned to view Arthur 3
times a week during school hours, and the other half, which formed the control group, viewed the
children’s program Between the Lions on the same schedule. Individual growth modeling analysis
showed that children who viewed Arthur had steeper growth trajectories than those who viewed Between
the Lions. Boys displayed better English narrative skills than girls but no difference in narrative growth
rate. The results suggest that certain educational TV programs can assist in some aspects of the language
development of bilingual children.

Keywords: narrative development, educational television, English language learners, kindergarten,

growth modeling

The number of children who have limited proficiency in English
in U.S. schools has risen dramatically over the past 2 decades.
Moreover, 53% of these children are concentrated in kindergarten
through Grade 4; nationally, at least 1 in 12 kindergarteners comes
from a home in which English is not the primary language (August
& Hakuta, 1997). In addition, 77% of the English-language learner
(ELL) children in the United States have Spanish as their first
language (Office of English Language Acquisition, Language En-
hancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Pro-
ficient Students, n.d.). Despite a dramatic increase in the number
of young children learning English as a second language, there has
been little systematic research on the development of their English
narrative skills.
Narrative skills have been pointed out as being strong predictors
of later language and literacy achievement for monolingual En-
glish children (e.g., Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Griffin, Hemphill,
Camp, & Wolf, 2004; Paul & Smith, 1993). Griffin et al. (2004)
showed that children’s oral narrative abilities at age 5 predicted
reading comprehension skills at age 8. In particular, 5-year-olds’
Yuuko Uchikoshi, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University.
This research was supported by dissertation grants from the Interna-
tional Reading Association and the Harvard University Graduate School of
Education.
I am thankful to Catherine Snow, Terry Tivnan, Maria Carlo, and Lowry
Hemphill for their valuable comments on previous versions of this article.
I also thank Carlo Santos, Frida Gomez, Kim Keith, Elisa Jazo, Kaytie
Dowcett, Jill Jacobs, Jody Clarke, Jude Higdon, Patti Sullivan-Hall, Sara
Roberts, Robyn Viloria, and Elizabeth Willmott for their assistance with
data collection and Elisabeth Duursma for her assistance with coding
reliability. In addition, I am grateful to television station WGBH as well as
the principals, teachers, staff, and children of the schools for their support
and participation in this study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yuuko
Uchikoshi, who is now at the School of Education, University of Califor-
nia, Davis, 2059 Academic Surge, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: yuchikoshi@
ucdavis.edu
464
ability to mark the significance of events and their ability to
represent informational context in expository discourse predicted
8-year-olds’ reading comprehension skills. Dickinson and Tabors
(2001) found kindergarten narrative production scores to be cor-
related with fourth- and seventh-grade receptive vocabulary as
well as reading comprehension. In addition, Mason, Stewart, Pe-
terman, and Dunning’s (1992) study showed that at-risk children
without narrative problems do much better on later reading
achievement than do children with narrative delays.
Given that narratives have been identified as the critical link to
later school success (Paul & Smith, 1993), narratives are often
demonstrated in classroom situations such as show-and-tell, even
by kindergarteners and first graders. Yet, although children from
mainstream backgrounds enter school familiar with the type of
narrative structure that is valued in schools (Heath, 1982), children
from other backgrounds, such as ELL children, do not. Research
shows that narrative skills are associated with cultural background
and ethnic-group membership (Dart, 1992; Heath, 1982, 1986;
Minami & McCabe, 1991; Ninio, 1980; Shiro, 1995; Silva &
McCabe, 1996; Tannen, 1980; Wang & Leichtman, 2000). For
example, Latino children tend not to follow a linear model when
telling narratives (Rodino, Gimbert, Perez, Craddock-Willis, &
McCabe, 1991, as cited in Silva & McCabe, 1996). They tend to
deemphasize event sequencing yet emphasize description and
evaluation (Silva & McCabe, 1996). Latino children also tend to
produce narratives focused on personal and family relationships
rather than on events as monolingual English-speaking children do
(Silva & McCabe, 1996).
Thus, Spanish-speaking ELL children are at a disadvantage
from school entry as a result not only of their weak English skills
but also of their different narrative styles. Consequently, they are
projected to have later academic problems. In order to prevent this,
interventions that can be conducted prior to school entry, particu-
larly for the growing Spanish-speaking ELL population, need to be
created and examined. More research is crucial to give these ELL
children an equal start in first grade.
 NARRATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN BILINGUAL KINDERGARTENERS
Labov (1972) defined a narrative as at least two sequential
independent clauses describing a single past event. Narratives are
a form of decontextualized extended discourse. The ability to
produce a narrative demonstrates a child’s ability to sustain talk
about the world beyond the here and now (Snow, Tabors, Nichol-
son, & Kurland, 1995). Furthermore, narratives are not streams of
unrelated words or sentences. They require the use of several
utterances or turns that must be linked to build a coherent linguistic
structure (Snow et al., 1995).
Story structure (Chang, 2004; Labov, 1972; Peterson & Mc-
Cabe, 1983), evaluation (Chang, 2004; Labov, 1972; Peterson &
McCabe, 1983), temporality and reference (Chang, 2004; Labov,
1972; Peterson & McCabe, 1983), and storybook language
(Purcell-Gates, 1988, 2001) are the key dimensions of narrative
skills. Much of the past literature in this area has focused on the
development of these dimensions in the narratives of English
monolingual children.
The components of a well-formed story structure include an
abstract (a summary of the narrative or a title), an introduction (a
conventional opening to the narrative), an orientation (a descrip-
tion of the characters, setting, time, and activity to set the stage for
the narrative), events (actions that advance the storyline, including
the problem), a resolution (a termination of complicating events),
and a coda (an ending of the narrative; Chang, 2004; Labov, 1972;
Peterson & McCabe, 1983; Snow et al., 1995; Willenberg & Kang,
2001).
It is also important to focus on the evaluation component of
narratives. When telling a story, the narrator not only tells the
listener what happens in the story but also talks about the meaning
of those events. In other words, the narrator includes evaluation
devices to signal the point of the story from the narrator’s per-
spective (Chang, 2004; Labov, 1972; Peterson & McCabe, 1983).
Evaluative devices include intensifiers (e.g., “all the other bears”),
adjectives (e.g., “the little bears”), negatives or defeats of expec-
tations (e.g., “The bear could not reach the kite”), references to
emotional states or cognitions (e.g., “The bear was scared”),
references to physical states (e.g., “The bear was hurt”), intentions
(e.g., “The bear wanted to get the kite”), causal markers (e.g., “The
bear fell because he slipped out of the tree”), and words with high
evaluative content (e.g., “The bear came crashing to the ground”;
Beck, Coker, Hemphill, & Bellinger, 2003; Peterson & McCabe,
1983; Willenberg & Kang, 2001). Peterson and McCabe (1983)
found 21 types of evaluation devices in the narratives of 4- to
9-year-old American children, with the older children using a
larger variety of evaluations than the younger children.
Temporality and reference are the two main elements in the
organization of a narrative. In order for narratives to be coherent
and follow a time line, linguistic temporal devices such as con-
nectives are used. Peterson and McCabe (1991) found that even
31⁄2-year-old children used connectives such as and in their narra-
tives. In addition, how the narrator first introduces the story
characters in the narrative influences the organization of the story
(Beck et al., 2003). Ideally, the character should be introduced in
a way that does not assume any prior knowledge on the part of the
listener. For example, a story that begins with an unspecified
pronoun such as he would have an unclear beginning. A narrative
that starts with a nonpresupposing introduction using an indefinite
article and a noun, such as a bear, would be more coherent (Beck
et al., 2003; Willenberg & Kang, 2001).
465
In addition, when children pretend to read storybooks out loud,
they use a discourse different from the one they use when they are
telling a personal narrative. That is, when they pretend to read,
children use the language of storybooks (Purcell-Gates, 1988,
2001). They tend to use a lexicon that is more literary and varied
as well as to use the syntax found in written texts. For example,
narrators may include direct or indirect quotes as well as conjoined
phrases.
However, not all of these traits appear in the narratives of
children before the age of 6 (Peterson & McCabe, 1983). Narra-
tives of 4- and 5-year-old monolingual children contain little
evaluation of story events (Bamberg & Damrad-Frye, 1991; Eaton,
Collis, & Lewis, 1999; Peterson & McCabe, 1983). The most
common narrative structures of 4-year-old monolingual English-
speaking children have been described as either leap-frog narra-
tives, in which children jump from one event to another and leave
out major events, or chronology narratives, in which they provide
only a simple recounting of successive events (Peterson & Mc-
Cabe, 1983, pp. 43– 45). At age 5, the most common narrative
patterns are the chronology narrative and the ending-at-the-high-
point narrative, in which there is no resolution (Peterson & Mc-
Cabe, 1983, pp. 41– 45). At age 6, the classic narrative pattern
finally becomes dominant (Peterson & McCabe, 1983, pp. 36 – 41).
The classic narrative pattern has been defined as one in which the
narrative is built around a high point. “The narrator builds up to a
high point, evaluatively dwells on it, and then resolves it” (Peter-
son & McCabe, 1983, p. 36). Yet the narrative patterns of ELL
children—in particular, those of Spanish-speaking ELL children—
and how their English narratives develop are still unexplored. Most
studies of Spanish–English bilinguals’ narrative performance, such
as the one by Gutiérrez-Clellen (2002), have focused on cross-
language comparison, not on charting the developmental process
involved.
Various environmental factors, such as parental responsiveness,
affect the development of children’s narrative skills (Peterson,
Jesso, & McCabe, 1999). The types and number of parent– child
conversational exchanges during book reading shape children’s
narrative development (McCabe & Peterson, 1991; Peterson &
McCabe, 1992; E. Reese, Haden, & Fivush, 1993). Some parents
make detailed references to past events and ask multiple questions,
whereas others ask simple questions and frequently switch topics.
These differences in parental style have been shown to influence
both the quantity and quality of narratives produced by preschool
children.
Frequency of book reading is also associated with narrative
development (Purcell-Gates, 2001). Books display narrative struc-
tures particularly clearly, and furthermore, some interventions use
book reading as a carrier for their interactions. Well-read-to mono-
lingual kindergarten children can learn linguistic registers that are
specific to social contexts and use more formal and booklike
narrating language when pretending to read a storybook (Adams,
1990; Heath, 1982; Ninio, 1980; Purcell-Gates, 1988, 1991, 1992,
1996, 2001; Purcell-Gates & Dahl, 1991; Scarborough & Dobrich,
1994; Scarborough, Dobrich, & Hager, 2001; Sulzby, 1985).
Preschool-age children whose parents spend more time in narrative
conversation, in asking more open-ended and context-eliciting
questions, and in encouraging longer narratives through book-
reading sessions tend to produce more context-setting descriptions
466 UCHIKOSHI
about when and where the events in a narrative took place (Peter-
son et al., 1999).
However, research shows that Latino preschool children are less
likely to have frequent book-reading experiences than are White,
non-Latino children (Nord, Lennon, Liu, & Chandler, 1999).
Given the evidence from past research with monolingual children
demonstrating that exposure to narratives through book reading
during the preschool years is positively associated with narrative
skills in kindergarten and subsequent literacy outcomes, the impact
of mechanisms for supplementing Spanish-speaking ELL chil-
dren’s access to experiences with narrative needs to be evaluated.
Educational TV programs, particularly shows based on books,
could provide children with the desired extra exposure to language
and literacy environments as well as to English narrative conven-
tions.1 Past research suggests that educational TV programs, such
as Sesame Street and Between the Lions, can be a source of
language learning for monolingual English-speaking children (e.g.,
Linebarger, 2000; Rice, Huston, Truglio, & Wright, 1990; Rice &
Woodsmall, 1988; Van Evra, 1998). Children have acquired new
vocabulary and developed phonological awareness skills by view-
ing these shows. In addition, child language research shows that
the number of conversations and the variety of words that children
hear affect the speed of their language and literacy growth (Tabors,
Beals, & Weizman, 2001). Studies show that, on average, children
between the ages of 3 and 5 years watch 19 –20 hr of TV per week
(Huston, Wright, Rice, Kerkman, & St. Peters, 1990); it is impor-
tant to know whether, if these hours were concentrated on educa-
tional TV programs, it would assist in the English-language and
literacy development of ELL children.
Children from nonmainstream backgrounds might become more
accustomed to mainstream English narrative styles that are prev-
alent in school settings by viewing educational TV programs that
are based on books and follow the classic narrative pattern. Like
book reading, TV viewing can be a routinized activity. Many
shows follow a routine format. Moreover, children can view reruns
or videotaped versions of the same episode. In addition, research-
ers have found that with monolingual English-speaking children,
parent– child interactions around TV programs can replicate as-
pects of interactions around books (Lemish & Rice, 1986).
Yet there have been no studies investigating the impact of
book-based educational programs on either monolingual or ELL
children’s narrative development. A representative of a book-
based show is Arthur. Arthur is a 30-min educational program
appearing on Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) stations across
the country and targeted to audiences of preschool and kindergar-
ten children. Arthur tells a story to the viewers in each episode and
is popular with kindergarten-age children.
In Arthur, each episode presents two stories, each with a plot, a
conflict, and a resolution. As each story is based on a storybook,
each story follows the components of a well-formed story structure
as defined by Labov (1972) and Peterson and McCabe (1983). The
Arthur TV series exposes children to various stories with moral
points of interest to them. The show is about growing up. The
characters in Arthur learn to make thoughtful decisions and resolve
problems in each episode. The problems Arthur and his friends
face are similar to the ones the viewers may face at home and at
school. In addition, evaluation is emphasized through the charac-
ters’ speech and actions.
In this study, my aim was to investigate whether the book-based
educational TV program Arthur would influence narrative devel-
opment among ELL children from Spanish-speaking homes. I
attempted to answer the following question: Does viewing Arthur
have a beneficial effect on narrative skills so that ELL children can
be better prepared for first grade? To control for effects of watch-
ing educational TV, I used Between the Lions, another book-based
educational TV show, as a control.2
Between the Lions is also a 30-min book-based educational
program that is broadcast on PBS stations across the country and
targeted to kindergarten-age children. Between the Lions intro-
duces a book in each episode, but instead of focusing explicitly on
the narrative, the show puts more weight on text structure, indi-
vidual words, and other print features (Linebarger, 2000). Phono-
logical awareness and reading fluency are heavily emphasized.
Each Between the Lions episode follows a “whole–part–whole”
framework, adopted as the approach to literacy instruction. The
story line of each Between the Lions episode begins with a read-
aloud experience as the “whole,” in which portions of the text are
displayed on the screen and words are highlighted as they are read
(Rath, 2000). Then the “parts” are emphasized to point the view-
ers’ attention to such topics as phonological awareness, letter–
sound correspondence, word meanings, punctuation, and other
conventions of written English (Rath, 2000). Most of the show is
centered on this “parts” part. At the end, the “whole” text is
revisited and the “parts” are reviewed (Rath, 2000).
Hence, Arthur focuses more on the narrative structure, whereas
Between the Lions focuses more on phonics and story mechanics.
By showing a program that is educational but not entirely focused
on narratives, such as Between the Lions, to the control group, I
could control for any effects that could be attributed to TV
viewing.
Thus, in this study I examined the effect of viewing Arthur
versus Between the Lions on ELL children’s English narrative
growth within the context of a standard kindergarten program. In
addition, I investigated the patterns of growth in oral English
narrative skills in young ELL kindergarteners. Such research is
needed to fully understand the narrative skills development of
Spanish-speaking ELL children and to prepare them for school
entry.
Moreover, in this study I used individual growth modeling
techniques (Singer & Willett, 2003; Willett, 1994) to analyze the
children’s narrative development. As individual growth modeling
makes use of repeated waves of data and conceptualizes change as
a continuous process of development (Willett, 1994), it yields a
more accurate picture of change over time than do traditional
techniques, such as ordinary regression methods.
1
Educational TV refers to shows that have a core educational or infor-
mational purpose. In 1990, the Federal Communications Commission
passed the Children’s TV Act, which required commercial broadcasters to
air programming that has a core educational and informational purpose
targeted to children under age 16 (Hill-Scott, 2001). Such programs must
be regularly scheduled, weekly programs of at least 30 min and be aired
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
2
Between the Lions focuses on phonics and story mechanics. How
Between the Lions viewing affects the development of ELL children’s
phonological awareness and story mechanics, with Arthur viewing as a
control, is not discussed in this article.
 NARRATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN BILINGUAL KINDERGARTENERS 467

Method
Participants
A total of 108 children (47 girls and 61 boys) attending six public
schools in a large urban district located on the East Coast participated in the
study. The average age of these children in October was 5 years 7 months.
The average age for the boys was 5 years 7 months; for the girls it was 5
years 6 months.
Spanish–English bilingual kindergarten classrooms were selected from
these schools. In all classrooms, instruction occurred in both English and
Spanish. All kindergarten teachers were fluent in both English and Spanish.
All children were from primarily Spanish-speaking homes and lived in
neighborhoods heavily populated by Spanish-speaking people. Participants
were recruited through these kindergarten classrooms. School district de-
mographics and school data indicate that 80% or more of the participating
students qualified for free lunch.
To gain background information about the students, I sent home with
them a parental questionnaire in both English and Spanish (see Table 1 for
a summary of these data). The number of older siblings of the target child
ranged from 0 to 5, with the average child having 1.2 older siblings. Years
living in the United States ranged from 3 months to 7 years, with the
average being 4.9 years. The majority of those whose parents responded
had been born in the United States; only 22% of these children had been
born outside of the United States. Although variation in the number of
children’s books in the home was large—from 0 to 300 books (SD ⫽ 35
books)—parents responded that on average there were 21, including both
English and Spanish books. The mode was 10 books. Concerning prekin-
dergarten experience, 56 of 108 parents responded that their target child
had gone to either prekindergarten or a Head Start program. A third (34 of
108 parents) said they took their target child to libraries on a frequent basis.
In terms of home viewing, 73.4% of the children viewed Arthur at home,
whereas 41.9% watched Between the Lions at home.
Information about the mothers was also collected. The educational levels
of the mothers ranged from no education to professional degrees, the
average parental educational level being some secondary education. The
top 10% of all parents had received some higher education, whereas the
bottom 10% had not completed primary education. The remaining 80% fell
somewhere in between, with the majority completing primary education.
The English vocabulary levels of the target children were measured with
the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Third Edition (PPVT–III; Dunn &
Dunn, 1997) in October before the intervention started. The results of the
test indicated that, on average, in October these native Spanish speakers
scored at the level of a monolingual English child 3 years 2 months of age
(Dunn & Dunn, 1997).
The Spanish vocabulary levels of the target children were also measured
in October with the Test de Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody (TVIP;
Dunn, Padilla, Lugo, & Dunn, 1986). The results of this test revealed that,
on average, these native Spanish-speaking entering kindergarteners
achieved scores that would be expected from Spanish monolingual children
residing in Mexico and ranging in age from 4 years 8 months to 5 years 0
months, according to the age norms of the test (Dunn et al., 1986). As the
average age of the children in this study was 5 years 7 months, these ELL
children had vocabulary levels that were slightly lower than those of their
Spanish monolingual counterparts. (See Table 1 for a summary.)
Raw scores are reported for initial vocabulary levels in both Spanish and
English for later use in growth modeling analysis. It should be noted that
there are fewer items on the TVIP than on the PPVT–III, which may
explain the lower Spanish raw scores.
Design
On the basis of a stratified random sampling, half of the students in six
classrooms (51 children) were assigned to watch Arthur during school
hours, and the other half in the same six classrooms (57 children) were
assigned to watch Between the Lions during school hours. In each class-
room, the children were first grouped according to gender, and then they
were rank ordered on the basis of their October English PPVT–III vocab-
ulary scores. I then randomized assignment to the two viewing conditions,

Table 1
Background Information and Vocabulary Scores for All Children (N ⫽ 108) and for Children by Viewing Group and Gender

Total Arthur Between the Lions Boys Girls

Variable M SD n Range M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n

Parental educationa 3.69 1.69 93 0–8 3.76 1.76 45 3.63 1.63 48 3.49 1.79 53 3.95 1.52 40
No. of older siblings 1.16 1.16 92 0–5 1.09 1.27 44 1.23 1.06 48 1.19 1.12 53 1.13 1.22 40
Years lived in the U.S. 4.89 1.80 99 0.3–7 4.87 1.85 48 4.90 1.78 51 5.02 1.69 57 4.71 1.96 42
No. of Spanish books at home 12.40 27.32 91 0–250 7.39 6.79 46 17.51 37.77 45 8.73 9.14 52 17.28 40.16 39
No. of English books at home 9.01 11.22 92 0–55 5.60 5.44 47 12.57 14.29 45 8.06 10.16 53 10.31 12.54 39
No. of total books at home 21.47 35.07 92 0–300 13.11 9.55 47 30.02 47.70 45 16.94 17.72 53 27.51 49.26 39

No. of yes n No. of yes n No. of yes n No. of yes n No. of yes n

Preschool experience (yes/no) 56 89 26 44 30 45 28 49 28 40

Library experience (yes/no) 34 92 13 47 21 45 21 52 13 40
Arthur home viewing (yes/no) 69 94 35 46 34 48 39 54 30 40
Between the Lions home viewing
(yes/no) 36 86 17 50 19 42 21 50 15 36

M SD n Range M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n
Receptive vocabulary score
Initial English vocabulary 39.69 20.38 108 0–85 41.37 20.74 51 38.19 20.13 57 44.30 18.37 61 33.72 21.49 47
Initial Spanish vocabulary 32.05 13.29 108 2–69 32.65 12.49 51 31.51 14.06 57 31.28 13.24 61 33.04 13.44 47

Note. Background information was obtained from parental questionnaires, and vocabulary scores from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition
and the Test de Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody.
a
Parental education was on a scale from 0 to 8.
468 UCHIKOSHI
matching the children on their vocabulary scores, which yielded viewing
groups with similar composition in gender and initial English vocabulary
skills. Receptive vocabulary scores were chosen as a basis for stratification
because children’s understanding of the shows would be most influenced
by their English vocabulary.
Both groups watched one 30-min episode three times a week in a
classroom at school from October to the beginning of May, for a total of
54 episodes. A frequency of three episodes a week was chosen because of
the importance of repetition in interventions (Galdwell, 2000), children’s
liking for repetition and familiar events (Galdwell, 2000), and the feasi-
bility and practicality of children viewing educational TV during school
hours. Owing to time constraints and to keep the intervention consistent
among classrooms, teachers and researchers only showed the videos and
did not do follow-up activities based on the episodes with the children.
All kindergarteners were assessed with the narrative tests described in
the following section at three time points throughout the school year:
October (before watching any episodes in the classrooms), February (after
watching 27 episodes in the classrooms), and late May or early June (after
watching an additional 27 episodes in the classrooms).3 The total testing
time for each individual session was 30 – 45 min. Children were also
assessed on English as well as Spanish receptive vocabulary knowledge.
Measures
To measure narrative skills, I asked children to tell a “Bear Story” in
English, prompted by three slides of pictures that depicted a family of
teddy bears in an adventure involving a flyaway kite and a baby bear
falling from a tree (from the SHELL [School-Home Early Language and
Literacy] test battery in Snow et al., 1995). The child was allowed to look
at the slides as long as needed but was asked to put them away before
telling the story. However, when the child appeared hesitant to give a
narrative, the child was allowed to see the “Bear Story” pictures as he or
she related the story.
Trained assessors transcribed the narratives dictated by the children on
the spot. The children’s narratives were written down so that the assessor
could read the story back to the child and confirm that the story had been
correctly recorded. If the child began to describe the picture instead of
providing a narrative, the assessor prompted the child with questions such
as “What is happening in the story?” or “What happened next?” If the child
appeared to be taking no definite course in the narrative or if the child
ended the narrative abruptly, the assessors were instructed to ask, “Is that
the end of the story?” or “How does the story end?”
Total Number of Words and Mean Clause Length
Because past research showed an increase in the length of stories as well
as the syntactic complexity of utterances as children got older (Eaton et al.,
1999; Karmiloff-Smith, 1985; Purcell-Gates, 2001), I calculated the total
number of words and the mean clause length in each story. After separating
each story into clauses, I calculated the mean clause length by dividing the
number of clauses by the total number of words.
Combined Narrative Measure
Each story was then coded along the following five dimensions: story
structure, number of main events, evaluation, temporality and reference,
and storybook language. This coding scheme was adapted from Willenberg
and Kang (2001), whose coding checklists were based on previous Bear
Story checklists from Snow et al. (1995) and Beck et al. (2003). Each
category was coded for the presence or absence of each feature listed
regardless of how frequently it occurred in the narrative.
Story structure coding. Seven major types of narrative elements were
categorized on the basis of an adaptation of high-point structure (Peterson
& McCabe, 1983) and previous coding checklists used for the “Bear Story”
(Beck et al., 2003; Snow et al., 1995; Willenberg & Kang, 2001): abstract,
introduction, orientation, character delineation, problem, resolution, and
coda. If the narrative contained all seven elements, the child was given a
total of 7 points. The definitions of the elements, as well as examples from
the actual data, are listed in the Appendix.
Events coding. Narrative events relate the actions of the story charac-
ters and move the plot forward. Five categories of events from Willenberg
and Kang (2001) were included in this section: bears playing, bears flying
kite, bear climbed tree or bear attempts to get kite, bear fell or jumped, bear
hurt or dead.
Evaluation coding. Evaluative devices in narrative are used to signal
the point of the story from the narrator’s perspective. Eight types of
evaluation from Willenberg and Kang (2001) were included: intensifiers,
adjectives, negatives or defeats of expectations, references to emotional
states or cognitions, references to physical states, intentions, causal mark-
ers, and words with high evaluative content. See the Appendix for
examples.
Temporality and reference. Temporality and reference (e.g., use of
connectives, first mention of story characters) were included from Willen-
berg and Kang (2001) as presented in the Appendix.
Storybook language. The elements of storybook language examined
came from previous studies concerning pretend book reading (Beck et al.,
2003; Purcell-Gates, 2001; Snow et al., 1995). As most instances of
storybook language contain syntactic constructions that are typically found
only in older children (Labov, 1968, cited in Peterson & McCabe, 1983),
only three elements of storybook language from Willenberg and Kang
(2001) were examined in this study: direct or indirect quotes, -ly adverbs,
and conjoined noun/verb or adverbial phrases (see the Appendix for
examples).
The points for each of these five dimensions of the child’s narrative were
added up to form a combined narrative measure score. For reliability of
coding, 20% of the narratives were randomly selected and independently
scored by a trained researcher. The Cohen’s kappa statistic, which corrects
for chance agreement (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997), was .82.
Statistical Analysis
First, a descriptive analysis was conducted on the total number of words,
the mean clause length, and the combined narrative measure. Then, to
examine the difference in the level and rate of change on the combined
narrative measure among individuals, I made use of individual growth
modeling.
Results
Descriptive Results
In Table 2, the means and standard deviations for the total
number of words, the mean clause length, and the combined
narrative measure are presented for all children, and by viewing
group and gender. The average for each of these three measures
increased as the children approached the end of their kindergarten
year. Individual variation was high for all three variables. The
average total number of words increased by 43% from slightly
over 20 words to 37 words, a growth of two thirds of a standard
deviation. The average mean clause length went from 4 words per
clause to 5 words per clause, an increase of nearly one half of a
standard deviation. The average combined narrative measure score
3
Children were tested on a variety of literacy measures, but only
narrative production is discussed here.
 NARRATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN BILINGUAL KINDERGARTENERS 469

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Narrative Variables for All Children (N ⫽ 108) and for Children by Viewing Group and Gender

Total Arthur Between the Lions Boys Girls

Narrative measure M SD n Range M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n

Total no. of words

October 21.91 21.80 99 0–96 21.92 19.10 49 21.90 22.54 50 25.85 21.74 55 16.98 18.64 44
February 26.18 20.15 108 0–108 28.29 20.42 51 24.28 19.89 57 29.13 19.63 61 22.34 20.36 47
May/June 37.33 32.54 102 0–253 42.66 39.44 47 32.78 24.69 55 37.79 23.47 58 36.73 41.92 44
Mean clause length
October 4.41 2.54 99 0–11 4.72 2.55 49 4.11 2.52 50 4.63 2.05 55 4.04 3.10 44
February 4.70 2.28 108 0–14 5.35 2.18 51 4.12 2.23 57 5.00 1.72 61 4.31 2.82 47
May/June 5.05 1.90 102 0–8.43 5.26 1.67 47 4.87 2.08 55 5.51 1.35 58 4.44 2.33 44
Combined narrative measure
October 4.90 3.76 99 0–15 5.00 3.50 49 4.82 4.02 50 6.12 3.86 55 3.52 3.15 44
February 6.32 3.77 108 0–15 7.04 3.56 51 5.68 3.87 57 7.21 3.64 61 5.17 3.66 47
May/June 8.07 4.14 102 0–20 9.13 4.35 47 7.16 3.75 55 8.93 3.58 58 6.93 4.57 44

also increased from 5 points to 8 points, roughly equivalent to
three quarters of a standard deviation.
These three measures (total number of words, mean clause
length, and the combined narrative measure) were moderately to
highly correlated with each other, with correlations of about .60 at
each of the three time points (see Table 3). Children who produced
elaborate narratives tended to incorporate a lot of detail into their
narrative clauses. The total number of words as well as the number
of other features increased in the children’s narratives.
Initial English vocabulary scores tended to be moderately cor-
related with the narrative measures at all three time points, with the
median correlation of English vocabulary with the narrative mea-
sures being just over .50. Conversely, initial Spanish vocabulary
scores were not correlated with English narrative scores on the
“Bear Story.”
Individual Growth Modeling: Effect of Arthur?
To examine differences in the level and rate of change among
individuals, I used individual growth modeling to analyze the
combined narrative measure. Individual growth modeling was the
appropriate analysis tool for this data set for several reasons. First,
it is designed for exploring longitudinal data on individuals over
time (Littell, Milliken, Stroup, & Wolfinger, 1996; Singer, 1998;
Singer & Willett, 2003). Second, it allows for the spacing of waves
of data to vary across individuals (Littell et al., 1996; Singer &
Willett, 2003). In this data set, narrative measurements were taken
at slightly different times. For some children, the time between
assessments was 3 months, whereas for others it was closer to 4
months. Third, individual growth modeling can analyze data sets
with varying numbers of waves of data (Littell et al., 1996; Singer
& Willett, 2003). That is, unlike other approaches, individual
growth modeling includes all participants in the estimation regard-
less of missing data. The majority of children in this study had a
narrative score at all three time points, yet some had a narrative
score at only two time points.
To arrive at a final model that best predicted English narrative
development, I built a taxonomy of theoretically motivated indi-
vidual growth models. Time was denoted in number of months
rather than assessment occasions, because assessments were car-
ried out with some variation in exact timing among individuals. As
most participants had three data points each, a linear model was
used (Singer & Willett, 2003; Willett, Singer, & Martin, 1998).
In the first stage, I fit an unconditional means model that
included no predictors. This model describes variation in the
outcomes (Singer & Willett, 2003). I then fit an unconditional
growth model, in which I examined within-person change by

Table 3
Correlation Matrix for Vocabulary and Narrative Measures (N ⫽ 108)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Spanish initial vocabulary — .07 .09 ⫺.09 ⫺.26** .06 ⫺.02 ⫺.25* .03 ⫺.02 ⫺.16
2. English initial vocabulary — .53** .33** .24* .51** .45** .44** .67** .57** .54**
3. Total no. of words in October — .39** .13 .61** .32** .31** .77** .57** .38**
4. Total no. of words in February — .31** .36** .51** .35** .34** .77** .48**
5. Total no. of words in May/June — .02 .18† .54** .07 .32** .63**
6. Mean clause length in October — .54** .30** .68** .53** .30**
7. Mean clause length in February — .50** .42** .58** .45**
8. Mean clause length in May/June — .37** .55** .60**
9. Combined narrative measure in October — .61** .47**
10. Combined narrative measure in February — .69**
11. Combined narrative measure in May/June —

† p ⬍ .10. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

470 UCHIKOSHI
fitting growth trajectories for each child over time. The growth
trajectories of each individual child varied. Some children showed
steady growth, whereas others showed no growth. In light of the
variation across children, it is important to understand the general
growth patterns in ELL children’s ability to narrate stories. Hence,
I looked at between-person variation and added predictors to
investigate whether they affected individual changes in the com-
bined narrative measure. I first added the predictor show to inves-
tigate whether individual changes in the combined narrative mea-
sure (CNM) were related to viewing of Arthur.
Combining the within-person and between-person models
yielded the following model:
CNM ti ⫽ 关 ␤ 00 ⫹ ␤ 01 SHOW i ⫹ ␤ 10 TIME ti
⫹ ␤ 11 SHOW i TIME ti兴 ⫹ 关u0i ⫹ u1i TIME ti ⫹ rti兴.
The parameters in the above model represent the effect of show on
the initial level of the CNM (␤01) and the effect of show on the
rate of change in the CNM (␤11). Because I was comparing models
that differ in their fixed effects but not their variance components,
I used full maximum-likelihood estimation (see Singer, 1998).
As a general modeling strategy, I first evaluated the above
full-model equation for significance. SHOW was kept in the model
even if it was not significant, as it was a key predictor. The CLASS
variable was kept in the model to control for classroom difference.
Indicators of home viewing—that is, watching Arthur at home and
watching Between the Lions at home—were also kept in the model
to control for home viewing. Past research has used mother’s
education to control for socioeconomic status (SES). Although
parental education was not significant, it was included in the final
model to control for SES. Subsequent analyses investigated
whether other variables such as gender, prekindergarten experi-
ence, home educational TV viewing, number of older siblings,
number of years the child had been in the United States, the child’s
initial vocabulary levels in Spanish and English, the number of
children’s books in the home, and library exposure4 were signif-
icant variables.
Individual Growth Modeling Results
After fitting a baseline unconditional means model (Model 1)
and baseline unconditional growth model (Model 2) for the com-
bined narrative measure, I built a taxonomy of theoretically mo-
tivated individual growth models, as shown in Table 4. The pre-
dictors that were not statistically significant were kept out of the
model. Control variables (show, Arthur home viewing, Between
the Lions home viewing, class, parental education) were kept in the
model even if they were not significant.
The variance components in Model 1 (unconditional means
model) indicate that the average child’s English combined narra-
tive measure varied over time and that the children differed from
each other. Using the results of this model, I calculated the intra-
class correlation coefficient to be .50. The intraclass correlation
coefficient is the intercept divided by the sum of the intercept and
the residual (8.53/[8.53 ⫹ 8.38] in this case), and it “describes the
proportion of the total outcome variation that lies between people”
(Singer & Willett, 2003, p. 96). Thus, this correlation indicated
that half of the total variation in the combined narrative measure
was attributable to differences among children.
Comparing the variance components in Model 2 (unconditional
growth model) with those of Model 1 shows that 48.6% (from 8.38
to 4.31) of the within-person variation in the combined narrative
measure was systematically associated with linear time. Further-
more, as there was nonzero variability in both true initial status
( p ⬍ .01) and true rate of change ( p ⬍ .01), Model 2 suggested
adding more predictors into the model to explain heterogeneity in
each parameter. Preschool experience, number of older siblings,
total number of children’s books in the home, and library experi-
ence were not significant when included as predictors, and they
were not included in subsequent models. Model 9 was chosen as
the final model and is interpreted in the following sections.
Effect of show. As Model 9 in Table 4 shows, the estimated
coefficient for show was not statistically significant, indicating that
the two groups did not significantly differ from each other at the
start of kindergarten, after I controlled for the other variables in the
model. However, the estimated coefficient for the Show ⫻ Time
interaction was positive and significant after the other variables in
the model were controlled. This finding indicates that viewing
Arthur during class hours improved the narrative outcome at a
faster pace than did viewing Between the Lions, after I controlled
for initial show differences, classroom differences, gender, home
viewings, initial English vocabulary, and parental education, as
shown in Figure 1. The standard deviation for the combined
narrative measure pooled across all occasions was 4.08 points.
Thus, the coefficient of .26 for the interaction of show (Arthur) and
time corresponds to an effect size of slightly over one twentieth of
a standard deviation per month, or an effect of slightly over one
half of a standard deviation for the entire school year.
Classroom differences. The estimated coefficients for most
classrooms tended to be around 0, indicating that most classrooms
had similar estimated average initial levels of the combined nar-
rative measure. Moreover, differences in growth in the combined
narrative measure among classrooms were also not significant.
Home viewing. Home viewing was kept in the model to con-
trol for extra viewings of Arthur or Between the Lions. Model 9
indicates that home viewing of neither show was significant.
Gender. After I controlled for show, class, home viewing,
initial English vocabulary, and parental education, gender had a
significant effect on the estimated average initial level of the
combined narrative measure. However, the interaction between
gender and time was not significant. Boys began with a 1.40-point
(effect size of roughly one third of a standard deviation) advantage
on the combined narrative measure at the start of kindergarten, and
this difference remained throughout the school year, as shown in
Figure 1.
Initial English vocabulary. After I controlled for the other
variables in the model, initial English vocabulary had a significant
effect on the estimated average initial level of the combined
narrative measure. Every 20-point (one standard deviation) in-
crease in initial English vocabulary was associated with a 2.2-point
(effect size of slightly over one half of a standard deviation)
increase in the combined narrative measure. That is, children who
started kindergarten with higher initial English vocabulary scores
also started with higher initial combined narrative measures. How-
4
Library exposure indicates whether or not the child was taken to the
library on a frequent basis.
 NARRATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN BILINGUAL KINDERGARTENERS 471

Table 4
Estimates of Fixed and Random Effects From a Series of Fitted Individual Growth Models in Which Show, Class, Arthur Home
Viewing, Between the Lions (BTL) Home Viewing, Gender, Initial English Vocabulary Scores, and Library Experience Predict the
Average Combined Narrative Measure at the Start of Kindergarten and Rate of Change in the Combined Narrative Measure During
the Kindergarten Year for All Children (N ⫽ 108)

Model 1: Model 2: Model 4: Model 6: Model 8: Model 9:

Unconditional Unconditional Model 3: Show ⫻ Model 5: Home Model 7: English Parental
Effect means model growth model Show Time Class TV Gender vocabulary education

Fixed effects
Intercept
␤00 6.34** 4.37** ⫺0.74 4.27** 4.46** 2.87** 1.51† ⫺0.73 ⫺0.78
SE 0.33 0.38 0.87 0.52 0.78 0.90 0.90 0.77 1.02
Time (in months)
␤10 0.46** 0.32** 0.36** 0.36** 0.36** 0.36** 0.35** 0.33**
SE 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
Show: Arthur
␤01 ⫺0.03 0.21 0.22 0.11 0.16 ⫺0.09 ⫺0.25
SE 0.63 0.76 0.74 0.73 0.69 0.58 0.61
Class 1
␤02 ⫺1.08 ⫺0.93 ⫺0.52 ⫺0.41 ⫺0.37
SE 1.10 1.04 0.97 0.77 0.81
Class 2
␤02 ⫺0.90 ⫺0.30 ⫺0.29 0.19 0.42
SE 1.04 1.01 0.94 0.74 0.78
Class 3
␤02 1.17 0.97 0.81 ⫺0.94 ⫺0.51
SE 0.97 0.92 0.86 0.72 0.76
Class 4
␤02 ⫺1.78† ⫺1.41 ⫺1.19 ⫺0.89 ⫺1.15
SE 0.98 0.94 0.88 0.69 0.74
Class 5
␤02 0.77 1.38 1.46† 0.57 1.08
SE 0.91 0.92 0.86 0.68 0.77
Home TV: Arthur
␤03 1.62* 1.69** 0.76 0.46
SE 0.68 0.63 0.51 0.55
Home TV: BTL
␤04 1.05 0.96 0.47 0.45
SE 0.63 0.59 0.47 0.50
Gender: Boys
␤05 2.19** 1.31** 1.40**
SE 0.53 0.44 0.47
Initial English vocabulary
␤06 0.10** 0.09**
SE 0.01 0.01
Parental education
␤07 0.12
SE 0.14

Show ⫻ Time
␤11 0.22* 0.22* 0.22* 0.22* 0.23* 0.26*
SE 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11

Random effects (variance components)

Intercept
Estimate 8.53** 10.74** 10.96** 10.79** 10.03** 9.30** 7.77** 4.07** 3.69**
SE 1.61 2.22 1.50 2.22 2.14 2.05 1.85 1.39 1.45
Slope
Estimate 0.11** 0.11* 0.11** 0.11** 0.11** 0.11** 0.11* 0.09*
SE 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Residual
Estimate 8.38** 4.31** 4.42** 4.28** 4.29** 4.31** 4.29** 4.28** 4.28**
SE 0.84 0.60 0.66 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.64
Proportional reduction in
variance from Model 2:
Intercept N/A N/A 6.6% 13.4% 27.7% 62.10% 65.6%
Slope N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 18.2%
Akaike’s information criterion 1,691.8 1,611.1 1,338.8 1,607.9 1,606.1 1,598.5 1,584.7 1,535.8 1,346.5

† p ⬍ .10. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

472
Figure 1. Average fitted growth trajectories, after controlling for parental education, that describe the effect of
show and gender on the change in the combined narrative measure for English-language learner children in an
average class with average initial vocabulary scores of 40 points who watch both Arthur and Between the Lions
(BTL) at home (N ⫽ 108).
ever, initial English vocabulary was not associated with rate of
growth on the narrative measures.
Parental education. Parental education was included in the
model to control for SES. Model 9 indicates that parental educa-
tion was not significant.
Five Narrative Measures
The fitted growth trajectories for each individual narrative mea-
sure (story structure, events, evaluations, temporality and refer-
ence, and storybook language) were further examined using the
growth modeling perspective. The estimated coefficients for the
interaction between show and time were positive and significant
for story structure (␤11 ⫽ .09; p ⫽ .04) and evaluation (␤11 ⫽ .09;
p ⫽ .03), after class, home viewing, gender, initial English recep-
tive vocabulary, and parental education were controlled. This
finding indicates that viewing Arthur during class hours improved
the narrative outcome for story structure and evaluation at a faster
pace than did viewing Between the Lions.
The interaction between show and time was not significant
either for events or for temporality and reference. For the story-
book language measure, many of the children scored 0 in October
and stayed at 0. The low occurrence of storybook language sug-
gests that it might be difficult for kindergarten-age ELL children to
provide such language.
In addition, gender was significant for story structure, events,
and temporality and reference. That is, boys started kindergarten
with higher scores in these three areas than did girls, and these
differences remained constant throughout kindergarten.
Figure 2 shows the average growth trajectories describing the
effect of show on the change in story structure, evaluation, events,
and temporality and reference for ELL boys who watched Arthur
during the intervention period. On average, the most gains were
seen in the story structure measure.
Qualitative Results
Growth trajectories for each individual child varied. Some chil-
dren displayed steady development, whereas others exhibited little
UCHIKOSHI
change. The average growth trajectories (see Figure 1) show a
gradual increase in narrative skills. In this section, the stories
provided by two boys are presented in order to demonstrate the
average growth pattern. These two boys, Miguel and Raymond,
were in the Arthur group. Miguel started the school year with
minimal English abilities. Raymond was relatively fluent and
comfortable in speaking English.
At Time 1, in October, for many children, their lack of English
vocabulary kept them from creating long, detailed narratives.
Many children with limited English, such as Miguel, tended to stay
silent or to produce narratives in Spanish. These Spanish stories
were not used in the evaluation, because the objective of this study
was to measure English narrative growth. Children with greater
English abilities, such as Raymond, were able to connect several
sentences together to make a narrative, and their narratives in-
cluded more events to move the plot forward. Under Peterson and
McCabe’s (1983) categorization, many of these narratives would
be classified as chronological narratives, in which the child con-
nects sentences with and and then, or leap-frog narratives, in
which the child jumps from one event to the next.
Excerpt 1: Miguel at Time 1
[Said nothing]
Excerpt 2: Raymond at Time 1
Last morning the bear was getting kite out of tree. And it was stuck.
Then last morning the kite fell down. Last morning he went to take out
the kite. Then it fell. Then it broke. Now it pull pull harder.
At Time 2, in February, children began to include more evalu-
ative words in their stories. For example, Miguel said, “One [bear]
was tired.” He described the bears as being little. In addition, the
words bear and kite were mentioned more in the stories.
Excerpt 3: Miguel at Time 2
The three little bear was walking. One was tired. And one was in the
tree. That is it.
Excerpt 4: Raymond at Time 2
One day a bear was running a kite. And it was a sunny day. Then the
 NARRATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN BILINGUAL KINDERGARTENERS
Figure 2. Average fitted growth trajectories, after controlling for parental education, that describe the effect of
show on the change in story structure, evaluation, events, and temporality and reference for English-language
learner boys who watched Arthur during the intervention period, who were in an average class with average
initial vocabulary scores of 40 points, and who watched both Arthur and Between the Lions at home (N ⫽ 108).
kite was stuck in the tree. Then the bear was climbing to the tree. Then
he was trying to get it. Then the kite ripped.
At Time 3, in May or June, many of the advanced ELL children
provided more events and advanced story structures. Some ad-
vanced ELL children used direct speech, painting a more vivid
verbal picture of their narratives. Some children started their
narratives with titles, such as Miguel and his title “The Book.” He
then continued by beginning his story with a traditional beginning
such as “Once upon a time” and ended his story with a formal
ending such as “The End.” According to Peterson and McCabe’s
(1983) categorization, some of the stories would be classified as
ending-at-the-high-point narratives, in which the child builds up to
the high point and then abruptly ends the story. For example,
Miguel ended his story at a climactic moment with “he fall off.”
Some children even produced stories of the classic pattern. It is
interesting to note that in May, Raymond gave the same story as he
did in February yet he added a resolution and coda.
Excerpt 5: Miguel at Time 3
The Book.
Once upon a time, they was flying kites. The kite then hit the tree.
Then a bear try to get it. Now he fall off. And the end.
Excerpt 6: Raymond at Time 3
One day a bear was running a kite. And it was a sunny day. Then the
kite was stuck in the tree. Then the bear was climbing to the tree. Then
he was trying to get it. Then the kite ripped. So they got the kite out
of the tree. And it was so much fun. That was the end.
Discussion
The results from this year-long study show intervention effects;
children who viewed Arthur during class hours had steeper trajec-
tories on the combined narrative measure than did those who
473
viewed Between the Lions during class hours. The study was
designed so that half of the children in each classroom watched
one of the two shows. Because of time constraints, it was not
possible for the teacher or the researchers to follow up with
exercises to reinforce learning from the educational TV shows. Yet
even though no reinforcement followed the viewing sessions,
growth in narrative skill was greater for children who watched
Arthur, after any initial show differences, classroom differences,
gender, home viewings, initial English vocabulary, and parental
education were controlled for, as shown in Figure 1.
Each half-hour Arthur episode presented two stories, each with
a plot, a conflict, and a resolution. Hence, children who viewed
Arthur had a lot of exposure to mainstream storytelling techniques.
This effect was also demonstrated in the separate growth modeling
analysis for story structure, in which the interaction between show
(Arthur) and time was significant.
The interaction between Arthur and time was also significant in
the separate growth modeling analysis for evaluation. Coviewing
in a classroom with peers may have assisted in comprehension and
understanding of the meaning of the events. Researcher observa-
tions and teacher reports indicated that there appeared to be more
conversations concerning plot, storyline, and characters after the
viewing sessions among the children who viewed Arthur than
among those who viewed Between the Lions. Arthur may have had
more memorable characters and impressionable storylines than
Between the Lions, which focused more on phonics and rhythm.
Children may have understood the emotions of the Arthur charac-
ters through these casual discussions with classmates. Conversa-
tions among the Arthur viewers may have reinforced some vocab-
ulary items, expanding the children’s lexicons.
Although each episode of Between the Lions begins with a story
that the Lion family reads together, the program spends consider-
474 UCHIKOSHI
able time directing viewers’ attention to phonological sensitivity,
the alphabetic principle, letter–sound correspondence, word mean-
ings, punctuation, and other conventions of written English (Rath,
2000). Thus children’s attention may be diverted from the narra-
tive structure of the extended discourse. After the viewings, the
researchers and teachers noted that the children sang the songs and
chanted the rhymes from the show, but they did not discuss the
contents of the show, including plot and character development,
like the Arthur groups did.5
This study also suggests that children can develop mainstream
narrative styles prior to first grade. Past research shows that
narrative styles are influenced by early socialization experiences
and may differ depending on cultural background (Dart, 1992;
Heath, 1982, 1986; Minami & McCabe, 1991; Ninio, 1980; Shiro,
1995; Silva & McCabe, 1996; Tannen, 1980; Wang & Leichtman,
2000) as well as SES (Burger & Miller, 1999; Heath, 1982; Shiro,
2003; Whitehurst et al., 1994). Children from nonmainstream
cultural backgrounds or with lower SES enter school with different
narrative styles than those valued in schools (Dickinson & Mc-
Cabe, 1991; Heath, 1982; Minami & McCabe, 1991). The com-
bined narrative measure examined features typical of school norms
(such as having a title, an introduction, and a closing as part of the
story structure) and of the stories shown in Arthur. This study
shows that routine and attentive viewing of Arthur can assist
nonmainstream bilingual children to develop English narrative
styles that match the English-speaking school norms faster, even
prior to formal literacy instruction.
It is interesting that there was a gender effect; boys started with
and maintained higher English narrative scores than girls. This
gender gap was also seen in the children’s initial English vocab-
ulary scores. Yet for Spanish vocabulary, there was no gender
difference.
Past research with monolingual English children has shown that,
on average, girls have higher literacy skills than boys (Bornstein,
Haynes, & Painter, 1998; Gambell & Hunter, 1999; Karmiloff &
Karmiloff-Smith, 2001). Although only a few studies have looked
at gender differences in second-language acquisition, mainly in the
areas of reading, these studies have provided contradictory results.
Medrano (1986) found no significant gender differences in English
reading among sixth-grade Mexican American students whose first
language was Spanish. Yet L. Reese, Garnier, Gallimore, and
Goldenberg (2000) showed that second-generation seventh-grade
Latina students outscored their male counterparts in English read-
ing achievement tests.
Although further research is necessary to verify the patterns
identified here, these results are suggestive of several hypotheses.
Boys and girls may have different exposure histories; for example,
girls may be more likely to be taken care of by Spanish-speaking
relatives and may have fewer interactions with their English en-
vironments than boys. Gender effects may also depend on the age
of acquisition, the age of testing, as well as on the skill being
assessed. In addition, differences in cultural values may play a
role. Parents may emphasize academic language attainment more
to boys than to girls. Future research should involve a more
in-depth study of children’s home environments.
Furthermore, and similar to past findings by Tabors, Roach, and
Snow (2001) that kindergarten assessments of oral narrative pro-
duction and receptive vocabulary were moderately correlated, a
relationship between English narrative skills and English vocabu-
lary was found in this study. English vocabulary was predictive of
initial levels of English narrative skills. An investigation of the
children’s word choice from the narratives may be useful for
further understanding the relationship between second-language
English vocabulary and narrative abilities.
I have demonstrated the positive impact of Arthur on children’s
narrative skills. It would also be of value to explore further the
degree to which characteristics of the language used in Arthur,
such as syntactic complexity and lexical repetition, contributed to
this effect. Research has shown that TV programs designed for
children use characteristics of child-directed speech (Hoff-
Ginsberg, 1986; Snow, 1984; Wells, 1985), but a more targeted
analysis of what ELL children actually understand after one view-
ing of the various episodes would be informative.
Further, this study focused on only one bilingual population; it
would be of value to replicate the study with other groups of young
bilinguals, particularly as limited research shows that ELL children
are likely to begin schooling in English less prepared for literacy
instruction than children from middle-class English-speaking
homes (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). In addition, these children
were followed only for their kindergarten year; although consid-
erable other data suggest that narrative skills in kindergarten relate
to later narrative and literacy skills, a longer term longitudinal
study collecting data on those later outcomes would be of great
value.
Conclusion
This study showed how ELL children progressed in their nar-
rative skills as a function of exposure to two educational TV shows
that are easily available on PBS to all children. For the population
of children in this study, viewing Arthur assisted in the develop-
ment of their extended discourse. Further studies should examine
the influence of other children’s TV shows on ELL children’s
literacy outcomes. A more detailed understanding of ELL chil-
dren’s literacy processes as well as of the effects of educational TV
is important to the design of better language education practices,
assessments, and interventions.
5
Intervention effects on phonological awareness skills were seen for the
Between the Lions viewers. This finding will be discussed in a separate
article.
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Learning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for
language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Academy Press.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. (1997). Observing interaction (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bamberg, M., & Damrad-Frye, R. (1991). On the ability to provide
evaluative comments—further explanations of children’s narrative com-
petencies. Journal of Child Language, 18, 689 –710.
Beck, S., Coker, D., Hemphill, L., & Bellinger, D. (2003). Literacy skills
of children with a history of early corrective heart surgery. In C. M.
Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch, J. Hoffman, & D. Schallert (Eds.),
 NARRATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN BILINGUAL KINDERGARTENERS
52nd yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Oak Creek, WI:
National Reading Conference.
Bornstein, M. H., Haynes, O. M., & Painter, K. M. (1998). Sources of child
vocabulary competence: A multivariate model. Journal of Child Lan-
guage, 25, 367–393.
Burger, L. K., & Miller, P. J. (1999). Early talk about the past revisited:
Affect in working-class and middle-class children’s co-narrations. Jour-
nal of Child Language, 26, 133–162.
Chang, C. (2004). Telling stories of experiences: Narrative development of
young Chinese children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 83–104.
Dart, S. (1992). Narrative style in the two languages of a bilingual child.
Journal of Child Language, 19, 367–387.
Dickinson, D. K., & McCabe, A. (1991). The acquisition and development
of language: A social interactionist account of language and literacy
development. In J. F. Kavanagh (Ed.), The language continuum from
infancy to literacy (pp. 1– 40). Parkton, MD: York Press.
Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. (Eds.). (2001). Beginning literacy with
language. Baltimore: Brookes.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd
ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Dunn, L. M., Padilla, E. R., Lugo, D. E., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Test de
Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody. Circle Pines, MN: American Guid-
ance Service.
Eaton, J. H., Collis, G. M., & Lewis, V. A. (1999). Evaluative explanations
in children’s narratives of a video sequence without dialogue. Journal of
Child Language, 26, 699 –720.
Galdwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big
difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Gambell, T. J., & Hunter, D. M. (1999). Rethinking gender differences in
literacy. Canadian Journal of Education, 24, 1–16.
Griffin, T. M., Hemphill, L., Camp, L., & Wolf, D. P. (2004). Oral
discourse in the preschool years and later literacy skills. First Language,
24, 123–147.
Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. (2002). Narratives in two languages: Assessing
performance of bilingual children. Linguistics and Education, 13, 175–
197.
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home
and school. Language in Society, 2, 49 –76.
Heath, S. B. (1986). Taking a cross-cultural look at narratives. Topics of
Language Disorders, 7, 84 –94.
Hill-Scott, K. (2001). Industry standards and practices. In D. G. Singer &
J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 605– 620).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1986). Function and structure in maternal speech: Their
relation to the child’s development of syntax. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 22, 155–163.
Huston, A. C., Wright, J. C., Rice, M. L., Kerkman, D., & St. Peters, M.
(1990). Early television viewing. Developmental Psychology, 26, 409 –
420.
Karmiloff, K., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2001). Pathways to language:
From fetus to adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a
developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 61–
85.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English
vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lemish, D., & Rice, M. (1986). Television as a talking picture book: A
prop for language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 13, 251–274.
Linebarger, D. L. (2000). Summative evaluation of “Between the Lions”:
A final report to WGBH Educational Foundation. Boston: WGBH.
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., & Wolfinger, R. D. (1996).
SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Mason, J., Stewart, J., Peterman, C., & Dunning, D. (1992). Toward an
475
integrated model of early reading development (Tech. Rep. No. 566).
Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
McCabe, A., & Peterson, C. (1991). Getting the story: A longitudinal study
of parental styles in eliciting oral personal narratives and developing
narrative skill. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developing narra-
tive structure (pp. 217–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Medrano, M. F. (1986). Evaluating the long-term effects of a bilingual
education program: A study of Mexican American students. Journal of
Educational Equity and Leadership, 6, 129 –138.
Minami, M., & McCabe, A. (1991). Haiku as a discourse regulation device:
A stanza analysis of Japanese children’s personal narratives. Language
in Society, 20, 577–599.
Ninio, A. (1980). Picture-book reading in mother–infant dyads belonging
to two subgroups in Israel. Child Development, 51, 587–590.
Nord, C. W., Lennon, J., Liu, B., & Chandler, K. (1999). Home literacy
activities and signs of children’s emerging literacy, 1993 and 1999
(NCES 2000 – 026rev). Washington DC: U. S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved November 2, 2003, from http://nces.ed
.gov/pubs2000/2000026.pdf
Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and
Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students. (n.d.).
United States rate of LEP student growth. Retrieved May 1, 2002, from
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/state-data/2000/usar.pdf
Paul, R., & Smith, R. L. (1993). Narrative skills in 4-year-olds with
normal, impaired, and late developing language. Journal of Speech &
Hearing Research, 36, 592–598.
Peterson, C., Jesso, B., & McCabe, A. (1999). Encouraging narratives in
preschoolers: An intervention study. Journal of Child Language, 26,
49 – 67.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1983). Developmental psycholinguistics:
Three ways of looking at a child’s narrative. New York: Plenum Press.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1991). Linking children’s connective use and
narrative macrostructure. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Develop-
ing narrative structure (pp. 29 –53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1992). Parental styles of narrative elicitation:
Effect on children’s narrative structure and content. First Language, 12,
299 –321.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1988). Lexical and syntactic knowledge of written
narrative held by well-read-to kindergarteners and second graders. Re-
search in the Teaching of English, 22, 128 –160.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1991). Ability of well-read-to kindergarteners to decon-
texualize/recontextualize experience into written-narrative register. Lan-
guage and Education, 5, 177–188.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1992). Roots of response. Journal of Narrative and Life
History, 2, 151–161.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV guide: Relation-
ships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowl-
edge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 406 – 428.
Purcell-Gates, V. (2001). Emergent literacy is emerging knowledge of
written, not oral, language. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 92, 7–22.
Purcell-Gates, V., & Dahl, K. L. (1991). Low-SES children’s success and
failures at early literacy learning in skills-based classrooms. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 23, 1–34.
Rath, L. (2000, March). Between the Lions: Using television to promote
literacy. Book Links, pp. 41– 45.
Reese, E., Haden, C. A., & Fivush, R. (1993). Mother– child conversations
about the past: Relationships of style and memory over time. Cognitive
Development, 8, 403– 430.
Reese, L., Garnier, H., Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2000). Longitu-
dinal analysis of the antecedents of emergent Spanish literacy and
middle-school English reading achievement of Spanish-speaking stu-
dents. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 633– 662.
476 UCHIKOSHI
Rice, M. L., Huston, A. C., Truglio, R., & Wright., J. C. (1990). Words
from “Sesame Street”: Learning vocabulary while viewing. Develop-
mental Psychology, 26, 421– 428.
Rice, M. L., & Woodsmall, L. (1988). Lessons from television: Children’s
word learning when viewing. Child Development, 59, 420 – 429.
Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to
preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245–302.
Scarborough, H. S., Dobrich, W., & Hager. M. (2001). Preschool literacy
experience and later reading achievement. Journal of Learning Disabil-
ities, 24, 508 –511.
Shiro, M. (1995). Venezuelan preschoolers’ oral narrative abilities: Focus
on research. Language Arts, 72, 528 –537.
Shiro, M. (2003). Genre and evaluation in narrative development. Journal
of Child Language, 30, 165–195.
Silva, M. J., & McCabe, A. (1996). Vignettes of the continuous and family
ties: Some Latino American traditions. In A. McCabe (Ed.), Chameleon
readers: Teaching children to appreciate all kinds of good stories. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Singer, J. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models,
hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educa-
tional and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323–355.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis:
Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Snow, C. E. (1984). Parent– child interactions and the development of
communicative ability. In R. L. Schiefelbusch & J. Pickar (Eds.), Com-
municative competence: Acquisition and intervention (pp. 69 –108).
Baltimore: University Park Press.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading
difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Snow, C. E., Tabors, P., Nicholson, P., & Kurland, B. (1995). SHELL: Oral
language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and first-grade chil-
dren. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 37– 48.
Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent abilities to read favorite story-
books: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458 –
481.
Tabors, P., Beals, D., & Weizman, Z. (2001). “You know what oxygen
is?”: Learning new words at home. In D. Dickinson & P. Tabors (Eds.),
Beginning literacy with language (pp. 93–110). Baltimore: Brookes.
Tabors, P., Roach, K., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Home language and literacy
environment: Final results. In D. Dickinson & P. Tabors (Eds.), Begin-
ning literacy with language (pp. 111–138). Baltimore: Brookes.
Tannen, D. (1980). A comparative analysis of oral narrative strategies:
Athenian Greek and American English. In W. Chafe (Ed.), The Pear
stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative produc-
tion (pp. 51– 87). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Van Evra, J. (1998). Television and child development. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Wang, Q., & Leichtman, M. D. (2000). Same beginnings, different stories:
A comparison of American and Chinese children’s narratives. Child
Development, 71, 1329 –1346.
Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the pre-school years: Lan-
guage at home and at school (Vol. 2). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, S. A., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M.,
& Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care
and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psy-
chology, 30, 679 – 689.
Willenberg, I., & Kang, J. (2001). Bear Story coding manual. Unpublished
manuscript, Harvard University.
Willett, J. (1994). Measuring change more effectively by modeling indi-
vidual growth over time. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The
international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 671– 678). Oxford,
England: Pergamon Press.
Willett, J., Singer, J. D., & Martin, N. C. (1998). The design and analysis
of longitudinal studies of development and psychopathology in context:
Statistical models and methodological recommendations. Development
and Psychopathology, 10, 395– 426.
 NARRATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN BILINGUAL KINDERGARTENERS 477

Appendix

Coding of the Five Dimensions in the Combined Narrative Measure

Each Bear Story was coded along five dimensions: story structure “Bear Story Coding Manual” (an unpublished manuscript by I. Willen-
features, events, evaluation, temporality and reference, and story- berg and J. Kang, 2001, Harvard University) with the permission of its
book language. The following coding scheme was adapted from the authors:

(Appendix continues)
 Received February 10, 2004
Revision received November 17, 2004
Accepted January 14, 2005 䡲
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.