© 2012 Aini Marina Ma'rof

PROMOTING EMERGING LITERACY SKILLS

OF MALAYSIAN INDIGENOUS CHILDREN

THROUGH SHARED-BOOK READING

BY

AINI MARINA MA’ROF

THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Science in Educational Psychology

in the Graduate College of the

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2012

Urbana, Illinois

Masters Committee:

Professor Emeritus Richard C. Anderson, Chair

Professor Kiel T. Christianson

Professor Janet S. Gaffney

ii

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study investigated whether and how an approach to classroom

reading instruction, Shared Book Reading (SBR), impacts the development of vocabulary and

oral Malay language of young Malaysian indigenous children learning Malay as a second

language. 57 Orang Asli children from two first-grade classrooms participated in the study. One

of the classes was randomly assigned to implement SBR sessions while the other served as

control (delayed treatment). Prior to the intervention, all students were assessed on a grade-

appropriate literacy test (LINUS 1), a rapid-automatized naming task (RAN), and a Children’s

Nonword Repetition test (CNRep). After a five-week intervention, all students were assessed on

a second literacy screening test (LINUS 2), vocabulary, storytelling, motivation, and Malay

language learning attitudes. Results showed that experiences of SBR accelerated young

Malaysian indigenous children’s oral Malay language production and increased their word-

meaning knowledge. The SBR group performed significantly better than the control group on the

word-defining task. They also produced more coherent narratives in a wordless picture story-

telling task. They told the stories with greater verbal rate and their stories contained significantly

greater vocabulary diversity. SBR discussions enhanced students’ motivation, engagement and

attitudes toward Malay language learning. These results altogether yield significant implications

for the literacy instruction of Malaysian indigenous children.

iii

To the children of Malaysia

iv

Table of Contents

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. v

List of Figures........................................................................................................................... vi

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

Chapter 2 Method ................................................................................................................... 15

Chapter 3 Results and Discussion........................................................................................... 26

Chapter 4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 48

References................................................................................................................................ 52

Appendix A Home Language and Literacy Practice Survey ................................................. 61

Appendix B List of items for Rapid-automatized Naming Task (RAN) ............................... 64

Appendix C List of non-words for Children’s Nonword Repetition Test (CNRep) ............. 66

Appendix D List of words for Word-defining Task .............................................................. 67

Appendix E Learning Motivation and L2 Learning Attitude Survey ................................... 68

Appendix F Narrative Scoring Scheme (NSS) Rubric ........................................................... 73

Appendix G Institutional Review Board (IRB) Research Approval Letter .......................... 75

Appendix H Economic Planning Unit (EPU) Research Approval Letter ............................. 76

v

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Home Language Use of the Child to Other People ............................................ 16

2 Home Language Use of Other People to the Child ............................................ 17

3 Frequency of Home Literacy Activities Over One Month ................................. 18

4 Books used in the SBR classroom ..................................................................... 22

5 Means (SDs) of Performance on Pretests .......................................................... 26

6 Means (SDs) of Performance on Vocabulary Decoding, Meaning, and

Decoding+Meaning .......................................................................................... 28

7 Means (SDs) of LINUS 2 scores ....................................................................... 31

8 Means (SDs) of Language Measures of Storytelling ......................................... 32

9 Means (SDs) of Self-Ratings on a Four-point Motivation Scale ........................ 36

10 Means (SDs) of Self-Ratings on a Four-point Scale of Malay language

Learning Attitudes ............................................................................................ 37

11 Correlations among Initial Malay Proficiency Measure and Later Performance

Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 39

12 Hierarchical Regression Analyses of Performance on Later Performance

Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 40

vi

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Performance on RAN by initial Malay proficiency for both intervention

conditions ......................................................................................................... 27

2 Performance on CNRep by initial Malay proficiency for both intervention

conditions ......................................................................................................... 27

3 Performance on Vocabulary – Meaning by intervention condition .................... 29

4 Vocabulary – Meaning as a function of initial Malay language proficiency ....... 42

5 LINUS 2 as a function of initial Malay language proficiency ............................ 43

6 Story length as a function of initial Malay language proficiency ....................... 44

7 Vocabulary diversity as a function of initial Malay language proficiency .......... 44

8 Verbal rate as a function of initial Malay language proficiency ......................... 45

9 Mazes as a function of initial Malay language proficiency ................................ 46

10 L2 Learning Attitude as a function of initial Malay language proficiency ......... 47

11 L2 Learning Motivation as a function of initial Malay language proficiency ..... 47

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Education is the single most powerful element to achieve sustainable development in

human society. In realization of this importance, Malaysia has played a proactive role in the past

three decades to advance its educational standards and accelerate educational attainment for all

of its citizens. However, despite the dramatic growth in the country’s overall educational

attainment, the fact remains that there still exists a huge educational gap between the mainstream

and the underserved populations in the country that cannot be ignored. Such an underserved

population is the country’s indigenous peoples called the Orang Asli. In the context of the

country’s overall development, the Orang Asli minority are generally still lagging behind in all

aspects of life as compared to the rest of the Malaysian ethnic groups.

Although it has been noted that Orang Asli now hold highly-skilled positions (e.g.

engineer, professor, entrepreneur), the number of those who never attended school or dropped

out before earning a high school diploma far out-number those who have succeeded

academically. Research suggests that reasons explaining for their low educational attainments are

multifaceted. Cultural differences, poverty, digital and information gap, as well as the country’s

rapid physical development, are the possible factors which explain for the substantial educational

disparities experienced by the Orang Asli (Yahya, 2006).

The illiteracy rate among the Orang Asli in year 2000 was 49.2% as opposed to only

6.4% for the entire nation (Department of Orang Asli Affairs, 2003). This figure is alarming and

has negative implications for the country’s development (Yahaya, 2006). This study therefore

aims at suggesting a path for educational improvement in Orang Asli classrooms, so that

aspirations to successfully educate the Orang Asli can be achieved.

2

The next section of this chapter provides a description of the state of education for the

Orang Asli and the inadequacy of instruction for Orang Asli children. The following section

explains the current study, which attempts to address the inadequacy of the literacy instruction

for the Orang Asli children through an alternative approach to teaching literacy, Shared-Book

Reading, which aims at improving Orang Asli children’s word knowledge and oral Malay

language production. The final section discusses related studies in Shared-book reading followed

by the theoretical framework that underlies the present study. The objectives of the study are

presented last.

Challenges of education for the Orang Asli

The extensive failure of indigenous students, the Orang Asli, in Malaysian schools

particularly during secondary level is still a heated issue. Malaysian government officials, and

leaders of non-governmental organizations alike, are still contesting issues and searching for a

solution. Orang Asli students who have most to gain from a successful experience are the most

likely to leave school with minimal skills and qualifications. The situation has shown little

improvement over 30 years as evidenced by repeated findings on Orang Asli education. Inquiries

by the government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) into indigenous education,

especially those addressing issues such as attendance (Human Rights Commission of Malaysia &

Center for Orang Asli Concerns, 2006a; Department of Orang Asli Affairs, 2008), identity

(Center for Orang Asli Concerns, 2000; 2006b), and achievement (International Work Group for

Indigenous Affairs & Center for Orang Asli Concerns, 2000) have resulted in little improvement.

Prior to the year 1995, the fate of education for the Orang Asli lay in the hands of the

Department of Orang Asli Affairs (JHEOA), where several educational programs were created to

3

promote assimilation of Orang Asli students into the mainstream culture as well as to provide a

better standard of living through wider occupational opportunities. Programs run by the

Department included a three-tier educational program aiming for Orang Asli children to enter the

national (mainstream) education system, but ended as a ‘dismal failure’ due to lack of trained

teaching personnel and the inability to fulfill the required physical needs for a school to run

properly (Department of Orang Asli Affairs, 2008). Concerned with the futility of its efforts, the

Department handed over its educational programs for Orang Asli students to the Ministry of

Education in 1995.

While school attendance among Orang Asli children has grown since the changing of

administration to the Ministry, the dropout rate among these children has remained

disproportionately high. Out of every 100 Orang Asli children entering Grade 1, only about 6

students reach Grade 12 eleven years later; that is, the rate of dropout is 94.4% by then

(Department of Orang Asli Affairs, 2008). The dropout rate for transition from elementary

school to secondary school (from Grade 6 to Grade 7) is unacceptably high. In 2003, of the 3,333

Orang Asli schoolchildren who completed Grade 6, only 1, 869 continued into Grade 7

constituting a 43.9% rate after elementary school (Department of Orang Asli Affairs, 2008). This

figure remains high with little improvement even five years later where the dropout rate during

the transition year was 39.1% in 2008. During the same year, of those who registered for

secondary schooling, 47.8% have dropped out before completing Grade 12, without earning a

high school diploma (Department of Orang Asli Affairs, 2008).

Orang Asli schoolchildren are usually faulted for their failure by the society at large for

their differences in culture and attitudes as compared to their mainstream peers, for being ‘lazy’

and ‘bored’ (The Star, 1.14.2006). Quoting Endicott and Dentan (in press), officials in the

4

Department of Orang Asli Affairs also tend to blame the Orang Asli; according to former

director-general, Jimin Idris, in a newspaper interview,

Firstly, it must be realised that there is no formal education in Orang Asli society. None

of the Orang Asli tribes have their own alphabet or writing. Moreover, the introduction of

a formal education process was met with general apathy.

Orang Asli children go to school because there is a hot-meal programme. They will stay

away from school if they are scolded by their teachers. Then there is the problem of

parents taking their children away for weeks—to look for wild fruits during the season.

(Malay Mail, 1986)

To further support this view, Ikram Jamaludin (1997), as cited in Endicott and Dentan (in

press), stated that a later director-general of the Department blamed the ‘high dropout rate on

Orang Asli lack of self-discipline and the lack of parental pressure to study.’

In a consultancy report prepared for the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia,

Nicholas (2006a) highlighted structural reasons for the high dropout rate among this minority,

with the aim of addressing the ‘incorrect and unscientific’ blames by the society for the poor

staying power of Orang Asli children at school. In his report to the commission, Nicholas

(2006a) stated that the structural reasons can be broadly categorized as: a) factors related to

poverty in which 80.8% of the Orang Asli live below the poverty line as compared to 8.5%

nationally (The Star, 2.19.1997) and ‘to send and keep a single child at school even if only the

most basic of schooling needs are to be met’ is not a cheap affair; b) non-delivery of educational

assistance in which ‘many Orang Asli parents have been complaining that subsidies for their

children have been withdrawn since 2000’ due to the depressed economic situation then; c)

contrast in pedagogy and culture of the Orang Asli where its first graders are ‘generally ‘slower

than the other students primarily because they do not have the exposure that other children got’;

d) gaps in school attendance, ‘pushing them further back academically such that it will be

difficult for them to catch up with their non-Orang Asli classmates’; and e) imperfections in the

5

system itself where most Orang Asli parents are left out of the education system and their roles

in the Parent-Teacher Association is ‘invariably negligible’ (Nicholas, 2006a).

Adams (1990) in her book on beginning to read claims that ideally, children should

become familiar with letters long before they get to school, but according to Nicholas (2006a),

most Orang Asli children do not have the opportunity to even attend pre-school, and therefore

are not able to read and write when they start Grade 1, let alone be conversant in the Malay

language, which is not a language they speak at home. Nicholas (2006a) also states that Orang

Asli children typically do not have the advantages of access to all sorts of educational toys or TV

programs during their preschool years and this puts them in a great disadvantage compared to

other students. Also, this can sometimes be the reason for them being ‘left behind’ because as

Nicholas (2006a) argues, it is ‘certainly not a level playing field for all Orang Asli

schoolchildren in Grade 1 where cultural factors also come into play in areas such as curriculum

content, relevance of subjects taught, indigenization of teaching modules, medium of instruction,

and acknowledgement of indigenous traditions and systems.’ The point to be stressed is that on

entering the national mainstream school system, the Orang Asli child is at an immediate cultural

disadvantage compared to other communities. Furthermore, educational inequality for Malaysian

indigenous students in general still remains ‘largely sidelined’ (Nicholas, 2006a).

The current study

There appear to be no previous studies directly assessing the impact of an educational

intervention program that could bring about changes in the Orang Asli classroom. The only

studies on educational issues of Orang Asli children are descriptive, looking at educational

aspects of Orang Asli children listed as at-risk for school failure and trying to identify possible

6

causes of the high dropout rates from school among Orang Asli children (Mat Nor, 1997;

Nicholas, 2000; Payani Yanai, 2001; Nicholas, 2006a). There is but one single study on the

relationship between parenting styles and academic performance among the Orang Asli

community (Bongsu, 1994). Sound of studies of interventions that could possibly work to help

improve the educational situation for Orang Asli children are still scarce or nonexistent.

The current project is the first, or one of the first, to implement a literacy program

intended specifically to promote the emerging literacy skills of first grade Orang Asli children

learning to read, write, and speak in a second language (Malay language), and also to help boost

their motivation and engagement in literacy through a fun and informal approach with hopes of

increasing their staying power at school.

The proposed program is a classroom-wide literacy instructional program initiated by

Don Holdaway (1979) that employs an enlarged text as a method of cooperative reading, and

which later became known as shared-reading. Shared-reading is an enjoyable, cooperative,

interactive reading activity based on bedtime story experience (Fisher & Fisher, 2000 in Hyland,

2005) where the role of the traditional teacher is shifted to one who ‘attends’ and ‘facilitates’ the

students through pleasure reading (Holdaway, 1979). By greatly enlarging the size of a

storybook, a comfortable atmosphere of bedtime story reading can be created with the entire

class which allows children to enter a three-way partnership with the author and the teacher

(Hyland, 2005). The major function of SBR according to Holdaway (1979) is to share pleasure

with the children by providing an enjoyable story experience with them — and this should not be

sacrificed to any other purpose — as well as to model literacy in operation. The SBR model

suggests that there should be a ‘positive interaction’ and ‘very little negative ticking off’, taking

into account the phonetic principle by carefully pairing up letter-sound relationships in the

7

stories, using extra large print, pointing to the words while reading aloud to enhance students’

skills of making letter-sound connections, masking or highlighting words to maintain students’

focus on the text and choosing materials that would ‘fascinate’ children rather than materials that

are easy enough for them (Holdaway, 1979). In sum, the SBR model is one Holdaway (1979)

describes the situation from the child’s point of view as ‘among the happiest and most secure in

his/her experience.’

Related studies in Shared-book Reading

While it has been clearly proven that social interactions play a role in shaping a child’s

development, the trick is to ensure that these contacts will also help to bring about positive

effects on their learning (Hyland, 2005). After the successes of SBR in achieving that goal first

came to light when researchers like Holdaway (1979) and Elley (1983) demonstrated the

intervention was capable of increasing phonological awareness and oral development among

kindergarten children, subsequent studies since then have profusely continued to demonstrate the

power of SBR as a positive influence on learning to read among children (e.g. Anderson et al.,

2002; Arnold & Whitehurst, 1994; Blewitt & Rump, 2009; Crain-Thoreson & Dale, 1999; Dale

& Crain-Thoreson, 1996; Davie & Kemp, 2002; DeBaryshe, 1993; Elley & Manghubai, 1981;

Evans et. al., 2008; ; Hindman et. al., 2008; Hindman, Wasik, & Erhart, 2010; Horner, 2004;

Karweit, 1989; Kirchner, 1991; Lonigan, 1994; Mason, 1992; Mason, Kerr, Sinha &

McCormick, 1990; Mautte, 1990; Moerk, 1985; Ninio, 1983; Ratner, Parker, & Gardner, 1993;

Pollard-Durodola et. al, 2011; Senechal & Cornell, 1993; Sheets, 1999; Snow & Gold, 1983;

Trivette & Dunst, 2007; Ukraneitz et. al., 2000; Whitehurst et al., 1994; and Zucker, Justice,

Piasta & Kaderavek; 2010.).

8

Several of these studies have also looked at the impact of SBR on underprivileged groups

of students. Davie and Kemp’s (2002) study investigated whether shared book reading could be

used to facilitate more language and more intelligible language in young children with mild to

moderate intellectual disabilities and delayed speech when compared to facilitated play. 22

children with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities and delayed speech were videotaped while

interacting with a facilitator during a session that included both book reading and play. Two

different protocols were used to analyze the children’s language in both conditions. The first

protocol was used to document the number of intelligible, unintelligible and inaudible utterances

and the second protocol was used to examine the intelligible utterances in relation to their

complexity and function.

The findings indicated that shared book reading elicited more language, more intelligible

language and more complex language than the facilitated play condition. Results from the study

also suggested that shared book reading allowed for more conversational interaction between the

children and the facilitators. These results also support the use of shared book reading as a

means of collecting useful language samples from children who have mild-moderate

intellectual disabilities.

Hindman, Wasik, and Erhart (2010) examined the ways in which the language that Head

Start teachers employed during shared-book reading, as well as the extent to which they made

explicit connections between book-reading and other instructional activities, were linked to

preschoolers’ vocabulary development. They found that on average children learned more words

of the course of the year when teachers used more contextualized or decontextualized talk during

book readings, and when they produced more frequent connections between book readings and

other curricular activities. Contextualized book-related talk was most positively associated with

9

learning among children with relatively low initial vocabulary knowledge, while connections to

other activities were most related to learning among high-vocabulary preschoolers. Findings thus

show the nuanced ways in which shared book reading is linked to vocabulary growth among the

most vulnerable learners in the United States and highlight potential avenues through which

readings could be strategically individualized to optimize early vocabulary development and help

prepare children from low-income backgrounds to learn to read.

Mason et al. (1990) investigated the effects of including shared book reading activities in

an urban preschool program that identified at-risk children through assessment of child and

family factors. The year-long intervention supplemented the regular preschool program with

weekly classroom reading and sharing of simple books, use of book topics for writing and

dramatic play, and shared-book reading by parents and their children in the home. The study

used a quasi-experimental design with multiple converging measures of children's knowledge of

language and literacy constructs and parent questionnaire responses. Multivariate and univariate

analyses revealed that literacy development can be fostered through the incorporation of shared

book reading. Pre and posttest comparisons also revealed that at-risk children can make

substantial growth in language development, print concept awareness, letter knowledge, writing,

and reading abilities.

Whitehurst et al. (1994) studied the effects of an interactive shared-book reading program

on children from low-income families who attended subsidized day-care centers in New York.

The children entered the program with language development in Standard English vocabulary

and expression that was about 10 months behind chronological age on standardized tests.

Children were pretested and assigned randomly within classrooms to 1 of 3 conditions: (a) a

school plus home condition in which the children were read to by their teachers and their parents,

10

(b) a school condition in which children were read to only by teachers, and (c) a control

condition in which children engaged in play activities under the supervision of their teachers.

Training of adult readers was based on a self-instructional video. The intervention lasted for 6

weeks, at which point children were posttested on several standardized measures of language

ability that had been used as pretests. These assessments were repeated at a 6-month follow-up.

Educationally and statistically significant effects of the reading intervention were obtained at

posttest and follow-up on measures of expressive vocabulary, signifying the positive impact of

SBR on language-delayed children’s progress in learning to read.

Previous studies provide important information about some of SBR’s powerful effects on

poor-achieving, underserved children, but no research has been carried out to look at its effects

on indigenous peoples speaking non-written first languages such as the Orang Asli learning to

acquire literacy in a second language, generally lacking background knowledge of print prior to

attending first year of schooling. Although SBR is widely used in middle-class classrooms where

teachers are familiar with the approach and teaching materials are widely available, it is probable

that the effects of SBR can extend beyond regular mainstream classrooms and have significant

implications for Orang Asli children’s learning of the second language. By improving the

approach in teaching reading and getting students engaged in the activities, it seems it would

follow naturally that the atmosphere in the Orang Asli classroom would become more inviting

and cooperative, lending itself to higher levels of student participation and achievement.

This study thus sought to investigate the influence of twice a week SBR intervention may

have on indigenous students’ involvement and success in classroom activities by collecting

information through student feedback in the form of assessments and teacher observations. It was

anticipated that the study would demonstrate that SBR can improve Orang Asli students’ overall

11

second language learning, their level of motivation and engagement towards literacy, and would

lead to greater involvement in learning both inside and outside of the classroom. By providing an

instructional atmosphere that they find personally appealing and motivating, it was expected that

students will work more cohesively and efficiently and will then find school relevant and worth

attending.

Theoretical Framework

The model aligns itself well with Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) work on ‘Zone of Proximal

Development’ (ZPD) suggesting that ‘the range of tasks that are too difficult for the child to

master alone’ is possible to ‘be learned with guidance and assistance of adults or more-skilled

children.’ In other words, shared reading enables children — especially second language children

— to engage in genuine reading at a level beyond which they might be able to do on their own

(Hyland, 2005). Vygotsky (1962) has also shown through his research that learning is most

effective when it is collaborative. According to Hyland (2005), SBR is a step between reading to

children and independent reading by children – the step where children learn to read by regularly

reinforcing their skills cooperatively. Hyland (2005) further claims that SBR promotes a relaxed,

supportive atmosphere which allows children to experiment as they develop strategies for

predicting and self-correcting in reading.

SBR also fits with Bandura’s (1973) social learning theory which outlines three

requirements for people to learn and model behavior successfully, that including: 1) Attention -

retention or remembering what one observed; 2) Reproduction - ability to reproduce the behavior

learned, and 3) Motivation – (good reason) to want to adopt the behavior, all which are

embedded in a typical SBR approach.

12

The theoretical framework of this approach has also been supported by various reading

and literacy researches. The SBR model seemed effectively fitting to the descriptions outlined by

these researches in promoting successful literacy skills among young children (e.g., research

foundations supporting wide-reading (Anderson, 1996); effective beginning reading instruction

(Pressley, 2002); and impact of book flood (Elley et. al., 1975). Several positive influences for

adopting a literacy model such as the SBR which is in tandem to the findings of the researches

on enhancing literacy skills among children include incidental vocabulary learning as compared

to direct vocabulary instruction (Anderson, 1996), increased word learning during reading aloud

and direct discussion of stories with children (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985;

Elley, 1991; Feitelson, Kita, & Goldstein, 1986, cited in Anderson, 1996), ample experience with

oral and printed language which is needed for children who are least ready for systematic reading

instruction (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985), repeated opportunities for reading to

enable children to refine and extend their knowledge of letter-sound correspondences (Anderson,

et al., 1985; Martinez & Roser, 1985; Schleper, 1998) and positive effects on reading

comprehension, vocabulary, and reading speed through continuous reading of storybooks

(increased amount of storybook reading through book flood) (Elley, Cowie, & Watson, 1975;

Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988).

Objectives of the Study

The overall goal of the research is to document instructional practices that could give a

large boost to children’s capabilities of being active recipients of information and promotes them

to be full participants in reading through questioning, labeling, elaborating and by joining in the

reading as they wish (Hayden, 1986). An educational intervention that provides social

13

opportunities, enabling the young second language learners to gain confidence, share knowledge,

self-correct and construct meaning cooperatively, this present SBR study targeted Malaysian

indigenous children, or Orang Asli, the largest group of underserved children in Malaysia.

Children from two first grade classrooms from two schools with high enrollments (more than

90.00%) of Orang Asli children were read stories to by their Malay language teacher and the

reasearcher on an alternate basis using a giant-sized storybook. They engaged in post-reading

activities intended to enhance their oral language production as well as their word-knowledge.

The centerpiece of the present study was a series of a simple and engaging reading lessons that

entailed the use of giant-sized storybooks carefully selected to suit the children’s reading level as

well as background knowledge where the teacher illustrates “skills in action” by directing

attention to letters, word patterns, and conventions of print to the children (Hyland, 2005).

Specifically, the objectives of this quasi-experimental study was to investigate whether

and how the Shared Book Reading sessions impact the development of vocabulary and oral

Malay language proficiency for young Malaysian indigenous learners as well as their motivation

and L2 learning attitudes. We anticipate that engaging in SBR sessions will accelerate the

vocabulary and oral language skills of these Malay language learners. Specifically, it was

hypothesized that oral narrative, expressive and receptive vocabulary would be enhanced. SBR

experiences were also hypothesized to improve children’s motivation, engagement, and L2

learning attitudes which were expected in turn to promote their oral proficiency and literacy

skills in L2.

The study investigated if SBR has a differential effect on the language and motivation

outcomes for children with varying initial Malay language proficiency. We expected that

children with a higher level of initial Malay language proficiency would benefit more from SBR

14

sessions; and that lower level of initial Malay language proficiency will be more motivated and

engaged in SBR sessions and have a more positive attitude toward Malay language learning. The

results altogether will yield implications for effective literacy instruction of these Malay

language learners.

15

Chapter 2

Method

Participants

Two Malay language teachers and their first grade classes with predominant enrollment

of indigenous children (N=63) in Kuala Langat (southwest district of the state of Selangor)

participated in the study. Of all 63 students, 57 (90.48%) were indigenous, 2 (3.17%) were

Malays and 4 (6.35%) were Indians. Because this study specifically targeted indigenous children

learning Malay as a second language, only the 57 indigenous children were included for data

analysis. There were 27 indigenous children in the SBR group and 30 indigenous children in the

control group. There were 49.10% boys (SBR: 17.54%, Control: 31.56%) and 50.90% girls

(SBR: 29.84%, Control: 21.06%). The mean age of the studied sample was 6.7 years old. All

students come from a household with per capita monthly household income of MYR 84.66 (USD

29.19).

Students in both classes received immersion Malay language instruction with exceptions

during English, Mathematics, and Science lessons where the English language is officially to be

used as a medium of instruction. Beginning the 2010 academic year, all first-grade students were

required to sit for a series of nationwide tests to assess their basic literacy and numeracy

proficiency. Children were screened on a continuous basis three times per school year until the

end of their third grade to identify those without basic literacy and numeracy skills. The sample

of this study was the first cohort of first-graders to go through this assessment. Out of the 57

indigenous children in both research sites, only 9 students received passing grades during the

first administration of the test. In other words, only these 9 students were able to read, write, and

do basic arithmetic at the targeted level at the onset of the SBR intervention. And only those who

pass can be regarded as mainstream students. Those who did not pass received remedial

16

instruction on top of the regular mainstream curriculum until they passed the test in subsequent

screenings.

Table 1 and Table 2 present the reported home language use of the sample. The children

tended to speak with their parents, siblings and with other adults mostly in Asli language or an

equal combination of Malay language and Asli language. The same pattern is observed when

parents, siblings, and other adults speak to the children where the Asli language is frequently

used instead of Malay. This comes to show that the Asli language is preferred at home regardless

of family member.12

Table 1

Home Language Use of the Child to Other People

Only Asli Mostly Asli Equal use of

Malay and

Asli

Mostly Malay Only Malay

Father 1.80% 69.60% 28.60% 0.00% 0.00%

Mother 7.10% 57.10% 35.70% 0.00% 0.00%

Siblings 12.50% 83.90% 3.60% 0.00% 0.00%

Other adults 7.10% 69.60% 23.20% 0.00% 0.00%

According to the home language and literacy survey where the parents were interviewed

directly either during adult school hours or at their homes (response rate 100%), most children in

the sample has limited home literacy resources and received limited home literacy support. All

families (100%) reported having less than 10 children books at home. The frequency of home

literacy activities is listed in Table 3. There were no significant variations across the households

in terms of parent-child reading time as 94.70% of the parents reported they have never read

1 The Asli language here refers to the Indigenous language as a general term. The majority of children and their

families in the studied sample spoke two different Aslian languages as they come from two different tribes, the Mah

Meri and Temuan.

2 All Aslian languages are non-written.

17

storybooks with their children before. 78.90% of the parents helped their children with

homework only once a month, 5.30% helped their children once a week and 1.8% helped their

children 2-3 times a week. None of the parents have reported to be helping their children with

homework every day. A majority of parents never read books, magazines or newspapers

(84.23%) nor do their children (96.50%). Also, none of parents (100%) have ever brought their

children to the library. However, 66.70% of the parents told stories at least once a week to their

children in Asli language.

Table 2

Home Language Use of Other People to the Child

Only Asli Mostly Asli Equal use of

Malay and

Asli

Mostly Malay Only Malay

Father 16.10% 83.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Mother 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Siblings 23.20% 67.90% 8.90% 0.00% 0.00%

Other adults 55.40% 44.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

In terms of education, 26.30% of the parents never attended school (father: 7.00%,

mother: 19.30%). 48.25% (father: 26.30%, mother: 21.95%) attended school between first-grade

and third-grade before dropping out, 20.20% (father: 12.30%, mother: 7.90%) attended school up

until fourth-grade through sixth-grade, and only 5.3% (father: 4.4%, mother: 0.90%) attended

school up until seventh-grade through ninth-grade. None of the parents received formal

education at school beyond ninth grade. See Appendix A for complete survey questions.

18

Table 3

Frequency of Home Literacy Activities Over One Month

Items

Never

Once a month

Once a week

2-3 times a

week

Everyday

I read books

with my

child.

94.70%

1.80%

1.80%

1.8%

1.8%

I help my

child with

homework.

12.30% 78.90% 5.30% 3.50% 0.00%

I tell stories to

my child.

0.00% 29.80% 66.70% 3.50% 0.00%

I read books,

magazines, or

newspapers.

84.23% 8.77% 3.50% 3.50% 0.00%

My child

reads books,

magazines or

newspapers.

96.50% 1.80% 0.00% 1.8% 0.00%

I go to the

library with

my child.

100.00% 00.00% 00.00% 00.00% 00.00%

Procedure and Materials

Two classrooms, matched on prior academic achievement and percentages of indigenous

student enrollment, were randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions. To minimize

volunteer bias, assignment to treatment conditions were made after teachers, parents, and

students had given consent to participate in the project.

The two participating teachers attended a 1-day workshop conducted at one of the two

selected schools to learn about the goals of SBR, the research and theory on which the program

19

is based, and how to promote students’ literacy skills in Malay language from it. They also

practiced SBR sessions, evaluated one another's practice sessions, and analyzed how SBR

sessions fit into their instructional practice. The control teacher was asked not to use SBR until

after the data collection period was over.

Before implementation of the SBR intervention to the treatment class, both classrooms

were videotaped to obtain a profile of regular instruction and to establish baseline measures of

student participation and engagement. Students in both classrooms were also individually

administered two pretests: the Rapid-Automatized Naming task (RAN; Denckla & Rudel, 1974)

and the Chidlren’s Nonword Repetition test (CNRep; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1996). On a

separate day, students were assessed with a third pretest, LINUS 1, a standardized nation-wide

literacy and numeracy test which was administered by the students’ respective schools.

LINUS 1. This is a nationally standardized screening test administered three times per

academic year aiming at identifying school children in need of extra help to be able to master

basic numeracy and literacy skills by the end of the third year in elementary school. The

Malaysian Examinations Council is held responsible to provide screening instruments to screen

and identify numeracy and literacy mastery of Grades 1, 2, and 3 students. For the purpose of

this study, scores from only the literacy component of the test were used for data analysis.

LINUS 1 is the first screening test for the respective academic year. Results from this test

provided an indication of the participating students’ initial Malay language and literacy

proficiency prior to the implementation of the intervention. Since it is a standardized, national

test, it was administered by the schools and not by the researcher. Each student received a grade

in either one of the following three categories: passed (referred to L1-3 in this report), partially-

passed (L1-2), or failed (L1-1).

20

Rapid-Automatized Naming test. This test is a modified version of the Rapid Automatized

Naming Tests developed by Denckla and Rudel (1974) which aim at predicting children’s

working memory, lexical access, and phonological encoding which are all necessary elements for

successful language learning. Students in both conditions were required to name, as rapidly as

possible, a list of objects presented visually on two separate sheets of paper. Each sheet of paper

(which were named Version A and Version B respectively) contained five rows of four stimuli

from a category of common objects (e.g. vehicles, animals, fruits). The tests are scored for the

average time in seconds taken to complete each sheet. See Appendix B.

Children’s Nonword Repetition test. This test is a modified version of Gathercole and

Baddeley’s (1996 ) Children’s Test of Nonword Repetition that provides an indicator of

children’s short-term memory which correlates well with language learning and is useful in

identifying learning difficulties. The test uses a set of 40 unfamiliar spoken items which the child

must attempt to repeat. The items were modified from the original test to tailor it to the Malay

language. Items were Malay-like nonwords that ranged from two to five syllables. The test did

not disadvantage children with a less rich environmental experience of language, like the

students in the studied sample, because it uses unfamiliar spoken items which are not part of the

Malay language. See Appendix C.

Additionally, a set of questionnaire items adapted from Duursma et al (2007) and Zhang

(2009) was used to survey the home language background and literacy practices of the studied

children and their families. Since the children came from largely illiterate families, the researcher

interviewed one of their primary caregivers face-to-face either during adult-education hours in

the afternoons (for parents who did attend) or at their homes in eight different villages. The

survey included demographic variables, parent education level, language use and exposure at

21

home, literacy practices and support in the home in the indigenous and Malay languages. See

Appendix A.

The SBR intervention began with three in-class practice reading sessions based on lower

reading level stories. The purpose of these easy books was to introduce the students to SBR,

familiarize them with the flow of the sessions, and promote the emergence of motivation to share

and read stories to each other in order to make the subsequent ten sessions on using giant-sized

storybooks as productive as possible (Anderson et al, 2002). Reading level was gradually

increased throughout the five weeks of treatment using ten different giant-sized storybooks in

class. The themes of the stories also varied ranging from stories where students have background

knowledge (e.g. wild animals) to those that are more distant (e.g. fictional characters, giants).

See Table 4 for list of books used during the treatment. In each SBR session, the teacher starts

the lesson with pre-reading activities to heighten students’ interest towards the story and to tap

students’ background knowledge. This is followed by reading a giant-sized storybook to the

whole class by specifically pointing at the enlarged text. Students would actively repeat the

reading after the teacher finished reading the story for the first time.

Post-reading activities followed next. During this period, students typically engage in an

activity related to the story of the day that including role-play, art-work, group performance,

completion of worksheets or singing songs. The purpose of the post-reading activities was to

provide more opportunities for students to practice using the targeted language in a more

engaging manner. Toward the end of each session, all treatment students received a copy of the

story read during the day to be brought home and shared with family members. The aim was to

extend the shared-book reading experience with the rest of the indigenous community to which

these students belong. Another aim was to help these children set up a mini-library at home in

22

which towards the end of the intervention, each student had 13 storybooks to keep for

themselves.

Table 4

Books used in the SBR classroom.

Author Title and publisher

Rod Theodorou (1996) Animals went to bed. San Diego: Harcourt Ltd.

Claire Llewellyn (2000) Animal Presents. Oxford: Reed Ltd.

Moira Andrew (1996) The Giant’s Day Out. Oxford: Pearson Publishers.

Tony Mitton (1996) The Robot. San Diego: Harcourt Education Inc.

Tony Mitton (1996) The Iron Horse. San Diego: Harcourt Education Inc.

Tony Mitton (1996) Treasure Hunt. San Diego: Harcourt Education Inc.

Joy Cowley (1984) I’m the King of the Mountain. NZ: Learning Media

Monica Hughes (2000) Birthday Balloons. San Diego: Harcourt Education Inc.

Paul Shipton (2000) Clever Chick. Oxford: Reed Ltd.

Alison Hawes (2007) Snake Goes Away. San Diego: Harcourt Education Inc.

Linda Strachan (2000) The Giant and the Frippit. Oxford: Pearson Publishers.

Julia Donaklson (2000) The Giant Jumperee. Oxford: Pearson Publishers.

Alison Hawes (2000) The Wind and the Sun. Oxford: Pearson Education Ltd.

All students in both conditions were assessed on several outcome measures after the

intervention ended: LINUS 2, word-defining skills, storytelling, motivation, and L2 learning

attitude.

LINUS 2. See LINUS 1 for description. The LINUS 2 test was administered by the

schools after completion of the SBR program. Each student received a grade in one of the

23

following three categories: passed (referred to L2-3 in this report), partially-passed (L2-2), or

failed (L2-1).

Word-defining task. This task required each student to read aloud a set of 40 words

printed individually on flash cards. The students were also required to describe to the researcher

what they knew about the word. In the event that a student could not read the word, the

researcher then reads the word aloud and asked for the student to describe its meaning. The

researcher ended the task when an individual student was found to not be able to read or provide

the meaning of five consecutive words. This audio-recorded task was developed by the

researcher and the principal research investigator, with the aid of the two involved teachers in the

finalization of the words to be tested. The 40 words were derived from the 10 storybooks used in

the SBR sessions and were sequenced according to word difficulty level. See Appendix D.

Storytelling. Mercer Mayer’s (1969) widely used wordless picture book, “Frog where are

you?” was used to assess students’ oral narrative skills using the procedures established by

Berman and Slobin (1994). The book consists of 24 pictures depicting a little boy’s search for a

pet frog who escapes from the boy’s room. The boy is aided in the search by his dog, whose

adventures and misadventures complicate the story line. In the final pictures, the boy and the dog

find a frog family and take one of the baby frogs home. Like the word-defining task, this task

was also individually administered in a quiet room. Students were first presented with the

storybook where the researcher explained to each student that the book was about a boy, a dog,

and a frog. Students were told to have a look through all the pictures in the book for several

minutes. When they were ready, they were asked to tell the story. In the event that a student

stopped in the middle of the story, the researcher may ask neutral prompts (i.e. “Anything else?”,

“What happened next?” or, “Go on”). This task was audio-recorded and students were informed

24

prior to the recording. The audio-recordings were later transcribed, coded and analyzed using the

Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT, 2010) software. Coding was completed by

the researcher and another Malay native speaker. Coders initially worked together to achieve an

interrater kappa reliability of 0.90; thereafter, they both coded the sample of audios to prevent

any drift in reliability. All audios were double-coded to ensure accuracy of the codes assigned.

The transcribed stories were also holistically and blindly graded by the two involved teachers

following the Narrative Scoring Scheme (NSS, 2010) rubric. See Appendix F.

Motivation and L2 learning attitude. This task required each student to complete a four-

point Likert-scale about motivation and Malay language learning attitude modified from

Mazzoni (1999). However, instead of the standard numbered scale, this questionnaire consisted

of a scale of emoticons which was deemed more appropriate in eliciting accurate answers from

the young students. Since most of the students in the studied sample were poor emergent readers,

the researcher called for each student individually and read each item aloud to the student. The

student then points to the emoticon that best reflects their response and the researcher recorded

each given response. See Appendix E.

Analyses

To investigate whether SBR has an overall intervention effect, a MANCOVA was

performed on all the outcome variables using the pretest scores as covariates. If a significant

effect was found, a series of ANCOVA analyses were further conducted to examine the specific

intervention effect on the individual outcome variable.

To investigate whether or not SBR impacted students differently depending on their

initial Malay language proficiency, hierarchical regression analyses on all outcome variables

were conducted. Out of the three pretests, only LINUS 1 was significantly related to the outcome

25

measures, hence the other two pretests were excluded from the analyses. In each analysis, initial

Malay proficiency (LINUS 1) was entered first, followed by the contrast: SBR vs. Control, and

their interaction was entered last. If the interaction was significant, further analyses were

performed to determine how SBR differently impacted children with varying levels of initial

Malay language proficiency.

26

Chapter 3

Results and Discussion

Initial Malay language Proficiency

Table 5 summarizes the descriptive statistics of children’s performance on the three

Malay language proficiency pretests: LINUS 1, Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN), and

Children’s Nonword Repetition (CNRep), as well as Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients.

The scores for RAN and CNRep by initial Malay proficiency (LINUS 1) are illustrated in Figure

1 and Figure 2 for both treatment conditions. Children with higher initial Malay proficiency (L1-

3) took less time to complete the RAN task than those with lower initial Malay proficiency (L1-1

and L1-2) regardless of treatment condition. Children with higher initial Malay proficiency (L1-

1) also scored higher than those with lower initial Malay proficiency (L1-1 and L1-2) on the

CNRep regardless of treatment condition. Using the three pretest scores as dependent variables, a

one-way MANOVA analysis found no significant main effect of the intervention condition, F (3,

53) = .386 p = .764, ηp2 = .021, indicating that the initial Malay language proficiency of the SBR

and the control group was comparable.

Table 5

Means (SDs) of Performance on Pretests

Pretests Cronbach’s α SBR Control

LINUS 1 NA 1.85(.77) 1.67(.66)

RAN .943 40.39(9.08) 41.35(10.15)

CNRep .794 29.70(4.79) 28.47(5.86)

27

Figure 1. Performance on RAN by initial Malay proficiency for both intervention

conditions.

Figure 2. Performance on CNRep by initial Malay proficiency for both intervention

conditions.

44.88

40.6

29.51

44.62 43.09

28.41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

L1-1 L1-2 L1-3

Me

an

RA

N s

core

s (s

eco

nd

s)

Initial Malay Proficiency (LINUS 1)

CONTROL

SBR

25.23

29.71

36.67

27.4 29.18

34.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

L1-1 L1-2 L1-3

Me

an C

NR

ep s

core

s


CONTROL

SBR

28

Intervention Effects on Vocabulary

Table 6 displays students’ performance on the Vocabulary test. Performance was divided

into three components: 1) Vocabulary – Decoding, the proportion of words each student was able

to read correctly regardless of accuracy of meaning, 2) Vocabulary – Meaning, the proportion of

words each student was able to define correctly regardless of ability to read the words correctly,

and 3) Vocabulary – Decoding + Meaning, the proportion of words each student was able to read

and define correctly. Using the pretest scores as covariates, a MANCOVA analysis was

performed to examine intervention effects on Vocabulary. A significant difference was found

between the SBR and the control group on overall Vocabulary, F (3, 50) = 12.74, p = .00; Wilk’s

Lambda = .57, ηp2 = .43. Out of the three pretests, only the LINUS 1 covariate was significantly

related to the Vocabulary outcome measures, F (3, 50) = 33.26, p = .00; Wilk’s Lambda .33; ηp2

= .67.

Table 6

Means (SDs) of Performance on Vocabulary Decoding, Meaning, and Decoding + Meaning.

Measures SBR Control

Vocabulary – Decoding 26.37(20.35) 19.37(17.41)

Vocabulary – Meaning 40.52(9.529) 27.23(13.15)

Vocabulary – Decoding + Meaning 25.81(19.89) 18.50(16.56)

Further analysis of each individual dependent variable, using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha

level of .017, showed that there was no contribution toward Vocabulary – Decoding, F (1, 52) =

1.33, p = .255, ηp2 =.025 and Vocabulary – Decoding + Meaning, F (1, 52) = 1.827, p = .182, ηp

2

= 034. There was a treatment effect on Vocabulary – Meaning, F (1, 52) = 32.396, p = .00, ηp2

=.384. The results suggest that SBR sessions have an impact on students’ learning of word

meanings but did not help improve student’s decoding skills. See Figure 3.

29

Figure 3. Performance on Vocabulary – Meaning by intervention condition.

Findings of this study adds to the previous research that engaging children in shared-book

reading sessions improves students overall vocabulary with significant results in learning of

word meanings. The conversation and extra-textual questions that accompany the shared-book

reading sessions have facilitated the young children learning of unfamiliar words (Blewitt et al.,

2009). Children with lower initial Malay proficiency seemed to benefit more from SBR in

learning new word meanings than those with higher initial Malay proficiency. See Figure 4. This

result is unique in experimentally demonstrating children’s vocabulary growth based on their

language proficiency. Typically, children with higher initial language proficiency tend to learn

more than children with lower initial language proficiency. This striking effect may be due to the

fact that shared-book reading sessions call for the teacher to ask scaffolding questions facilitated

children’s deeper understanding of word meanings.

While there was a trend for the SBR students to read more new words, the difference was

not significant, most probably because of the duration of the intervention was not long enough to

obtain such results. However, the evidence that children’s word-meaning knowledge increased

over the course of treatment corroborates previous research demonstrations that young children

40.52

27.23

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

SBR Control

30

learn vocabulary successfully from SBR (Ard & Beverly, 2004; Blewitt, Rump, & Coom, 2009;

Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Elley, 1989; Ewers & Brownson, 1999; Hargrave & Senechal, 2000;

Justice, 2002; Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005; Penno, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002; Reese &

Cox, 1999; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Seńećhal, 1997; Seńećhal & Cornell, 1993; Seńećhal,

Thomas, & Monker, 1995).

Intervention Effects on LINUS 2

Table 7 displays the descriptive statistics of the students’ LINUS 2 scores. ANCOVA

analysis using pretest scores as covariates found a non-significant overall intervention effect, F

(1, 52) = 2.37, p = .13, ηp2 = .04. Out of the three pretests, only the LINUS 1 covariate was

significantly related to the LINUS 2 scores, F (1, 52) = 66.21, p = .00, ηp2 = .56. While there was

a trend for better performance, SBR does not yield an overall intervention effect on LINUS 2.

This is probably due to the nature of the LINUS test itself, which for the most part requires

students to be able to read and write at a level proficient enough in order to receive a passing

score. As reported in the previous section on vocabulary growth, this study was not able to show

that students have an improved text-decoding skill after the intervention.

31

Table 7

Means (SDs) of LINUS 2 scores

SBR Control

2.22(.89)

1.83(.83)

Intervention Effects on Storytelling

Table 8 displays the descriptive statistics of the language measures from the students’

storytelling in five categories: story length, vocabulary diversity, verbal rate, story quality rating

and mazes. MANCOVA analysis using pretest scores as covariates found a significant overall

intervention effect, F (6, 47) = 10.843, p = .00; Wilk’s Lambda = .42, ηp2 = .58. However, out of

the three pretests, only the LINUS 1 covariate was significantly related to the storytelling

outcome measures, F (6, 47) = 3.38, p = .01; Wilk’s Lambda = .70, ηp2 = .30.

Further ANCOVA analyses using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .01 found

significant differences between the SBR and the control group on the story length, vocabulary

diversity, verbal rate, and story quality rating, ps < .01. Compared to the control group, the SBR

group produced longer stories, used a greater variety of words, produced more words per minute,

and told better stories. Results for the total time of the storytelling and mazes produced were

non-significant indicating that students’ performance did not significantly differ by treatment

condition on these two measures.

To illustrate the variations of stories produced by the two different groups of students,

three translated story excerpts describing the outset of the frog story are shown below. Excerpt 1

produced by a student in the SBR class received a relatively higher score on the introduction

category of the Narrative Scoring Scheme (NSS) because the student provided some details

about the setting, main character, and supporting characters. In contrast, Excerpts 2 and 3

32

produced by students in the SBR and control class, respectively, received low scores on the

introduction category of the NSS because both stories began without details about the setting,

and the characters were missing or not clearly referenced. For instance, the description of setting

and the characters was limited and inaccurate in Excerpt 2. Mostly single word utterances were

produced in Excerpt 3.

Table 8

Means (SDs) of Language Measures of Storytelling

Measures

SBR Control

Story Length

Number of Words

199.07(88.64) 81.20(27.43)

Vocabulary Diversity

Number of different words

70.78(16.14) 48.80(17.65)

Rate and fluency

Time length 2.66(.39) 2.46(.49)

Words per minute

Story Quality Rating

NSS

74.16(28.07)

16.26(3.17)

34.34(13.50)

12.97(2.83)

Mazes

Percent of mazes 7.07(3.43) 8.63(2.25)

Two salient characteristics of the storytelling of the students in the SBR class were the

use of animated language (e.g. Frog! Frog! Where are you?) and the high number of

onomatopoeic words (e.g. Woof! Woof!), which we believe were incidentally picked up from the

shared-book reading sessions. See Excerpts 1 and 2. It was also noted that students in the SBR

class employed iconic gestures to depict the action being described (i.e. students cupped their

hands around their mouths accompanied by the words, “Frog! Frog! Where are you?”). They also

frequently used facial animations to add story visualization and varying voice pitches for

33

different characters to embellish their storytelling. Students with low NSS scores in the control

class on the other hand, generally displayed lack of an overall narrative sense, or story schema.

Description of mental states to develop characters is also generally absent in the narratives

produced by students with low NSS scores in the control classroom. See Excerpt 3.

Story Excerpt 1 (SBR class, high score)

There was once a boy, a frog, and a dog.

(They the) Suddenly the frog hopped out of the bottle while the boy and the dog were

asleep.

When morning came, (when) with his dog, the boy looked into the jar and saw the frog

was gone.

(He) He (searched) searched for the frog with his dog.

(He) They searched everywhere in the room.

The dog’s (hand) head got stuck in the jar.

They looked out of the window and called for the frog.

Frog! Frog! Where are you?

(But) But the dog fell off the window.

And the jar on his head broke.

The boy got angry with the dog for making noise.

They went outside and continued searching for the frog.

The boy called for the frog.

Frog! Frog! Where are you?

And the dog looked into a hole.

He barked into the hole.

Woof! Woof!

Story Excerpt 2 (SBR, low score)

One day : the dog was drinking water.

One day (*the) frog (*was) sleep(*ing).

(*The) Frog drowned.

(*The) Boy wake [EW: woke] up.

(The boy) What happened to the dog’s head?

Oh no.

The boy X.

(*The boy) Lift(*ed) the dog.

: :03

He looked for the frog.

Frog! Oh Frog!

(He *the) Dog searched for the frog in the hole.

(He *the) Dog ask(*ed) the frog to come out.

Frog! Oh Frog!

34

Story Excerpt 3 (Control, low score)

Boy.

Frog.

He look(*ed) at (*the) frog.

Sleep.

Brother.

With dog.

Frog.

Went out.

Lost.

Bottle.

Shoe.

Frog.

SBR sessions helped improve young indigenous children’s Malay speaking skills in

terms of the production of higher quality of story structure in oral narratives. The narratives

produced by the SBR group were more coherent in terms of hierarchical thematic structuring and

global plot organization. Narratives produced by the SBR students contained more detailed

descriptions of setting, character development, conflicts, and resolution essential for advancing

the plot in a logical order. SBR students regardless of overall NSS scores also expressed more

mental states of characters (e.g. the boy got angry) and used more clear referents. SBR students’

ability to produce more coherent stories than their counterparts in the control classroom is no

doubt because of active experience with the set of stories in SBR enabled them to obtain a better

understanding of narrative structure.

Shared-book reading sessions may also have promoted young Malaysian indigenous

children’s oral narrative skills because the acquisition in narrative competence is achieved

through the combination of advancing language skills developed through sharing personal

experiences, stories, and other text-level materials (Miller et al., 2006). In addition to the wide

and deep reading experience, students have more opportunities to practice speaking in the Malay

35

language in the shared-book reading sessions by sharing their understanding of the stories in the

post-reading activities (e.g. role-playing, group work, and making personal connections) which

should improve their skill at expressing oral narratives.

Shared-book reading not only improved children’s performance at a global narrative

structure level but also at lexical and syntactical level. Although students in both conditions took

approximately the same amount of time to tell the story, the number of words produced by the

SBR students almost doubled up that produced by the control group. Vocabulary diversity also

doubled up in the SBR classroom indicating that exposure to a wide variety of stories made

students more comfortable and confident to use different types of words in their narratives.

Intervention Effects on Motivation and Malay Learning Attitudes

Students’ self-report on the four-point Likert motivation items are listed in Table 9.

MANCOVA analysis found significant differences between the SBR and the control group on

overall motivation, F (10, 43) = 7.21, p = .00; Wilk’s Lambda = .37, ηp2 = .63. However, none of

the three pretest covariates was significantly related to the combined L2 learning motivation

measures, ps > .05 indicating that the motivation of students was independent of language

ability.

The SBR group was more motivated and engaged in reading lessons. The SBR group was

significantly more positive on four items: I feel lively in SBR/reading lessons; I feel interested in

SBR/reading lessons; I feel relaxed in SBR/reading lessons; and I feel appreciated in

SBR/readings lessons, (1 – totally disagree, 4 - totally agree), ps < .05. The SBR group had

higher group means in overall perceived benefits from reading lessons. But only one individual

item was significant: I learned a lot in SBR/reading lessons, (1 - not at all well, 4 - very well), p

< .05.

36

Table 9

Means (SDs) of Self-Ratings on a Four-point Motivation Scale

Items SBR Control

Engagement

I feel lively in SBR/reading

lessons

3.74 (.48) 2.67 (.96)

I feel interested in

SBR/reading lessons

3.85 (.36) 3.40 (.50)

I feel relaxed in SBR/reading

lessons

3.81 (.40) 2.73 (.64)

I feel appreciated in

SBR/readings lessons

4.00 (.00) 3.53 (.51)

I feel excited in SBR/reading

lessons

3.96 (.19) 3.77 (.43)

I feel happy relaxed in

SBR/reading lessons

3.96 (.19) 3.80 (.41)

Perceived benefits

I did well in SBR/reading

lessons

3.52 (.51) 3.37 (.62)

I learned a lot in SBR/reading

lessons

3.85 (.36) 3.53 (.51)

I paid attention in

SBR/reading lessons

3.67 (.48) 3.50 (.51)

I worked hard in SBR/reading

lessons

3.81 (.39) 3.63 (.49)

Children’s self-ratings on the 8-item Malay language learning attitudes questionnaire are

presented in Table 10. A MANCOVA analysis found significant differences between the SBR

37

and the control group on overall L2 learning attitudes, F = (8, 45) = 14.13, p = .00; Wilks’

Lambda = .29, ηp2 = .72. However, all three pretest covariates were non-significantly related to

the combined L2 learning attitude measures, ps > .05 suggesting students’ L2 learning attitude

was independent of language ability.

Table 10

Means (SDs) of Self-Ratings on a Four-point Scale of Malay language Learning Attitudes

Items SBR Control

I like my teacher read stories

aloud to the class

3.96 (.19) 3.90 (.31)

I like to read books by myself

3.41 (.64) 2.10 (.89)

I tell my friends about books

and stories I read in class

3.59 (5.0) 2.00 (.83)

I like reading out loud to

someone

3.37 (.57) 2.10 (.61)

I like reading during my free

time

3.59 (.57) 2.20 (.81)

I feel happy if someone gave

me a book for a present

3.96 (.19) 3.87 (.35)

Someone in my family reads

to me

2.30 (.87) 1.67 (.48)

I read books out loud to

someone in my family

3.19 (.79) 1.70 (.75)

The SBR group rated more positive attitudes toward L2 learning than did the control

group. The SBR rated more positive on six items: I like to read books by myself, I tell my friends

about books and stories I read in class, I like reading out loud to someone, I like reading during

my free time, Someone in my family reads to me, I read books out loud to someone in my family,

(1 – totally disagree, 4 - totally agree), ps < .01. No significant difference between SBR and

38

Control group was found on two items: I like my teacher read stories aloud to the class, and I

feel happy if someone gave me a book for a present, (1 – totally disagree, 4 - totally agree), ps >

.05, suggesting all students appreciate the use of more stories in class and receiving books as gift

regardless of treatment condition.

The students participating in SBR were significantly more motivated and had more

positive L2 learning attitudes than the students who experienced no SBR. The heightened

motivation and L2 learning attitudes could be due to the exposure to a wide range of engaging

stories in the SBR classroom that was more persistent and concentrated and that children became

more actively involved in the learning experience than the regular language instruction in the

control classroom (Elley & Mangubhai, 1983). Shared-book reading also increased children’s

motivation to read as it provides a wide range of reasons to spark students’ personal interest

towards reading such as curiosity, involvement, social interchange, and emotional satisfaction

(Gambrell et al., 1996). Results from the L2 learning attitude items clearly reflect children’s

interest in book reading which may have coincidentally enhanced their attitudes towards Malay

Language learning.

Differentiated Treatment Effects with Varying Malay language Proficiency

Because the RAN and CNRep pretest scores did not yield significant results in the

previous MANCOVA analyses, it is not sensible to include them in the correlation analyses to

further investigate the differential intervention effect on students’ later performance measures.

Only the LINUS 1 pretest score will be used in further analyses. Table 10 displays the

correlations among students’ initial Malay language proficiency measure (LINUS 1) and their

later performance on Vocabulary – Meaning, LINUS 2, oral narrative skills (story length,

vocabulary diversity, verbal rate, and mazes), second language (L2) learning attitude as well as

39

L2 learning motivation. Students’ initial Malay language Proficiency measure (LINUS 1) was

significantly correlated with the later performance on almost all outcome measures (except

mazes with L2 learning motivation, r = -.24).

Table 11

Correlations among Initial Malay Proficiency Measure and Later Performance Outcomes

Measures 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. LINUS 1

.75** .84** .45** .50** .45** -.26* .45** .34*

2. Vocabulary – Meaning

.83** .58** .69** .60** -.26* .72** .50**

3. LINUS 2

.50** .63** .52** -.33* .51** .44*

4. Story Length

.82** .96** -

.58**

.71** .37**

5. Vocabulary diversity

.84** -

.47**

.58** .29*

6. Verbal rate

-

.56**

.68** .33*

7. Mazes

-.33* -.24

8. L2 Learning

Attitude

.52**

9. L2 Learning

Motivation

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

To investigate if SBR influences learning of word-meaning, oral narrative skills, L2

learning attitude and L2 learning motivation differently for children with varying levels of initial

Malay language Proficiency, eight hierarchical regression analyses were conducted using the

Vocabulary – Meaning, LINUS 2, oral narrative skills (story length, vocabulary diversity, verbal

rate, and mazes), L2 learning attitude as well as L2 learning motivation as dependent variables,

respectively. In each analysis, the LINUS 1 pretest score was entered first, followed by condition

40

contrast: SBR vs. Control, and their interaction was entered last. Results of the hierarchical

regression analyses are shown in Table 11.

Table 12

Hierarchical Regression Analyses of Performance on Later Performance Outcomes.

R2 change Beta Sig.

Step Vocabulary – Meaning

Step 1 Initial Malay Proficiency

.56 .75 .00

Step 2 Contrast (SBR vs. Control)

.17 .41 .00

Step 3 Initial Malay Proficiency x

Contrast (SBR vs. Control)

.03 -.55 .01

LINUS 2


.70 .84 .00


.01 .12 .12



.00 -.11 .64

Story Length


.20 .45 .00


.40 .64 .00



.02 .41 .11

Vocabulary diversity


.25 .50 .00


.25 .50 .00



.01 -.31 .30

(table continues)

41

Table 12 (cont.)

R2 change Beta Sig.

Verbal rate


.20 .45 .00


.40 .65 .00



.00 .08 .76

Mazes


.07 -.26 .05


.06 -.24 .07



.07 -.80 .04

L2 Learning Attitude


.20 .45 .00


.58 .77 .00



.00 .05 .82

L2 Learning Motivation


.12 .34 .01


.07 .27 .03



.03 .56 .14

42

For the Vocabulary – Meaning, a significant interaction between initial Malay language

Proficiency and the SBR vs. Control contrast was found, p = .01. Figure 4 illustrates the

interaction. The x-axis represents the initial Malay language Proficiency (LINUS 1), and the y-

axis represents the predicted scores calculated from the regression equations for both conditions

(SBR and control). Students with lower levels of initial Malay language proficiency benefitted

more from the SBR sessions than did the students with higher levels of initial Malay language

Proficiency, β = -.55.

Figure 4. Vocabulary – Meaning as a function of initial Malay language proficiency.

For the LINUS 2 score, consistent with previous ANCOVA analysis, SBR vs. control

contrast was non-significant, p = .12 and no significant interaction between initial Malay

language proficiency and the SBR vs. Control contrast was found, p = .64. Figure 5 shows that

SBR did not seem to have a significant impact on students’ LINUS 2 scores.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

L1-1 L1-2 L1-3

Pred

icte

d V

oca

bu

lary

(m

ea

nin

g)

scores


CONTROL

SBR

43

Figure 5. LINUS 2 as a function of initial Malay language proficiency.

For the oral narrative skills, result for the story length (total number of words) was

consistent with the ANCOVA analysis where SBR vs. control contrast was significant, p = .00,

but no significant interaction between initial Malay language proficiency and the SBR vs.

Control contrast was found, p = .11. Figure 6 shows that students in the treatment condition

produced stories that were longer, suggesting significant SBR effects on story length. In terms of

vocabulary diversity (number of different words), consistent with the previous ANCOVA

analysis, SBR vs. Control contrast was significant, p = .01. However, no significant interaction

between initial Malay language proficiency and the SBR vs. Control contrast was found, p = .30.

Figure 7 shows that students in the treatment condition outperform students in the control group

regardless of initial Malay proficiency.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

L1-1 L1-2 L1-3

Pred

icte

d L

ate

r M

ala

y P

rofi

cie

ncy

scores

(L

INU

S 2

)


CONTROL

SBR

44

Figure 6. Story length as a function of initial Malay language proficiency.

Figure 7. Vocabulary diversity as a function of initial Malay language proficiency.

For the verbal rate (number of words per minute), consistent with the previous ANCOVA

analysis, SBR vs. control contrast was significant, p = .00 but no significant interaction between

initial Malay language proficiency and the SBR vs. Control contrast was found, p = .76. Figure 8

shows that students with varying initial Malay language proficiency gained almost equally from

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

L1-1 L1-2 L1-3

Pred

icte

d S

tory

Len

gth

(tota

l n

um

ber o

f w

ord

s)


CONTROL

SBR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

L1-1 L1-2 L1-3

Pred

icte

d t

ota

l n

um

ber o

f d

iffe

ren

t

word

s


CONTROL

SBR

45

SBR sessions. Result for the mazes (percent of mazes over total of words) was consistent with

the ANCOVA analysis where the SBR vs. control contrast was non-significant, p = .07, but the

interaction between initial Malay language proficiency and the SBR vs. Control contrast was

significant, p = .04. Figure 9 shows that students with lower initial Malay language proficiency

(L1-1 and L1-2) produced more mazes than students with higher Malay language proficiency

regardless of treatment condition, β = -.80.

Figure 8. Verbal rate as a function of initial Malay language proficiency.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

L1-1 L1-2 L1-3

Pred

icte

d V

erb

al R

ate


CONTROL

SBR

46

Figure 9. Mazes as a function of initial Malay language proficiency.

In terms of L2 learning attitude, consistent with previous MANCOVA analysis, SBR vs.

control contrast was significant, p = .00 and a non-significant interaction between initial Malay

language proficiency and the SBR vs. Control contrast was found, p = .82. Figure 10 shows that

students’ L2 learning attitude was independent of their initial language ability. For the L2

learning motivation, consistent with previous MANCOVA analysis, SBR vs. control contrast

was significant, p = .03 and a non-significant interaction between initial Malay language

proficiency and the SBR vs. Control contrast was found, p = .14. Figure 11 shows that L2

learning motivation increased significantly for students with higher initial Malay proficiency in

the treatment group.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

L1-1 L1-2 L1-3

Pre

dic

ted

Ma

zes


CONTROL

SBR

47

Figure 10. L2 Learning Attitude as a function of initial Malay language proficiency.

Figure 11. L2 Learning Motivation as a function of initial Malay language proficiency.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

L1-1 L1-2 L1-3

Pred

icte

d L

2 L

ea

rn

ing

Att

itu

de S

cores


CONTROL

SBR

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

15

15.5

16

L1-1 L1-2 L1-3

Pred

icte

d L

2 L

ea

rn

ing

Moti

va

tion

scores


CONTROL

SBR

48

Chapter 4

Conclusion

To recap, the main finding of this study is that engaging students in Shared-Book

Reading sessions accelerates first-grade indigenous language speaking Malay language learners’

word-learning and oral Malay language production, as well as their motivation, engagement, and

Malay language learning attitudes. The study shows an improvement in students’ learning of

word meanings for those with lower initial second language proficiency but was not able to

demonstrate an improvement in their text-decoding skills. Students who received the SBR

experience also told better and longer stories with use of more varied words than those who did

not receive SBR. A striking finding was the large increase in speaking fluency; SBR students

spoke at more than twice the rate of control students when telling a story. Students in the SBR

group reported more positively on their overall learning attitude and motivation towards learning

the Malay language. This study extends previous research on the effect of implementing shared-

book sessions in the classroom aimed at improving emerging literacy skills for young language

learners (e.g. Blewitt & Rump, 2009; Evans et. al., 2008; Hindman et. al., 2008; Horner, 2004;

Pollard-Durodola et. al, 2011; Trivette & Dunst, 2007; and Ukraneitz et. al., 2000). Despite the

short duration, strong intervention effects were obtained not only on receptive language learning

(vocabulary), but also on expressive language production (speaking).

Limitations

A salient limiting factor in the present study was sample size. One of the greatest

challenges in this study was to find the appropriate classroom size with high enrolments of

Orang Asli children at the targeted grade level. Typically, there is only one class per-grade in a

public school where Orang Asli children go to, hence the control and treatment groups were from

49

two different neighbouring schools. A larger sample size in future researches would be more

representative as the error could be minimized. Also, when interpreting the results of this study,

possible external variables (e.g. different school environments, teaching persona, and classroom

climate) must not be ignored.

Inconsistency in school attendance is also another limiting factor. There were several

identified students with substantial attendance gaps hence excluded from data analysis. Also,

study sample only covered two Orang Asli tribes (Temuan and Mah Meri). There are 18 different

Orang Asli tribes in Peninsular Malaysia that speaks languages originating from different

language roots. Thus, results of the study could not be generalized to all Orang Asli tribes.

Last, the current findings are based on a short five-week intervention. Extending the

duration of the intervention and increasing the sample size would allow better estimation of

intervention effects. Nonetheless, this study contributes to the body of the SBR literature on

indigenous peoples and how this alternative approach to teaching reading could possibly impact

the classroom dynamics in an Orang Asli school in a positive way.

Implications

Much of the existing research on SBR already demonstrates positive influence that the

intervention has for promoting emerging literacy skills among children learning to read. The

results of this study have also replicated some of those findings and gone beyond by showing it

is possible to create a better learning environment for young Malaysian indigenous students. The

results align well with the existing literature by demonstrating read aloud shared storybook

sessions in the classroom has positive implications for students’ well-being. The results also

made a notable departure from previous research by examining the effects of SBR focused on

50

learning in large, general education classroom targeted at socially marginalized students such as

the indigenous children.

Especially during a time when school districts are so heavily stressing the importance of

improving test scores and classroom productivity, results of this study could be shown to schools

across Malaysia to promote the inclusion of SBR as well as other interventions linked with book

flood and read aloud storybooks in accelerating young children’s acquirement of literacy skills in

the national language. By demonstrating the incorporation of SBR into the classroom as a way of

helping students learn to read and feel better connected to their school, it will become

increasingly likely that school administrators will endorse this much needed program.

Overall, conducting similar studies with various grades of Orang Asli children in both

urban and rural areas throughout the country will add support to the results and help ensure that

students receive the positive underpinning they need to stay involved and engaged at school.

Creating a classroom environment that is inviting to students and matches their needs and

interests is essential to successful learning. Maintaining a positive atmosphere in which students

feel encouraged and acknowledged for their learning in a shared-book reading session in class

has implications far beyond basic teacher-directed lessons. Such an environment would likely

play a significant role in helping students connect to their learning and feel comfortable

participating in class and engaging in meaningful conversations with their teacher and peers. If

shared-book reading, and related instructional approaches, can be shown to work in studies with

a longer duration, larger samples, and with other indigenous groups, we may then with some

optimism take the important step of determining whether more Orang Asli children will continue

their education through elementary school and beyond.

51

Although many predicaments lie ahead for those in genuine and sincere favor of

educating Malaysia’s indigenous children, who enter school lacking skills, knowledge, and

dispositions usually assumed for successful elementary level learning, when all else fails,

quoting Anderson et al. (1985), ‘…There is no substitute for a teacher who reads children good

stories. It whets the appetite of children for reading, and provides a model of skillful oral

reading. It is a practice that should continue throughout the grades.’

52

References

Abu Samah, A., Mansor, Maria, Emby, Z., Mansor, Mariani, & Hamsan, H. H. (2007).

Kurikulum Bersepadu Orang Asli/Penan (KAP): Satu pendekatan baru dalam

pembangunan pendidikan komuniti Orang Asli/Penan. In Abd. Samad, A., Suhid, A.,

Abu Samah, B., Othman, J., Uli, J, Muhamad, M., Ahmad, N., & Roslan, S. (Eds.), Sains

Sosial Teras Pembangunan Modal Insan Jilid 1. (pp. 83-92). Serdang, Malaysia:

Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Champaign, IL:

Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Aikens, N., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: The

contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 100(2), 235-251.

Allington, R. L. (1991). Children who find learning to read difficult: School response to

diversity. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.) Literacy for a diverse society. (pp. 237-252) New York:

Teachers College Press.

Anderson, R. C., Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In Guthrie, I. T. (Ed.).

Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews. (pp. 77-117).Newark, DE: International

Reading Association.

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of

readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Washington DC: The National

Institute of Education.

Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children

spend their time outside school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285-303.

Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1992). The vocabulary conundrum. American Educator,

Winter, 14-18, 44-46.

Anderson, R. C. (1996). Research foundations to support wide-reading. In Greeny, V. (Ed.).

Promoting reading in Developing Countries. (pp. 55- 77). Newark, DE: International


Anderson, R. C., Gaffney, J. S., Wu, X., Wang, C., Li, W., Shu, H., Nagy W. E., & Ming, X.

(2002). Shared-book reading in China. In Li W., Gaffney, J. S., & Packard J. L. (Eds.),

Chinese children’s reading acquisition: Theoretical issues and pedagogical issues. (pp.

131-156). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ard, L. M., & Beverly, B. L. (2004). Preschool word learning during joint

book reading: Effect of adult questions and comments. Communication

Disorders Quarterly, 26, 17–28.

53

Assaf, L. (2006). One reading specialist’s response to high-stakes testing pressures. The Reading

Teacher, 60(2), 158-167.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children's oral vocabulary

repertoires through rich and focused instruction. Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251-

273.

Bialystok, E. (2006). Bilingualism at school: Effects on the acquisition of literacy. In McCardle,

P. & Hoff, E. (Eds.), Childhood bilingualism: Research on infancy through school age.

(pp. 107-124). Great Britain: Cromwell Press Ltd.

Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in

primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 44-62.

Blewitt, P., & Rump, K. M. (2009), Shared-book reading: When and how questions affect young

children’s word-learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 294, 304.

Bongsu, O. (1994). Hubungan cara gaya asuhan ibu bapa terhadap pencapaian akademik

pelajar Orang Asli. Latihan Ilmiah, B.Ed. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Brooks, R. T. (2006). Becoming acquainted with the faces of words: Fostering vocabulary

development in kindergarten students through storybook readings. (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Auburn University, Alabama.

Bruce, D. B. (1993). Peaceful Peoples: An Annotated Bibliography. Chicago: The Scarecrow

Press, Inc.

Campbell, R. (2001). Read-alouds with young children. Newark, DE: International


Campbell, D. T., & Shadish, W. R., & Cook T. D. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental

Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Carey, I. (1976). Orang Asli: The aboriginal tribes of Peninsular Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur:

Oxford University Press.

Center for Orang Asli Concerns. (2006a). The state of Orang Asli education and its root

problems. Kuala Lumpur: Nicholas, C.

Center for Orang Asli Concerns. (2006b). Remaining Indigenous. Kuala Lumpur: Nicholas, C.

Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois. (1990). Shared book reading in an early

54

start program for at-risk children. Champaign, IL: Mason, J., Kerr, B. M., Sinha S., &

McCormick, C.

Christ, T. (2007). Oral language exposure and incidental vocabulary acquisition: An exploration

across kindergarten classrooms. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of

New York at Buffalo, New York.

Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., & Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary intervention for

kindergarten students: Comparing extended instruction to embedded instruction and

incidental exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 74-88.

Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Jr., R. Z., & Kapp, S. (in press). Direct vocabulary

instruction in kindergarten: Teaching for breadth versus depth. Elementary School

Journal.

Coyne, M. D., Simmons, D. C., Kame'enui, E. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Teaching vocabulary

during shared storybook readings: An examination of differential effects. Exceptionality,

12(3), 145-162.

Coyne, M. D., Zipoli, R., & McCoach, D. (2008, April). Enhancing vocabulary intervention for

kindergarten students: Strategic integration of semantically-related and embedded word

review. Paper presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, New York, NY.

Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: Group dynamics

and motivation. Modern Language Journal, 81, 482-493.

Duursma, E., Romero-Contreras, S., Szuber, A., Proctor, P., & Snow, C. (2007). The role of

home literacy and language environment on bilinguals’ English and Spanish vocabulary

development. Applied Linguistics, 28, 171-190.

Eldredge, J. L., Reutzel D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1996), Comparing the effectiveness of

two oral reading practices: Round-robin reading and shared book experience. Journal of

Literacy research, 28(2), 201-225.

Elley, W. B. & Manghubai, F. (1981). The impact of a book flood in Fiji primary schools.

Studies in South Pacific Education Series, No. 1: NZCER and USP Institute of

Education.

Elley, W. B. & Manghubai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning.

Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53-67.

Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories read aloud. Reading

Research Quarterly, 24, 174-187.

Elley, W. B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based

55

programs. Language Learning, 41(3), 375-411.

Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? The Hague: IEA.

Elley, W.B. (2002). Book-based programs in developing countries. In Li W., Gaffney, J. S., &

Packard J. L. (Eds.), Chinese children’s reading acquisition: Theoretical issues and

pedagogical issues. (pp. 115-130). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Endicott, K. & Dentan, R. K. (in press). Ethnocide Malaysian Style: Turning Aborigines into

Malays. In Legislating Modernity. Duncan, C. (ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.

Evans, M. A., Williamson, K., & Pursoo, T. (2008), Preschooler’s attention to print during

shared-book reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(1), 106-129.

Ewers, C. A., & Brownson, S. M. (1999). Kindergartners' vocabulary acquisition as a function of

active vs. passive storybook reading, prior vocabulary, and working memory. Reading

Psychology, 20(1), 11-20.

Feitelson, D., Kita, B., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Effects of listening to series stories on first

graders’ comprehension and use of language. Research in the Teaching of English, 28,

339-356.

Fisher, B. & Fisher, M. E. (2000). Perspectives on shared-reading: Planning and practice.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fletcher, K. L., & Reese, E. (2004). Picture book reading with young children: A conceptual

framework. Developmental Review, 25(1), 64-103.

Foorman, B., Fletcher, J., Francis, D., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of

instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.

Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing reading

motivation. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), pp. 518-533.

Gersten, R. (1996). Literacy instruction for language-minority students: Transition years. The

Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 227-244.

Gomes, A. G. (2004). Looking for money: Capitalism and modernity in an Orang Asli village.

Subang Jaya, Malaysia: Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC).

Gunn, J. A.,& Holdaway, E. A. (1986). Perceptions of Effectiveness, Influence, and

Satisfaction of Senior High School Principals. Educational Administration Quarterly,

l22 (2), 43-62.

56

Hargrave, A. C., & 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(1), 75-90.

Han, J., & Neuharth-Prichett, S. M. (2011, April). Influence of the home literacy environment on

pre-kindergarten children’s emergent literacy skills. Paper presented at the 2011 annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Hindman, A. H., Connor, C. M., Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Untangling the effects

of shared book reading: Multiple factors and their associations with preschool literacy

outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 330-350.

Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Auckland: Ashton Scholastic.

Horner, S. L. (2004), Observational learning during shared-book reading: Efefcts on

preschoolers’ attention to print and letter knowledge. Reading Psychology, (25) 167-188.

Hyland, F. (11.12.2005). Shared-reading: The concept of shared-reading. Retrieved from

http://www.interactinclass.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/051112_shared_reading.pdf

Idris, (Datuk) J. (1986, July 28). Problems in their education. Malay Mail.

Isad, Asan. (1997, February 19). Orang Asli likely to get land titles. The Star.

Justice, L. M. (2002). Word exposure conditions and preschoolers’ novel

word learning during shared storybook reading. Reading Psychology, 23,

87–106.

Justice, L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words from storybooks: An

efficacy study with at-risk kindergartners. American Speech-Language-Hearing

Association,36(1), 17-32.

Justice, L. M., Skibbe, L. E., & Ezell, H. (2006). Using print referencing to promote written

language awareness. In T. A. Ukrainetz (Ed.), Contextualized language intervention:

Scaffolding preK-12 literacy achievement (pp. 389-428). Greenville, SC: Thinking

Publications University.

Karweit, N. (1989). The effects of a story reading program on the vocabulary and story

comprehension skills of disadvantaged prekindergarten and kindergarten students.

Report No. 39. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED313655).

Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading. Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Larking, L. (1993). Research in primary schools in Brunei Darussalam. In Tickoo, M. (Ed.),

Literacy in South-East Asia. Singapore: Regional Language Center.

http://www.interactinclass.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/051112_shared_reading.pdf

57

Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences

in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Lonigan, C. (2006). Conceptualizing phonological processing skills in pre-readers. In

D.Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research: Volume II

(Vol. II, pp. 77-89). New York: Guilford.

Lonigan, C. J., Anthony, J. L., Bloomfield, B. G., Dyer, S. M., & Samwel, C. S. (1999). Effects

of two shared-reading interventions on emergent literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers.

Journal of Early Intervention, 22(4), 306-322.

Martinez. M. and Roser, N. (1985). Read it again: The value of repeated reading during

storytime. Reading Teacher, 38, pp. 782-786.

Mat Nor, H. (1997). Kajian keciciran kalangan pelajar Orang Asli peringkat sekolah rendah.

Bangi, Malaysia: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York, NY: Penguin Putnam, Inc.

Mazzoni, S. A., Gambrell, L. B., & Korkeamaki, R. L. (1999). A cross-cultural perspective of

early literacy motivation. Journal of Reading Psychology, 80(4), 237-253.

Miller, J. Heilmann, J., & Nockerts, A. (2006). Oral language and reading in bilingual children.

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21(1), 30-43.

Muhammad, Datuk I., (2006, January 14). Why Pahang Orang Asli schoolchildren did not

continue secondary school. The Star, p. 6.

Murphy, M. M. (2007). Enhancing print knowledge, phonological awareness, and oral language

skills with at-risk preschool children in Head Start classrooms. (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). The University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Nebraska.

Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications

for acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown, & M. E. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature

of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. J. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.

Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume 3 (pp. 269-284).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Neuman, S. B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research

Quarterly, 34(3), 286-311.

New Zealand Book Council. (1975). The Impact of a ‘BOOK FLOOD’: Interim assessment

prepared for the New Zealand Book Council. Wellington: Elley, W.B., Cowie, C. R., &

Watson, J. E.

58

Nicholas, C. (2000). The Orang Asli and the contest for resources: Indigenous politics,

development, and identity in Peninsular Malaysia. Copenhagen: International Work

Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA).

Payani Yanai, S. K. (2001). Masalah keciciran pendidikan di kalangan anak-anak Orang Asli:

Satu kajian kes di perkampungan Orang Asli Tebung Station, Kubang Badak dan Air

Dusun di Pekan Tebong, Alor Gajah, Melaka. Latihan Ilmiah, BA. Kuala Lumpur:

Universiti Malaya.

Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary

acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories:

Do they overcome the Mathew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology,

94, 23–33.

Pollard-Durdola, S. D., Gonzalez, J. E., Simmons, D. C., Kwok, O., Taylor A. B., Davis, M. J.,

Kim, M., & Simmons, L. (2011), The effects of an intensive shared-book reading for

preschool children at risk for vocabulary delay. Exceptional Children, 77(2) 161-183.

Pressley, M. (2002). Effective beginning reading instruction. Journal of Literacy Research,

34(2), 165-188.

Ramey, S. L., & Ramey, C. (2006). Early educational interventions: Principles of effective and

sustained benefits from targeted early education programs. In D. Dickinson & S. B.

Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. II, pp. 445-459). New York,

NY: Guilford.

Redzuan, M., Gill, S. S., & Abu Samah, A. (2007). ‘Children at-risk’: Education among the

Orang Asli community in Peninsular Malaysia. Presented at the 5th

International

Malaysian Studies Conference. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Reese, E., & Cox, A. (1999). Quality of adult book reading affects

children’s emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 35, 20–28.

Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners

helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology,

86, 54–64.

Schleper, D. R. (1998). Read It Again and Again. Washington, DC: Laurent Clerc National Deaf

Education Center at Gallaudet University.

Sénéchal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers' acquisition of

expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 24(1), 123-138.

Sénéchal, M., & Cornell, E. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences.

Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 360-374.

59

Sénéchal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. A. (1995). Individual-differences in 4-year-old

children‘s acquisition of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 87(2), 218-229.

Shu, H., Anderson, R. C., & Zhang, H. (1995). Incidental learning of word meanings while

reading: A Chinese and American cross cultural study. Reading Research Quarterly,

30(1), 76-95.

Shu, H. et. al (2002). The role of home-literacy environment in learning to read Chinese. In Li

W., Gaffney, J. S., & Packard J. L. (Eds.), Chinese children’s reading acquisition:

Theoretical issues and pedagogical issues. (pp. 207-224). Norwell, MA: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Simon, K. L. K. (2003). Storybook activities for improving language: Effects on language and

literacy outcomes in Head Start preschool classrooms. (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). University of Oregon, Oregon.

Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., & Hodge, J. P. (1995). Effects of explicit

teaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning-disabled and low-

performing students in regular classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 95, 387-408.

Smith, M. (1993). Characteristics of picture books that facilitate word learning in preschoolers.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tate University of New York at Stony Brook, New

York.

Snodgrass J. G., Vanderwart M. (1980), A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name

agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, Learning Memory & Cognition, 6, 174–215.

Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stahl, S., & Nagy, W. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thambiah, S. (1999). Orang Asli women and men in transition. In Jomo, K. S. (Ed.), Rethinking

Malaysia. (pp.267-292). Hong Kong: Asia 2000 Ltd.

The Department of Orang Asli Affairs Malaysia. (2008). The Department of Orang Asli Affairs,

Malaysia: An agency for assimilation. New Delhi: Asian Indigenous & Tribal Peoples

Network.

Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (2007), Relative effectiveness of dialogic, interactive, and shared-

book reading interventions. CELLreview, 1(2), 1-12.

Tsou, W. & Hung, H. (2008). The Application of shared reading with leveled storybooks in

60

English classrooms. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 4(2),

119-143.

Urkraneitz, T. A., Cooney, M. H., Dyer, S. K., Kysar, A. J., & Harris, T. J., (2000), Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(3), 331-355.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. London and NY: Massachusetts Institute of

Technology.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, J.H.Y. & Guthrie, J.T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic

motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension

between the U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162-186.

Weigel, D. J., Martin, S. S. & Bennett, K. K. (2006). Contributions of the home literacy

environment to preschool-aged children’s emerging literacy and language skills. Early

Child Development and Care, 176(3&4), pp. 357-378.

Wigfield, A., and Guthrie, J.T. (1997). Relations of children‟s motivations for reading to

the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,

420-432.

Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., and Fischel, J. E.

(1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-

income families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679-689.

Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C., Fischel, J. E., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., DeBaryshe,

B. D., et al. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture-book reading.

Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552-55

Zhang, J. (2009). Improving English language learners’ oral and written language through

collaborative discussions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign.

Zucker,T.A., Justice, L.M., Piasta, S.B., and Kaderavek, J.N. (2010). Preschool teachers’

literal and inferential questions and children‟s responses during whole-class shared

reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(1), 65-83.

61

Appendix A

Home Language and Literacy Practice Survey

Directions: I will ask you several questions to know your family language and home literacy

practices. As I ask you the questions, I will help you record your answer in this survey form. I

will also audio-record our interview session in case we talk about the progress of your child at

school with his/her storybook reading activities.

Child’s Name: ___________________ Birthdate: ___ mm___dd______yyyy

Teacher’s Name: ________________________ Sex: ____boy ____girl

Your relationship to the child: ___Mother ___Father ___Grandparent ___Guardian

* BOA = Bahasa Orang Asli (Orang Asli language)

* BM = Bahasa Melayu (Malay language)

1. What language(s) does your child use at home when he/she speaks to the following

person?

Only BOA Mostly

BOA

Equal amount of

BM dan BOA

Mostly

BM

Only

BM

Father

Mother

Brothers/sisters

Other adults

62

2. What language(s) are spoken to your child at home by the following person?

Only BOA Mostly

BOA

Equal amount of

BM dan BOA

Mostly

BM

Only

BM

Father

Mother

Brothers/sisters

Other adults

3. How many members in your family are able to read Bahasa Melayu? ____

Whom are they to your child?

Father

Mother

Brothers/sisters

Other adults

4. How many books are in your home?

Children books: 1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80

Adult books: -20 -40 -60 -

5. How old was your child when you started reading to him or her?

4 or later 1-2

3-4 0-1

2-3 Never

63

6. How often do you and your child do the following activities in a month?

Everyday 2-3 times

a week

Once a

week

Once a

month

Never

a. I read books with my

child.

b. I help my child with

homework.

c. I tell stories to my child

d. I read books, magazines or

newspapers at home.

e. My child read books,

magazines or newspapers

at home.

f. I go to public/mobile

library with my child.

6. What is the level of education of the MOTHER and FATHER of the child?

Mother Father

Never attended school

Grade 3

Grade 6

Grade 9

Grade 12

College and above

[Survey ends]

64

Appendix B

List of items for Rapid-automatized Naming Task (RAN)

66

Appendix C

List of non-words for Children’s Nonword Repetition Test (CNRep)

Two word syllables

1. balup

2. banau

3. dile

4. glisto

5. hampen

6. ponal

7. prindal

8. rubid

9. slading

10. tafles

Three word syllables

1. banifa

2. barazon

3. bastera

4. komering

5. dopelat

6. freskoven

7. glisterin

8. sitikul

9. tikeri

10. trampotin

Four word syllables

1. helontapi

2. kometasi

3. kontraponis

4. ampifoven

5. fenerasi

6. lodenapis

7. penerikan

8. perpisteron

9. sopogartik

10. wogalamik

Five word syllables

1. altupatori

2. konfrantuasi

3. difarnikasi

4. ditratapilik

5. pristoraktuasi

6. reaterpasi

7. spratenisasi

8. mendabrantuan

9. versatrasionis

10. voltulariti

67

Appendix D

List of words for Word-defining Task

Socks Bag Cow Forest Giant

Snake Cold Baby Night Farmer

Tiger Hot Balloon Help Walk

Hippo Sleep Clever King Leaf

Elephant Pain Jump Nest Voice

Comb Mountain Strong Laugh Stop

Hat Road Train Tadpole Watch

Book Beetle Hole Yoyo Go

Drink Lizard Bicycle Wind Friend

Cup Sing Branch Door Hospital

68

Appendix E

Learning Motivation and L2 Learning Attitude Survey

Me and My Reading

Directions: I would like you to answer a set of questions so I can know what you think about

your Shared-book reading lessons* in the control you have gone over the past few weeks. We

will go through the questions together and as I read and point to the questions, I want you to do

the same and answer the questions based on what you feel.

*Malay language lessons for the control class

Child Name: ___________________________ Birthdate: ____ __/ _____ / ______ Month date year Teacher Name: ___________________________ Gender: _____ boy ______ girl Age: _______ years ________ months Grade: ___________________

Practice Question

How much I like to play hide and seek:

1 2 3 4

69

Me and My Reading

How I feel about shared-book reading (or Malay language lessons for the control class):

Excited 1 2 3 4

__________________________________________________________________

Bored 1 2 3 4

__________________________________________________________________

Happy 1 2 3 4

__________________________________________________________________

Frustrated 1 2 3 4

__________________________________________________________________

Unhappy 1 2 3 4

__________________________________________________________________

Annoyed 1 2 3 4

70

How I did in Shared-book reading sessions:

I did well

1 2 3 4

I learned a lot

1 2 3 4

I paid attention

1 2 3 4

I worked hard

1 2 3 4

71

Do you like your teacher to read stories aloud to the class?

1 2 3 4

Do you like to read books all by yourself?

1 2 3 4

Do you tell your friends about books and stories you read in class?

1 2 3 4

Do you like reading out loud to someone?

1 2 3 4

72

Do you like reading during your free time?

1 2 3 4

How would you feel if someone gave you a book for a present?

1 2 3 4

Does someone in your family read to you?

1 2 3 4

Do you read books out loud to someone in your family?

1 2 3 4

-- End of Questions --

73

Appendix F

Narrative Scoring Scheme (NSS) Rubic

75

Appendix G

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Research Approval Letter

76

Appendix H

Economic Planning Unit (EPU) Research Approval Letter

© 2012 Aini Marina Ma'rof

Documents

Transcript of © 2012 Aini Marina Ma'rof