Running head: EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
1
Supporting Literacy Development Through Different Teacher Read Aloud Styles in the Early
Elementary School Classroom
Capstone Essay
Vanderbilt University
Grace Granade
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
2
Abstract
This capstone essay explores the benefits of different elementary school teacher read aloud styles
fitting into two categories: performance-based read alouds, which involve little or no discussion
during the reading and may or many not include discussion before or after the reading, and
interactive read alouds, which involve discussion during the read aloud and may or may not
involve discussion before or after the reading. The essay focuses around the following guiding
questions: How do different teacher read aloud styles impact literacy development in the early
elementary classroom? How can read aloud styles be combined to create an effective read aloud
method? The capstone essay will demonstrate how the benefits of each read aloud style can be
used to engage students in teacher-led read alouds that will promote high levels of literacy
development. The findings of the review of the literature are synthesized in the creation of a
hybrid read aloud model that incorporates the strongest components of the two read aloud styles.
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
3
Research shows that when teacher-led read alouds occur in elementary school
classrooms, teachers tend to utilize habitual read aloud styles based on their own preferences as
they share books with children (Dickinson & Keebler, 1989; Martinez & Teale, 1993). These
various read aloud styles have been categorized and described by researchers in the field in a
number of ways, and each style elicits different types of literary conversations between teachers
and students, as well as promotes different types of literacy development in the classroom
(Brabham & Lynch-Brown, 2002; Reese & Cox, 1999). Research shows that reading aloud to
children prior to schooling is an indicator of success in learning to read in the first few years of
school (Nurmi, 2012; Schickedanz, 1978; Snow & Ninio, 1986; Yaden, 1993). In the same way,
teacher read alouds in the classroom setting can promote language development, increased
understanding of literary elements and language, acquisition of new vocabulary, and improved
story comprehension (Allison & Watson, 1994; Beck & McKeown, 2001; Brabham & LynchBrown, 2002; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Klesius & Griffith, 1996; McGee & Schickedanz, 2007;
Meyer, Stahl, Wardrop, & Linn, 1994). However, many teachers do not value read alouds as an
instructional tool in literacy, but instead see read alouds as time that could be spent engaging
students in other sorts of literacy activities and instruction that they believe to be more beneficial
(Brabham & Lynch-Brown, 2002; Hoffman, Rosner, & Battle, 1993). For this reason, the focus
of my capstone essay is to compare and contrast the various teacher read aloud styles and to
share how read alouds can benefit students.
I have concentrated my research around the following guiding questions: How do
different teacher read aloud styles impact literacy development in the early elementary
classroom? How can read aloud styles be combined to create an effective read aloud method?
To answer these questions, I have conducted a review of the literature to determine the benefits
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
4
of various teacher read aloud styles and to determine whether particular styles promote greater
literacy development than others based on empirical evidence. I will compare and contrast
reading styles fitting into two general categories that are most commonly described in the
literature: performance-based read alouds and interactive read alouds. For the purpose of this
essay, performance-based read alouds will be defined as read alouds that involve minimal or no
discussion during the reading of a storybook and may or may not include discussion before or
after the read aloud. Interactive read alouds will be defined as read alouds that involve discussion
during the reading of the storybook and may or may not include discussion before or after the
read aloud. Following my comparison of the various styles, I will include a table to summarize
my findings about the two major categories of read aloud styles. After comparing and contrasting
the read aloud styles and their impact on early elementary school students’ literacy development.
I will then share a hybrid read aloud model based on my findings that combines a variety of
aspects of the addressed read aloud styles to create a model that teachers can use to have the
greatest positive impact on their students’ literacy development. The purpose for this hybrid
model is to challenge the common occurrence of a preferred read aloud style for teachers and
promote a combination of several styles within a single classroom to create more rich and
sophisticated read aloud experiences.
Performance-Based Read Aloud Styles
Performance-based teacher read alouds are defined by Dickinson and Keebler (1989) as
involving skillful storytelling with limited interruptions in the reading of the text itself.
Discussion can occur before and after the reading in a performance-based read aloud, but the
quality and focus of those discussions is critical in determining the literacy benefits for
elementary school students. While some teachers do engage their students in thoughtful
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
5
discussion before and after a performance-based read aloud, a study by Hoffman, Rosner, and
Battle (1993) described the typical elementary school teacher read aloud as a brief reading
activity that was separate from all other units of study with less than five minutes of discussion
involved in the entire reading event. In the following section, I will summarize various
approaches to performance-based read alouds from research and the key component necessary to
include in a successful performance-based read aloud in order to promote literacy development.
Teachers often choose to read in a performance-based read aloud style to avoid
interrupting the flow of the story or to detract from the experience as a whole (Martinez & Teale,
1993). One particular teacher using this style of read aloud described the purpose for this type of
reading as a means of entertainment and enchantment for students in the creation of a particular
mood or tone (Dickinson & Keebler, 1989). In her read aloud, students were discouraged from
making comments or asking questions during the reading and few questions were prompted by
the teacher, as discussion during the reading would break this mood and tone that had been
created. Performance-based read alouds often involve higher levels of drama than other styles of
reading through the variation of pitch, speed, and volume as well as the emphasis on certain
words and the way they are read (Dickinson & Keebler, 1989). Teachers read in this dramatic
manner so that children enjoy reading and have positive interactions with books (Meyer et al.,
1994).
Performance-based read alouds most commonly occur in a whole group setting and
involve minimal discussion, so only a few students are able to participate in the conversation
(Hoffman et al., 1993). For that reason, there is little evidence during the read aloud experience
that the teacher can draw upon to monitor student comprehension or new word learning as the
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
6
students primarily act as spectators in the reading event. The focus of this type of reading
experience is often simply to engage the students in listening to a good story.
Benefits for Literacy Development
Many of the studies discussing teacher read aloud styles address the potential benefits of
implementing a performance-based read aloud model in the classroom for students (Dickinson &
Smith, 1994; Reese & Cox, 1999); however, there is an important factor that must be involved in
these read alouds for literacy development to occur: analytical talk, a type of talk involving
higher level thinking about the plot, characters’ motivations in the story, and word meanings
(Dickinson & Smith, 1994). Brabham and Lynch-Brown (2002) describe a “just read” model that
involves reading a story to students with no discussion before or afterwards and thus no
analytical talk. This version of a performance-based read aloud led to the smallest gains in
vocabulary and story comprehension for elementary school students in the study due to the
complete lack of teacher explanation of vocabulary and discussion of the story itself. However,
there are studies that demonstrate literacy development in performance-based read alouds that do
include analytical discussion, either before, after, or before and after the storybook reading
(Dickinson & Smith, 1994).
When discussion occurs at the end of a performance-based read aloud, the discussion is
often teacher-controlled with most questions and commentary focusing on text to self
connections (Dickinson & Keebler, 1989). In read aloud experiences like those, students have
minimal opportunity to ask questions, share comments or thoughts, or clarify misunderstandings,
which limits their opportunity to grow as readers through language development, increased
vocabulary, or other benefits that occur during the discussion aspect of a read aloud (McGee &
Schickedanz, 2007). However, Dickinson and Smith (1994) conducted a study with low-income
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
7
4 year olds and found that performance-based read alouds could in fact be beneficial to
children’s story comprehension and vocabulary development when the discussion, the follow-up
discussion being most important, involved analytical talk. While some researchers disagree, such
as Brabham and Lynch-Brown (2002) and McGee and Schickedanz (2007), the findings of their
study concluded that performance-based read alouds were most effective allowing for literacy
development as the teachers did not have to stop and talk throughout the reading but could
accomplish strong analytical discussion at the completion of the read aloud. In a contrasting
study completed by Brabham and Lynch-Brown (2002), first grade and third grade students’
vocabulary and comprehension levels were monitored before and after read alouds of various
styles, and found that performance-based read alouds were not as strong in promoting vocabulary
development as interactional read alouds due to a lack of quality teacher explanation of
vocabulary during the reading. Later in my paper, I will address in more depth the aspects of
analytical talk that occur more commonly in interactive read alouds styles and how the ways that
children are engaged in the read aloud experience lead to greater levels of literacy development.
While performance-based read alouds can often lead to this type of discussion, it seems that
many teachers who use this read aloud style seem to have a different goal for read alouds: to
promote the enjoyment of reading, and do not view read alouds as an opportunity for literacy
growth for students, so students instead take on a role as spectators (Meyer et al., 1994).
Interactive Read Aloud Styles
Unlike in performance-based read alouds, an interactive read aloud involves discussion
between the teacher and the students during the storybook reading (Dickinson & Keebler, 1989).
In an interactive read aloud, both the teacher and the students draw attention to information in
the illustrations and the text and may engage in analytical talk, such as predicting what might
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
8
happen next in the story, or sharing personal connections (Klesius & Griffith, 1996). Interactive
read alouds can serve a variety of purposes; some interactive read alouds focus on student
comprehension of the text or of illustrations or enjoyment of the book while other interactive
read alouds may focus on more complex ideas through extensive, cognitively challenging
discussion (Dickinson & Keebler, 1989; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Reese & Cox, 1999). Some
researchers argue that interactive read alouds mirror the lapreading experience that happens in
the home between parent and child. Interactive read alouds allow for a flexible routine during
reading and variation in discussion depending on the age and abilities of the group of children
through appropriate scaffolding of question answering as well as the creation of a more
conversational tone (Klesius & Griffith, 1996). Depending on how teachers choose to engage
students in an interactive read aloud, the conversation can be heavily teacher directed, as in most
performance-based read alouds, or the teacher and students can act as equal partners in the
meaning making process (McGee & Schickedanz, 2007). In the following section, I will describe
several different research-based interactive read aloud models as well as the benefits this read
aloud style can provide for promoting literacy development.
Supporters of interactive teacher read alouds argue that the role of the teacher is to serve
as a model for what real readers do; by engaging students in analytical talk surrounding
sophisticated and complex texts, teachers will help students to learn how to think about and talk
about literature as well as develop a rich vocabulary (McGee & Schickedanz, 2007). Researchers
describe many different formats of interactive teacher read alouds, such as Beck and McKeown’s
(2001) “Text Talk” approach or Whitehurst’s Dialogic Reading model (Whitehurst et al., 1988).
In the Text Talk model, the focus of the read aloud is to help develop students’ abilities to
construct meaning. The teacher leads the discussion with open questions during the reading that
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
9
gives students opportunity to make sense of the text, and illustrations are shown by the teacher
after the text on a page is read to avoid student confusion or misinterpretation. The teacher
scaffolds student understandings of the story by supporting them through the meaning making
processes and selects sophisticated texts that allow for thoughtful meaning construction and the
usage of complex language and rich vocabulary learning. This type of read aloud aligns closely
with the interactive text-focused read aloud style described by Dickinson and Keebler (1989),
which was a read aloud with the goal of making sure that students comprehended the story
through prediction-making and questioning. In this read aloud style, the teacher encouraged
student participation during the reading and continually asked students to make predictions and
answer questions about the text as a means of assessing comprehension levels, a means of
informal assessment that is not available during a performance-based read aloud. Follow-up
discussion was most important in allowing for opportunity for the students to summarize the
story to demonstrate their comprehension (Dickinson & Keebler, 1989).
Like this text-focused interactive read aloud, dialogic reading, as developed by
Whitehurst, leads to a similar quality of complexity in discussion and language usage as “Text
Talk.” The focus of dialogic read alouds is also to facilitate increasing story construction on the
part of the student through repeated readings where the control of the conversation moves
incrementally from the teacher to the students (Whitehurst et al., 1988). In the first read aloud in
a series of dialogic read alouds, the teacher models how to make sense of the text and reconstruct
the story, and with each consecutive read aloud, the reconstruction of the story and the analysis
of the text is passed on to the students until the final read aloud where little of the actual text is
read as the students tell the story themselves (Whitehurst et al, 1988). Regardless of which
specific model or focus chosen, when teachers engage their students in interactive read alouds
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
10
involving open-ended questioning or the scaffolding of students’ ability to retell the story during
the reading, students’ reading acquisition is indirectly impacted through the facilitation of
language development and increased word learning (Meyer et al., 1994).
Benefits for Literacy Development
Contrary to what many teachers may think, an interactive read aloud style does not in fact
get in the way of students’ comprehension despite the constant interruptions in the flow of the
text (Brabham & Lynch-Brown, 2002). Hoffman, Rosner, and Battle (1993), proponents of an
interactive read aloud style, discuss the importance of discussion during reading to aid students
in making personal connections with the text and connections to other literature as well as in
engaging in discussion of texts with their peers, who can share new or interesting interpretations
of the text and contribute to other students’ understanding of the story. In an interactive style
read aloud, the role of the student is to actively participate in the discussion, as the give-and-take
aspects of this type of read aloud are what allow for increased word learning and sophisticated
language development (Brabham & Lynch-Brown, 2002). The conversation surrounding a read
aloud is much richer when both teachers and students participate, as occurs in an interactive read
aloud style, and high quality conversation promotes literacy development through increased
language and new word learning (Morrow, Rand, & Smith, 1995).
McGee and Schickedanz (2007) explain that the most effective read alouds include
students’ active participation in both asking and answering questions and making predictions as
opposed to simply listening to a story. Engaging in this sort of interactive analytical discussion
leads to improved vocabulary and increased story comprehension and, according to the
researchers, is best accomplished through interactive repeated read alouds, with increasing
ownership of both the story and the discussion for the students as the read alouds occur. Higher
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
11
levels of participation can occur in interactive read alouds with smaller groups when students
have more opportunity to speak and share their thoughts and inquiries; however, this can also
limit the breadth of ideas and connections that can come out in a large group discussion (Allison
& Watson, 1994; Hoffman et al., 1993; Klesius & Griffith, 1996; Morrow & Smith, 1990).
Regardless of group size, Schickedanz and Collins (2012) emphasizes the importance of teacher
guided discussion and explanation during the read aloud process to avoid students’
misinterpretation of the interaction of text and illustration as well as the plot. With appropriately
guided interactive read alouds, teachers can help promote literacy growth in their students
through the facilitation of language development and word learning.
Summary of Comparison of Two Read Aloud Style Categories
Professional
Knowledge Performance-Based Read Alouds
Interactive Read Alouds
Areas
Learners and -Students are quiet spectators
-Students participate in discussion,
Learning
sometimes involving analytical talk,
and can pose and answer questions
-Minimal student participation
-Students have opportunity to ask
apart from answering specific, plot- questions or clarify misunderstandings
based questions
during reading
-Observers of a dramatic reading
-In dialogic read alouds, learners take
event that promotes enjoyment of
more and more ownership of story
reading and of books
retelling and discussion as repeated
readings occur
-Students benefit from exposure to -Students benefit from language
how books and stories are
development and word learning
structured and from positive
interactions with books
Learning
-Generally whole group setting
-Whole group, small group, or one-onContext
one settings
-Teacher does majority of
-Teachers and students share the
speaking/reading while students are speaking time
listening
-Can occur with both fiction and
-Can occur with both fiction and nonnon-fiction books, complex or
fiction books, more effective with
simple
complex books with sophisticated plots
and language
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
Curriculum
and
Instructional
Strategies
-Teacher controls the reading
experience
-If discussion occurs, it is before or
after the reading and is usually
teacher-dominated
-Dramatized reading involves
inflectional variation, changes in
speed, and emphasis on certain
words or parts of the story
12
-Students and teacher contribute to the
conversation
-Teacher selects focus of reading and
discussion: plot comprehension, word
learning, higher order thinking
(prediction making, character
motivations, meaning construction)
-Teacher scaffolds students in
answering open-ended questions and
constructing meaning from text
-Sometimes pictures are show after text
is read to avoid misinterpretation by
students
-Goal is for students to appreciate
and enjoy reading through
entertainment and a good story
Assessment
-Assessment depends on type of
discussion before or after read
aloud
-Only informal assessment during
reading would come from student
expressions or questioning during
story, but it is the teachers choice
to address these indicators of
misunderstanding during reading
-Thoughtful questioning serves as
informal assessments to monitor
student comprehension, levels of
meaning construction, and knowledge
of vocabulary
-Student summarizing assess student
story comprehension
-Analytical talk gives strong evidence
of students’ language development,
comprehension levels, and word
learning
Hybrid Model: The Ultimate Read Aloud Plan
To leverage the literacy benefits of both read aloud styles and the research-based
recommendations for supporting literacy development in students through read alouds, I have
created a read aloud model that encompasses the strongest aspects of both categories of read
alouds to expose students to the benefits of each read aloud style. Research shows that, although
read alouds are not a magic fix for reading difficulties in students or can serve as a reading
program, read alouds are a valuable component of a strong reading program (Meyer et al., 1994).
From experiencing well-executed performance-based read alouds, students are able to appreciate
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
13
storybooks, have exposure to rich language and the major components of a story, and learn to
enjoy reading (Dickinson & Smith, 1994; McGee & Schickedanz, 2007). From participating in
strong interactive read alouds, students are able to engage in thoughtful analytical talk, improve
their oral language abilities through participation in discussion, and learn new vocabulary
(Brabham & Lynch-Brown, 2002; McGee & Schickedanz, 2007; Morrow et al., 1995).
Though teachers may lean towards one category of read alouds or another out of comfort
or habit, I believe that the benefits each offer are important and valuable for early elementary
school students (Dickinson & Keebler, 1989; Martinez & Teale, 1993). For that reason, the
creation of a hybrid model incorporating aspects of both performance-based read alouds and
interactive read alouds in various contexts and groupings of students will help teachers to make
sure that their students are able to reap the benefits of all styles of read alouds. It is important that
students have the opportunity to experience an uninterrupted reading to bolster reading
enjoyment and the appreciation of the flow and structure of stories as well as to develop their
oral language skills and interpretation of stories through complex, sophisticated analytical talk.
In the following section, I will first demonstrate how the hybrid read aloud model is based on the
literature. I will provide a detailed description of the hybrid model and then explain how it will
allow for the greatest levels of literacy development for elementary school students.
My new hybrid read aloud model involves repeated read alouds, as research shows that
repeated read alouds are helpful in facilitating the student-led reconstruction of stories and in
helping students to internalize new word meanings (McGee & Schickedanz, 2007; Schickedanz,
1978; Whitehurst et al., 1988). In the model, each read aloud has a different focus. Researchers
describe the benefits of various sizes of groups for read alouds, arguing that smaller groups with
attention to student ability allow for higher levels of student participation in book discussions
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
14
while larger group discussions allow for students to be exposed to a wider variety of
interpretations and understandings of the text through a larger pool of participants (Allison &
Watson, 1994; Hoffman et al., 1993; Klesius & Griffith, 1996; Morrow & Smith, 1990). Students
can make larger gains in literacy development through read alouds when their ability levels are
taken into account, as students with higher initial preparation for an experience with a particular
book will benefit from a read aloud with higher cognitive demands (Reese & Cox, 1999). In my
hybrid read aloud model, I have chosen to vary the grouping and sizes for each of the read alouds
to given students both the benefit of small group discussions and the exposure to their peers
thoughts and ideas. Books used for read alouds in this hybrid model should involve complex
plots and sophisticated vocabulary to maximize the student engagement in analytical discussions
(McGee & Schickedanz, 2007). Below, I will describe each read aloud by explaining the focus,
instructional strategies used, and literacy benefits for students.
First Read: Captivating students with whole group performance-based read aloud and
allowing for independent meaning construction
For the first read aloud, I recommend a performance-based read aloud to the whole class
so that students can experience the book for the first time in a fairly uninterrupted manner
(Dickinson & Smith, 1994; McGee & Schickedanz, 2007). The teacher should situate the
students with an introduction to the book describing the main characters or topic of the book so
that they are set up to pull from appropriate prior knowledge as they make sense of the story. The
teacher should read the book in an engaging and dramatic manner, altering her voice for different
dialogue or vocabulary and varying the speed and inflection of the reading (Dickinson &
Keebler, 1989). I recommend that interruptions are made when there is clear confusion amongst
the students as demonstrated by many arising questions or puzzled faces; however, I believe this
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
15
first read aloud can allow for students to make their own meaning of the story as the reading
occurs. Follow-up discussion is very important in maximizing the benefits of a performancebased read aloud, so the teacher should engage students in a brief analytical discussion
addressing some of the major components of the story, such as the problem and solution, the
motivation of the main character, or a prediction for what might happen after the story is finished
(Dickinson & Smith, 1994). As students participate in discussion, the teacher should be noticing
which students seem to be understanding the story and which students may have misinterpreted
the story or illustrations. This informal assessment will inform grouping for the second read
aloud, which will occur in small groups.
Second Read: Differentiating interactive read alouds in small groups based on student
ability
The second read aloud will occur in small groups based on student comprehension levels,
vocabulary breadth and depth, or language ability; the teacher should understand the students’
strengths and reads in a reading experience and should group them thoughtfully to address these
needs with a particular focus for the small group interactive read aloud (Reese & Cox, 1999).
The interactive read aloud for groups with students struggling with comprehension should focus
on analytical discussion addressing text comprehension, meaning making involving the plot and
vocabulary, making personal connections to the text, and summarizing the story. Other groups
with students who appear to have interpreted the text appropriately should be engaged in
analytical discussion surrounding characters’ motivations, prediction making during the reading,
and vocabulary learning. The small group context for the interactive read aloud allow for higher
levels of student participation and stronger informal assessment evidence for the teacher to
monitor student understanding and thinking (Hoffman et al., 1993; Klesius & Griffith, 1996).
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
16
Third Read: Exposing all students to analytical talk in a whole group interactive read
aloud
The third read, set in a whole group interactive read aloud setting, should demonstrate a
marked shift from the teacher’s active role and control in the read aloud to the students’ active
role and control in the read aloud (McGee & Schickedanz, 2007; Schickedanz, 1978; Whitehurst
et al., 1988). In this interactive read aloud, students whose small group readings were more
focused on plot or summarizing will benefit from having the opportunity to think more deeply
about the motivations of characters or the impact of the author’s word choice through analytical
discussion with their peers. Throughout this reading, the teacher should reemphasize any
vocabulary words that were addressed during either of the two previous read alouds to help
students to solidify their understandings of the words. Students also should have the opportunity
to reconstruct the story themselves; reading the entire text may be unnecessary as students can
share their understandings of particular pages or sections of the story. This exercise will help
students to build their storybook language skills, demonstrate strong comprehension, and allow
for them to practice using various vocabulary words (Whitehurst et al., 1988). The teacher
should push students to deepen their thinking about the story and should prompt further
discussion, but the ownership of this read should be with the students (Brabham & LynchBrown, 2002). Struggling students will benefit from listening to their peers interpretations of the
text, and all readers may be exposed to a wider range of thinking than occurred in their
individual small groups. By this interactive reading, teachers will be able to determine which
students are able to reconstruct the story, make personal connections to the text or connections to
other pieces of literature, and demonstrate mastery of new vocabulary words (Meyer et al.,
1994).
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
17
Summary of Hybrid Model
(Blue represents performance-based read alouds and red represents interactive read
alouds)
Professional
Knowledge
Areas
Learners and
Learning
1st Read
-Students listen to story
and experience in its
entirety
-Have opportunity to
question to clarify
misunderstandings
-Construct own meaning
and interpretation of text
during reading
Learning
Context
-Whole group setting
-Students oriented to story
with a brief introduction
to story, setting, and
characters so that they are
able to draw from
appropriate background
knowledge and
experiences
Curriculum
and
Instructional
Strategies
-Dramatized reading
involves inflectional
variation, changes in
speed, and emphasis on
certain words or parts of
the story
-Engage students in brief,
initial analytical
discussion following
reading to talk about plot,
character motivations, and
2nd Read
-Students look more
deeply at the text through
a small group read aloud
with a particular focus
-Have more opportunity to
participate and share and
are expected to do so
-Balance between teacher
and student talk as
meaning is constructed
3rd Read
-Students and teacher
reconstruct the story
together
-Students control and
guide discussion and
reconstruction of story
-Students share thinking
with peers to widen
students’ understandings,
especially struggling
readers who had more
basic discussions during
2nd read
-Small group settings
-Whole group setting with
based on student ability,
participation from
comprehension levels, and students in all small
vocabulary
groups
-Teacher orients students
-Teacher focuses the
to the focus of the read
discussion by prompting
aloud (plot and
students to help
vocabulary
reconstruct the story,
comprehension, higher
which they know fairly
level analytical thinking,
well by this point, by
etc) and guides the
reading portions of the
discussion
text and by asking
students to reconstruct
other portions
-Dramatized reading
-Dramatized reading
involves inflectional
involves inflectional
variation, changes in
variation, changes in
speed, and emphasis on
speed, and emphasis on
certain words or parts of
certain words or parts of
the story
the story
-Discussion occurs before, -Students have
during, and after the
opportunity to reconstruct
reading and involves more the story—entire text does
balanced student and
not need to be read
teacher talk
-Teacher passes control of
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
predictions for what might -Teacher serves as guide
happen after story
during the analytical
discussion and attends to
students levels of
understanding and needs
through appropriate
scaffolding and support
-Goal is for students to
-Goal is for students to
begin to deepen their
appreciate and enjoy
thinking about the story
reading through
entertainment and a good and to refine their
meaning construction
story and to construct
meaning
Assessment
-Informal Assessments:
-During reading come
from student expressions
or questioning during
story
-After reading based on
student responses during
discussion to gauge which
students seemed to
appropriately construct
story of meaning based on
basic plot line and
characters for purposes of
grouping in 2nd read
-Informal Assessment:
-Teacher has
opportunity to monitor
individual’s
comprehension, word
learning, and language
development through
small-group interactions,
which can inform future
grouping, students
requiring additional
support, or aspects of
book that should be
clarified during final
reading
18
discussion to students
while reemphasizing key
vocabulary words and
scaffolding discussion
where necessary
-Goal is for teacher to
probe students to think
more deeply about the text
and to offer exposure to
other groups’ perspectives
about the book based on
2nd read
-Informal Assessment:
-Teacher notices which
children are able to
contribute and help in
reconstruction of story,
make personal
connections to the text,
and demonstrate mastery
of new vocabulary words,
which will inform future
instruction, text-selection,
and grouping
This hybrid model for teacher read alouds combines the strongest aspects of
performance-based read aloud styles and interactive read aloud styles to engage students in a
comprehension read aloud experience that promotes literacy and language development, fosters
enjoyment and appreciation of texts and reading, and allows for collaboration between peers in
various groupings and read aloud settings. By pulling from both categories of teacher read aloud
styles, students will be appropriately supported in having the opportunity to construct their own
meaning of a text as well as to learn from each other in making sense of the story. The control of
the discussions moves from teacher to student, ultimately empowering students to engage with
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
19
texts as masterful readers who think deeply about what they are reading and make personal
connections to the text. With this model, teachers will be able to promote high levels of literacy
development within their classroom.
Conclusion
The review of research focusing on various teacher read aloud styles demonstrates that
different styles can promote different types of literacy benefits, such as enjoyment of reading,
increased oral language skills, and new word learning, especially when students are engaged in
analytical talk before, during, or after the read aloud (Brabham & Lynch-Brown, 2002;
Dickinson & Smith, 1994; McGee & Schickedanz, 2007; Morrow et al., 1995). While many
elementary school teachers read aloud in a particular style, the benefits of the various styles
should be taken into account as teachers plan repeated read aloud experiences for their students
(Dickinson & Keebler, 1989; Martinez & Teale, 1993). Engaging in behaviors associated with
both performance-based read alouds and interactive read alouds will ensure that students have
positive interactions with reading, understand and appreciate the structure and flow of a book,
and can think and speak deeply about not only the plot of a story but also more complex ideas
such as character motivation. My hybrid read aloud model allows for both whole group and
small group read aloud experiences that draw upon the strengths of both categories of read aloud
styles to create the ultimate read aloud experience which will promote literacy development
amongst all students, regardless of their strengths and needs. While read alouds are not the only
important component of a strong literacy program, students will benefit from engagement in
thoughtful and well executed read aloud experiences.
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
20
References
Allison, D. T. & Watson, A. J. (1994). The significance of adult storybook reading styles on the
development of young children’s emergent reading. Reading Research and Instruction,
34(1), 57-72.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud
experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55(1), 10–20.
Brabham, E. G., & Lynch-Brown, C. (2002). Effects of teachers' reading-aloud styles on
vocabulary acquisition and comprehension of students in the early elementary
grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 465-473.
Dickinson, D., & Keebler, R. (1989). Variation in preschool teachers' styles of reading
books. Discourse Processes, 12(3), 353-375.
Dickinson, D., & Smith, M. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book readings on
low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research
Quarterly, 29, 104-122.
Hoffman, J. V., Rosner, N. L., & Battle, J. (1993). Reading aloud in classrooms: From the modal
toward a 'model. The Reading Teacher, 46(6), 496-503.
Klesius, J. P. & Griffith, P. L. (1996). Interactive storybook reading for at-risk learners. The
Reading Teacher, 49(7), 552-560.
Martinez, M. G., & Teale, W. H. (1993). Teacher storybook reading style: A comparison of six
teachers. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(2), 175-199.
McGee, L. M., & Schickedanz, J. A. (2007). Repeated interactive read-alouds in preschool and
kindergarten. Reading Teacher, 60(8), 742-751.
EFFECTIVE TEACHER READ ALOUD STYLES
21
Meyer, L. A., Stahl, S. A., Wardrop, J. L., & Linn, R. L. (1994). Effects of reading storybooks
aloud to children. Journal of Educational Research, 88(2), 69-85.
Morrow, L. M., Rand, M. K, & Smith, J. K. (1995). Reading aloud to children: Characteristics
and relationships between teachers and student behaviors. Reading Research and
Instruction, 35(1), 85-101.
Morrow, L. M., & Smith, J. K. (1990). The effects of group size on interactive storybook
reading. Reading Research Quarterly,25(3), 213-231
Reese, E., & Cox, A. (1999). Quality of adult book reading affects children's emergent
literacy. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 20-28.
Schickedanz, J. A. (1978). “Please read that story again!” Exploring relationships between story
reading and learning to read. Young Children, 33(5), 48-55.
Schickedanz, J. A. & Collins, M. F. (2012). For young children, pictures in storybooks are rarely
worth a thousand words. The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 539-549.
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., ValdezMenchaca, M., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through
picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552-559.