Using VoiceThread to Facilitate the Development of Written Narrative Skills in
Children in the Inclusive Classroom
Abstract
This quasi experiment, using a pretest-posttest control group design, investigated the effect
of two technology-supported instructional interventions, Cooperative Retelling and Direct
Instruction, on children’s’ narrative writing skills. A total of 131 students participated in the
study, 57 from grade 5 and 74 from grade 6. To measure narrative skills both pretests and
posttest were analyzed at a macrostructure level measuring the number of complete episodes
and story coherence. Significant results were found for the number of complete episodes
F(2,127) = 13.750 and story coherence F(2, 128)= 17.389 with the Cooperative Retelling
group outperforming both the Direct Instruction and the Control group for both measures.
Objectives
Writing is a complex process that necessitates the activation and coordination of
several linguistic skills including but not limited to, semantic, syntax, spelling and writing
convention (Singer & Bashir, 2006). In addition, writing requires cognitive planning and
translating thoughts and ideas into meaningful words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. It is a
set of skills that must be taught, practiced and learned over time through conscious efforts.
As a result of the complexity of the writing process, many students fail to become competent
writers. As clearly indicated by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Persky,
Daane, & Jin, 2003), three out of every four 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students fail to
acquire grade level writing skills.
To address the writing challenges faced by many students, this research, sponsored
by a grant from the Québec Ministry of Education, assessed the effectiveness of two
instructional strategies on the written narratives of children. One strategy used teacher-led
direct instruction while the other looked at the impact of the development of oral retelling
skills, using a technology-enhanced, cooperative learning instructional strategy. More
specifically, this study was set up to answer the following question: Are there differential
effects between the two instructional treatments, cooperative retelling and direct instruction,
on students in the inclusive classroom written narratives, and when compared with a control
group?
Literature Review
Narrative discourse refers to language units beyond the sentence level and includes
the ability to construct a story orally or in writing (Brenner, 1997). Written and oral
narratives share some properties including the notion of a beginning, middle and end, the
separation of the event structure from the narrative structure (Olson, 1990). However, oral
narratives, unlike written ones, are essential for social interaction and collaboration. It is
through telling stories to each other that children learn to recall and logically order ideas, to
use appropriate linguistic strategies to create cohesiveness, and to take into account the
listener’s knowledge and perspective (Cassell, 2004). It thus stands to reason that narrative
development in school children is the result of co-occurring competencies in both forms of
language and suggests that the best approach for improvement in this area is to provide
students with opportunities to develop both aspects of narration concurrently.
However, while from a theoretical perspective, oral and written narrative
development are interdependent, in practice, the research looking at the relationship between
oral and written language is, to date, limited (Miller & McCardle, 2011; Shanahan, 2008).
Much of the literature which looks at the relationship between oral language and writing
comes from studies of children with LD. In this population of children, limited verbal
memory has been shown to impact both the quality and quantity of writing (Swanson &
Beringer, 1996). However, given the limited amount of research on oral language and
writing (Shanahan, 2008), it is impossible to determine whether programs targeting oral
language development would affect writing competencies. This fact highlights the
importance of assessing the effectiveness of an intervention that looks at the impact of the
development of oral skills on students’ narrative writing.
Cooperative learning (CL) is the instructional use of small groups in which students
work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2004,
p. 786). Several researchers have investigated the application of a CL approach using of
technologies (e.g., Ananny (2002), Cassell (2004), Ryokai et al., (2003), and Druin et al.,
1999). However, these studies are limited to technologies designed for specific research
purposes and do not describe tools that are readily available for teachers interested in
promoting narrative development in their students. VoiceThread, the podcasting on-line site
used in this study, is currently available for educators interested in using ICT for narrative
development (see http://voicethread.com/#home). Thus, findings from this study are
applicable for researchers and educators alike.
Methodology
Setting
ABC Academy is a French immersion school serving approximately 500
kindergarten to grade 6 students in a Montreal suburb. The school services mostly middle-
income class families. Over 25% of the school population has been identified as “at risk”.
As the research was sponsored by the Quebec Ministry of Education, some of the allocated
money was used to purchase 10 mini laptops which were to be used solely for the research
purposes.
Participants
Three grade 5 (children aged 10- 11 years old) and three grade 6 (children aged 1112 years old) participated in the study. One class of each grade was randomly selected for
each of the treatments.
Research Design
This quasi experiment employed a pretest-posttest and posttest only control group
design. The study compares the outcomes of two instructional interventions aimed at
improving narrative writing with a control groups which received the regular classroom
curriculum. Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of the research design.
Figure 1. A graphical representation of the research design
Information and Communications Technologies
The website Voice Thread (http://voicethread.com/#home) was used to host both the
folktales the students listen to and their retold stories. VoiceThread is a cooperative,
multimedia on-line tool that holds images, documents, and videos and audio files. Figure 1
illustrates how the Voice Thread environment supports cooperation.
Figure 1. The VoiceThread Environment
Instructional Materials
The material selected for the intervention consists of four folktales. These stories
were retold for the purpose of the intervention. The retold stories are based on the following
tales:

The Name of the Tree, an African tale told by Stephanie Beneteau (2007).

The Paper Dragon, a Chinese folktale written by Marguerite Davol (1997).

The Wisdom Bird, a Jewish tale written by Sheldon Oberman (2000).

The Wise Old Woman, a Japanese folktale written by Yoshiko Uchida (1994).
Instructional Interventions
Direct instruction in story grammar was provided to both instructional groups. This
instruction forms the core of both interventions. Following the Direct instruction, both
groups of students listened to a folktale hosted on VoiceThread. In the Cooperative Retelling
intervention, students then worked in mixed abilities triads to orally retell the story; they
then retold the story in writing. In the Direct instruction group, students listened to the story
and then retold it in writing. Because each session was held within a prescribed time period,
time on task for all groups was equivalent.
Measures
Students were asked to retell one of the following folktales: The Three Little Pigs; The Boy
who Cried Wolf; The Three Billy Goats Gruff; Little Red Riding Hood or Cinderella. This
retelling of the folktales was used as both a pre and post-tests. Posttest measure also
included the construction of a new tale. This measure was used assess transfer of skills.
All of the stories were coded for the presence of episodes which were determined using
story grammar analysis based on Stein and Glenn, (1979). The story grammar components
are outlined in the table 1 below:
Table 1
Story grammar components and description
Story Grammar
Component
Setting (S)
Initiating event (IE)
Internal response (IR)
Plan (P)
Attempt (A)
Consequences (C)
Reaction (resolution)
Description
Character/object introduction and description of time and place
Obstacles or problem that cause a response from the protagonist(s)
Emotional responses, desires, thoughts of character(s)
Statements about how the character(s) might overcome the obstacles
Actions taken by the main character(s) to solve the problem
Repercussions of the attempts to solve the problem
Thoughts and actions of the character(s) to the consequences..
An episode must include a problem (IE and/or IR); attempts and consequences. However
according to Strong (1998), episodes may vary in length depending on the number of
story grammar elements presented. Therefore, the coding was adapted based on Hedberg
and Westby (1993) and each episode was assigned a score based on the quality of the
episodes.
Story grammar analysis was way of establishing story coherence as it quantifies
the number of episodes in the story presented in the narrative. However, this analysis
does not provide an indication of the logical order of event sequencing within the
narrative, nor does it provide an indication of the quality of discourse. Therefore, a
second rubric using a 5-point Likert scale was developed to look at the following story
coherence elements:

Fluency: The flow of the written text

Elaboration: The degree to which the episodes are elaborated by details

Organization: The clarity of the logical flow of the story
An inter-rater reliability was established based on a random selection of 50% of the data.
High correlation was obtained ranging from r = .897*** to r = .969*** (p < .001, 2-tailed).
Results
A total of 135 students consented to participate in the study. Two participants were
removed as they were missing more than 50% of the data; two other participants were
removed as their skills were at a Grade One level and were therefore considered outliers.
The following table provides a description of participants by grade and condition.
Table 2
Description of participants per grade
Grade level
5
5
5
6
6
6
Total
Instructional Strategy
Cooperative Retelling
Direct Instruction
Control
Cooperative Retelling
Direct Instruction
Control
Number of participants
21
19
17
24
24
26
131
An ANOVA conducted on the pretest data showed that the groups were
statistically different at the grade 5 level for the total episodes score at F(2, 54) = 5.247 at
p < .019 with the Cooperative Retelling group different from both the Direct Instruction
group and the Control group. At the grade 6 level significant differences were found for
the number of complete episodes with F(2, 71) = 3.288 and p < .043. Therefore, Gain
Scores were used to establish group differences.
MANOVA was conducted on Gain Scores to establish an overall treatment effect.
Results suggest significant differences (p < .001) for the number of Total Episodes score
with F(2, 127) = 13.750 with the CR group performing significantly higher than both the
Control group and the Direct instruction group. Significant differences were found (p <
.001) for all story coherence variables with the Cooperative Retelling group significantly
different from the Direct Instruction and the Control condition F(2, 128)= 17.389. The
same was the case for Fluency F(2, 128)= 15.938 with p < .001, Elaboration F(2, 128) =
11.595 with p < .001 and Organization F(2, 128)=18.241 with p < .001.
Significance of the Study
This study demonstrates the impact of the development of oral language on
students’ written retelling of stories using a Cooperative Retelling approach and the use
of technologies to support the cooperative process. This research highlights the
importance of developing students’ oral language skills as a way of improving their
writing skills. In addition, given the emphasis on technology integration in North
American schools (National Technology Educational Standards, 2005), research that
demonstrates how ICT could facilitate writing development of students is valuable to
practitioners in the field.