The Shared Reading of Big Books
with English Language Learners
Tracie Howard
Kindergarten Teacher
Webb A. Murray Elementary School

Background/Introduction
I am in my thirteenth year as a regular education classroom teacher. During the
course of my teaching experience I have noticed an increase in the number of limited
and non-English speaking children entering my classroom each year. These children
receive 30 minutes per day of inclusion ELL services with a bi-lingual teacher and
spend the remainder of the day floundering through total immersion in an English
speaking classroom. Statistics show that 30-40 % of K-12 students come from diverse
backgrounds other than white mainstream or native English speaking. In a sharp
contrast, only 15% of teachers come from diverse backgrounds. Native English
speaking teachers are working every day in classrooms where many children are
learning English as a second language (Wynn & Laframboise, 1996). These students
are often just as bright as their classmates, but ultimately because of language barriers,
do not make the same progress as most of the English speaking students. In order to
address this issue, I will attempt to answer the following question:

Research Question
How will the Shared Reading of big books impact the oral language acquisition, book
and print awareness, and phonological awareness of my limited and non-English
speaking English Language Learners?
For the purpose of this paper, the following definitions will be used:
Language acquisition is defined as the process by which language capability develops
in a person to the point that the person is able to convey and understand messages and
engage in meaningful interactions and natural communication in the target language (in
this case, English).
Book and print awareness is defined as an understanding of the characteristics of
written language. This includes understanding how books work. They have front and
back covers, a right side up, there are words inside that go in order from top to bottom
and left to right, there are spaces between the words, and the words carry the meaning
of the story. It also includes becoming familiar with print, what it looks like, and how
it works; understanding that reading and writing represent our words and that print is
where the meaning is; the knowledge that print is all around us, print is different from
pictures, print has meaning, print has practical uses, print is organized, words are made
up of letters, and print contains capital letters, lower case letters, and punctuation.
Phonological awareness is defined as the ability of listeners to distinguish phonemes,
the smallest units of sound. Phonological awareness is the ability to hear, manipulate,
and identify individual sounds (phonemes) in spoken words. This includes the ability
to hear rhyme and alliteration, to perform segmentation, blending, adding, and deleting
of phonemes and syllables.
Shared Reading is an interactive reading experience through which the reading
process and reading strategies are demonstrated by an experienced reader, the teacher.
It is based on the research that indicates that storybook reading is a critically important
factor in young children’s reading development (Holdaway, 1979). Shared Reading is
accomplished using an enlarged text (generally big books) that all children can see.
Student interactivity is the feature that distinguishes Shared Reading from Read Aloud.
It may include echo reading, choral reading, or fill in the gap reading. All of these
ways of reading are ways to encourage early reading enjoyment and success with a high
level of teacher support (Topping & Ferguson, 2005). As children are involved in the
process of reading a meaningful text, teachers can demonstrate early reading strategies
(Button & Johnson, 1997). Selected books must be suitable for students to join in the
experience and must have the possibility of multiple readings for enjoyment.
Selections that use predictable text are particularly recommended for emergent and
beginning readers (Snow et al, 1998). Some books are predictable because there is a
close association between the illustrations and the text in the book; others are
predictable because of pronounced rhyme; and some are predictable because of
recurring phrases. Predictable texts aid students in their attempts to recognize words
and build their confidence as readers (Adams, 1990). During the reading the teacher
involves the students in reading together by pointing to or sliding below each word in
the text in order to provide children the opportunity to participate and behave like
readers. The book is initially read by the teacher, and then in subsequent readings over
several days, the children become more interactive. There are many learning
opportunities during Shared Reading. The teacher may pause in the reading to ask for
predictions as to what will happen next. Because many of the books include
predictable text, the children often chime in with a word or phrase. Groups of children
or individual children might volunteer or be invited to read parts of the story. Through
repeated readings and the predictable text, children become familiar with word forms
and begin to recognize words and phrases (Adams, 1990). Once children are familiar
with the story, they can focus more closely on the text (Justice & Kaderavek, 2002).
Students can hunt for certain letters or high frequency words. Students can find
rhyming words or words that begin with a certain sound. Students can determine how
many syllables or sounds are in a word. There are many benefits to using the Shared
Reading model. Rich, authentic, interesting literature can be used right from the start
with children whose word-identification skills would not otherwise allow them access
to this quality literature (Mooney, 1994). Each reading of a text provides opportunities
for the teacher to model reading for the children and provides opportunities for concept
and language expansion. Awareness of the functions of print, familiarity with
language patterns, and word-recognition skills grow as children interact multiple times
with the same text. Individual needs of students can be more adequately met.
Advanced readers are challenged by the interesting, natural language of the texts, while
students who are more slowly acquiring reading skills experience success because of
the teacher support (Wynn & Laframboise, 1996). This literacy teaching method,
highly successful with English speaking students, is very effective with ELL students as
well. According to McCauley and McCauley (1992), two important factors for
enhancing language learning in all students, but in particular ELL students, are a lowanxiety environment and repeated practice. Shared reading provides for both. During
shared reading children are able to participate in the reading according to their level of
ability, understanding, and confidence. Some children will participate with complete
proficiency and others with approximations of the actual text. Shared reading allows
children to feel safe as their individual mispronunciations are absorbed by the
overriding voices of the group. Even children with the least facility in English can
experience fluent reading. Repetition is especially necessary for ELL students to
acquire their new language. The repeated readings required by the shared reading
process help children to grasp the rhythm, pitch, volume and tone of English and
reinforce language patterns for ELL students.

Participants
Although the entire class will participate in the Shared Reading process, the
study will focus on four of my English Language Learners who began the school year
with little or no English oral skills. This group consists of two girls and two boys who
are all five years old. All four students were born in the United States. Upon entering
school, the students were administered the Idea English Proficiency Test to assess their
English listening and speaking ability. The four students scored as follows: Nicholas,
the youngest of the group at age 5 years and 0 months, scored intermediate low on his
listening level and novice high on his speaking level; Enrrique, age 5 years and 1
month, scored novice low on his listening level and novice low on his speaking level;
Cynthia, age 5 years and 3 months, scored intermediate low on her listening level and
novice high on her speaking level; Guadalupe, the oldest of the group at age 5 years and
10 months, scored novice low on her listening level and novice low on her speaking
level. These scores indicate to me that Nicholas and Cynthia are able to understand
some spoken communication in English, but are not as proficient at conveying their
own messages to others in English, while Lupe and Enrrique have very little ability to
engage in any English interaction at all. All four of these students are delayed in their
literacy acquisition when compared to their grade level peers.

Instruction
The Shared Reading experience took place in the front of the classroom in our
group time area. This large carpeted area includes floor space for the children to sit, a
rocking chair for me, a big book cart, and a CD player for the big books that double as
songs. Each week I selected a text which has a teaching point that met the needs of my
students. For the purpose of my research project I chose to use big books, but I could
also have used another text I had enlarged on chart paper or on the overhead projector.
Over the course of a week, I engaged the students in multiple readings of the text. Our
Shared Reading sessions lasted approximately 20-30 minutes per day. Each day I
gathered the students in our group time area, making sure that the text could be easily
seen by everyone. On day 1, I introduced the book, title, author, and illustrator. I
activated prior knowledge through group discussion and encouraged students to make
predictions based on the front and back covers of the book. I previewed the story with
a picture walk, and then read the book for enjoyment, stopping at relevant points to
check prior predictions and revise or make new predictions. I encouraged student
participation in the reading as well as personal responses to the text. On days 2 through
5 during subsequent readings, I directed the children’s attention to various aspects of
the text, reading strategies, and skills such as concepts of print, picture clues,
letter/sound correspondence, word recognition, intonation and expression, new
vocabulary, story elements, sequencing, rhyme, building comprehension, and
fiction/non-fiction texts. The following is an outline of the specific shared reading
activities we engaged in over the course of the project:
Week 1- Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?
Day 1- introduce, predict, and read for enjoyment
Day 2- read and chart the number of leg on the book characters
Day 3- read and chart the number of syllables in the animal names
Day 4- read and chart real characters vs. make believe characters
Day 5- read and use animal picture cards to sequence the story
Week 2-Have You Seen My Cat?
Day 1- introduce, predict, and read for enjoyment
Day 2- read and locate periods, question marks, and exclamation marks
Day 3- read and cut apart sentences from the text to arrange
Day 4- read and make cat pictures to act out the story
Day 5- read and discuss beginning, middle, end, characters, setting, problem, and
solution
Week 3-I Went Walking
Day 1- introduce, predict, and read for enjoyment
Day 2- read and compare/contrast to Brown Bear
Day 3- read and chart initial consonants of animals
Day 4- read and match tails to animals
Day 5- read and use animal picture cards to sequence the story
Week 4-Let’s Go Visiting
Day 1- introduce, predict, and read for enjoyment
Day 2- read and use animal picture cards to match babies to mothers
Day 3- read and chart initial consonants of mother/baby names
Day 4- read and engage in rhyming word study with say, play, and hay
Day 5- read and use animal picture cards to sequence the story
Week 5-It Looked Like Spilt Milk
Day 1- introduce, predict, and read for enjoyment
Day 2- read and go outside to observe and draw clouds
Day 3- read, make symmetrical fold paint cloud, and fill in cloze sentence
Day 4- read and chart living/ nonliving story objects
Day 5- read and use white paper cloud shapes to sequence the story

Data Collection
Over the course of this project I collected the following data:
1. The Catawba County K-2 Literacy Assessment Book and Print Awareness
scores- All students are administered this assessment in August. I used this
beginning of the year score for my baseline data. I administered this assessment
again at the conclusion of the five weeks to the four students included in my
study as comparison data (see example in Appendix A).
2. The Catawba County K-2 Literacy Assessment Phonological Awareness scoresI administered this assessment to the four students included in my study at the
beginning of the five weeks for baseline data and again at the conclusion of the
five weeks for comparison data (see example in Appendix B).
3. Pre and Post Book Tests- I created a book test for each of the five shared
reading books used during the study. Each book test consisted of a list of items
found in the books (usually animals and colors) that I wanted my ELL students
to be able to identify in English by the end of each week. The book tests were
administered to the four ELL students each Monday, prior to any interaction
with the texts, and again each Friday, after multiple interactions with the texts
(see example in Appendixes C-G).
4. Observational notes on video-taped shared reading lessons- I video-taped shared
reading lessons during weeks 1, 3, and 5. As I viewed the video-tapes, I took
observational notes on the four students included in my study. I watched
specifically for level of engagement and quantity/quality of responses.
5. IDEA English Proficiency Test scores- The IPT is administered to all ELL
students at the beginning of the year by the ESL teacher. I obtained the IPT
scores from the ESL teacher for the four students included in my study as
background information on their ability to listen and speak in English.

Data Analysis
In order to analyze the data, I made photocopies of each student’s pre and post
book and print awareness assessment and phonological awareness assessment from
their Catawba County K-2 Literacy Booklets. I kept the information organized by
storing the copies in folders labeled Book and Print Awareness and Phonological
Awareness. Each Monday and Friday, when I completed administering the pre and
post book tests, I stored the forms in a folder labeled Language Acquisition. This
folder also contained the IPT scores of the four students in my study. After taking
observational notes from the three video-taped lessons, I made three copies of the notes
and used three different high-lighter colors to code the information as evidence of book
and print awareness (blue), phonological awareness (pink), and language acquisition
(yellow). These copies were placed in the Book and Print Awareness folder, the
Phonological Awareness folder, and the Language Acquisition folder, respectively. I
compared the pre and post test scores of the book and print awareness assessment, the
phonological awareness assessment, and each book test, and created bar graphs to
organize the results.

Results
In examining the graphs, I found that overall, shared reading had a positive
impact on the book and print awareness, phonological awareness, and language
acquisition of my ELL students. One area that indicated significant growth was book
and print awareness as shown in the graph in table 1.
Table 1
Book and Print Awareness
15
Scores
15
10
7
5
0
7
6
4
3
1
Lupe
1
Nicholas
Enrrique
Cynthia
Students
Pre-Test
Post-Test
All four of the students were able to identify the front, back, and title of a book, and
could demonstrate the left to right directionality of print with a return sweep. Three of the four
were able to identify a period and where to begin reading. On most pages of the test book,
Lupe, Nicholas, and Enrrique could not give an exact recount of what had been read to them,
but rather approximations of the text; and therefore were not able to demonstrate one-to-one
correspondence. Cynthia, who showed the most growth, mastered the book and print
awareness assessment by demonstrating one-to-one correspondence, as well as identifying four
sight words in the text. Students are considered “on grade level” if they can master the book
and print assessment by the end of the second nine weeks of kindergarten. Mastery is achieved
with a score of at least 14, with 16 being the highest possible score. An example of the book
and print assessment can be found in appendix A.
All four students showed gains in the area of phonological awareness as indicated on
the graph in table 2. The gains were small, but significant in that kindergartners usually do not
take the initial phonological awareness assessment until December, and mastery is not required
in kindergarten. An example of the phonological awareness assessment can be found in
appendix B.
Scores
Table 2
Phonological Awareness
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
6
5
5
3
1
0
Lupe
0
Nicholas
0
Enrrique
Cynthia
Students
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Of the four students, most demonstrated some understanding of counting the number of
syllables in a word, rhyme recognition, and beginning sound recognition. Areas of need for all
of the students included counting the number of words in sentences, rhyme production,
deleting initial and final words and sounds, and ending sound recognition. In examining the
areas of need, I noticed that these skills were not addressed in the five weeks of shared reading
and follow-up activities.
The remaining four graphs shown below give the results for four of the five weekly
book tests. One book, Have You Seen My Cat?, did not contain enough information to display
on a graph. Examples of the book tests can be found in appendixes C-G. After the first week
of research, I was very excited by the results of the Brown Bear book test (table 3). All four
students demonstrated some growth, with the two students most limited in the English
language, Lupe and Enrrique, showing the greatest gains in language acquisition. The results
of the other three book tests (tables 4, 5, and 6) continued to indicate small gains in most of the
students; however, no growth was shown by Nicholas on two of the book tests after multiple
interactions with the texts (table 4 and table 6). Although Cynthia demonstrated a higher
degree of English proficiency throughout the study, the discrepancy between her and the other
three students decreased during the five weeks of research.
Table 3
Brown Bear Book Test
Scores
20
18
17
18
15
15
10
5
8
10
9
5
0
Lupe
Nicholas
Enrrique
Cynthia
Students
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Scores
Table 4
I Went Walking Book Test
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
7
10
11
8
Lupe
6 6
6
Nicholas
Enrrique
Students
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Cynthia
Table 5
Let's Go Visiting Book Test
Scores
15
10
13
10
9 10
10 11
12 13
5
0
Lupe
Nicholas Enrrique
Cynthia
Students
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Scores
Table 6
Spilt Milk Book Test
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
11
9
9
7 7
Lupe
12
11
7
Nicholas Enrrique
Students
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Cynthia
As I reviewed the video to make my anecdotal notes, I noticed several points of
interest. During the first week of research we used Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do
You See? During the shared reading I noticed that Enrrique and Lupe usually just sat
and observed the lesson, while Nicholas and Cynthia participated according to their
ability, chiming in occasionally on words they knew like “cat” and “looking at me”.
Oddly, during student questioning and discussion, it was Cynthia and Enrrique who
were able to give correct responses, while Nicholas and Lupe shrugged or gave no
response.
By the second video-taped session, which took place during the third week of
research, I began to notice increased participation on the part of all four ELL students.
Enrrique and Lupe began contributing to the shared reading with the animal names they
knew. Nicholas, although extremely squirmy during the lesson, had his full attention
on the big book and was participating with approximations of the text, as well as using
hand gestures. Cynthia, by this point, was able to participate in the reading with
complete proficiency. I noticed all four of the ELL students watching and listening to
their English-speaking peers during the questioning, discussion, and follow-up activity.
After hearing several peer responses and teacher ideas, the four ELL students felt
comfortable enough to participate by choosing one of the answers they had already
heard. This option for participation allowed the four ELL students to experience
success.
The third video-taped lesson took place during the fifth and final week of the
research. We were using It Looked Like Spilt Milk as our shared reading text. I
observed all four of the ELL students actively engaged and participating in the reading
with few or no approximations. Cynthia and Nicholas even volunteered to “read’ a
page of the text to the class independently. During the student questioning and
discussion all four students were able to identify valuable concepts of print like front,
back, and title of the book, and most were also able to identify a period and where to
begin reading.

Discussion
Analysis of the data indicates that participation in shared reading positively
influenced my limited and non-English speaking English Language Learners’ literacy
knowledge in the areas of book and print awareness, phonological awareness, and
language acquisition. Shared reading promoted positive attitudes toward literacy in the
ELL students. By participating in shared reading, the students experienced an
increased enthusiasm for books and a growing self-esteem as readers. The predictable
texts and choral reading provided support for the ELL students at their individual levels
of literacy and language acquisition and allowed the students to progress at their own
rates. The shared reading process promoted a non-threatening and low-anxiety
environment where the ELL students felt free to take risks in interacting with the texts
and trying out their new language. The repeated readings of the highly predictable texts
with rich, lively language invited participation and positively impacted the ELL
students’ nonverbal (pointing to print) and verbal (reading and discussing print)
involvement in the activity which helped stimulate and shape their emergent knowledge
about written and spoken language. During shared reading I was able to use engaging
texts and authentic literacy experiences to demonstrate reading strategies and model
expressive, fluent reading to the ELL students, which is especially important for these
children who have had very little book and language experience. Through my research
I found that, as in the case with shared reading, literacy strategies that are effective with
English speaking students are also effective with English Language Learners when
scaffolding and support are provided by the teacher and peers.

Future Directions
I plan to continue to use the shared reading method in my classroom; however
there are a few changes I would consider in order to improve the effectiveness of the
instruction. First, I would like to go back through each post shared reading activity
from the five weeks of research to evaluate the individual effectiveness and impact on
student literacy growth. This would allow me to continue to use successful activities,
while leaving room for the adaptation and/or replacement of less effective activities.
Second, I would like to devise a time-effective method of including the whole class in
the weekly book tests. I feel this information would be useful in my planning to reteach or move on to other concepts and in my grouping of students to teach specific
deficiencies. Third, I would like to create a data-base of effective post shared reading
activities categorized by book and print awareness, phonological awareness, language
acquisition, or other areas (maybe alphabet knowledge/principle). This data-base,
although time-consuming to establish, would be easy and efficient in the long run when
selecting lessons or activities to meet specific objectives or goals. Fourth, I would like
to increase the time spent on each big book from one week to two weeks in order to
increase the benefit of the repetitive texts and repeated readings. I believe this would
be one way to foster the acquisition of sight word vocabulary. I would also use that
additional time to make class books based on the format of the specific big book being
used. Fifth, and finally, I would seek to implement specific activities targeted toward
improving language acquisition and sight word vocabulary. After my research had
concluded, I came across an article (Whole-to-Part Phonics Instruction: Building on
What Children Know to Help Them Know More by Moustafa and Maldonado-Colon)
describing a shared reading approach followed by explicit word instruction in order to
build on children’s prior knowledge of language and words to help them learn new and
unfamiliar words. Regrettably, I found this method too late to include in my research;
however I am excited about examining its impact on my students’ literacy growth.

Resources
Martin Jr., B. (1996). Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? Orlando, FL:
Henry Holt & Co.
Carle, E. (1997). Have You Seen My Cat? London, England: Aladdin Books.
Williams, S. (1990). I Went Walking. San Diego, CA: Gulliver Books.
Williams, S. (1998). Let’s Go Visiting. New York, NY: Gulliver Books.
Shaw, C.G. (1992). It Looked Like Spilt Milk. New York, NY: HarperTrophy Books.

References
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Button, K. & Johnson, M. (1997). The Role of Shared Reading in Developing
Effective Early Reading Strategies. Reading Horizons, 37 (4), 262-273.
Holdaway, D. (1979). The Foundations of Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Justice, L.M. & Kaderavek, J. (2002). Using Shared Storybook Reading to
Promote Emergent Literacy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34 (4), 8-13.
McCauley, J.K. & McCauley, D.S. (1992). Using Choral Reading to Promote
Language Learning for ESL Students. The Reading Teacher, 45 (7), 526533.
Mooney, M. (1994). Shared Reading: Making it Work for You and Your
Children. Teaching PreK-8, 25, 70-72.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in
Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Topping, K. & Ferguson, N. (2005). Effective Literacy Teaching Behaviours.
Journal of Research in Reading, 28 (2), 125-143.
Wynn, M. & Laframboise, K. (1996). Shared Experiences to Scaffold Second
Language Learners’ Literacy Acquisition. The New England Reading
Association Jornal, 32 (2), 3-9.
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Brown Bear, Brown Bear
What Do You See?
Cynthia
Lupe
Enrrique
Nicholas
Sight word recognition
what
do
you
see
I
a
looking
at
me
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Picture recognition
bear
bird
duck
horse
mouse
frog
cat
elephant
dog
sheep
fish
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Color/color word recognition
brown
red
yellow
blue
gray
green
purple
pink
white
black
gold
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Appendix D
Have You Seen My Cat?
Cynthia
Lupe
Enrrique
Nicholas
Sight word recognition
have
you
seen
my
this
is
not
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Picture recognition
cat
____________________________________
Appendix E
I Went Walking
Cynthia
Lupe
Enrrique
Nicholas
Sight word recognition
I
see
what
went
did
you
saw
a
at
me
looking
walking
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Picture recognition
cat
horse
cow
duck
pig
dog
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Color/color word recognition
black
brown
green
pink
yellow
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Appendix F
Let’s Go Visiting
Cynthia
Sight word recognition
Let’s
go
visiting
what
do
you
say
is
ready
to
play
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Picture recognition
foal/horse
calves/cow
kittens/cat
piglets/pig
ducklings/duck
puppies/dog
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Color/Color Word Recognition
brown
red
black
pink
green
yellow
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Lupe
Enrrique
Nicholas
Appendix G
It Looked Like Spilt Milk
Cynthia
Lupe
Enrrique
Nicholas
Sight word recognition
sometimes
it
looked
like
a
but
wasn’t
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Picture recognition
spilt milk
rabbit
bird
tree
ice cream cone
flower
pig
birthday cake
sheep
great horned owl
mitten
squirrel
angel
cloud
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________