Effects of an Intervention in Shared Reading in Early Childhood EducationAbstract:
Shared reading can be defined as an umbrella term that encompasses various forms of reading done by a more proficient reader, usually an adult, and a child. The present study aimed to investigate if an intervention in Early Childhood Education could help in developing emergent literacy skills: phonological awareness, vocabulary and letter knowledge. Thirty children from a public Early Childhood Education school in Niterói, RJ, participated in this research. Children were divided into control and experimental groups, assessed before and after the intervention using Phonological Awareness and Vocabulary tests and a Letter Knowledge task. The results showed significant effects of the intervention for phonological awareness and letter name knowledge. We hope to broaden the scope of research in this field and to help the development of strategies that will be used to contribute to the development of literacy precursor skills.
Keywords:
reading; literacy; vocabulary; phonological awareness; learning
Resumo:
Leitura compartilhada pode ser definida como um termo guarda-chuva que envolve várias formas de leituras feitas por um leitor mais proficiente, em geral, um adulto e uma criança. O objetivo do presente estudo foi investigar se uma intervenção de leitura compartilhada na Educação Infantil era capaz de desenvolver habilidades de literacia emergente: consciência fonológica, vocabulário e conhecimento das letras. Participaram desta pesquisa 30 crianças de uma escola pública de Educação Infantil de Niterói, RJ. As crianças, divididas em grupo controle e experimental, foram avaliadas antes e após a intervenção, com teste de Consciência Fonológica, Teste de Vocabulário e uma tarefa de conhecimento das letras. Os resultados mostraram efeitos significativos da intervenção para melhoria da consciência fonológica e conhecimento do nome das letras. Esperamos ampliar o escopo de pesquisas na área e ajudar na elaboração de estratégias utilizadas, a fim de contribuir com o desenvolvimento das habilidades precursoras da alfabetização.
Palavras-chave:
leitura; alfabetização; vocabulário; consciência fonológica; aprendizagem
Resumen:
La lectura compartida se puede definir como un término general que abarca varias formas de lectura realizadas por un lector competente, generalmente un adulto y un niño. El objetivo del estudio fue investigar si una intervención de lectura compartida en Educación Infantil podía desarrollar habilidades de literacidad emergente: conciencia fonológica, vocabulario y reconocimiento de letras. Participaron en esta investigación 30 niños de una escuela pública en Niterói, RJ. Los niños, divididos en grupo de control y experimental, fueron evaluados antes y después de la intervención con una prueba de Conciencia Fonológica, un Test de Vocabulario y una tarea de conocimiento de letras. Los resultados mostraron efectos significativos de la intervención en la mejora de la conciencia fonológica y el reconocimiento del nombre de las letras. Esperamos ampliar el alcance de las investigaciones y contribuir a la elaboración de estrategias para el desarrollo de habilidades precursoras de la alfabetización.
Palabras clave:
lectura; alfabetización; vocabulario; conciencia fonológica y aprendizaje
For Flôres and Gabriel (2017), shared reading refers to the interactive or dialogic reading practice that occurs when a child actively shares the reading of a book or other text with the support of an adult. Similarly, Bräkling (2004) suggests it can be understood as students and teachers reading the same text together and presenting their ideas and impressions about what was read. Silva and Mota (2023) recently proposed that shared reading could be defined as an umbrella term encompassing various forms of reading by a more proficient reader, typically an adult, and a child, hence, it includes several concepts. In these conceptualizations, the authors emphasize the active involvement of participants in the process. In this article, we present the results of an intervention of shared reading with Early Childhood Education (ECE) students to develop emergent literacy (literacy precursor skills).
The proposed intervention is based on the premise of considering shared reading practices not only as a resource for providing children with access to printed materials, as recommended by the ECE Curricular Guidelines (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2010). Access to books and various text formats is important, but in school, shared reading can be used to meet specific objectives and awaken children to new worlds and help in the development of creative thinking. Based on the literature in the field and our own results, we will discuss how shared reading and interventions using effective children’s books can help develop cognitive skills that are precursors to literacy.
Whitehurst et al. (1988) were the first to formalize a set of shared reading techniques to promote children’s linguistic development. The authors emphasize the importance of noting the distinctions between these techniques and the techniques of simply reading to a child, which involve seeking a difference in the type of interactive relationship established between the teacher and the child. In the authors’ proposal, teachers adopt a proactive approach and use evocative behaviors that elicit responses from children, with positive feedback such as praise and encouragement that motivate child participation. This includes asking open-ended questions and expanding beyond the book’s content, thus providing opportunities for children to expand their language skills (Whitehurst et al., 1988).
Shared reading techniques have been used to successfully develop children’s vocabulary. In a study by Hindman et al. (2019) more children’s conversations during shared reading interactions predicted greater vocabulary learning. Such techniques also promote phonological awareness (the ability to reflect on speech sounds) and concepts of print (Altınkaynak, 2019).
Vocabulary, phonological awareness, and letter knowledge are part of what we call emergent literacy, which can be defined as the set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes considered precursors to reading and writing, also encompassing the contexts that facilitate this learning (Barrera et al., 2019), and can be developed even before children enter the first year of elementary school. Emergent literacy skills that contribute to literacy development include vocabulary, phonological awareness, and letter knowledge.
Vocabulary plays a significant role in the development of word recognition skills, especially in opaque orthographies (Ehri, 2013). According to the report entitled “Children’s Literacy: New Paths” (“Alfabetização infantil: os novos caminhos”, Ministry of Education and Culture, 2019), vocabulary is the foundation upon which comprehension lies. This report further adds that there is no specific time to teach vocabulary, i.e., “[...] children learn vocabulary before and after learning to read, both inside and outside of school” (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2019, p. 61), emphasizing that vocabulary acquisition does not depend exclusively on reading. Although vocabulary can be explored through different strategies, it can be significantly expanded by reading. For example, Rocha and Mota (2023) showed that children whose parents expanded the language skills when reading stories to them had superior vocabularies compared to children who were only told stories by their parents.
Phonological awareness is defined as the ability to reflect on speech sounds and is considered important for the acquisition of reading and writing skills, acting causally to literacy success (Cardoso-Martins, 1995). Studies in this field demonstrate that phonological awareness aids literacy acquisition, and training this skill helps remediate reading problems (Marquez & Godoy, 2022; Marquez et al., 2022).
In addition to phonological awareness, letter name knowledge has been identified as one of the variables that best predicts reading and writing learning outcomes (Barrera & Santos, 2016). In schools, letter name teaching often precedes letter sound teaching. However, it is important to consider that letter names often contain relevant letter sounds (Ehri, 2013). In Brazil, in particular, many studies have corroborated the importance of these skills for written language acquisition in Brazilian Portuguese (Cardoso-Martins, 1995).
Considering the importance of shared reading and emergent literacy for child development, some intervention studies have been conducted to develop emergent literacy using shared reading techniques, which have proven effective across cultures (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2018; Van Der Wilt et al., 2019). In Turkey, Altınkaynak (2019) divided preschool children into two groups: control and experimental. The experimental group was read interactively three times a week for eight weeks (24 sessions). Although students in the control group had the same reading experience in terms of frequency, they were read books using the traditional book reading method. At the end of the study, the interactive book reading activities had significant effects on the development of phonemic and print awareness skills.
In Belgium, Thomas et al. (2020) conducted a study with children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The sample consisted of eight schools in which children were conveniently divided into control and experimental group. The experimental group received an intervention for 11 weeks, three times a week, a total of 33 sessions, and the control group received traditional reading for nine weeks for the same amount of time. The intervention focused on phonological awareness, concept of print (the story title was used to test knowledge of one of the letters), story comprehension, and vocabulary. The results showed that children in the experimental group improved across all skills compared to the control group, demonstrating the effectiveness of shared reading as a pedagogical resource in ECE.
In Brazil, in a study on shared reading, Antunes et al. (2021) assessed the early emergent literacy of children in ECE. After the assessment, the authors held shared reading sessions with children and reported improvements in emergent literacy after the intervention. However, the impact of the intervention was not evaluated through statistical procedures in the posttest of the study. They simply presented a description of the intervention situation and conclusions that there had been improvements in emergent literacy. It is difficult to measure the effectiveness of an intervention program without a control group for comparison.
While the use of shared reading has been demonstrated in different cultures, we still need studies demonstrating its effectiveness in the Brazilian educational context. To address this gap, the objective of this study was to investigate if a shared reading intervention in ECE could develop emergent literacy skills: phonological awareness, vocabulary, and letter knowledge. To this end, we conducted an intervention study with two groups of children, aged five and six, enrolled in the final year of ECE at a public school in the city of Niterói, state of Rio de Janeiro. They were divided in control group and intervention group. Initially, children in both groups underwent a pretest to assess phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and vocabulary, after which the two groups were found to be equivalent. The hypothesis was that a shared reading intervention would improve performance in emergent literacy skills compared to the group that did not receive the intervention. Thus, one group underwent two weekly shared reading interventions for 10 weeks, while the control group continued their normal daily activities. At the end of the shared reading sessions, a posttest assessed if the skills described had developed.
Method
Participants
The final research sample consisted of 30 children (16 girls and 14 boys) in the final year of ECE at a public school in the municipality of Niterói. The average age of participants was 5.46 years, standard deviation of 0.51. The control group consisted of 15 children, average age of 5.53 years, standard deviation of 0.52. The intervention group also included 15 children, average age of 5.40 years, standard deviation of 0.51. The school and children were selected based on convenience criteria. The inclusion criteria for the study were being enrolled in the final year of ECE and having no reported learning difficulties. The children came from three classes in the same school; two classes served as the control group and one as the intervention group.
Although one child diagnosed with autism participated in the storytelling sessions, her assessments were not considered for the purposes of data analysis. Inclusion criteria for the study also included the signature of the Informed Consent Form by parents/guardians, and of the Informed Assent Form by children themselves. These forms followed the Research Ethics Committee’s standards approved for this study. Table 1 presents participant information.
Instruments
The Phonological Awareness Sequential Assessment Instrument (Portuguese acronym: CONFIAS) is a phonological awareness assessment task developed for children aged four years and older, whether illiterate or in the process of learning to read. The test consists of synthesis, segmentation, identification, production, exclusion, and syllabic and phonemic transposition tasks, ensuring access to different levels of phonological awareness development. In our study, we used three tests that make up the CONFIAS program: initial sound identification; medial sound identification; and rhyming. For all three tests, two initial examples were presented to the child for understanding. Each test consisted of four items. Correct answers were worth one point, with a maximum of 12 points for each student. The reliability coefficient for these tests was: pretest = 0.66 and posttest = 0.74; for each subtest: Alliteration (pretest = 0.39 / posttest = 0.72); for Medial Sound (pretest = 0.49 / posttest = 0.48); and for Rhyming (pretest = 0.76 / posttest = 0.54).
The letter name knowledge test (created for this study) is a task in which participants are expected to identify and name letters of the alphabet randomly presented on cards. The letters are displayed in black uppercase letters. During this test, each card with a letter is shown to the child, who must name it. Each correct answer counts as one point. The test uses 15 randomly selected letters of the alphabet. Therefore, the child can accumulate up to 15 points.
The auditory vocabulary test (TVAud) is based on the auditory vocabulary test boards by Capovilla et al. (2011). This test has been standardized and validated for the development of speech comprehension from 18 months to six years of age. The child is asked to identify a figure on a board with five items, totaling 33 boards. Each correct answer is worth one point, total of 33 points. The reliability coefficient for these tests was: pretest = 0.42 and posttest = 0.32.
Children’s books: twenty children’s storybooks were used for in-person reading of their texts in full. These books are narrative, address relevant childhood topics (e.g., fears, sleep, physical differences, female empowerment, etc.). They were selected from the list of ECE books from the National Textbook Program (PNLD, Ministry of Education and Culture, 2010). This intervention was designed based on evidence from previous studies (Flôres & Gabriel, 2017; Hindman et al., 2019; Pereira et al., 2019; Sim-Sim, 2007). In all shared reading sessions, activities were carried out before, during, and after book sharing, as shown in Table 2.
All sessions were facilitated by the first author of this study and videotaped. They took place between September and November 2022, twice a week, and ranged from 40 to 50 minutes. At the end of each session, the book was left in a visible location for the children’s access whenever they wanted. After the intervention sessions, the same tests used in the pretest were administered again.
Procedures
Data collection. The study began after all ethical procedures had been completed. To recruit volunteer participants, we obtained authorization from the schools to participate in an online parent meeting, where we explained the procedures and sent the Informed Consent Form via WhatsApp, so they could access the document. Copies were left in the school office for the signature by volunteer parents, and they were invited to attend to sign the document.
Once this was done, we spoke with the participating children and requested their consent to conduct the study and the signature of the Informed Assent Form. In the next stage, we investigated the students’ level of development in phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and vocabulary.
These tests were administered in an individual session lasting approximately 20 minutes. Initially, we administered the phonological awareness tests according to the manual’s rules. We then followed with the letter knowledge test. Finally, the vocabulary test was administered.
The intervention began after the pretests were administered. It consisted of 20 shared reading sessions with children in the selected group. The intervention was conducted by one of the authors, who is also an ECE teacher. Although the researcher acted as the storyteller, the children’s teachers were present in almost all sessions, except for one, when they were away from work on medical leave.
A children’s book was used in each session, which lasted an average of 30-40 minutes. After the intervention, the aforementioned tests were administered again.
Data analysis. Descriptive and exploratory analyses were performed. Next, a mixed-factorial (2x2) ANOVA was used for each of the dependent variables (vocabulary, letter knowledge, and phonological awareness). The independent variable for the independent groups was the child’s group (control and intervention), and the independent variable between the subjects was time (before and after the intervention). The scores for each pretest activity were compared with the posttest scores for the same tasks, for both the control and intervention groups. Our hypothesis was that the group of children undergoing the intervention activities would have better posttest scores compared to the group of children who did not undergo the intervention. If this is the case, significant group x time interactions are expected. To assess the reliability of the scales, Pearson correlations were performed to assess pretest and posttest correlations, as well as Kudar-Richardson 20.
Ethical Considerations
The study was duly approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Universidade Salgado de Oliveira University under opinion number 5.463.121 - CAAE number 58468422.7.0000.5289, which is included in the approval report for this study.
Results
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of this study. Pearson correlations indicated positive and significant correlations between pretest and posttest scores for letter knowledge (r = 0.90, p < 0.001) and phonological awareness (r = 0.49, p = 0.006), but there was no significant correlation for total vocabulary (r = 0.26, p = 0.16).
Descriptive Statistics of Control and Intervention Groups Pre- and Post-Intervention for Letter Knowledge, Phonological Awareness, and Vocabulary
All Box’s M tests met the assumption of homogeneity of covariance, suggesting that the covariance matrices are not statistically different from each other. Next, the result of the mixed factorial ANOVA for letter name knowledge indicated a significant main effect of time F (1,28) = 15.6, p < 0.001, eta²p = 0.359, power = 0.97 with the pre-time M = 6.97, SD = 0.95 showing lower levels of letter knowledge than the post-time M = 8.43, SD = 0.89. However, a main effect of group was not found (F (1,28) = 1.23, p < 0.001, eta²p = 0.042, power = 0.19). Furthermore, the result indicated, as expected by the hypothesis, that there was a significant interaction effect between time and group (F (1, 28) = 7.27, p = 0.012, eta²p = 0.206, power = 0.74). To investigate marginal effects, pairwise comparisons were conducted with Bonferroni corrections. The result pointed to a significant difference between pre- and post-times only for the intervention group (F (1, 28) = 22.1, p < 0.001, eta²p = 0.441, power = 0.99). Specifically in the intervention group, pretest letter knowledge levels (M = 7.46, SD = 1.35) were significantly lower than posttest letter knowledge levels (M = 9.93, SD = 1.25).
Following the same pattern as the previous mixed ANOVA, the results for initial sound phonological awareness indicated the presence of a main effect for time (F (1, 28) = 12.5, p = 0.001, eta²p = 0.310, power = 0.93) with pretest time (M = 2.33, SD = 0.21) presenting lower levels than posttest time (M = 3.10, SD = 0.19). Again, no main effects were found for group (F (1, 28) = 3.26, p = 0.082, eta²p = 0.104, power = 0.41). However, an interaction effect was found (F (1, 28) = 8.56, p = 0.007, eta²p = 0.234, power = 0.81). Then, Bonferroni corrections were conducted to investigate marginal effects. The results indicated a significant difference between the control and intervention groups at posttest time (F (1, 28) = 10.3, p = 0.003, eta²p = 0.27, power = 0.87) in which the control group (M = 2.47, SD = 0.30) presented lower levels of phonological awareness than the intervention group (M = 3.73, SD = 0.28). Furthermore, significant differences were found between pretest and posttest times for the intervention group (F (1, 28) = 20.9, p < 0.001, eta²p = 0.43, power = 0.99), in which knowledge levels in the pre-time (M = 2.33, SD = 0.30) were lower than the post-time (M = 3.73, SD = 0.28).
Regarding the mixed factorial ANOVA for phonological awareness scores for the medial sound, the test indicated a main effect of time (F (1, 28) = 13.7, p < 0.001, eta²p = 0.33, power = 0.95) with the posttest time (M = 2.57, SD = 0.17) presenting higher levels than the pretest time (M = 1.73, SD = 0.23). No main effects were found for group (F (1, 28) = 3.43, p = 0.07, eta²p = 0.11, power = 0.43), but there was a significant interaction (F (1, 28) = 11.6, p = 0.002, eta²p = 0.29, power = 0.91). Bonferroni corrections indicated significant differences between the control and intervention groups in the posttest (F (1, 28) = 16.7, p < 0.001, eta²p = 0.37, power = 0.98), with the control group (M = 1.87, SD = 0.24) presenting lower levels of phonological awareness than the intervention group (M = 3.27, SE = 0.24). Furthermore, significant differences were found between pretest and posttest in the intervention group (F (1, 28) = 25.3, p < 0.001, eta²p = 0.47, power = 0.99). Participants in the intervention group (M = 1.67, SD = 0.33) showed lower levels of phonological awareness in the pretest compared to the posttest (M = 3.27, SD = 0.24).
Regarding phonological awareness results for rhyming, the mixed ANOVA indicated the absence of a main effect of time (F (1.28) = 3.76, p = 0.063, eta²p = 0.118, power = 0.46), but indicated the presence of a main effect of group (F (1, 28) = 7.95, p = 0.009, eta²p = 0.221, power = 0.77), and the intervention group (M = 0.53, SD = 0.22) had higher levels of phonological awareness than the control group (M = 1.40, SD = 0.22). Furthermore, the result indicated a significant interaction between group and time (F (1, 28) = 6.21, p = 0.02, eta²p = 0.18, power = 0.67). The marginal tests indicated significant differences between the control and intervention groups in the posttest (F (1, 28) = 18.3, p < 0.001; eta²p = 0.39, power = 0.98), with the intervention group (M = 1.93, SD = 0.24) presenting higher levels of phonological awareness for rhyming than the control group (M = 0.46, SD = 0.24). Finally, differences between pretest and posttest times were found for participants in the intervention group (F (1, 28) = 18.3, p < 0.001, eta²p = 0.39, power = 0.98), and the posttest (M = 1.93, SD = 0.24) had higher levels than the pretest (M = 0.87, SD = 0.31).
For vocabulary, the mixed ANOVA indicated a main effect of time (F (1, 28) = 5.20, p = 0.030; eta²p = 0.157, power = 0.59), and the pretest (M = 30.0, SD = 0.37) showed lower levels than the posttest (M = 31.0, SD = 0.28), but there was no main effect of group (F (1, 28) = 1.33, p = 0.258, eta²p = 0.04, power = 0.20) or group interaction (F (1, 28) = 0.24, p = 0.629, eta²p = 0.008, power = 0.07).
Discussion
This study aimed to investigate if a shared reading intervention in ECE could develop emergent literacy skills: phonological awareness, vocabulary, and letter knowledge. The intervention supported by previous scientific evidence was adapted to the context of a Brazilian public school classroom. In this study, 20 shared reading interventions were planned and conducted over 10 weeks, and lasted an average of 30 to 40 minutes. These interventions combined reading with phonological awareness, vocabulary, and letter recognition activities. The results showed positive effects of the intervention, except for vocabulary.
When comparing the posttest to the pretest, the results of the intervention on phonological awareness performance demonstrate the possibility to develop the ability to reflect on speech sounds using children’s storytelling as a resource, which corroborates the results of previous studies by Altinkaynak (2019) with Turkish children. These results are interesting because work with phonological awareness is often criticized by some educational theorists as being dissociated from literacy practices. Our results are consistent with the perspective of Soares (2004), who pointed out at the beginning of the new millennium the need to teach literacy through meaningful contexts.
We found significant results for the three sound units studied. Pereira et al. (2019), for example, highlight that rhyming is more accessible in ECE settings due to access to nursery rhymes. It is also present in children’s rhymes and many children’s poems. There were improvements for initial sounds, as expected by theories of phonological awareness development (Bryant & Bradley, 1987). Furthermore, we found significant improvement in awareness of the medial sounds of words, which are the last sounds children perceive. This set of results suggests that using specific strategies to develop this skill through shared storytelling can be effective. In this intervention study, we adopted the strategy of presenting a word from the text associated with an image, offering three options of words that could have the same medial sound, and children were expected to choose which one had the same medial sound.
Letter name knowledge also showed a significant interaction with the intervention group, showing improvement compared to the control group. In the current study, during intervention sessions, children were encouraged to discover the name of the story and its theme through clues, such as the letters in the title. Letter name knowledge is a fundamental step toward literacy acquisition (Ehri, 2013). Many letters of the alphabet carry the sound of phonemes, helping children make their first acquaintance with letter-sound correspondences. Letter knowledge is predictive of literacy acquisition (Barrera & Santos, 2016). As with phonological awareness, the present intervention demonstrated success in developing skills that are precursors to written language acquisition with the use of children’s books.
We expected a significant effect on children’s vocabulary development, since the literature in this area shows an association between shared reading and vocabulary (Thomas et al., 2020). Some reasons may have led to this result. One may have been the choice of test, which did not allow for good discrimination between participants, that is, between those with good and poor vocabulary. The fact that 80% of intervention group participants correctly answered 30 or more out of the total of 33 words in the pretest indicates a ceiling effect. Thus, there was little room for vocabulary improvement. The low variability in scores may have led to non-significant results, and the test reliability in this sample was well below that recommended by the psychometric literature (Hair et al., 2009). This low reliability may have been another factor in the results not having a significant effect. Future studies should use a more sensitive vocabulary test to assess the effect of the intervention on this construct.
The limitations of this study must be considered. In a meta-analysis on the impacts of shared reading interventions, Noble et al. (2019) point out that the effects of interventions are greater in studies with control groups in which no intervention is applied (business as usual). When an intervention is applied to the control group, its effects are weaker. No intervention was used in the control group in the present study, and the effects of the intervention were strong for the two constructs that had significant results. We can imagine that the effects of the intervention could have been weaker in a control group in which an intervention had been conducted with children.
Certainly, this is still a very under-researched area in Brazil and requires studies with different designs that corroborate the results found. However, some points deserve to be highlighted. The intervention implemented was able to develop emergent literacy skills with storybooks in real classroom situations. The benefits of developing this type of skill and being exposed to real literary texts have already been documented in the introduction section of this work. Additionally, the type of intervention implemented can be used by ECE teachers to develop important skills for entry into formal schooling, while also including book reading, which provides literacy experiences that transcend mere decoding.
No information was obtained on the frequency of book reading at home or at school concurrently with the intervention experience. This may be an additional limitation of the current study. Future works should examine the contributions of families and schools. From a practical perspective, the results of this study provide promising evidence that literacy can be effectively strengthened through children’s active participation during shared book reading.
In short, corroborating previous studies such as that of Dowdall et al. (2020), the results suggest that when combined with specific strategies, shared book reading has effects on a targeted skill domain compared to the control group, as the experimental group had higher posttest scores than the control group on rhyming, initial sound, medial sound, and letter knowledge.
This study provided preliminary evidence that shared reading interventions using explicit facilitation strategies can improve early childhood children’s awareness of initial, medial and final sounds of the word, as well as letter name knowledge. The results align with previous findings that accelerating print knowledge requires an explicit and well-planned focus. Therefore, it is not just about telling stories to children, but making this strategy part of the routine in ECE, and beyond sharing stories with them, implementing strategies that develop the precursors of literacy and encourage children to reflect on the text they read.
References
-
Altinkaynak, S. Ö. (2019). The effect of interactive book reading activities on children’s print and phonemic awareness skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(1), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.184.6
» https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.184.6 -
Antunes, J. M., Martins, R. L., & Kunz, M. A. (2021). Eu conto, tu contas, ele conta: A leitura compartilhada para a promoção do protagonismo infantil [I tell, your tells, he tells: Shared reading to promote child protagonism]. Humanidades & Inovação, 8(33), 342-351. https://revista.unitins.br/index.php/humanidadeseinovacao/article/view/3978
» https://revista.unitins.br/index.php/humanidadeseinovacao/article/view/3978 -
Barrera, S. D., Ribeiro, I., & Viana, F. L. (2019). Efeitos de intervenções em letramento emergente: Uma revisão bibliográfica na base ScIELO [Effects of emergente literacy interventions: A literature review in the SciELO database]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 35, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e3531
» https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e3531 -
Barrera, S. D., & Santos, M. J. (2016). Conhecimento do nome das letras e habilidades iniciais em escrita [The knowledge of letters’ names and the beginning skills of spelling]. Boletim Academia Paulista de Psicologia, 36(90), 1-15. https://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-711X2016000100002
» https://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-711X2016000100002 - Bräkling, K. L. (2004). Sobre a leitura e a formação de leitores: Qual é a chave que se espera? [About reading and the development of readers: What is the expected key?]. Fundação Vanzolini.
- Bryant, P., & Bradley, L. (1987). Problemas de leitura na criança [Issues on the children’s Reading]. Artes Médicas.
- Capovilla, F. C., Negrão, V. B., & Damásio, M. (2011). Teste de vocabulário auditivo e teste de vocabulário expressivo [Test for auditory vocabular and test for expressive vocabular]. Memnon.
- Cardoso-Martins, C. (1995). Consciência fonológica e alfabetização [Phonological awareness and literacy]. Vozes.
-
Dowdall, N., Melendez‐Torres, G. J., Murray, L., Gardner, F., Hartford, L., & Cooper, P. J. (2020). Shared picture book reading interventions for child language development: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Child Development, 91(2), 383-399. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13225
» https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13225 - Ehri, L. C. (2013). Aquisição da habilidade de leitura de palavras e sua influência na pronúncia e na aprendizagem do vocabulário [Word reading skills acquisition and it’s influence in pronounce and in vocabular learning]. In M. R. Maluf & C. Cardoso-Martins (Eds.), Alfabetização no Século XXI: Como se aprende a ler e a escrever [Literacy in the 21st century: How to learn to read and write] (pp. 49-81). Penso.
- Flôres, O. C., & Gabriel, R. (2017). O que precisamos saber sobre a aprendizagem da leitura: Contribuições interdisciplinares [What do we need to know about reading learning: Interdisciplinary contribuitions]. Editora UFSM.
-
Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. C. (2018). Effects of shared book reading focusing on letters and sounds versus vocabulary for low-income prekindergarten children. Preventing School Failure, 62(3), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2017.1408053
» https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2017.1408053 - Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Análise multivariada de dados [Multivariate data analysis] (A. S. Sant’Anna & A. Chaves, Neto, Trans.; 6th ed.). Bookman. (Original work published 1979).
-
Hindman, A. H., Wasik, B. A., & Bradley, D. E. (2019). How classroom conversations unfold: exploring teacher–child exchanges during shared book reading. Early Education and Development, 30(4), 478-495. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1556009
» https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1556009 -
Marquez, N. A. G., & Godoy, D. M. A. (2022). O impacto do desenvolvimento da consciência fonológica na aprendizagem da leitura de jovens e adultos [The impact of developing phonological awareness on learning to read in young people and adults]. Linguarum Arena, 13, 119-132. https://doi.org/10.21747/1647-8770/are13a7
» https://doi.org/10.21747/1647-8770/are13a7 - Marquez, N. A. G., Silva, G. F., & Godoy, D. M. A. (2022). Programa de ensino para o desenvolvimento das habilidades de consciência fonológica [Teaching program for the development of phonological awareness skills]. In H. V. Corso & T. C. Pollo (Orgs.), Intervenções com foco na aprendizagem: Clínica e escola [Interventions focused on learning: Clinic and school] (pp. 26-32). Vetor.
-
Ministério da Educação e Cultura. (2010). Diretrizes curriculares nacionais para a educação infantil [National curricular guidelines for the childhood education]. http://portal.mec.gov.br/dmdocuments/diretrizescurriculares_2012.pdf
» http://portal.mec.gov.br/dmdocuments/diretrizescurriculares_2012.pdf -
Ministério da Educação e Cultura. (2019). Alfabetização infantil: Os novos caminhos: Relatório final [Children literacy: The new ways: Final report]. https://alfabetizacao.mec.gov.br/images/pdf/alfabetizacao_infanti_novos_caminhos_gastao_vieira.pdf
» https://alfabetizacao.mec.gov.br/images/pdf/alfabetizacao_infanti_novos_caminhos_gastao_vieira.pdf -
Noble, C., Sala, G., Peter, M., Lingwood, J., Rowland, C., Gobet, F., & Pine, J. (2019). The impact of shared book reading on children’s language skills: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100290
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100290 -
Pereira, A. E., Gabriel, R., & Justice, L. M. (2019). O papel da formulação de questões durante a leitura compartilhada de livros na educação infantil [The role of question formulating during shared Reading of books in children’s education]. Ilha do Desterro, 72(3), 201-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2019v72n3p201
» https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2019v72n3p201 -
Rocha, J. C. B., & Mota, M. M. P. E. (2022). Does shared reading between parents and children affect the development of emerging literacy? Trends in Psychology, 31, 307-317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-021-00070-6
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-021-00070-6 - Silva, C. L. M., & Mota, M. M. P. E. (2023). As perguntas feitas pelas professoras enquanto compartilham histórias com as crianças nas aulas de modo remoto [The questions asked by teachers while sharing stories with children in remote classes]. In M. M. P. E. Mota & C. L. M. Silva (Orgs.), Ensino remoto na pandemia [Remote teaching during the pandemic] (pp. 45–65). Appris.
- Sim-Sim, I. (2007). O ensino da leitura: A compreensão de textos [The teaching of reading: Texts understanding]. Ministério da Educação.
-
Soares, M. (2004). Alfabetização e letramento, caminhos e descaminhos [Literacy and literacy, paths and detours]. Pátio - Revista Pedagógica, 29, 96-100. http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/123456789/40142
» http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/123456789/40142 -
Thomas, N., Colin, C., & Leybaert, J. (2020). Interactive reading to improve language and emergent literacy skills of preschool children from low socioeconomic and language-minority backgrounds. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48, 549-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01022-y
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01022-y -
Van Der Wilt, F., Boerma, I., Van Oers, B., & Van Der Veen, C. (2019). The effect of three interactive reading approaches on language ability: An exploratory study in early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(4), 566-580. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2019.1634242
» https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2019.1634242 -
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552-559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.552
» https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.552
-
How to cite this article:
Silva, C. L. M., & Mota, M. M. P. (2025). Effects of an Intervention in Shared Reading in Early Childhood Education. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 35, e3521. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e3521
-
Support: This article is derived from the doctoral dissertation of the first author, supervised by the second, defended in 2025, in thePostgraduate Program in Social Psychology at the Universidade Salgado de Oliveira, Campus Niterói. The study received financial support from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (88887.686333/2022-00), the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (312865/2021-0) and the Programa Cientista do Nosso Estado/Rio de Janeiro State Research Support Foundation (204.054/2024).
-
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available because they contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Edited by
-
Associate editor:
Luciana Carla dos Santos Elias
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available because they contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
27 Oct 2025 -
Date of issue
2025
History
-
Received
22 Aug 2023 -
Accepted
12 June 2025 -
Reviewed
26 Aug 2024
