GENDER DIFFERENCES IN EARLY CHILDHOOD READING-RELATED

BEHAVIORS: EVIDENCE FROM OBSERVATION AND SURVEY OF

CHILDREN’S ENGAGEMENT IN READING

AND READING INTERACTIONS

by

Michelle Chestnut

A thesis submitted to the faculty of

The University of Utah
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

in

Human Development and Social Policy

Department of Family and Consumer Studies

The University of Utah

August 2016
 Pro Q ue st Num b e r: 10162928

All rig hts re se rve d

INFO RMATIO N TO ALL USERS

The q ua lity o f this re p ro d uc tio n is d e p e nd e nt up o n the q ua lity o f the c o p y sub m itte d .

In the unlike ly e ve nt tha t the a utho r d id no t se nd a c o m p le te m a nusc rip t

a nd the re a re m issing p a g e s, the se will b e no te d . Also , if m a te ria l ha d to b e re m o ve d ,
a no te will ind ic a te the d e le tio n.

Pro Q ue st 10162928

Pub lishe d b y Pro Q ue st LLC (2016). Co p yrig ht o f the Disse rta tio n is he ld b y the Autho r.

All rig hts re se rve d .

This wo rk is p ro te c te d a g a inst una utho rize d c o p ying und e r Title 17, Unite d Sta te s Co d e
Mic ro fo rm Ed itio n © Pro Q ue st LLC.

Pro Q ue st LLC.
789 Ea st Eise nho we r Pa rkwa y
P.O . Bo x 1346
Ann Arb o r, MI 48106 - 1346
Copyright © Michelle Chestnut 2016

All Rights Reserved

 The University of Utah Graduate School

STATEMENT OF THESIS APPROVAL

The thesis of Michelle Chestnut

has been approved by the following supervisory committee members:

SeungHee Claire Son , Chair /2
/2016

Date Approved

Marissa Diener , Member /2
/2016

Date Approved

Cheryl Wright , Member /2
/2016

Date Approved

and by Lori Kowaleski-Jones , Chair of

the Department of Family and Consumer Studies

and by David Kieda, Dean of The Graduate School.

 ABSTRACT

This study seeks to identify differences between preschool-aged boys and girls in

their engagement in book browsing and book reading in a public library to investigate

gender differences in early literacy and reading experiences. Sixty-eight child-caregiver

dyads were observed in the children’s area at five branches of the Salt Lake City Public

Library System. Of this sample, 35 were girls and 33 were boys. Dyads were observed at

various times of day (i.e., morning, early afternoon, late afternoon, evening, and

weekend). Engagement was measured through time-sampled incidences of child book

browsing and book reading. Using ANCOVA, the number and percentage of observed

time intervals of each reading-related behavior of children in the library were analyzed to

determine gender differences after controlling for age. Additional ANCOVA was

conducted to analyze parent-reported reading behaviors at home so as to compare gender

differences in book access, book reading, and shared reading interactions as observed

versus reported. As observed in the library, girls were more involved in interactive

browsing behaviors than boys and also spent a greater percentage of time in library on

both general reading and shared reading. No gender differences were observed for

verbatim reading, expanding discussion, or parents responding to child’s talk. Girls were

engaged for a higher percentage of time intervals over time spent in library reading in

describing discussion and print referencing during shared reading. For parent-reported

reading behaviors at home, girls were found to be more involved in reading discussion.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 3

Gender Differences in Reading Skills............................................................................. 3

Gender Differences in Reading Behaviors ..................................................................... 4
Mearusing Children's Reading Behaviors....................................................................... 6
The Current Study ........................................................................................................... 8
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 8

METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 10

Participants ................................................................................................................... 10
Instruments and Coding ................................................................................................ 10
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 13
Analytic Strategy ......................................................................................................... 15

RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 17

Reading-Related Behaviors of Preschoolers in the Library ......................................... 17

Reading-Related Behaviors of Preschoolers as Reported in Survey ........................... 19
Gender Differences in Observed Engagement in Book Browsing ............................. 20
Gender Differences in Observed Engagement in Reading .......................................... 21
Gender Differences in Observed Shared Reading Interactions ................................... 23
Gender Differences in Reported Home Reading Behaviors ........................................ 25
Comparing Survey and Library Observation ............................................................... 26
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................... 27

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 33

Gender Differences in Engagement in Book Browsing ............................................... 34

Gender Differences in Engagement in Reading ........................................................... 35


Gender Differences in Shared Reading Interactions .................................................... 36

Gender Differences in Reported Home Reading Behaviors ........................................ 37
Gender Differences in Survey and Library Observation ............................................. 37
Implications................................................................................................................... 38
Limitations ................................................................................................................... 40
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 40

APPENDICE

A: CODING SCHEME ........................................................................ ..... 42

B: HOME LITERACY SURVEY ................................................................................... 44

C: ANCOVA TABLES .................................... ............................................................... 47

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 58

v
 LIST OF TAB ES

Tables

1 Background Characteristics of Participants (N=68) ..................................................... 16

2 Descriptive Statistics of Time Intervals with Reading-Related Behavior of

Preschoolers ..................................................................................................................... 28


3 Descriptive Statistics of Reported Home Reading Behaviors ....................................... 29

4 ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Number of Time Intervals and Percent of
Time Intervals with Children’s Book Browsing ............................................................... 30


5 ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Number of Time Intervals and Percent of
Time Intervals with Chidlren’s Interactive Book Browsing ............................................. 30


6 ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Number of Time Intervals and Percent of
Time Intervals with Children’s Reading ........................................................................... 30


7 ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Number of Time Intervals and Percent of
Time Intervals with Chidlren’s Shared Reading ............................................................... 31


8 ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Number of Time Intervals and Percent of
Time Intervals with Children’s Shared Reading Interactions ........................................... 31


9 ACNOVA Results for Gender Differences in Parent Report of Home Reading
Behaviors .......................................................................................................................... 31






 INTRODUCTION

Individual attitudes toward reading differ greatly according to gender (Coles &

Hall, 2002; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004). Subsequent success in and personal preferences

for reading activities vary between girls and boys (Peterson & Parr, 2012). The extent to

which this difference is noted between genders grows from preschool to elementary

school years, with small differences in achievement and interest in early childhood

increasing in disparity during grade school (Logan & Johnston, 2009). This study seeks

to identify early origins of differences between preschool-aged boys and girls in their

engagement in reading by observing naturalistic reading-related behaviors in the library,

including book browsing and book reading.

Engagement during shared reading experiences differ between genders, as does

parental provision of different types of reading discussion (Tracey & Young 2002).

However, research on the influence of gender on school achievement provides conflicting

findings, which makes it difficult to explicate the issue and develop appropriate

interventions (Mathews, et al., 2009). This study aims to provide an understanding of

gender differences in engagement in reading-related behaviors in order to contribute to

the current body of research and help researchers establish early childhood reading

programs that lessen the growing disparity between boys’ and girls’ performance on

literacy related tasks (Logan & Johnston, 2009). This study tests how children’s reading

behaviors differ across gender by empirically observing naturalistic behaviors of girls and

B

boys engaging in reading-related behaviors of book selection, reading, and shared reading

interactions with adults as well as by analyzing parent survey of home literacy on

children’s engagement in home reading and shared reading interactions.

 LITERATURE REVIEW

Two areas stand out in the current body of research as key influencing factors in

regard to children’s reading interest and motivation: their gender and gender-related

experiences during parent-child shared reading (Baroody & Diamond, 2013; Kraaykamp,

2003; Logan & Johnston, 2009). Tracey and Young (2002) found girls were more likely

to engage in discussion during shared reading than boys and that parents engaged in

discussion during shared reading more often with girls than with boys. Given that

positive parent-child reading interactions and exposure to stimulating learning

opportunities and resources improve children’s reading achievement, as well as their

appreciation for books and literature (Celano & Neuman, 2001; Whitehurst, et al., 1988),

experiences of differential reading interactions during shared reading between boys and

girls may lead to differential early literacy development. However, there is limited

evidence of early gender differences in reading behaviors and experiences of reading

interactions.

Gender Differences in Reading Skills

In general, boys perform more poorly on measures of writing and reading

comprehension and have less positive attitudes about reading than girls (Logan &

Johnston, 2009; Peterson & Parr, 2012). These differences are not only evident in the

United States, but have been noted worldwide. In the United Kingdom, efforts have been

D

taken to improve boys’ school achievement, especially in reading, and establish

interventions to improve their educational opportunities. Similarly, researchers have

found that New Zealand girls perform 2 school years ahead of boys on literacy-related

tasks by the time they have reached ninth grade (Bourke & Adams, 2011; Peterson &

Parr, 2012). Poor performance in early reading achievement leads many boys to become

frustrated while reading and associate reading behaviors with negative emotions and

experiences. Therefore, reading becomes an activity boys avoid, while girls are more

likely to engage in reading for leisure and enjoyment (Jones, 2011).

Gender Differences in Reading Behaviors

Gender disparity in reading skills might be explained by gender differences in

reading interest and reading behaviors. Studies have shown that boys are less engaged in

reading than their female peers (Baroody & Diamond, 2013; De Naeghel, et al., 2012).

With frequent reading contributing to multiple early literacy skills, including sight word

recognition, vocabulary, reading comprehension, verbal fluency, and general knowledge

(Logan & Johnston, 2009), early gender differences in reading behaviors are expected to

explicate differences in reading skills.

Studies show that preschool girls engage more in literacy activities and read more

often than preschool boys (Baroody & Diamond, 2013). Children’s engagement and

responsiveness may influence the degree to which parents include their children in high-

quality reading experiences (Tracey & Young, 2002), and boys and girls may experience

different extent of reading interactions, too.

Specifically, during shared reading, parents are likely to provide interactions


E

including extra-textual discussion of expanding and describing discussion as well as

code-focused talk (De Naeghel, et al., 2012; Tracey & Young 2002). This takes place

when parents build upon the child’s responses about the text by expanding, rephrasing,

and repeating them or when parents make prompts to the child to discuss concepts in the

story further (Hindman, et al., 2006) or talk about codes, referring text and print (Evans,

et al., 2000). Tracey and Young (2002) noted that the quality of parent shared reading

behaviors, as measured by parent discussion during book reading, varied according to

child gender with parents engaging in discussion more often with girls than with boys.

Gender differences are also noted in other reading-related behaviors. Children’s

reading behaviors not just at home but also at public places, like a library, could show

variability. Abilock (1997) notes that boys and girls behave and use library resources

differently. For example, when engaging in book browsing, “girls often work

collaboratively and seek help from friends and family, while boys browse independently

and are less likely to ask for help during their search” (Abilock, 1997, p. 18). Also,

caregivers are less likely to involve boys in book browsing behaviors, as they generally

show a lack of interest in being involved in this activity (Wason-Ellam, et al., 2004).

In this respect, children’s reading and reading interactions will show key gender

differences in reading. Once the evidence of gender differences in reading experiences is

available, parents and teachers act accordingly so that both genders can enjoy reading and

develop positive attitudes toward reading (Abilock, 1997). However, detailed evidence is

not available on gender differences in specific reading behaviors. Further, a few available

studies reported contradictory findings of gender differences across different data

collection methods of reading behavior information (Baroody & Diamond, 2013).


F

Measuring Children’s Reading and Reading Behaviors

Most often, researchers have examined children’s reading experiences using

parent-reported survey. These surveys inquire the general characteristics of home

literacy, including the frequency of reading, print sources availability, and reading

interactions at home (Griffin & Morrison, 1997; Melhuish, et al., 2008). These parent-

reported measures have been popular in the field as they are less time consuming and

have the ability to represent accumulated reading experiences of children at home. Also,

the environment of clinical settings in which formal measures are often administered may

make it difficult for young children to cooperate and therefore provide unrepresentative

outcomes. The experience and familiarity parents have with their children makes parent-

reported measures useful, especially when studying young children (Feldman, et al.,

2005). But parent-report surveys are not free from biases due to social desirability or by

reflecting parental expectations and beliefs. Specifically, parents were found to note

gendered reading experiences, where parents reported stronger gender differences in

reading than the actual children’s behaviors (Baroody & Diamond, 2013).

In contrast, children’s actual reading behaviors may be determined through direct

observation. Observation of a home reading activity may display what young boys and

girls are doing during shared book reading with their parent at home (Hindman et al,

2006). However, the presence of researchers at home observing home shared book

reading may have reliability issues by preventing natural reading behaviors from

occurring. A possible alternative to home observation is direct observation of children’s

natural reading-related behaviors at public space, that is, public library.


G

Public libraries serve a wide range of literacy-related needs, but one of the main

goals shared across libraries is to help young children learn to read and increase school

readiness by providing reading resource and places (Bateson, 2011; Celano & Numan,

2001). Research by Kraykamp (2003) shows a correlation between regular and frequent

library attendance and usage in early childhood and increased quality of reading

experiences (i.e., reading for leisure) and preferences (i.e., increased interest in books that

are more literarily advanced and which involve more complex storylines) by the time

children enter elementary school. In other words, the public library could be a good

context to observe and study children’s reading behaviors and experiences. Open-access

to local libraries makes a prime location for researchers in which to observe and study

parent-child reading behaviors (Ward & Wason-Ellam, 2005) as libraries provide

community access to a wide range of reading materials and other literacy-related

activities. In this setting, children have access to collections and materials appropriate for

varying reading levels and have the opportunity to choose their own books and spend

some time to actually engage in reading and reading interactions (Celano & Neuman,

2001).

We may be able to examine children’s reading behaviors and related gender

differences by using these two methods: observing reading behaviors in the library and

collecting parent reported information regarding the home reading. Observing more real-

life interactions while comparing gender differences in reading could gather naturalistic

behaviors at the time of observation; parent report of children’s reading at home could

provide information of overall characteristics of reading behaviors which could be easily

compared across boys and girls.


H

The Current Study

While literature suggests early gender differences in reading behaviors, limited

evidence is available that actually focuses on examining boys and girls behaviors.

Further, the majority of existing research studies focus on either the child home reading

behaviors or library usage and reading behaviors (Bergersen, 2015; Celano, & Neuman,

2001; Evans, Shaw, & Bell, 2000; Kraykamp, 2003). More complicated is the method of

data collection, where there is a lack of natural observation (not controlled, and not

requested by researchers) of children’s reading behaviors.

This study focuses on identifying potential gender differences in young children’s

reading-related behaviors and experiences without providing intervention in an effort to

gain an understanding of unaltered behavioral reading patterns. In order to do this, the

study uses both parent report and direct behavior observation methods. Also, this study

bridges research between the home and library environments, by analyzing library usage

behaviors as well as reading behaviors at home. Accordingly, I chose and compared two

sources of information to determine early gender differences in reading: direct

observation at the library and parent survey regarding home reading behaviors.

Research Questions

To gain insight into gender differences in early reading behaviors and to build

upon the current body of literature, this study seeks to answer the following research

questions:

1: Do observed library reading-related behaviors differ between preschool boys

and girls?

I

1-1: Does engagement in book browsing differ between preschool boys and girls?

1-2: Does engagement in shared book reading at the library differ between

preschool boys and girls?

1-3. Do shared reading parent-child interactions at the library differ between

preschool boys and girls?

2. Do home reading behaviors as reported by parents differ between preschool

boys and girls?

Based on previous literature (Bourke & Adams, 2011; Coles & Hall, 2002; Logan

& Johnston, 2009; Peterson & Parr, 2012; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004), I hypothesize

that girls will be more involved in book selection and browsing, more engaged in shared

reading and experience more book reading interactions (expanding, describing, and print

referencing) with their parents than boys, and that parents will report that girls experience

higher quality home book access, home book reading, and home shared reading

interactions than boys.

 METHOD

Participants

Participants of the current study was he overall sample observed in the library was

comprised of 68 child-caregiver dyads (35 girls and 33 boys) who were observed in the

library as well as returned parent survey reporting family and child demographic

characteristics (i.e., child gender and age) and home reading experiences.. Characteristics

of participating children are presented in Table 1. Gender was nearly evenly divided

within the sample between girls (51.50%) and boys (48.80%). Participating children

included preschoolers aged 2 to 6, with 29.40% of 3-year-olds and 25% of 5-year-olds.

Most children came from homes where English was the primary language (61.80%) and

the majority had mothers who were college graduates or were pursuing graduate

education (67.60%). Race/ethnicity of participants was diverse with 47.10% of

Caucasian and 10.30% of Hispanic-Latino.

Coding of Reading-Related Behaviors

To identify types of reading-related behaviors and reading experiences observed

within the library and to be able to compare those behaviors between boys and girls, a

coding scheme was developed. Initial coding scheme was developed from preliminary

observation and the revised to include four categories of behavior: (1) Book Access

Behaviors, (2) Shared Book Reading, (3) Play and Other Behaviors, and (4) Librarian

AA

Behavior. Of all behaviors observed, Book Access and Shared Reading Behaviors were

included for this study. Book Access focused on book and other media browsing

behaviors with the intent of identifying child involvement in such activates. Shared Book

Reading focused on types of shared reading interactions, including contents of parent-

child extra-textual interactions and engagement in book discussion. Each behavior was

coded for parent and then for child behaviors.

Thirteen practice observations were conducted from February 6, 2013 to March

16, 2013. Interrater reliability was established very high for official observations, as

100% for Book Access and 92% for Shared Book Reading. Observations were recorded

in 12 consecutive 5-minute increments over the course of 1 hour. Two observers divided

observation areas (i.e., book shelves for book access observation and reading/seating area

for shared reading observation) and coded for one area for the duration of the 1-hour

observations. Time was not stopped to record family descriptions, this was done within

each individual 5-minute coding window. Only behaviors that last 30 seconds or more

were recorded on the observation sheet. The number of observed periods for each

reading-related behavior was used as the measure of the amount of behavior and

additionally it was divided by the number of the total observation periods (maximum =

12) for each family as a proportion of intervals when each behavior was observed.

Engagement in book browsing behavior was assessed by three items of observed

behaviors (i.e., parent browsing at book/audio shelves [while interactive with child],

parent socializing, talking with other adults [while child browsing], parent random

behavior [while child browsing]). This was done to provide information on overall child

book browsing behavior beyond just browsing interactively with parent. For example,

AB

when parent was observed to browse books (i.e., parent browsing at book/audio shelves),

interacting with their child, is coded as parent browsing + child browsing interactive (i.e.,

parent browsing at book/audio shelves [interactive]). This two-step process of parent

coding and subsequent child coding was done to provide information of general as well

as interactive behavior.

To analyze total reading behavior, a variable was created that indicated the

number of time intervals with shared reading observed. Only one question was used to

analyze shared reading behavior on its own (i.e., child attending to/engaging in reading).

During observation, children were coded as actively engaged in shared reading if they

maintained eye contact on the page and asked questions during the shared reading

interaction.

To assess shared reading interactions, five reading interaction variables were

created using five individual behaviors from observation (i.e., no discussion-verbatim

reading, parent expanding discussion, parent describing discussion, parent responding to

child talk, parent print referencing).

Finally, the family survey was used to measure parent reported home reading,

including book access, home reading behaviors, and shared reading interactions using a

Likert scale. Book access was coded using the question “Approximately how many books

for your 2- to 6-year-old child do you own?” Home reading was assessed by using two

questions from the survey “How often does [primary caregiver] read to your 2- to 6-year-

old child?” and “How many minutes did this person read to your 2- to 6-year-old child

yesterday?” To assess parent-reported home shared reading interactions, six variables

were analyzed using all possible responses to one question from the survey, “When

AC

reading to your child, what does this person do?” Possible responses were coded as

individual variables for observation and included 1) verbatim reading; 2) verbatim

reading followed by discussion; 3) pause while reading to discuss the book with the child;

4) pause while reading to help child recognize or sound out letters, sounds, and words

(i.e., print referencing); 5) pause while reading to comment on images inside the book; 6)

pause while reading to ask child what might happen next, or connect book’s context to

other things in the child’s world.

Procedure

Observations in public libraries were conducted to gather information regarding

parent-child behaviors during library usage, including book selection and shared reading

experiences between boys and girls. IRB approval was obtained to publicly observe these

parent-child library interactions and shared reading experiences at five branches of the

Salt Lake City Library System (i.e., Main, Chapman, Day-Riverside, Foothill, and

Sprague) in neighborhoods with varying socioeconomic status and with young

population. These branches provide services directed toward children with dedicated

children’s book area. Preliminary observations were performed to refine the coding

scheme and survey, to improve the discretion of the observation methods, and to increase

and establish reliability among observers.

Official observations began March 19, 2013 and ended May 29, 2013. This time

period was chosen because it allowed us to gain insight on library behavior before

summer, as library programs and usage change dramatically at that time since children

are out of school (Celano & Neuman, 2001; Celano & Neuman, 2008; Du, 2010). In an

AD

effort to avoid altering library behaviors in response to observation, coders did not wear

nametags or other identifying information. Observation was not informed to participants

and coders maintained enough distance to allow participants to engaged in their routine

and natural behavior within the library. Observations occurred on all days of the week

and at five different times (i.e., morning, early afternoon, late afternoon, evening, and

weekend) in order to capture representative samples of library behaviors at various times.

Upon entering the children’s section of the library, participants were assigned a

number by observers that identified which branch of the library observation was taking

place, what time period in the day observation was occurring, and number in relation to

other parent-child dyads observed during that specific observation period. Only one

number was assigned in a situation where two caregivers were accompanying a child or

children in the same household. The most actively involved caregiver was the one for

which observations were coded for the duration of the observation. If a family had more

than one child within the age range of the study, only the oldest child’s behaviors were

used for this study.

Children’s behaviors were coded as they took place within each 5-minute window

of the 60-minute observation period (i.e., time sampling) and were identified in relation

to their parent’s actions, following Celano and Neuman (2008), as either actively taking

part in the activity with their parent (i.e., book browsing, DVD browsing, shared reading,

etc.) or engaging in another unrelated activity (i.e., literacy or nonliteracy-based)

(Appendix A).

A survey was administered (Appendix B) to gain greater insight into library

usage, the home reading environment, and to obtain demographic information of library

AE

patrons. The survey was provided in either English or Spanish. Survey questions were

developed based on previous research in library use, parent-child reading experiences,

and librarian behaviors (Celano & Neuman, 2008; Du, 2010; Farmer & Stricevic, 2011;

Francis, 2009; Vannobbergen, et al., 2009) and included family background information.

The survey was used to analyze parent reported home reading behaviors by analyzing

questions regarding book ownership, parent-child shared reading frequency and duration,

and parent-child shared book reading interactions. Patrons were not asked to complete the

survey until they were leaving the library.

Analytic Strategy

For this study, the gender wars utilized as the independent variable to understand

the degree to which it explains the variability in dependent variables of child engagement

in book selection and browsing, shared reading, and parent-child shared reading

interactions. For all research questions, t-test was used to examine the overall gender

differences in each reading-related behaviors. Subsequently, Analysis of Covariance

(ANCOVA) was conducted to analyze differences in book access and reading behaviors

across children’s gender, after controlling for age. Cohen’s d was use as a measure of

effect size of gender predicting each of the reading-related behaviors. All analysis was

conducted with SPSS statistical software program.


AF

Table 1. Background Characteristics of Participants (N=68)

J
;<


;/()<





-&
A@4C@
;G<




(
BI4D@
;B@<




&+(
AF4B@
;AA<




 ,
BE4@@
;AG<




 .
AI4A@
;AC<

%(





 (#
EA4E@
;CE<




&/
DH4E@
;CC<

&$
%+





%# )
FA4H@
;DB<




'% )
AA4H@
;H<




*(
G4D@
;E<




&*
('&(*
AI4A@
;AC<

*(%#
+* &%





&$
 
)&&#
E4I@
;D<





)&&#
(:
H4H@
;F<




&$
&##

A@4C@
;G<




&##
(

BE4@@
;AG<




(+*
+* &%
DB4F@
;BI<




&*
('&(*
G4D@
;E<

5*%  */





)'% 5 * %&
A@4C@
;G<




* ,
$( %
@4@@
;@<




( %
$( %
A4E@
;A<




) %
&(
  
)#%(
E4I@
;D<




+) %
DG4A@
;CB<




*(
E4I@
;D<




&*
('&(*
BI4D@
;B@<




 RESULTS

Observed Reading-Related Behaviors of Preschoolers in the Library

Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare reading-related behaviors

in preschoolers in the library across gender. Significant gender differences noted through

these analyses, along with general descriptive statistics for the number and the percentage

of time intervals for each reading-related behavior are reported in Table 2.

Results showed that there was no significant gender difference in the number of

time intervals with book browsing behaviors, the percentage of time intervals with

children’s book browsing over total intervals observed, and the percentage of time

intervals with children’s book browsing over total time spent in general book access

behavior. The results suggest that children’s gender was not associated with book

browsing behaviors. Specifically, our results suggest that preschool children’s book

browsing behaviors in the library were not different across gender.

Similarly, there were no significant gender differences in interactive book

browsing, including the number of time intervals, the percentage of time intervals with

children’s interactive book browsing over total intervals observed, and the percentage of

time intervals with children’s interactive book browsing over total time spent in book

access behavior. These results suggest that children’s gender was not associated with

interactive book browsing behavior.

For general reading, there was a significant difference in the percentage of time

AH

intervals with children’s general reading over total intervals observed in the scores for

boys (M = 7.38, SD = 20.47) and girls (M = 19.65, SD = 33.24), t(57.05) = -1.84, p < .10.

There was also a significant difference in the percentage of time intervals with children’s

general reading behavior over total time spent in library reading behavior in the scores for

boys (M = 10.38, SD = 28.91) and girls (M = 27.76, SD = 43.09) conditions; t(59.75) = -

1.96, p < .05. However, no significant gender difference was found in the number of time

intervals in general reading behavior. These results suggest that girls were more likely to

spend their library visit time in reading.

Book access behaviors showed no significant differences between genders.

However, differences were noted in shared reading and in individual reading interaction.

Therefore, our results suggest that preschool-aged boys’ and girls’ percentage of time

intervals engaged in shared reading over total time spent in library reading behavior is

influenced by their gender. Further, our results suggest that preschool-aged boys’ and

girls’ percentage of time intervals engaged in describing discussion with a parent over

library reading is influenced by their gender.

There was a significant difference in the percentage of time intervals engaged in

parental print referencing during shared reading over library reading in the scores for

boys (M = 1.82, SD = 10.44) and girls (M = 12.94, SD = 28.74) conditions; t(43.29) = -

2.14, p < .05. Therefore, our results suggest that preschool-aged boys’ and girls’

percentage of time intervals engaged in interaction with parents in print referencing over

time spent in library shared reading is influenced by their gender.


AI

Reading-Related Behaviors of Preschoolers as Reported in Survey

Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare reported home reading

behaviors in preschoolers across gender. Significant gender differences noted through

these analyses, along with general descriptive statistics for the each home reading

behavior are reported in Table 3.

There was no significant difference in parent reporting of how many books the

child owned in the scores for boys (M = .4.21, SD = 1.14) and girls (M = 4.03, SD = 1.24)

conditions; t(66) = .67, p = .51. These results suggest that preschool-aged boys’ and girls’

parent reported home book ownership is not influenced by their gender.

There was no significant difference in parent reporting of how often the main

caregiver read to the child in the home or how many minutes the main caregiver had read

to the child in the home the previous day in the scores for boys and girls. These results

suggest that preschool-aged boys’ and girls’ parent reported home book reading

behaviors are not influenced by their gender.

In our analyses of reading interactions, there were no significant differences in the

scores for boys and girls for parent reporting of verbatim reading in the home, pausing

while reading for discussion, text referencing, commenting on illustrations, or asking

child questions. There was a significant difference in parent reporting of reading and

discussion in the scores for boys (M = .09, SD = .29) and girls (M = .31, SD = .47)

conditions; t(57.25) = -2.37, p < .10. These results suggest that while preschool-aged

boys’ and girls’ parent reported discussion after reading is significant, all other home

shared reading interactions are not influenced by their gender.


B@

Gender Difference in Observed Engagement in Book Browsing

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze differences in book

browsing behaviors (i.e., browsing with parent or browsing independently) across child

gender, after controlling for children's age. Results showed no gender differences (F (1) =

2.72, p =.10) in the number of time intervals observed of children’s book access (Table

4).

When analyzing the percentage of time intervals parents and children engaged in

book browsing over total time intervals observed in the library, ANCOVA showed no

gender differences (F (1) = .00, p =.99, d = -.06) (Table 4). Similarly, when analyzing the

percentage of time intervals children engaged in book access over total number of time

intervals with general book access behavior (i.e., all possible behaviors within book

browsing beyond simply browsing at books), ANCOVA showed no gender differences (F

(1) = .08, p =.77, d = .01) in book access percentage (Table 4).

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze differences in interactive

book browsing behaviors (i.e., observed instances of parent-child browsing) across child

gender after controlling for age. Results showed that the number of intervals where

interactive book browsing was observed differed across child gender with girls more

engaged in browsing (F (1) = 3.96, p <.10, d = .37) (Table 5). Cohen’s effect size value

(d = .37) meets Cohen’s minimum standard to be considered as a small effect size and

supports practical significance of difference between genders. When analyzing the

percentage of intervals children engaged in interactive book browsing over total number

of intervals observed in the library, ANCOVA showed no gender differences in

interactive book browsing percentage (F (1) = .29, p = .59, d = .02) (Table 5). Similarly,

BA

when analyzing the percentage of time intervals children engaged in interactive book

browsing over total number of time intervals with book access behavior, ANCOVA

showed no gender differences in interactive book browsing percentage (F (1) = .69, p

=.41, d = .10) (Table 5).

Thus, ANCOVA shows that children’s gender was not associated with book

browsing behaviors (i.e., browsing with parent or browsing independently) after

controlling for child age. Specifically, our results showed no differences in preschool-

aged boys’ and girls’ book browsing behaviors in the library. However, further analysis

of interactive book browsing behaviors (i.e., child browsing with parent) suggests that the

number of time intervals preschool-aged boys and girls spend engaged in interactive book

browsing behaviors with an adult caregiver in the library is influenced by their gender,

with girls more engaged in interactive book browsing.

Gender Differences in Observed Engagement in Reading

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze differences in general

reading behaviors (i.e., all behaviors observed during parent-child shared reading) in the

library across child gender after controlling for age. Results showed no child gender

differences in the number of time intervals engaged in general reading behavior (F (1) =

.53, p = .47, d = .26) (Table 6).

When analyzing the percentage of time intervals observed of general reading over

total intervals observed in the library, ANCOVA showed no gender differences (F (1) =

2.19, p = .14, d = .44) (Table 6). When analyzing the percentage of time intervals

children engaged in general reading over time intervals spent in library reading (i.e., all

BB

observed behaviors during library reading including shared reading), ANCOVA showed

differences across child gender with girls more engaged in general reading (F (1) = 3.52,

p =.07, d = .54) (Table 6). The practical significance of this finding is supported by

Cohen’s effect size value (d = .54), which meets Cohen’s standard to be considered as a

medium effect size.

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze differences in shared

reading (i.e., only coded when child was attending to or engaged in reading and does not

include shared reading) behaviors across child gender, after controlling for age. Results

showed no gender differences (F (1) = .59, p =.45, d = .26) in the number of time

intervals observed engaged in shared reading behavior (Table 7).

When analyzing the percentage of time intervals observed of shared reading over

total intervals observed in the library, ANCOVA showed no gender differences (F (1) =

.93, p = .34, d = .31) (Table 7). When analyzing the percentage of time intervals children

engaged in shared reading over time intervals observed engaged in library reading

behavior, ANCOVA showed differences across child gender with girls more engaged in

shared reading (F (1) = 2.90, p =.09, d = .49) (Table 7). The practical significance of this

finding is supported by Cohen’s effect size value (d = .49), which meets Cohen’s

standard to be considered as a small effect size.

ANCOVA suggests that children’s gender was associated with general reading

behaviors after controlling for children’s age. Specifically, our results suggest that girls

experience a higher percentage of time intervals engaged in general reading over time

spent in library reading behavior. Further ANCOVA analyses exploring gender

differences in shared reading behaviors suggest that girls experience a higher percentage

BC

of time intervals engaged in shared reading over total time spent in library reading

behavior.

Gender Differences in Observed Shared Reading Interactions

Comparing shared reading interactions across child sex after controlling for age

showed no gender differences (F (1) = 2.41, p =.13, d = .40) when analyzing the number

of time intervals observed of child-adult verbatim reading (Table 8). When analyzing the

percentage of time intervals parents and children engaged verbatim reading over total

time intervals spent in library reading, ANCOVA showed no gender differences (F (1) =

1.91, p =.17, d = .37) (Table 8).

Analyzing differences in the number of time intervals observed of shared reading

interactions across child sex after controlling for age showed no gender differences in

expanding discussion during shared reading (F (1) = .06, p =.81, d = .15 ) (Table 8).

When analyzing the percentage of time intervals observed of parent-child expanding

discussion during shared reading over total time intervals spent in library reading,

ANCOVA showed no gender differences (F (1) = .71, p = .40, d = .29). Comparing

differences in parental provision of describing discussion during shared reading across

child gender, after controlling for children's age, showed no gender differences in the

number of time intervals observed of describing in shared reading (F (1) = 1.22, p =.27, d

= .35).

When analyzing the percentage of time parents and children engaged in

describing during shared reading over total time intervals spent in library reading,

ANCOVA showed a difference between genders, with girls more engaged in describing

BD

during shared reading (F (1) = 3.08, p = .08, d = .50) (Table 8). The practical significance

of this finding is supported by Cohen’s effect size value (d = .50), which meets Cohen’s

standard to be considered as a medium effect size.

Comparing differences in parental responsiveness to child talk across child

gender, after controlling for children's age, showed no gender differences in frequency of

responding to child talk during shared reading (F (1) = .36, p =.55, d = .23). When

analyzing the percentage of time intervals parents responded to children during shared

reading over total time intervals spent in library reading, ANCOVA showed no gender

differences (F (1) = 1.23, p = .27, d = .37) (Table 8).

Further, no gender differences were found in parental discussion of print and

related skills in shared reading after controlling for children's age. Results showed no

gender differences in the number of time intervals observed of referring to print in shared

reading (F (1) = 1.99, p =.16, d = .40) . However, the percentage of time intervals of

parental print reference in shared reading over total time intervals spent in library reading

showed that girls experienced more print referencing during shared reading with a

medium effect size (F (1) = 3.758, p <.10, d = .51) (Table 8).

ANCOVA suggests that children’s gender was associated with parent-child

verbatim reading without any discussion during shared reading. Further, analysis showed

a difference between genders in percentage of time of parent-child describing discussion

during shared reading over total time intervals spent in library reading, with girls more

engaged in describing. Girls experienced more print referencing interactions during

shared reading when considering percentage of time intervals of parental print

referencing.

BE

Gender Differences in Reported Home Reading Behaviors

Home reading behaviors were divided into three categories. The first category

addressed book access/ownership in the home, the second category identified amount of

shared reading, and the third category analyzed types of shared reading interactions.

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze differences in parent

reported home book access across child gender, after controlling for children's age.

Results showed no gender differences (F (1) = .23, p =.63, d = -.16) in parent report of

how many books were owned by the child (Table 9).

Parent reported home book reading behaviors across child gender was not differed

by gender after controlling for children's age (F (1) = .02, p =.88, d = -.01). Results

further showed no gender significance (F (1) = .07, p =.79, d = -.02 ) in parent report of

how many minutes the main caregiver had read to the child the previous day.

ANCOVA results of parent reported home shared reading interactions showed no

gender differences in parent report of verbatim reading (F (1) = 1.27, p =.26, d = .31),

discussion during shared reading (F (1) = .67, p =.42, d = -.21), print referencing (F (1) =

1.85, p =.18, d = .35), commenting on illustrations (F (1) = 1.45, p =.23, d = .36), or

asking child questions during home shared reading (F (1) = .49, p =.49, d = .17).

However, girls had higher scores in discussion following verbatim reading than boys with

a medium effect size (F (1) = 7.50, p < .05, d = .57) .

Thus, ANCOVA shows that children’s gender was not associated with home book

access/ownership or the amount of home shared book reading as reported by parent.

However, child’s age was associated with home book reading experiences. Specifically,

our results suggest that older children more engaged in home book reading behavior.

BF

Further, ANCOVA suggests that children’s gender was not associated with parent

report of most of shared book reading interaction behaviors, except book discussion

interactions after verbatim reading. Our results suggest that girls engaged in more

discussion after verbatim reading with a parent during home shared reading.

Comparing Survey and Library Observation

Cohen’s d was used to gain an understanding of the effect size of gender in each

ANCOVA analysis. Through this, we were able to compare the predictive power of

gender for reading behaviors from library observation and the survey between the two.

As presented in Figure 1, Cohen’s d showed that a greater number of significant findings

were obtained through observational research. Of those statistically significant findings,

all meet the requirements to be considered a medium effect size, with one variable even

going further to indicate large effect size. For parent-reported home reading behaviors,

only one reading variable (i.e., home discussion) indicates a significant association

between gender and parent-child reading interaction with a large effect size. Thus, overall

observation at the library yielded more statistically significant gender differences with

medium to large effect size, favoring girls over boys. Results indicated that girls were

more likely to be engaged in book access and reading behaviors and those gender

differences were more likely to be detected from natural observation than parent survey

report.

BG

Summary of Findings

Overall, library observation showed that girls were involved in more time

intervals of interactive browsing behaviors than boys, after controlling for age. Also, girls

experienced a higher percentage of time intervals engaged in general reading behavior

over time spent engaged in library reading behavior.

Further ANCOVA analyses exploring gender differences specifically in shared

reading behaviors suggest that girls experience a higher percentage of time intervals

engaged in shared reading over total time spent in library reading behavior.

No differences across girls and boys in number or percentage of shared reading

interactions were noted for verbatim reading, expanding, or parents responding to child’s

talk. However, girls experienced a higher percentage of time intervals engaged in

describing discussion and print referencing during shared reading.

Analysis of parent reported home reading behaviors showed no gender differences

in home book access or home reading behaviors. Girls were found to engage more than

boys in discussion after verbatim reading. However, no gender differences in parent

report of home shared reading interactions were noted for verbatim reading, pausing

while reading to discuss, pausing while reading to engage in print referencing, pausing

while reading to comment on illustrations, or pausing while reading to ask the child what

might happen next or to connect book’s context to other things in the child’s world.

Examination of Cohen’s d as effect size of gender indicated that indicated that

girls were more likely to be engaged in book access and reading behaviors. Comparisons

of effect size across variables of reading-related behaviors showed that larger effect size

BH

was noted for reading behaviors as observed naturally at the library than those as reported

by parents through survey.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Time Intervals With Reading-Related

Behavior of Preschoolers

Mean (SD)
All (N=68) Girls (N=35) Boys (N= 33)
BOOK ACCESS
# Book Browsing .90 (1.38) 1.14 (1.57) .64 (1.11)
%Book Browsing Over Total 24.41 (35.76) 23.37 (30.84) 25.51 (40.80)
Intervals Observed
%Book Browsing Over Book 25.50 (36.60) 26.50 (36.90) 25.96 (40.83)
Access Intervals
# Interactive Book Browsing .54 (.95) .71 (1.05) .36 (.82)
% Int. Book Browsing Over 15.88 (29.91) 16.19 (25.79) 15.55 (34.15)
Total Intervals Observed
% Int. Book Browsing Over 16.61 (30.66) 18.93 (32.68) 15.66 (34.14)
Book Access Intervals

SHARED READING
# General Reading .74 (1.67) .94 (1.86) .52 (1.44)
% General Reading Over Total 13.70 (28.27) 19.65 (33.24) 7.38 (20.47)
Intervals Observed*
% General Reading Over Total 19.32 (37.66) 30.61 (44.49) 10.38 (28.91)
Library Reading Intervals*
# Shared Reading .63 (1.60) .83 (1.84) .42 (1.28)
% Shared Reading Over Total 5.65 (17.98) 8.36 (21.61) 2.77 (12.80)
Intervals Observed
% Shared Reading Over Total 16.20 (33.84) 23.95 (40.03) 7.98 (23.66)
Library Reading Intervals*

READING INTERACTION
# Verbatim Reading .06 (.29) .11 (40) .00 (.00)
% Verbatim Reading 2.57 (13.75) 5.00 (18.98) .00 (.00)
# Reading w/ Expanding .31 (.85094) .37 (.84) .24 (.87)
% Reading w/ Expanding 7.58 (20.18) 10.36 (22.55) 4.62 (17.19)
# Reading w/Describing .28 (.73) .40 (.88) .15 (.51)
% Reading w/Describing* 6.58 (17.72) 13.00 (26.95) 2.80 (9.84)
# Reading w/ Responding 5.88 (1.41) .74 (1.58) .42 (1.20)
% Reading w/ Responding 15.17 (33.09 20.97 (37.81) 9.02 (26.41)
# Reading w/ Print .22 (.64) .34 (.73) .09 (.52)
Referencing

BI

Table 2 Continued

% Reading w/ Print 7.54 (22.42) 12.94 (28.74) 1.82 (10.44)

Referencing*

_______________________________________________________________________
Note. * marked significant gender differences at p < .10.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Reported Home Reading Behaviors

Mean (SD)
All (N=68) Girls (N=35) Boys (N= 33)
BOOK ACCESS
How many books 4.12 (1.13) 4.03 (1.12) 4.21 (1.14)

SHARED READING
How often read to child 4.67 (.79) 4.66 (.91) 4.67 (.65)
How many minutes read to 3.41 (1.10) 3.40 (1.17) 3.42 (1.03)
child yesterday

READING INTERACTION
Verbatim reading .15 (.36) .20 (41) .09 (.29)

Read entire book then discuss* .21 (.41) .31 (.47) .09 (.29)
Pause while reading to discuss .87 (.64) .80 (.41) .94 (.83)
Pause while reading to .54 (.50) .63 (.49) 45 (.51)
reference print
Pause while reading to .72 (.45) .80 (.41) .64 (.49)
comment on illustrations
Pause while reading to ask .56 (.50) .60 (.50) .52 (.51)
child questions

________________________________________________________________________
Note. . * marked significant gender differences at p < .10.

C@

Table 4. ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Number of Time Intervals and

Percent of Time Intervals With Children’s Book Browsing

Dependent Var SS (df) MS F Cohen’s d R2

# Book
Browsing 5.13 (1) 5.13 2.72 .37 .045
% Book
Browsing/Total .10 (1) .10 .00 -.06 .033
% Book
Browsing/BA 125.06 (1) 125.06 . 08 .01 .027

Table 5. ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Number of Time Intervals and

Percent of Time Intervals With Children’s Interactive Book Browsing

Dependent Var SS (df) MS F Cohen’s d R2

# Int. Book
Browsing 3.28 (1) 3.28 3.96~ .37 .117
% Int. Book
Browsing/Total 243.04 (1) 243.04 .29 .02 .096
% Int. Book
Browsing/BA 712.77 (1) 712.77 . 69 .10 .085

~ p < .10

Table 6. ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Number of Time Intervals and

Percent of Time Intervals With Children’s Reading

Dependent Var SS (df) MS F Cohen’s d R2

# Reading 1.43 (1) 1.43 .53 .26 .069
% Reading/Total 1613.17 (1) 1613.17 2.19 .44 .106
% Reading/LR 4794.38 (1) 4794.38 3.52~ .54 .125

~ p < .10

CA

Table 7. ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Number of Time Intervals and

Percent of Time Intervals With Children’s Shared Reading

Dependent Var SS (df) MS F Cohen’s d R2

# Shared Reading 1.46 (1) 1.46 .59 .26 .053
% S. Reading/Total 285.63 (1) 285.63 .93 .31 .077
% S. Reading/LR 3103.66 (1) 3103.66 2.90~ .49 .093

~ p < .10

Table 8. ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Number of Time Intervals and

Percent of Time Intervals With Children’s Shared Reading Interactions

Dependent Var SS (df) MS F Cohen’s d R2

# Verbatim .21 (1) .21 2.41~ .40 .039
% Verbatim 357.94 (1) 357.94 1.91 .37 .039
# Expanding .04 (1) .04 .06 .15 .078
% Expanding 274.83 (1) 274.83 .71 .29 .076
# Describing .62 (1) .62 1.22 .35 .076
% Describing 1260.01 (1) 1260.01 3.08~ .50 .100
# Response .68 (1) .68 .36 .23 .069
% Response 1220.68 (1) 1220.68 1.23 .37 .118
# Code-focused .80 (1) .80 1.99 .40 .060
% Code-focused 1812.77 (1) 1812.77 3.76~ .51 .069

~ p < .10

Table 9. ANCOVA Results for Gender Differences in Parent

Report of Home Reading Behaviors

Dependent Var SS (df) MS F Cohen’s d R2

Books owned .29 (1) .29 .23 -.16 .023
How often read .01 (1) .01 .02 -.01 .005
Read to yesterday .09 (1) .09 .07 -.02 .064
Verbatim reading .16 (1) .16 1.27 .31 .030
 DISCUSSION

The current study adds to the body of literature on children’s reading-related

behaviors by analyzing book selection and reading behaviors by gender, after controlling

for age, in early childhood. Given the disparities between genders in reading interest and

achievement seen in later childhood, with boys performing below their female

counterparts (Coles & Hall, 2002; Peterson & Parr, 2012; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004)

this study provides valuable insight into book access and shared reading patterns in early

childhood. Findings seek to deliver evidence of disparities in trends across gender. Since

parental awareness of gender differences and subsequently tailored shared reading

experiences can help both boys and girls experience increased quality shared reading

experiences and assist in the development of positive reading attitudes throughout

childhood (Abilock, 1997), this study’s focus on early childhood is particularly important

from an early-intervention standpoint, as disparities in reading achievement and interest

are found to increase between genders from early childhood into grade school (Logan &

Johnston, 2009).

The public library’s open-access model, wide range of reading materials, literacy-

related activities, and availability to children across the reading level spectrum make it a

prime environment in which to observe parent-child reading behaviors (Ward & Wason-

Ellam, 2005). Indeed, research has shown that library usage influences children’s

preferences and academic outcomes (Celano & Neuman, 2001; Whitehurst, et al., 1988).

CD

By utilizing the public library, our study was able to obtain a wide range of observed

browsing and reading behaviors and, in-turn, provide librarians with valuable information

for parent education and early childhood literacy program development.

The study is unique in that it utilizes observation as well as parent report through

survey. Through the use of unobtrusive observation, this study provides data that are

more objective than parent report and survey data alone. By combing observation and

survey data, we were able to collect information about both library and a home-reading

behavior that is more accurate and less influenced by biases in parental reporting. Also,

this study fills a niche in research of early childhood reading behaviors as many studies

report gender differences in reading scores, but few studies report gender differences in

reading behaviors.

Another strength of the study came from the manner in which observations were

carried out. By observing several branches of the library during several different time

intervals and throughout all days of the week, we were able to collect a sample of

behaviors representative of general library usage and applicable to the diverse population

served by the overall local library system. Ensuring that interrater reliability was

established also bolsters the quality of findings and the integrity of the coding scheme,

ensuring validity of the findings.

Gender Differences in Observed Engagement in Book Browsing

Girls were involved in more time intervals of interactive browsing than boys. This

suggests that girls spend more time in looking for materials they need or want and that

girls were more engaged in browsing with a parent. Also, older girls experienced a higher

CE

percentage of time intervals engaged in book browsing behavior, both over total time

observed and over time spent engaged in library reading behavior. This suggests that

older children may be more capable to exploring library shelves in book browsing than

younger children who may be more confined to designated child play areas. This supports

findings by Abilock (1997) that boys and girls behave in the library differently, with girls

working more collaboratively with a parent during book browsing. Also, findings are

aligned with research on parental behaviors in the library showing that parents are

generally less inclined to include boys in book browsing as they may show initial lack of

interest (Wason-Ellam, et al., 2004). Educating parents to redirect boys to participate in

book access and browsing can help parents provide boys with increased quality library

usage experiences across genders, which is shown to be correlated with reading

preferences in later childhood (Kraykamp, 2003).

Gender Differences in Observed Engagement in Reading

The study found that girls experience a higher percentage of time intervals

engaged in shared reading over total time spent in library reading behavior, with age also

found to be significant when percentage is observed over total time spent in library. This

suggests that girls are more likely to attend to and be engaged in reading with an adult

caregiver in the library. These findings are supported by De Haeghel, et al, (2012),

indicating that boys are generally less motivated to read than their female peers. Also,

Jones (2011) notes that girls are more likely to engage in reading for leisure and

enjoyment, a trend that this study is able to support and identify in early childhood.

Increasing successful, positive reading experiences and providing encouragement during


CF

shared reading helps in the development of reading interest. Parental awareness of this

trend can help parents make a greater effort to include boys in shared reading, provide

positive reinforcement during shared reading, and focus on bolstering confidence during

shared reading in an effort to establish an interest in reading from an early age and lessen

the stress that is usually experienced by boys during reading related activities as a result

of poor performance and frustration (De Naeghel, et al, 2012).

Gender Differences in Observed Shared Reading Interactions

Girls were found to spend a greater percentage of their library reading time

engaged in describing discussion during shared reading with their caregivers. This

suggests that during shared reading girls and adult caregivers are talking more about the

details and characteristics of what is being read and supports findings by Tracey and

Young (2002) that parents engage in discussion during shared reading more often with

girls than with boys. Also, percentage of time intervals of parental print referencing in

shared reading over total time intervals spent in library reading was higher for girls,

showing that they experienced more print referencing from parents during shared reading.

This shows that girls were not only spending a greater percentage of library reading time

engaged in shared reading, but of that time spent, they experienced parental practices of

higher quality reading interactions like code-focused talk (i.e., bringing the child’s

attention directly to the text by noting punctuation, phonics, letters, etc.) (Evans, et al.,

2000). While children who read more frequently are more likely to show greater

understanding of and performance in reading tasks (Logan & Johnston, 2009), frequency

alone is not enough to cultivate proficient reading (Shealy & Cook, 2009). Teaching

CG

parents how to engage in higher quality shared reading interactions with their children

and how to follow their children’s cues to expand or describe text further should be a

primary component of library parent education programs. Making parents aware that

children’s cues during shared reading and patterns of attention/engagement vary across

gender is also key in helping them gain an understanding of how to provide high-quality

reading interactions for their children.

Gender Differences in Reported Home Reading Behaviors

Girls were found to engage in discussion after verbatim reading more than boys.

This suggests that, although verbatim reading is the primary mode of reading, parents are

building upon the quality of the shared reading experience by then engaging girls in

discussion. Research by De Naeghel, et al., (2012) shows that shared reading interactions

that include higher quality experiences such as discussion affect early literacy outcomes.

Shealy and Cook (2009) emphasize that while verbatim reading provides many benefits

to children, it is not enough alone to cultivate truly efficient reading outcomes. It is

important that parents recognize the difference between verbatim reading and other

higher quality reading interactions and learn how to incorporate these practices in their

home shared reading across genders.

Gender Differences in Survey and Library Observation

Our results showed that a greater number of significant findings with larger effect

size (from medium to large effect size) were obtained through observational research

rather than home survey. Preschool girls were observed to be engaged in more

CH

interactive book browsing and spend larger percentage of library time on reading

interactions than boys. However, effect size of gender was not large for home book

access and reading interactions. Results indicated that girls were more likely to be

detected as engaged in reading-related behaviors from natural observation than parent

survey report. This supports previous research indicating that for research involving

young children natural observation can yield more representative findings than parent-

report (Feldman, et al., 2005). In this context of this study, which observed behavior

across multiple settings (i.e., book browsing, book reading, and shared reading

interactions), natural observation provided a child-centered method of data collection that

allowed researchers to observe and consider both parent and child interactions in the

context of library usage and shared reading (Booren, et al., 2012).

Implications

While the library provides an valuable observational environment, it also is an

environment more often utilized by individuals that have a high educational background

or who place high value on literacy activities, which can influence overall reading

interactions both at home and at the library. In this same area, however, this study shows

a great strength in that it provides librarians valuable information of parent-child library

reading behaviors and library usage. This can influence the development of reading

programs, parent education programs, and literacy activities for young children.

Librarians can serve as examples for parents in modeling high-quality shared

reading behaviors during child-focused literacy events. For example, each branch of the

library we observed holds a preschool story time. Attendance at these events is high, with

CI

parents encouraged to sing along with and include their children in the literacy activities.

During this event, librarians can highlight one area in which parents can improve the

quality of their shared reading interactions (e.g., discussion, expansion, code-focused

talk) and model for parents how they would engage in this behavior during shared

reading. It would be a venue that allows librarians to 1) teach parents a new concept, 2)

model the concept for the parents, and then 3) allow the parents to engage in this new

behavior with their children.

Also, by being aware of differences between genders in reading behaviors,

parents can help encourage boys to engage in more interactive book browsing and shared

reading behaviors in an effort to increase positive early childhood experiences with

reading. This is important as research shows that early negative experiences with reading

can influence a child’s attitude toward reading and subsequent interest and involvement

in reading activities (Jones, 2011).

Previous research has shown that natural observation of children’s reading

experiences can provide more valid results than parent-report home surveys. Although

parent-reports are used often as they are relatively easy to distribute and provide children

a comfortable and familiar setting in which data are collected (Feldman, et al., 2005), this

method is not without bias and may not be the best way to collect representative data

(Baroody & Diamond, 2013). This study’s use of both natural observation in conjunction

with home survey provides findings that can be easily applied for parent education in

both library and home settings in an effort to improve quality of shared reading

interactions across child gender.


D@

Limitations

This study was limited by the sample with valid survey data. Overall, the

observed sample size was much larger than the 68 participants included in the final

sample. However, parents needed to be willing to complete the survey upon leaving the

library in order to match up age, gender, and demographic information with observed

behaviors and to provide information on home reading behaviors.

Another limitation of the study was the coding scheme’s preference for parent-

child dyads. Many participants attended the library with multiple children/siblings per

adult. However, in these instances, only the behavior of the eldest child was coded to

ensure that observed and coded behaviors were correctly matched up with participants.

There were several cases that included children with mixed ages and different genders in

which case we had to observe the eldest child even though each of the children were

often times engaged in parallel activities with the adult caregiver.

While library was chosen to observe natural or intact reading-related behaviors

(as opposed to a more controlled method of researchers’ observing/recording parent-child

reading at home), the observed behaviors could be different from those in a private space.

Since library is a public space, parents and children may have different expectations of

behavior control and management. Further although we tried to maintain space between

researchers and patrons (who are study participants), there is a possibility that we might

affect parents and children’s book browsing and reading behaviors.


DA

Conclusion

Overall, observation of reading behaviors directly show gender differences while

survey report shows less statistical and practical significance in the predictability of

gender on home book access, home reading, and home shared reading interactions. The

current study shows that in early childhood girls are experiencing a greater percentage of

time spent in the library engaged in book browsing and high-quality shared reading

interactions and parent reported home reading interactions than their male counterparts.

Awareness of this trend so early in a child’s development is key to assisting early

childhood professionals in developing parent education to assist in increasing high-

quality parent-child reading interactions across both genders as children’s attitudes

toward reading tend to be established in early childhood and influenced by reading

experiences (De Naeghel, et al., 2012). Libraries serve as a prime location to provide

such parent education programing because of their open-access and diverse literacy

offerings to the community (Ward & Wason-Ellam, 2005). These findings provide

evidence-based support for previous research uniquely and specifically in application to

early childhood, as research shows that parental awareness of gender differences in

attitudes to reading and reading behaviors can influence the development of positive

reading attitudes across genders into later childhood (Abilock, 1997).

 APPENDIX A

CODING SCHEME

The coding scheme for the current study is divided into parent book access and

parent-child reading as follows:

Parent Book Access:

1. Parent browsing at book/audiobook shelves
Interactive, Non-interactive, Child other literacy related activity, Child non
literacy related activity
2. Parent computer browsing
Interactive, Non-interactive, Child other literacy related activity, Child non
literacy related activity
3. Parent catalog/leaflet browsing
Interactive, Non-interactive, Child other literacy related activity, Child non
literacy related activity
4. Parent DVD/CD Browsing
Interactive, Non-interactive, Child other literacy related activity, Child non
literacy related activity
5. Parent talking with the librarian for help
Interactive, Non-interactive, Child other literacy related activity, Child non
literacy related activity
Parent Child Reading:
6. Suggestion of actual reading
Parent, Child, Both/can’t tell, Librarian
7. Genre of the books
Fiction, non-fiction, ABC book, counting, magazine, can’t tell
8. Who is reading
Child read to parent, parent read to child, parent pair reach, parent echo read
Parent Book Discussion:
9. No discussion
10. Parent expanding discussion (yes, no, can’t tell
11. Parent describing discussion (yes, no, can’t tell)
12. Parent non-literacy talk (yes, no, can’t tell)
13. Parent responding to child talk (yes, no, can’t tell)

DC

24. Parent teaching letters, sounds, words (yes, no, can’t tell)
25. Child attending to/engaging in reading, asking questions (yes, no, can’t tell)
 APPENDIX B

HOME LITERACY SURVEY


$ #/
%
&%)+$(
*+ )
'(*$%*
&
% ,() */
&
*
)
,#+* %
/&+%

 #(%7)
( %
%
# ((/
.'( %)4
&+(
'(*  '* &%
%
* )
)+(,/
- ##
#'
+)

,#+*
%
) %
+*+(
# ((/
)(, )4

&+(
()'&%))
- ##

"'*
&% %* #4
%"

/&+
&(
*" %
* $
*&
#'
+)
*&/4

  "
 $

 

"
 


,%

-%" %


"


  "
 "&

&*(



*(



&*



(%
'(%*




 
( ,(



*(

>>>>>>>>>




 

"
 "&
&*(





*(





(%
'(%*




 

( ,(


































































 #
;&-
$%/6>>>>><
 #7)
( %



&+(
( %




*(

>>>>>>>>>






"
)*






 
"
 
  "&

















%
,(/
-
$&%*)






&%*#/






"#/







A
*&
C
* $)

-"





D
*&
F
* $)

-"












 
"
  "

  "
 


"
&

















)









&
;#&))*
# ((/
(%
)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><





&%7*
"%&-



"

"


  "
 "&
)

 
"*

&
"
&+*
&&")
&(
$/
 #



&
"
&+*
7)
&(
$/
 #


&
"

&+*
&&")
&(
$/)#





&
"
&+*
7)
&(
$/)#






&
(
*&
$/
 #(%



















&
+)


&$'+*(








&
**%
8&&"
 )9
&(
8()&&#
*&(/
* $9



&
**%
&*(
# ((/

,%*)
;441
(*1
$&, )<

















&
)'%
(
* $
*
*
# ((/








































*(

! "

 "


"
) 
"*
 "


  "
 "&

>>>>>>>>>>

! "

 "
( 




"





  "

"
,%
-%" %
&




A5B






C
5
E





E5A@





A@5AE






$&(

*%
AE




 

$




DE






 



"
,%

-%" %
&

&*(




*(




(%
'(%*



 
( ,(









#(
) # %






*(>>>>>>>>>>>>







 

"
,%

-%" %
&

%

$&%*
&(
#))

%
,(/
-
-")






A
*&
C
* $)

-"




D
*&

F
* $)

-"






 #/




 "




 

"
,%

-%" %

" "&

@
$ %+*







A
*&
A@
$ %+*)






AA
*&
B@
$ %+*)






B@
*&
C@
$ %+*)





C@K
$ %+*)


 

"
#
 



&
)

 


"*


*
&&"
&(
)*&(/
-&(
&(
-&(
- *
%&
 )+)) &%



















*
%* (
&&"
&(
)*&(/
%
*%
 )+))
*

+)
- #
( %
*&
 )+))
*
&&"
- *
*
 #

+)
- #
( %
*&
#'
 #
(&% 0
&(
)&+%
&+*
#**()1
)&+%)1
%

-&()

+)
- #
( %
*&
&$$%*
&%
$)
%) 
*
&&"

















+)
- #
( %
*&
)"
 #
-*
$ *
''%
%.*1
&(
&%%*
&&"7)

&%*%*
*&
&*(
* %)
%
 #7)

























-&(#


! "

 "


"
,%

-%" %


"
 &

))
*%
E


E5A@




A@5C@



C@5E@


&(
*%
E@









"



 
"
,%

-%" %

 


&


%

$&%*
&(
#))



%
,(/
-
-")




A
*&
C
* $)

-"




D
*&

F
* $)

-"




 #/






"
 

"&


%

$&%*
&(
#))



%
,(/
-
-")




A
*&
C
* $)

-"




D
*&

F
* $)

-"




 #/



 

,%

-%" %


"
 "$



+3

>>>>>>

&/

&(

 (#2




%# )
)'" %3
&%



 (



&&





#+%*


&-
$+
&)
:)
%!&/
 %
(
*&3
&*
*
##


&$-*



")
*




&,)
*



&-
&*%
&)
:)
#&&"
*
&(
(
&&")
/
 $)#:()#
*
&$3


%

$&%*
&(
#))



%
,(/
-
-")




A
*&
C
* $)

-"




D
*&

F
* $)

-"




 #/

 
)*
)( )
/&+(
 #7)
( %
 # */6



)
&%#/
' *+()










&% 0)
#**()
%
%+$()





&% 0)

)&$
-&()



DF

&+%)
&+*
)&$
-&()


&+%)
&+*
$%/
-&() )

%'%%*#/



,3


>>>>>

&/

&(

 (#2




%# )
)'" %3
&%



 (



&&





#+%*


&-
$+
&)
:)
%!&/
 %
(
*&3
&*
*
##


&$-*



")
*




&,)
*



&-
&*%
&)
:)
#&&"
*
&(
(
&&")
/
 $)#:()#
*
&$3


%

$&%*
&(
#))



%
,(/
-
-")




A
*&
C
* $)

-"




D
*&

F
* $)

-"




 #/

 
)*
)( )
/&+(
 #7)
( %
 # */6



)
&%#/
' *+()










&% 0)
#**()
%
%+$()





&% 0)

)&$
-&()


&+%)
&+*
)&$
-&()


&+%)
&+*
$%/
-&() )

%'%%*#/



 $





  3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



*(
#%+;)<
)'&"%
*
&$6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



 "'
 
("3


)'% : * %&


* ,
$( %

( %
$( %


) %
&(
'  
)#%(


+) %

*(>>>>>>>



 



  






&


&$
 
)&&#





)&&#
(+*
&(







&$
&##
&(

*% #
*( % %


&##
(+*









(+*
)&&#
**%%
&(
(




 



  



 


&


&$
 
)&&#





)&&#
(+*
&(







&$
&##
&(

*% #
*( % %


&##
(+*









(+*
)&&#
**%%
&(
(

 APPENDIX C

ANCOVA TABLES

Table C-1. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Number of Time Intervals With
Children’s Book Browsing

Source SS df MS F d
Age 1.46 1 1.46 .77
Gender 5.13 1 5.13 2.72 .37
Error 122.47 65 1.88

Note. R2 = .045, Adj. R2 = .016.

Table C-2. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Percentage of Time Intervals With
Children’s Book Browsing Over Total Intervals Observed

Source SS df MS F d
Age 2744.17 1 2744.17 2.15
Gender .10 1 .10 .00 -.06
Error 82858.80 65 1274.75

Note. R2 = .033, Adj. R2 = .003.

Table C-3. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Percentage of Time Intervals With
Children’s Book Browsing Over Time Intervals Spent in General Book Access Behavior

Source SS df MS F d
Age 2720.00 1 2720.00 1.82
Gender 125.06 1 125.06 .08 .01
Error 96920.00 65 1491.08

Note. R2 = .027, Adj. R2 = -.003.


DH

Table C-4. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Number of Time Intervals With
Children’s Interactive Book Browsing

Source SS df MS F d
Age 5.03 1 5.03 6.09*
Gender 3.28 1 3.28 3.96~ .37
Error 53.75 65 .83

Note. R2 = .117, Adj. R2 = .090.

~ p <.10 * p < .05

Table C-5. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Percentage of Time Intervals With
Children’s Interactive Book Browsing Over Total Intervals Observed

Source SS df MS F d
Age 5724.52 1 5724.52 6.86*
Gender 243.04 1 243.04 .29 .02
Error 54221.60 65 834.18

Note. R2 = .096, Adj. R2 = .068.

* p < .05

Table C-6. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Percentage of Time Intervals With
Children’s Interactive Book Browsing Over Time Intervals Spent in
General Book Access Behavior

Source SS df MS F d
Age 6063.33 1 6063.33 5.84*
Gender 712.77 1 712.77 .69 .10
Error 67536.00 65 1039.02

Note. R2 = .085, Adj. R2 = .056.

* p < .05

Table C-7. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Number of Time

Intervals With Children’s Reading

Source SS df MS F d
Age 9.90 1 9.90 3.69~
Gender 1.43 1 1.43 .53 .26
Error 174.23 65 2.68

Note. R2 = .069, Adj. R2 = .041.

~ p < .10

DI

Table C-8. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Percentage of Time Intervals With
Children’s Reading Over Total Intervals Observed

Source SS df MS F d
Age 3141.96 1 3141.96 4.27*
Gender 1613.17 1 1613.17 2.19 .44
Error 47850.40 65 736.16

Note. R2 = .106, Adj. R2 = .079.

* p < .05

Table C-9. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Percentage of Time Intervals With
Children’s Reading Over Time Intervals Spent in Library Reading Behavior

Source SS df MS F d
Age 5621.94 1 5621.94 4.13*
Gender 4794.38 1 4794.38 3.52~ .54
Error 88432.80 65 1360.50

Note. R2 = .125, Adj. R2 = .098.

~ p <.10, * p < .05

Table C-10. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Number of Time Intervals With
Children’s Shared Reading

Source SS df MS F d
Age 6.30 1 6.30 2.55
Gender 1.46 1 1.46 .59 .26
Error 160.73 65 2.47

Note. R2 = .053, Adj. R2 = .024.

Table C-11. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Percentage of Time Intervals
With Children’s Shared Reading Over Total Intervals Observed

Source SS df MS F d
Age 1138.42 1 1138.42 3.70~
Gender 285.63 1 285.63 .93 .31
Error 19990.20 65 307.54

Note. R2 = .077, Adj. R2 = .049.

~ p < .10

E@

Table C-12. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Percentage of Time Intervals
With Children’s Shared Reading Over Time Intervals
Spent in Library Reading Behavior

Source SS df MS F d
Age 2801.16 1 2801.16 2.62
Gender 3103.66 1 3103.66 2.90~ .49
Error 69586.40 65 1070.56

Note. R2 = .093, Adj. R2 = .065.

~ p <.10

Table C-13. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Number of Time Intervals With
Parental Involvement in Verbatim Reading Over Time Intervals
Spent in Library Reading Behavior

Source SS df MS F d
Age .00 1 .00 .05
Gender .21 1 .21 2.41~ .40
Error 5.54 65 .09

Note. R2 = .039, Adj. R2 = .010.

~ p <.10

Table C-14. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Percentage of Time With
Parental Involvement in Verbatim Reading

Source SS df MS F d
Age 64.29 1 64.29 .34
Gender 357.94 1 357.94 1.91 .37
Error 12185.70 65 187.470

Note. R2 = .039, Adj. R2 = .009.

Table C-15. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Number of Time Intervals With
Parental Expanding Discussion in Shared Reading

Source SS df MS F d
Age 3.49 1 3.49 5.07*
Gender .04 1 .04 .06 .15
Error 44.75 65 .69

Note. R2 = .078, Adj. R2 = .049.

* p < .05

EA

Table C-16. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Percentage of Time Intervals
With Parental Expanding Discussion in Shared Reading Over Time Intervals
Spent in Library Reading Behavior

Source SS df MS F d
Age 1526.15 1 1526.15 3.94~
Gender 274.83 1 274.83 .71 .29
Error 25208.60 65 387.83

Note. R2 = .076, Adj. R2 = .048.

~ p < .10

Table C-17. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Number of Time Intervals With
Parental Describing Discussion in Shared Reading

Source SS df MS F d
Age 1.65 1 1.65 3.25~
Gender .62 1 .62 1.22 .35
Error 32.99 65 .51

Note. R2 = .076, Adj. R2 = .047.

~ p < .10

Table C-18. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Percentage of Time Intervals
With Parental Describing Discussion in Shared Reading Over Time Intervals
Spent in Library Reading Behavior

Source SS df MS F d
Age 1181.52 1 1181.52 2.89~
Gender 1260.01 1 1260.01 3.08~ .50
Error 26618.80 65 409.52

Note. R2 = .100, Adj. R2 = .072.

~ p < .10

Table C-19. ANCOVA Results for Number of Time Intervals With Parental Response to
Child Talk in Shared Reading

Source SS df MS F d
Age 7.41 1 7.41 3.91~
Gender .68 1 .68 .36 .23
Error 123.33 65 1.90

Note. R2 = .069, Adj. R2 = .040.

~ p < .10

EB

Table C-20. ANCOVA Results for Percentage of Time Intervals With Parental Response
to Child Talk in Shared Reading Over Time Intervals
Spent in Library Reading Behavior

Source SS df MS F d
Age 6240.18 1 6240.18 6.27*
Gender 1220.68 1 1220.68 1.23 .37
Error 64702.30 65 995.42

Note. R2 = .118, Adj. R2 = .091.

* p < .05

Table C-21. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Number of Time Intervals With
Parental Print Reference in Shared Reading

Source SS df MS F d
Age .58 1 .58 1.44
Gender .80 1 .80 1.99 .40
Error 26.04 65 .40

Note. R2 = .060, Adj. R2 = .031.

Table C-22. ANCOVA Results for Percentage of Time Intervals With Parental Print
Reference in Shared Reading Over Time Intervals
Spent in Library Reading Behavior

Source SS df MS F d
Age 220.84 1 220.84 .46
Gender 1812.77 1 1812.77 3.76~ .51
Error 31355.80 65 482.40

Note. R2 = .069, Adj. R2 = .040

~ p < .10

Table C-23. ANCOVA Results for Group Differences in Parent Report of How Many
Books the Child Owns

Source SS df MS F d
Age 1.40 1 1.40 1.10
Gender .29 1 .29 .23 -.16
Error 83.09 65 1.28

Note. R2 = .023, Adj. R2 = -.007


EC

Table C-24. ANCOVA Results for Parent Report of How Often the Main Caregiver Reads
to the Child

Source SS df MS F d
Age .23 1 .23 .36
Gender .01 1 .01 .02 -.01
Error 41.00 65 .63

Note. R2 = .005, Adj. R2 = -.025

Table C-25. ANCOVA Results for Parent Report of How Many Minutes the Main
Caregiver Had Read to Child in Previous Day

Source SS df MS F d
Age 5.17 1 5.17 4.47*
Gender .09 1 .09 .07 -.02
Error 75.29 65 .1.16

Note. R2 = .064, Adj. R2 = .036

* p < .05

Table C-26. ANCOVA Results for Parent Report of Home Verbatim Reading

Source SS df MS F d
Age .06 1 .06 .43
Gender .16 1 .16 1.27 .31
Error 8.27 65 .13

Note. R2 = .030, Adj. R2 = .000

Table C-27. ANCOVA Results for Parent Report of Discussion After Verbatim Reading

Source SS df MS F d
Age .70 1 .70 4.73*
Gender 1.10 1 1.10 7.50* .57
Error 9.57 65 .15

Note. R2 = .139, Adj. R2 = .112

* p < .05

ED

Table C-28. ANCOVA Results for Parent Report of Pausing for Discussion During
Shared Reading

Source SS df MS F d
Age .04 1 .04 .10
Gender .28 1 .28 .67 -.21
Error 27.44 65 .42

Note. R2 = .013, Adj. R2 = -.017

Table C-29. ANCOVA Results for Parent Report of Pausing for Print Referencing During
Shared Reading

Source SS df MS F d
Age .02 1 .02 .09
Gender .46 1 .46 1.85 .35
Error 16.33 65 .25

Note. R2 = .032, Adj. R2 = .002

Table C-30. ANCOVA Results for Parent Report of Pausing While Reading to Comment
on Illustrations

Source SS df MS F d
Age .60 1 .60 3.11~
Gender .28 1 .28 1.45 .36
Error 12.63 65 .19

Note. R2 = .077, Adj. R2 = .049

~ p < .10

Table C-31. ANCOVA Results for Parent Report of Pausing While Reading to Ask Child
Questions

Source SS df MS F d
Age .00 1 .00 .01
Gender .13 1 .13 .49 .17
Error 16.64 65 .26

Note. R2 = .007, Adj. R2 = -.023

 REFERENCES

Abilock, D. (1997). Sex in the library: How gender differences should affect practices
and programs. Emergency Librarian, 24(5), 17 – 21.

Baroody, A. E., & Diamond, K. E. (2013). Measures of preschool children's interest and
engagement in literacy activities: Examining gender differences and construct
dimensions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(2), 291-301.

Bateson (2011). An assessment of the social impact of museum and library learning
programmes, A rapid evidence assessment. Department of Culture, Arts and
Leisure, 3 – 49.

Bergersen, V (2015). Can you read for me? A study of pupils' reading skills when
starting school viewed in the context of the reading environment at home.
Unpublished master’s thesis, The Department of Education and Sports Science,
University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.

Blewitt, P., Rump, K.M., Shealy, S.E., & Cook, S. A. (2009). Shared book reading:
When and how questions affect young children’s word learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(2), 294 – 304.

Booren, L. M., Downer, J. T., & Vitiello, V. E. (2012). Observation of children’s

interactions with teachers, peers, and tasks across preschool classroom activity
settings. Early Education and Development, 23(4), 517 – 538.

Bourke, L., & Adams, A. (2011). Is it difference in language skills and working memory
that account for girls being better at writing than boys. Journal of Writing
Research, 3(3), 249 – 277.

Bourke, C. (2007). Public libraries: Partnerships, funding and relevance. APLIS, 20(3),
135 – 139.

Celano, D., & Neuman, S. (2001). The role of public libraries in children’s literacy
development: An evaluation report. Pennsylvania Department of Education Office
of Commonwealth Libraries. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Library
Association.

Celano, D., & Neuman, S. (2008). When schools close, the knowledge gap grows. Phi
Delta Kappan, 90(4), 256 – 262.

EF

Cohen, D. H., Stern, V., & Balaban, N. (1997). Observing and recording the behavior of
young children (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Coles, M., & Hall, C. (2002). Gendered readings: Learning from children’s reading
choices. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 96 – 108.

De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation
between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation,
reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory
perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 1006 – 1021.

Deckner, D. F., Adamson, L. B., & Bakeman, R. (2006). Child and maternal
contributions to shared reading: Effects on language and literacy development.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 31-41.

Du, Y. (2010). Serving Library Users from Low-Income Communities: Promoting Digital
Literacy to eSociety. Proceedings from 2010 iConference.

Evans, M. A., Shaw, D., & Bell, M. (2000). Home literacy activities and their influence
on early literacy skills. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54(2),65-
75.

Farmer, L., & Stricevic, I. (2011). Using research to promote literacy and reading in
libraries: Guidelines for librarians. International Federation of Library
Associations and Institutions Professional Reports, No. 125, 1 – 25.

Feldman, H. M., Campbell, T. F., Kurs-Lasky, M., Rockette, H. E., Dale, P. S., Colbron,
D. K., & Paradise, J. L. (2005). Concurrent and predictive validity of parent
reports of childhood language ate ages 2 and 3 years. Child Development, 76(4),
856 – 868.

Francis, A. (2009). Thursdays with MacGyver. Children & Libraries: The Journal of the
Association for Library Service to Children, 7(2), 50 – 52.

Griffin, E. A., & Morrison, F. J. (1997). The unique contribution of home literacy
environment to differences in early literacy skills. Early Child Development and
Care, 127(1), 233-243.

Hindman, A. H., Connor, C. M., Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Untangling the
effects of shared book reading: Multiple factors and their associations with
preschool literacy outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 330-350.

Jones, S. (2011). Mapping the landscape: Gender and the writing classroom. Journal of
Writing Research, 3(3), 161 – 179.

EG

Justice, L. M., Pullen, P. C., & Pence, K. (2008). Influence of verbal and nonverbal
references to print on preschooler’s visual attention to print during storybook
reading. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 855 – 866.

Kraaykamp, G. (2003). Literary socialization and reading preferences. Effects of parents,

the library, and the school. Poetics, 31, 235 – 257.

Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes:
Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2),
199 – 214.

Mathews, J.S., Ponitz, C. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2009) Early gender difference in self-
regulation and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
101(3), 689 – 704.

Melhuish, E. C., Phan, M. B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B.
(2008). Effects of the home learning environment and preschool center experience
upon literacy and numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of
Social Issues, 64(1), 95-114.

Peterson, S. S., & Par, J. M. (2012). Gender and literacy issues and research: Placing the
spotlight on writing. Journal of Writing Research, 3(3), 151 – 161.

Razza, R., Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Associations among family
environment, sustained attention, and school readiness for low-income children.
Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1528 – 1542.

Sainsbury, M., & Schagen, I. (2004). Attitudes to reading at ages nine and eleven.
Journal of Research in Reading, 27(4), 373 – 386.

Shealy, S. E., & Cook, S. A. (2009). Shared book reading: When and how questions
affect young children’s word learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
101(2), 294 – 304.

Tracey, D. H., & Young, J. W. (2002). Mothers helping behaviors during children’s at-
home oral-reading practice: Effects of children’s reading ability, children’s
gender, and mothers’ educational level. Journal of Educational Psychology,
94(4), 729 – 737.

Ward. A., & Wason-Ellam, L. (2005). Reading beyond school: Literacies in a

neighbourhood library. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(1/2), 92 – 108.

Whitehurst, G. J., Crone, D. A., Zevenbergen, A. A., Shultz, M. D., Velting, O. N.,
& Fishel, J. E. (1999). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention from Head
Start through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 261 – 272.

EH

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.

Vannobbergen, B., Daems, M., & Van Tilburg, S. (2009). Bookbabies, their parents and
the library: An evaluation of a Flemish reading programme in families with young
children. Educational Review, 61(3), 277 – 287.