The analysis of the footage for Phase 1 is presented in Tables 2 and 3. The proposal was to understand shared reading in a home setting, in relation to the environmental context in which it was performed, the interaction with the book, and the affective relationship established between the dyad (Table 2). When analyzing the environmental setting of the four families, two setups stood out: a) a table and chair arrangement facing each other (F1) and a chair-side-by-side configuration (F4), and b) a bed (F2 and F3). In two environments, interactions with a domestic animal (F2) and a teddy bear (F3) were visualized during the shared reading. The analysis of the interaction with the book showed that during the shared reading all families were responsible for using and handling it. F4 got their child involved prior to beginning the shared reading, while F1 involved their child after the shared reading. The most representative affective relationship in the footage was the act of smiling between the parent and child.

Table 2

Family ID	Environment: What was the physical space like and how did the interaction with the space occur?	Book: When and how does the contact with the book happen?	Affectivity: How is the affective relationship between mothers and children?
F1	The child was sitting in a children's chair with their arms resting on a children's table, and the mother was sitting on the other side, facing the child. On the table there is a book which the mother then holds up to read. The child keeps her hand on her mouth. After reading, the child looks around.	At first, the book is facing the mother, who is reading. The child then gets up from the chair and leans over the book, looking at the pages. The mother turned the book so that it would face both of them during reading. The mother turned the pages. The child looked at the book until the end of the reading. Then the child handled the book, turned the pages, and left it facing towards them.	Child smiles slightly at the beginning of reading and then remains serious.
F2	The child was next to his father on a single bed. There was a cat on the child's lap. The lighting was bright. The father and child pet the cat.	The book was on the father's lap, who shows it to the child. The child looked at the book and at times pointed at the pictures.	The child and the father smiled several times throughout the shared reading and seemed to enjoy the activity.
F3	The daughter was lying on the bed with her back to her mother. There was a blanket over the child and a teddy bear. The mother was sitting on the edge of the bed.	The mother was holding the book throughout the reading and the daughter did not make eye contact with the book.	At the end of the story, the child turns to the mother, who kisses her on the forehead, says "Good night", and pulls the sheet over her daughter. The child smiles.
F4	Son and mother were sitting side by side at a table.	Before the reading began, the son was holding the book in his hand, leafing through it. During the reading, the mother held the book. The son maintained eye contact with the book until the end of the story.	The mother smiled a few times when the son answered her questions.

Note: F1: Corresponds to Family 1; F2: To Family 2 and so on.

To analyze the strategies used by parents during the shared reading with children, Table 3 was elaborated. In general, based on a previous study (Domeniconi et al., 2017) on oral language assessment, eight categories used by families were identified, they are: reading without interruptions (F1), asking the child questions about the story (F1, F3, and F4), answering question asked by the child (F1, F2), asking the child to retell the story (F1), providing feedback to the child on how to tell the story (F1), explaining and synthesizing the story (F2, F3), relating the story to the child's daily life (F2), using pictures to tell the story (F4).

Table 3

Family ID	In what way is the story told?
F1	The mother reads the book without interruption. After reading, the son asked a question and the mother answered. The mother asked the child to tell the story "the way Mommy told it". The child began to tell the story, looking at the pictures in the book. The mother would then say "calm down, tell it slowly for mommy". The child told the story again and the mother helped, telling some parts of the story and asking questions, for example "Little Red Riding Hood went to the woods, right? What happened?" In what way is the story told?
F2	The father started reading, looking at his son during the story and excitedly responding to his son's communicative initiations. The father explained the story by relating the pictures, "His name is Apollo, look here, but he thinks he is called 'no'. Because they yell 'no' when he's doing something wrong". At the end of the reading, the father related the content of the story to the cat on the child's lap: "It's a good thing that Nemo doesn't do something wrong (like the dog in the book), otherwise we would yell 'no' to him (like the characters in the book say to the dog)".
F3	The mother read the book and asked questions between the pages, for example "Daughter, where did she put her little baby?". At the end, the mother summarized the story "Did you understand, daughter? Jesus was born and they were very happy, his mother had nowhere to put him and put him in the manger, everyone was happy when Jesus was born".
F4	The mother explained to her son that the filming was part of a research project. The mother did not read the story, she flipped through the book asking her son questions about the pictures. The two told the story, based on the pictures. The mother started the story by asking her son "In the little book, what are you seeing here? (and points to the cover of the book)", the son says, "A chicken that laid an egg", and the mother replied, "An egg, very good", and turned the page and asked again what was in the next picture.

Note: F1: Corresponds to Family 1; F2: To Family 2 and so on.

Presented below are the results of Phase 2 - brief intervention. Figure 1 shows the occurrence of the adult's strategies in the pre- and post-intervention assessment. It was observed that a variety of strategies were employed, and the effect of the intervention varied among the participants. F1 and F3 showed higher performances on the post-intervention measure for all strategies, compared to pre-intervention. In the post-intervention measure, F2 and F4 scored higher for all strategies except for pausing. The scores for pausing remained null for F2 in both pre- and post-intervention, and identical for F4 in both measures (3). The strategies that showed the greatest increase in post-intervention compared to pre-intervention were asking questions (from 6 to 8 - F2, from 3 to 12 - F3), use of pictures (from 8 to 10 - F2; from 2 to 11 - F1, from 0 to 7 - F3), and providing explanations (from 4 to 10 - F1; from 0 to 3 - F4).

Figure 1. Note: F1: Corresponds to Family 1; F2: To Family 2 and so on.

Figure 2 shows the number of communicative turns assessed pre- and post-intervention, with a significant increase for all parent-child interaction pairs. We counted a turn whenever one of the participants initiated communication that was directed towards the other member of the dyad. The pre-intervention measures were mostly based on a "matched turns" sequence, that is, when the adult or child initiated communication, the other responded contingently. After the intervention, the matched turns sequence was maintained, and the number of communicative turns for all dyads increased.

Figure 2. Note: F1: Corresponds to Family 1; F2: To Family 2 and so on.

The number and variety of words spoken by the children post-intervention was higher for all children, when compared to the pre-intervention (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Note: F1: Corresponds to Family 1; F2: To Family 2 and so on.

Table 4 shows the pre- and post-intervention auditory and expressive vocabulary test scores of the children and their performance on the EVALOF. The data show a higher performance in the post-intervention for the expressive vocabulary assessment, compared to the receptive vocabulary. And, on the EVALOF, all families scored higher on the post-intervention compared to the pre-intervention.

Table 4

Family ID	RecVT		ExpVT		EVALOF
	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
F1	29	30	78	80	61	72
F2	32	32	80	88	53	62
F3	27	31	61	67	49	64
F4	32	33	88	93	48	63

Note: F1: Corresponds to Family 1; F2: To Family 2 and so on. EVALOF: Escala de Valoración de la Lengua Oral en contexto Familiar; ExpVT: Expressive Vocabulary Test; RecVT: Receptive Vocabulary Test.

The work described and analyzed how four families, in their respective natural environments, carry out shared reading with their children, without any instruction given by any professional, as well as evaluated the effect of a brief intervention in relation to the strategies used by parents, such as the children's language.

The description of the naturalistic situation generated four categories of analysis: organization of the physical space, contact with the book, how the story is told, and the affective relationship between parents and children. Two families read in bed, and two read in the living room on the table. There seemed to be a relationship between the affective quality between parents and children and the place where the shared reading occurred. When the reading took place on the bed, there were more moments of affection and the children smiled more. When the interaction took place at the table, the children remained serious most of the time.

Interventions to increase the affective quality of the relationship between parents and children could capitalize on moments that are natural in the family's respective routines (Domeniconi & Gracia, 2018) as they seem to favor bonds, for example, by taking advantage of the moment of shared reading before bedtime. It seems that when reading at the table, with both seated, the situation is similar to a more formal and structured activity, which may not contribute to a relaxed environment. At the same time, if an intervention is proposed with other objectives related to shared reading, the table may facilitate interaction. Therefore, the decision must consider the objective of the shared reading and the proposed parent-child interaction to be evaluated.

The research, in general, provided reflections on the two-way dynamism between children-adults, which can be visualized in Figures 1 and 2. This means that the greater the number of communicative strategies used by the family during reading (Figure 1), such as pausing, asking questions about the story, using pictures from the story, expanding vocabulary, and explaining (Figure 1), contributed to the increase in communicative turns between children and adults when comparing pre- and post-intervention data (Figure 2). The impact of family mediation on the interactions proposed in the shared reading moments can be debated, especially in relation to the use of positive consequences (e.g., the recognition of the family as an audience during children's verbal episodes) provided by families, replacing coercive practices, which may have contributed to some extent in promoting the quality of family interaction, as already reported by Bonato et al. (2019).

For the four families analyzed, the adult had the greatest amount of contact with the book during reading. With the exception of F3, in which the daughter has her back to her mother, all children maintained eye contact with the book. F1 flipped through the book when their mother finished reading and F4 before their mother started. F2 just observes and points to the pictures in the book. The contact and physical familiarization with the book may create an opportunity to awaken the child's interest in reading together, stimulate him/her to ask questions based on the words and images, identify figures and name them, among other possibilities. In Benitez et al. (2016) second experiment, parents were instructed to apply activities after reading a book with their children with autism or intellectual disability in their homes. One of the steps included organizing the physical environment, the material, such as the book, and identifying words in the context of sentences. The situations analyzed in the videos sent by parents were in line with the discussion by Benitez et al. (2016) regarding the type of interaction children have with the book.

The parenting style varied in the way they performed shared reading with the child. F1 asked questions at the end of the story, asked the child to tell it, and helped the child in this process. F2 did not ask open-ended questions, but explained parts of the story and related them to elements of the family's daily life. F3 asked questions during the reading and tried to synthesize the story for her daughter, and F4 did not read the book, but told the story together with her son based on the pictures, asking questions. Despite the variability of behaviors, it is important to consider that all families used positive interactions, in the sense of providing instruction and praising their children's behavior, considered by Benitez and Domeniconi (2012) as appropriate behaviors during reading activities.

Data from the brief intervention had as dependent variables the pre- and post-intervention measurements regarding the use of teaching strategies by parents; the number of turn exchanges between the dyads; the number and variety of words used by children during reading episodes; and the children's receptive and expressive vocabulary, according to the standardized test (Capovilla et al., 2011).

Overall, improvements were observed in all measured variables when comparing the data after the intervention with those obtained previously (Figures 1, 2, 3, and Table 4). The language promotion observed with the children participating in the present study corroborates previous data on the importance of shared reading for this purpose (Colmar, 2014; Domeniconi & Gracia, 2018; Levickis et al., 2018; Milburn et al., 2014; Mol et al., 2008). Parental adherence to the intervention, evidenced by more frequent use of the target behaviors that were taught, corroborates results observed in previous studies (Domeniconi & Gracia, 2018).

The strategies used as the basis for the brief intervention have been described by the literature as effective for promoting children's language during shared reading episodes (Colmar, 2014). In addition, they are strategies that are easily adaptable to the families' daily lives and do not increase the effort already employed during reading. This is important to maintain family members' adherence to the teaching procedures proposed by professionals, considering that parents and educators are already burdened by routine tasks.

Considering the possible variety of teaching strategies that can be used in a shared reading episode and the differentiated impacts that can be observed depending on the strategies in use, we conclude that it is important to give parents and educators tools to achieve even more promising results in their interventions. As recommended by Kohm et al. (2016), the data can serve as guidelines for teacher training policies, especially in early childhood education, based on the partnership between family and school, given that empirical evidence shows the positive benefits of reading experiences among the adult-child dyad.

Data points that the increase in the number of words, as well as the variety of words used by the children, were higher in the post-test (Figure 3); however, this was not evaluated in a natural situation, i.e., it was not verified if the children started to use more words referring to the context of the book in their daily lives, in the interaction with their parents. Future studies could consider a verification phase, to be applied in the child's natural daily setting, to validate the use of the words read in the books.

Further on the children's performance, the higher scores for expressive vocabulary compared to receptive vocabulary (Table 4) replicated the study by Armonia et al. (2015), in which 80.95% of the children presented the expected performance for expressive vocabulary evaluation, while 54.2% reached the expected score for receptive vocabulary. In line with the study by Araújo et al. (2010), intensive teaching with tasks involving receptive vocabulary is recommended from the beginning of early childhood education, aiming at the development of communicative potential.

Another impact of the research refers to the arrangements necessary to ensure the interaction between family and child, in a social context of high demands of work relations. Previous literature has already evidenced worrying issues related to parents' work and the time available for bonding with family members, especially when the work occurs at night (Cia & Barham, 2008). Given this context, reflecting with the family on how to ensure quality interactions that influence the child's development was the aim of the brief intervention proposed in the study.

With the analysis of the videos in a naturalistic setting, it is recommended that an intervention to improve children's language could teach parents to use more language stimulation strategies during this moment, enriching the child's opportunities for speech. Also, the interpretation of the data from the brief intervention tells us that the parent-child interaction is an important promoter of child development; furthermore, that parents do not require much guidance or learning sessions to acquire important shared reading strategies (such as asking questions, explaining, and using the pictures in the book).