Wasik, Barbara A.; Bond, Mary Alice (2001). Journal of Educational Psychology, v93 n2 p243-50. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ638739
Reviewed: April 2010
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Dialogic Reading.
Reviewed: February 2007
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Dialogic Reading.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Expressive language |
Dialogic Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
3-4 year olds;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Receptive language |
Dialogic Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
3-4 year olds;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 94% |
The study took place in a Title I early learning center in Baltimore, Maryland.
The study began with 127 children from low-income households ranging in age from 3.9 years to 4.6 years (mean age = 4.3 years). After assignment to groups, six children transferred to another school, leaving 121 children in the sample. The center that the children attended served primarily three- to five-year-old children who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Among the children attending the center, 94% were African Americans. Four teachers were randomly assigned to the intervention and comparison conditions.
The study examined the effect of interactive book reading plus extension activities reinforcing the use of target vocabulary in the book on children’s language development. The interactive reading sessions were conducted by trained teachers with the whole class of children and the extension activities supporting the use of target vocabulary were conducted in various contexts. The intervention took place four days a week and lasted for 15 weeks in the children’s classrooms. Two books were read per week; one book was read twice and the other book was read once.
The comparison group teachers read the same books the same number of times that they were read in the intervention group. However, the comparison group teachers were not trained to use the interactive book reading strategies.
The primary outcome domain was children’s oral language use. This domain was assessed with one standardized measure and two researcher-developed measures. The standardized measure was the PPVT-III. The researcher-developed measures were: (1) a receptive language measure, which was developed using a subset of vocabulary words presented in the interactive book reading intervention and (2) an expressive language measure, which contained pictures representing the words presented during the interactive book reading intervention. The PPVT-III is not considered in this review because an effect size could not be calculated with the information provided (see Appendix A2.1 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Teachers were trained in interactive book reading techniques and book reading extension activities by an experienced teacher trainer. During the training, teachers were instructed in how to use interactive book reading strategies (e.g., defining vocabulary words, asking open-ended questions, and giving children an opportunity to talk and be heard). The teacher trainer modeled these strategies in the intervention classrooms and assisted extension activities in the first four weeks of the intervention. In addition, each intervention teacher was given books and materials focused on early childhood topics and themes that would be used in the book reading and extension activities.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube