Neuman, Susan B.; Newman, Ellen H.; Dwyer, Julie (2011). Reading Research Quarterly. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ935112
Reviewed: February 2023
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 World of Words (WOW).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed vocabulary inductive reasoning test |
World of Words (WOW) vs. Growing Readers Early Literacy Curriculum |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.67 |
0.53 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Picture Vocabulary Subtest (Form A and B) |
World of Words (WOW) vs. Growing Readers Early Literacy Curriculum |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
99.10 |
98.40 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 9% | |
| Black | 50% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% | |
| Two or more races | 10% | |
| White | 25% |
| Hispanic | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 99% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 100% |
The study took place in an urban area in the Rust Belt region of the United States. A total of 28 Head Start classrooms from 12 schools were included in the study. The 28 classrooms were split evenly between full-day and half-day instruction.
The researchers randomly assigned 6 Head Start centers to the intervention group and 6 Head Start centers to the comparison group. Classrooms within the assigned centers were then stratified based on half-day and full-day instruction, and a random sample of these classrooms were selected for inclusion in the study. A total of 460 students in preschool were included in the study. The 460 preschool students were taught by 28 teachers in 12 schools. Fifty-three percent of the students were female, 96% spoke English as their primary language at home, and all were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch. Fifty percent were Black, 25% were White, 9% were Asian, 10% were two or more races, and 6% were another race or unknown. Approximately 1% of the students were Hispanic.
World of Words (WOW) is a 24-week supplemental curriculum designed to support children's vocabulary acquisition and conceptual knowledge development. The curriculum was organized into three units, each 8 weeks long, that covered healthy habits, living things, and mathematical concepts. Each unit included four topics, which represented a component of the specific unit. For example, the healthy habits unit included topics focusing on emotions and healthy foods, while the living things unit included topics on insects and pets. Each topic within a unit was taught over an 8-day period for 12–15 minutes daily alongside the core curriculum, which was HighScope. In each topic, WOW includes a specific sequence of instructional activities. For example, on day 1, the first lesson focused on a phonological awareness skill (like rhyming); on day 2, in addition to phonological awareness activities, a content video was shown, which introduced students to the topic (for example, what an insect is, in the living things unit). On subsequent days, additional scaffolding activities were incorporated, including book reading, displaying in-category and out-of-category picture cards (for example, what is and is not an insect), introduction of challenge words, journal-writing, and a final review of the topic. Main concepts and related vocabulary words were introduced and practiced over the course of instruction.
Students in the comparison group Head Start centers received a supplemental vocabulary curriculum, which used materials from the Growing Readers Early Literacy Curriculum (DeBruin-Parecki & Hohmann, 2006). The supplemental curriculum included storybooks and activities in vocabulary, print knowledge, and phonological awareness skills and was taught for 12–15 minutes daily alongside the HighScope core curriculum for three 8-week instructional sessions.
Teachers in both the WOW and comparison groups received 2 days of professional development training before classes began. The intervention group received training on WOW and the comparison group teachers received training on Growing Readers Early Literacy Curriculum.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Dwyer, J. C. (2010). Investigating the efficacy of a preschool vocabulary intervention designed to increase vocabulary size and conceptual knowledge. University of Michigan.
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