Shared Book Reading in an Early Start Program for At-Risk Children. Technical Report No. 504.
Mason, Jana M.; And Others (1990). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED325202
-
examining232Students, gradePK
Shared Book Reading Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2015
- Randomized controlled trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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 Shared Book Reading.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Early Language Development (TELD) |
Shared Book Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-year-old preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Illinois
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 12 classes within two Early Start schools in a mid-sized urban setting. Early Start is a half-day developmental program in Illinois for 4-year-old children at risk for school failure, identified based on developmental screening, home visits, and family interviews.
Study sample
In the two schools, there were a total of six classrooms in the study, each with a morning and an afternoon class. In five of the classrooms, the same lead teacher taught both the morning and afternoon classes. In one classroom, a lead teacher taught the morning class and an aide taught the afternoon class. Therefore, a total of seven teachers participated in the study. Within each classroom, classes were randomized: one to the intervention condition and one to the comparison condition, so five teachers taught classes in both conditions. There were six intervention classes (three morning and three afternoon) and six comparison classes (three morning and three afternoon). At baseline, there were 240 four-year-old children: 123 intervention and 117 comparison. The analytic sample included 232 four-year-old children: 115 intervention and 117 comparison. In the intervention group, 45% of the children were female, compared to 49% in the comparison group. The study authors indicated that the groups had approximately equal numbers of African American and White children, and most were from families with low socioeconomic status (SES).
Intervention Group
Each classroom teacher used Little Books as a small group activity from mid-September to the end of the school year. For 28 weeks, the intervention was implemented as follows. Each week, the teacher focused on a different Little Book. On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of a given week, the teacher read the book aloud with a small group of children and encouraged discussion of the book; children were also encouraged to read the book with the teacher, to each other, and by themselves as they became comfortable. The teacher gradually corrected mistakes. Friday culminated with a related activity, and children were each given a copy of the book to take home and share with their families.
Comparison Group
The comparison group did not have access to Little Books; they received instruction in all other literacy lessons and activities given to the intervention group. However, the common literacy lessons were slightly longer for the comparison group, as teachers in the intervention condition decreased the time spent on the standard lessons and activities to make time for Little Books.
Outcome descriptions
In the language development domain, the author used the TELD, which was administered in September/October (baseline) and again in April (posttest) of the school year. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
Two workshops and a follow-up visit were offered to teachers. In May of the prior school year, teachers and school personnel were introduced to Little Books and procedures for their use. In September, a workshop was held and follow-up visits were made when teachers began using Little Books to ensure fidelity.
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).