The Effects of Adult-Interactive Behaviors within the Context of Repeated Storybook Readings upon the Language Development and Selected Prereading Skills of Prekindergarten At Risk Students.
Mautte, Lois A. (1990). Florida Educational Research Council Research Bulletin, v22 n3. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED344186
-
examining38Students, 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Language Scale (PLS) |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without interaction |
Posttest |
4-year-old preschool children;
|
65.01 |
61.30 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Preschool Language Scale (PLS) |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without interaction |
Posttest |
Developmentally delayed 4-year-old preschool children;
|
60.10 |
54.45 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA) |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without interaction |
Posttest |
4-year-old preschool children;
|
8.47 |
9.90 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA) |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without interaction |
Posttest |
Developmentally delayed 4-year-old preschool children;
|
7.00 |
6.00 |
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: 51%
Male: 49% -
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
Florida
-
Race Black 87% White 9% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Not Hispanic or Latino 96%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in one early childhood education center in the Hillsborough County School System in the inner-city section of Tampa, Florida.
Study sample
The study focused on all 4-year-old children in the prekindergarten classes in the At-Risk Program, which serves children based on educational and economic need (i.e., families receiving federal assistance) or identified as suffering from abuse and neglect. The center had six prekindergarten classes with a total of 148 children, aged 2–4 years old. All 66 children who were 4 years old were included in the sample at baseline. The sample was grouped according to developmental level. Those above the median score on the district’s Children’s Inventory of Learning Development (CHILD) Test were considered “Average Development Level,” and those below the median were considered “Delayed Development Level.” Within each level, children were randomly assigned to either repeated storybook reading with adult interaction (intervention), repeated storybook reading without adult interaction (Comparison 1), or business-as-usual prekindergarten classroom instruction (Comparison 2). At random assignment, there were 22 children in each of the three conditions. At posttest, there were 18 children in the intervention group, 20 children in the Comparison 1 group, and 15 children in the Comparison 2 group. This sample was comprised of 27 girls and 26 boys; 87% of the children were African American.
Intervention Group
The shared book reading intervention, referred to as “adult-interaction repeated storybook reading” by the study author, was implemented as a pull-out program. The intervention involved the author reading Big Book storybooks aloud to children, one book each week, for a total of 20 weeks. The same Big Book was read three times during the week. Interaction occurred before, during, and after the book reading. Before reading, the author introduced the book, encouraged children to generate predictions about the story based on title and pictures, asked questions that related the children’ lives and the story, and established a purpose for listening to the story. During the reading, the author showed illustrations, indicated the correspondence between spoken and written words with a pointer, clarified or explained the text, asked inferential questions or questions related to the purpose for listening, and encouraged children to generate predictions about the story content. After reading, the instructor encouraged discussion, asked questions to generate evaluative responses, and related the story concepts to children’s lives. On subsequent readings, the children were asked to recall key aspects of the story and to participate in the reading (chanting refrains or filling in predictable phrases). Each session lasted for a maximum of 25 minutes and was conducted in the morning during the prekindergarten classrooms’ large block of activity time.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was repeated storybook reading without adult interaction, which was a pull-out program in which the author read the same 20 Big Book storybooks used in the intervention condition. Big Book storybooks were read as written, without adult interaction. Books were read three times per week, one book per week, for 20 weeks. Each session lasted a maximum of 25 minutes and was conducted in the morning during the prekindergarten classrooms’ large block of activity time. The author did not comment, ask questions, or answer questions before or during book reading. Although the author did not initiate any interaction with children, the author would answer children’s questions after the reading was completed.
Outcome descriptions
In the language development domain, the author used the PLS, a standardized measure of language development. In the general reading achievement domain, the author used the TERA, a standardized test of prereading, including environmental contexts, vocabulary, listening comprehension, alphabetics, and print awareness. Posttest assessments were administered at the end of the 20-week intervention period. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
The intervention and comparison storybook reading conditions were both implemented by the author, who audio-recorded each reading session and reviewed the tapes to monitor consistency of reading style in all small groups within each condition. In addition, reading instructors at the University of South Florida reviewed the tapes to assess fidelity to procedures and scripts.
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).