Walsh, Bridget A. (2009). ProQuest LLC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED530807
Reviewed: April 2015
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Seasonal Word Production Game |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without interaction |
Posttest |
Questioning practices that were vocabulary-eliciting;
|
2.53 |
1.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Seasonal Word Production Game |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without interaction |
Posttest |
Questioning practices that were not vocabulary-eliciting;
|
2.07 |
1.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Seasonal Word Comprehension Game |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without interaction |
Posttest |
Questioning practices that were not vocabulary-eliciting;
|
8.15 |
8.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Seasonal Word Comprehension Game |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without interaction |
Posttest |
Questioning practices that were vocabulary-eliciting;
|
7.40 |
8.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in Head Start classrooms in an urban county in northern Texas.
The sample included 45 children in Head Start classrooms (20 female, 25 male), aged 3–5 years old, with a mean age of 4 years, 3 months. The children were ranked and grouped into triads based on their scores on the PPVT-III. Within each triad, children were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: the use of questioning practices that were vocabularyeliciting, the use of questioning practices that were not vocabulary eliciting, and no questions (comparison). As a result, each condition had an assigned sample of 15 children. The analytic sample included 44 children: 15 in the vocabulary eliciting condition, 14 in the vocabulary noneliciting condition, and 15 in the comparison condition.
The two intervention conditions—the use of questioning practices that were vocabulary-eliciting and the use of questioning practices that were not vocabulary-eliciting—included four sessions conducted over a 6-week period. In the first three sessions, children met with the adult reader for one-to-one shared book reading and were asked six questions during the reading related to the story. Three age-appropriate storybooks were designed for the experiment. Two of the three books were read in each session. Nine words, each appearing twice, were embedded in the stories. In the fourth session, all three stories were read. In the condition that used vocabulary-eliciting questions, children were asked questions that did not contain the target words but required target words as answers (e.g., “what are these [point to skis]?”). In the condition that used questioning practices that were not vocabulary-eliciting, children were asked questions that contained the target words and did not require use of the target words in the answers (e.g., “where are the skis?”).
The comparison condition involved an adult reading one-to-one with a child, using the same three storybooks as in the two intervention conditions. As in the intervention conditions, the books were read to children at four sessions over a 6-week period. The adult read the book to the child without asking any questions.
In the comprehension domain, two researcher-designed vocabulary measures were used: Seasonal Word Production Game, in which children verbally provided labels for pictures of the nine target words, with one point awarded for each correct response; and Seasonal Word Comprehension Game, in which children heard each of the nine target words and selected the corresponding pictures from among four choices, with one point earned for each correct answer. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. One-week follow-up results are reported in Appendix D.
The intervention and data collection were carried out by the author and one research assistant (a doctoral candidate). During a 1-hour training session, the author trained the assistant to implement the intervention.
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