Shared Book Reading: When and How Questions Affect Young Children's Word Learning [Scaffolding questions during book reading vs. asking either low- or high-demand questions during book reading]
Blewitt, Pamela; Rump, Keiran M.; Shealy, Stephanie E.; Cook, Samantha A. (2009). Journal of Educational Psychology, v101 n2 p294-304. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ835037
-
examining50Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Scaffolding questions during book reading)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New Word Definition Test (NWDT; Blewitt et al., 2009) |
Scaffolding questions during book reading vs. Other intervention |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
5.56 |
3.30 |
Yes |
|
|
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: 48%
Male: 52% -
Suburban
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in four suburban preschools within a quiet area of the preschools. The exact racial/ethnic and financial composition of the sample is not stated, but the four preschools each served predominantly middle- to upper-class families. Families served by the schools were 90% European American, 6% Asian, 3% African American, and 1% Hispanic.
Study sample
Experiment 2 consisted of 50 child participants: 24 girls and 26 boys. The study lacked information about the racial composition of the sample.
Intervention Group
Each child met individually with a researcher over the course of 6 weeks for four reading sessions. In these reading sessions, children were exposed to a total of 3 new books and a total of 9 novel "target" words. For the intervention condition (scaffolding-like), children were asked a mix of low demand questions (e.g., "What are they selling at the pagoda?"; approximately two-thirds of the questions asked) and high demand questions (e.g., "Do you think the ticket man lives at the pagoda? Why or why not?"; approximately one-third of the questions asked), with more high demand questions asked later in the readings.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was identical to the intervention condition, except that children were only asked either low demand questions or high demand questions.
Support for implementation
No implementation support information is provided.
Shared Book Reading Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2015
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Does not meet WWC standards because equivalence of the analytic intervention and comparison groups is necessary and not demonstrated.
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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).