The impact of instruction in text structure on listening comprehension in preschool age students (Doctoral dissertation).
Bochna, C. R. (2010). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3378045).
-
examining36Students, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Topic - Prompted Recall (dichotomous) |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without instruction |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
0.69 |
0.32 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Main Idea - Prompted Recall |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without instruction |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
0.84 |
0.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
Main Idea - Free Recall |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without instruction |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
0.91 |
0.95 |
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.
-
- 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
Pennsylvania
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in three Head Start centers in central Pennsylvania.
Study sample
Children ranged in age from 3–5 years at pretest. The children all qualified for full-day, fullyear Head Start services based on their socioeconomic status. Forty-five children attending Head Start at three locations were randomly assigned to either the intervention condition (21 children) or the comparison condition (24 children). Within each condition, small groups were formed to participate in either the shared book reading condition or the comparison condition; there were five groups in each condition. The analytic sample includes 36 children—17 in the intervention condition and 19 in the comparison condition.
Intervention Group
Children in the intervention group participated in 19 shared book reading sessions, each of which lasted approximately 10–12 minutes, with either the study author or one of two trained graduate students. The shared book reading sessions, which involved explicit instruction and questioning, focused on teaching children to identify the topic and main idea in expository texts. The first 10 shared book reading sessions focused on identifying the topic. The adult read one book during each session. A total of five books were read, with each book being read twice. Sessions began with discussion focused on defining what a topic is. During reading, the adult paused periodically to ask children to identify the topic of the current book. After reading, the adult reviewed the definition of topic and asked children to identify the topic of the book. The next nine shared book reading sessions focused on identifying the main idea. One book was read during each session. A total of five different books were read, with four of the five books being read twice. Before reading, there was a discussion of the concept of main idea and a review of what a topic is. During reading, the adult stopped periodically to ask children about the most important information in what was read. After reading, children were asked to identify the topic and main idea in the book.
Comparison Group
Children in the comparison group participated in 19 sessions, in which the same adult read the same books as those in the intervention condition; however, there was no explicit instruction in identifying the topic or the main idea. Each book was read from start to finish without pause for discussion. The focus was on children listening to the books instead of talking about them.
Outcome descriptions
In the comprehension domain, three researcher-developed outcome measures were used to assess children’s understanding of the topic and main idea in expository text. The three outcomes—Main Idea–Free Recall; Topic–Prompted Recall; and Main Idea–Prompted Recall— were collected as part of a individually-administered book read-aloud activity. The assessment involved the author or one of two trained graduate students reading the child an unfamiliar book straight through without discussion. Following the read-aloud, the adult asked the child to tell everything he or she remembered about the story, scoring the number of idea units recalled for the Main Idea–Free Recall measure. Following the free recall, the adult prompted the child to tell the topic of the book for the Topic–Prompted Recall measure, and prompted the child to tell “what the book mostly tells about [topic]” for the Main Idea–Prompted Recall measure. The assessments were administered prior to the start of the intervention (pretest) and immediately following the 19 reading sessions (posttest). For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
No training was provided for implementing 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).