Causal Connections between Mathematical Language and Mathematical Knowledge: A Dialogic Reading Intervention [Mathematical language storybook intervention vs. business as usual (Creative Curriculum)]
Purpura, David J.; Napoli, Amy R.; Wehrspann, Elizabeth A.; Gold, Zachary S. (2017). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v10 n1 p116-137. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1125420
-
examining39Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Mathematical language storybook intervention)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test--Fourth Edition (EOWPVT) |
Mathematical language storybook intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
50.66 |
52.26 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mathematical language subtest |
Mathematical language storybook intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
12.25 |
10.85 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Preschool Early Numeracy Skills Screener - Brief Version (PENS-B) |
Mathematical language storybook intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
10.70 |
8.92 |
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.
-
36% English language learners -
Female: 44%
Male: 56% -
Race Black 13% Other or unknown 56% White 31% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 31% Not Hispanic or Latino 69%
Study Details
Setting
Study participants included children from 10 classrooms located in four Head Start centers.
Study sample
Children who completed the study (the analytic sample) ranged in age from 3.33 to 5.24 years old (M=4.67, SD=0.41). A little over half of the participants were male. In terms of race, 30.8% of participants were Caucasian, 12.8% were African American, and 56.4% were from an other or unspecified racial group. In terms of ethnicity, 30.8% of participants were Hispanic. The median parental education was a high school diploma
Intervention Group
The storybook reading intervention used in this study was modeled after dialogic reading. The focus of the intervention was on terms, concepts, and pictures that involved mathematical language. Six books were used during the eight-week intervention; three books emphasized quantitative language and three emphasized spatial language. An important aspect of the intervention is that it was designed to include only mathematical language terms and not mathematical knowledge content. Interventionists read with children using specific strategies and prompts. The prompts for each book continually became more complex and interventionists asked these questions at the same points in each book. The children in the intervention condition met with an interventionist in a small group for a 15-20 minute session, two to three days per week, for eight weeks. The authors attempted to randomly assign children to the small groups for each session, but this was infeasible for some children. Out of a total of ten small groups, six groups always included the same children while children were randomly assigned to the other four groups for each session. One small group took place outside of the classroom setting, while the other nine groups were held in corners, nooks, or reading areas of the participants' classrooms. Most children participated in 13 to 18 sessions (M=14.5, SD=3.7). One child did not participate in any sessions, but was included in all analyses. Three graduate students implemented the intervention after completing training in dialogic reading and feedback strategies that reinforce mathematical language without reinforcing numeracy and counting. Fidelity of implementation was assessed by randomly selecting 33% of each interventionist's sessions and evaluating whether they used each of the prespecified questions and whether they used any exact numbers or counting words/processes. The three interventionists maintained high levels of fidelity (90%).
Comparison Group
Children in the comparison condition participated in business-as-usual classroom activities. All participating Head Start centers used the Creative Curriculum as their standard curriculum.
Support for implementation
Interventionists were provided with training in dialogic reading using a manual developed by the research team as well as training videos created by experts in the field of dialogic reading. Interventionists were also trained on strategies for providing feedback. Prior to the beginning of the study, interventionists practiced reading and using specific prompts with children not enrolled in the study and they received feedback from the principal investigator.
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).