Two May Be Better than One: Promoting Incidental Word Learning through Multiple Media
Neuman, Susan B.; Samudra, Preeti; Wong, Kevin M. (2021). Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology v73 Article 101252. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED612238
-
examining140Students, gradePK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed story recall test |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Incidental word learning through single storytelling medium |
0 Days |
Students receiving the same story in both presentations;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed story comprehension test |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Incidental word learning through single storytelling medium |
0 Days |
Students receiving the same story in both presentations;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed story recall test - focus on character |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Incidental word learning through single storytelling medium |
0 Days |
Students receiving the same story in both presentations;
|
1.12 |
0.91 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed story comprehension test, second presentation |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Incidental word learning through single storytelling medium |
0 Days |
Students receiving the same story in both presentations;
|
0.71 |
0.66 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed story recall test - focus on action |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Incidental word learning through single storytelling medium |
0 Days |
Students receiving the same story in both presentations;
|
2.39 |
2.43 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed story comprehension test, first presentation |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Incidental word learning through single storytelling medium |
0 Days |
Students receiving the same story in both presentations;
|
0.65 |
0.68 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed receptive vocabulary test |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Incidental word learning through single storytelling medium |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed receptive vocabulary test |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Incidental word learning through single storytelling medium |
0 Days |
Students receiving the same story in both presentations;
|
0.52 |
0.43 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed receptive vocabulary test: noun subscale |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Incidental word learning through single storytelling medium |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.73 |
0.63 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed receptive vocabulary test: adjective subscale |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Incidental word learning through single storytelling medium |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.45 |
0.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed receptive vocabulary test |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Students receiving the same story and media in both presentations (book versus video presentation);
|
0.46 |
0.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed receptive vocabulary test |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Incidental word learning through single storytelling medium |
0 Days |
Students receiving different stories with similar content in both presentations;
|
0.51 |
0.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed receptive vocabulary test: verb subscale |
Incidental word learning through multiple storytelling media—Neuman et al. (2021) vs. Incidental word learning through single storytelling medium |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.36 |
0.34 |
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: 55%
Male: 45% -
Urban
-
Race Asian 5% Black 59% Other or unknown 36% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in four urban Head Start centers in the United States.
Study sample
A total of 140 students in preschool were included in this study. The manuscript does not contain additional information on the number of teachers or classrooms. Approximately 55% of students were female, all were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and none were English learners. Fifty-nine percent of students were Black, 5% were Asian, and the rest did not report a race. Thirty percent were Hispanic or Latino and the rest did not report ethnicity.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition received repeated presentations of a storybook using two different storytelling media, a live book reading and a video presentation of a book reading. The intervention, a variation on early childhood education practice, was conducted with individual students. Students were pulled out of class to either participate in a live reading of the storybook, which was read in a lively manner by a trained graduate student assistant, or to watch a video with similar content. The student then returned to class and after an hour was taken from class again for the opposite presentation, the live reading if the previously received presentation was the video presentation, or vice versa. In order to support word learning, each presentation highlighted nine target words that were repeated four or five times in each story. The order of the presentations was randomly determined and students received either the same storybook content in each presentation or content that varied slightly but retained the same nine target words. Each media presentation took about 5 minutes.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was repeated presentation of the same medium, either live reading or video. Students were pulled out of class to either participate in a live reading or to watch a video with similar content. The student then returned to class and after an hour was taken from class again for the same presentation.
Support for implementation
Trained graduate students administered the intervention and comparison conditions outside of the classroom. These graduate students were trained to read the book in a lively manner for children or to sit close by but have no interaction with children for the video presentation.
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).