Neuman, Susan B.; Dwyer, Julie (2011). Journal of Literacy Research, v43 n2 p103-129 Jun 2011. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ950695
Reviewed: January 2023
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 World of Words (WOW).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
World of Words (WOW) Sorting task - not taught words (Neuman & Dwyer, 2011) |
World of Words (WOW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.46 |
6.34 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 28% | |
| White | 73% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 100% |
The study took place in preschool classrooms in two Head Start elementary school program sites. The study sites served low-income children.
The students (analysis sample) were 56 percent white, 28 percent Black, and 17 percent Middle Eastern. The average age was 50.5 months. Among the teachers selected to participate in the study, the average age was 38, the average number of years of teaching was 9, 11 out of 12 were white, one was Black, and all held a Bachelor's degree.
The study evaluated the World of Words (WOW) intervention, a supplemental multimedia vocabulary curriculum. The intervention was implemented in two units (living things and healthy habits) and within those units were 4 topics, each taught sequentially over 8 days for 12 minutes a day during whole group circle time. Each unit lasted 8 weeks for a combined intervention period of 16 weeks.
The six classrooms in the comparison group followed their normal circle room routine.
The study team hosted a one-day workshop for the intervention teachers to introduce them to the WOW curriculum and provide them with supporting materials, including DVD player, DVD with video clips, information books, picture cards, and instructional guides for each of the topics. During the initial phase of the study, the team iteratively revised the intervention based on input from the intervention teachers, weekly classroom observations, and student assessment scores. The second phase of the study involved testing the effectiveness of the revised intervention by comparing student outcomes to the comparison group.
Reviewed: July 2022
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
World of Words (WOW) Sorting task - not taught words (Neuman & Dwyer, 2011) |
World of Words (WOW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.46 |
6.34 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 28% | |
| Other or unknown | 17% | |
| White | 56% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in preschool classrooms in two Head Start elementary school program sites. The study sites served low-income children.
The students (analysis sample) were 56 percent white, 28 percent Black, and 17 percent Middle Eastern. The average age was 50.5 months. Among the teachers selected to participate in the study, the average age was 38, the average number of years of teaching was 9, 11 out of 12 were white, one was Black, and all held a Bachelor's degree.
The study evaluated the World of Words (WOW) intervention, a supplemental multimedia vocabulary curriculum. The intervention was implemented in two units (living things and healthy habits) and within those units were 4 topics, each taught sequentially over 8 days for 12 minutes a day during whole group circle time. Each unit lasted 8 weeks for a combined intervention period of 16 weeks.
The six classrooms in the comparison group followed their normal circle room routine.
The study team hosted a one-day workshop for the intervention teachers to introduce them to the WOW curriculum and provide them with supporting materials, including DVD player, DVD with video clips, information books, picture cards, and instructional guides for each of the topics. During the initial phase of the study, the team iteratively revised the intervention based on input from the intervention teachers, weekly classroom observations, and student assessment scores. The second phase of the study involved testing the effectiveness of the revised intervention by comparing student outcomes to the comparison group.
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