Does an Activity-Based Learning Strategy Improve Preschool Children's Memory for Narrative Passages? [Activity-based listening vs. listening to a story]
Biazak, Janna E.; Marley, Scott C.; Levin, Joel R. (2010). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, v25 n4 p515-526 4th Qtr. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ902065
-
examining56Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Activity-based listening)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Free recall task: action propositions |
Activity-based listening vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.13 |
0.05 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Cued recall: across types |
Activity-based listening vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.50 |
0.36 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Free recall task: nonaction propositions |
Activity-based listening vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.05 |
0.07 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cued recall: nonaction story detail |
Activity-based listening vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.54 |
0.57 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Cued recall: typical proposition |
Activity-based listening vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.62 |
0.42 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Cued recall: atypical proposition |
Activity-based listening vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.39 |
0.31 |
-- |
-- | ||
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: 46%
Male: 54% -
- 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
West
-
Race Asian 5% Black 1% Native American 3% Other or unknown 29% White 31% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in an accredited, university-associated daycare facility in the southwest United States. The study reported 82% of the students were children of university students.
Study sample
No information was provided on the level of economic disadvantage of study participants. The study was performed with children ranging in age from 3 to 5 years; 54% of the sample were male and 46% were female. In addition, the study reported race/ethnicity for the center as a whole. Specifically, the participants were 31.3% White non-Hispanic, 30% Hispanic, 5.3% Asian/Pacific Islander, 3.2% Native American, 1.3% African American, and 28.9% other.
Intervention Group
The intervention condition consisted of an experimental story being read to children, prior to which children were given toys representing the story's characters and objects from the setting. While the story was being read, the children were told to move the toys as described in the story every time they are shown a green sign. The collection of outcome data occurred in one session, held individually with each student. The primary researcher conducted the intervention.
Comparison Group
Children in the comparison group were asked to listen to the story without playing with manipulatives. This was referred to as the "listening strategy". At particular time points in the story, the reader asked children to "think about what was happening in the story" but the manipulatives were covered and they were not instructed to use them. The collection of outcome data occurred in one session, held individually with each student. The primary researcher conducted the listening-only intervention.
Support for implementation
There was no support provided for implementation.
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).