Using Strategic Pauses during Shared Reading with Preschoolers: Time for Prediction Is Better than Time for Reflection When Learning New Words [Story reading with pauses before target words or story reading with pauses after target words vs. story reading without pauses]
Read, Kirsten; Furay, Erin; Zylstra, Dana (2019). First Language, v39 n5 p508-526. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1226484
-
examining60Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Story reading with pauses before target words or story reading with pauses after target words)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Novel Word Retention - Identification |
Story reading with pauses before target words or story reading with pauses after target words vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
0.64 |
0.54 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Novel Word Retention - Production |
Story reading with pauses before target words or story reading with pauses after target words vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
0.69 |
0.55 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Novel Word Retention - Identification |
Story reading with pauses before target words or story reading with pauses after target words vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Prediction Condition v. Comparison Condition;
|
0.70 |
0.54 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Novel Word Retention - Identification |
Story reading with pauses before target words or story reading with pauses after target words vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Reflection Condition vs. Comparison Condition ;
|
0.57 |
0.54 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Novel Word Retention - Production |
Story reading with pauses before target words or story reading with pauses after target words vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Reflection Condition vs. Comparison Condition ;
|
0.70 |
0.55 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Novel Word Retention - Production |
Story reading with pauses before target words or story reading with pauses after target words vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Prediction Condition vs. Comparison Condition ;
|
0.68 |
0.55 |
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: 47%
Male: 53%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place within an on-campus preschool program for children of faculty and staff at the university.
Study sample
The mean age of students in the sample was 47 months, with a range of 32-65 months of age. Just over half of the students were male (32 of 60). All students were learning in English as their primary language although some of the students spoke languages other than English in their homes. The study describes the sample as ethnically diverse, but predominately English speaking.
Intervention Group
There were two intervention conditions in this study. The two intervention groups were combined for the main findings of this review. The first was the prediction condition, in which students were given a pause or eliciting question before reading aloud the monster's name (i.e. the novel vocabulary word). In the second intervention condition, the reflection condition, students were given a pause after reading the monster's name.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition were read the same stories as the intervention groups, but no pauses were given before or after the new monster names.
Support for implementation
Trained researchers were used to implement the intervention and take measures for the study. Support for study implementation was not described in detail. The study manuscript does mention that the story was presented to children using PowerPoint slides.
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).