WWC review of this study

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

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    140
     Students
    , grade
    PK

Reviewed: January 2023

At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Receptive Communication outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
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;
70 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
More Outcomes

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;
70 students

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;
70 students

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;
70 students

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;
70 students

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;
70 students

0.65

0.68

No

--
Vocabulary outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
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;
140 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
7
 
More Outcomes
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;
70 students

0.52

0.43

Yes

 
 
17

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;
140 students

0.73

0.63

Yes

 
 
15

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;
140 students

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);
35 students

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;
70 students

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;
140 students

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.

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%

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.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top