Dialogic Reading combined with Sound Foundations shows potentially positive effects on print knowledge and early reading/writing but not oral language¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2007 · 1 of 2 entries checked against their sources (automated) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Whitehurst, Epstein, et al. (1994), the combined intervention produced statistically significant differences favoring the intervention group on the Print concepts and Writing factors, but no significant oral language effect. → WWC Intervention Report: Dialogic Reading 2007 q3 i? The improvement index was +24 percentile points for print knowledge and +20 for early reading/writing, while oral language averaged +6 and was not significant. → WWC Intervention Report: Dialogic Reading 2007 (2)

Evidence¶

WWC Intervention Report: Dialogic Reading 2007¶

WWC Intervention Report: Dialogic Reading. (2007). What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education, Revised February 8, 2007. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

q3 · i? · causal · r?

RCT with 167 at-risk low-income four-year-olds from four Head Start centers, comparing Dialogic Reading plus adapted Sound Foundations to regular Head Start services over 30 weeks. The review reports a significant difference "favoring the intervention group on the Print concepts factor", confirmed by WWC.

"Whitehurst, Epstein, et al. (1994) reported a statistically significant difference favoring the intervention group on the Print concepts factor."

WWC Intervention Report: Dialogic Reading 2007 (2)¶

WWC Intervention Report: Dialogic Reading. (2007). What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education, Revised February 8, 2007. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

q3 · i? · review · r3

Same Whitehurst, Epstein, et al. (1994) Head Start RCT; the review reports improvement indices of "+24 percentile points" for print knowledge and +20 for early reading/writing, versus +6 for oral language (not significant) and +1 for phonological processing. No standardized effect sizes are printed for these findings.

"The improvement index for print knowledge is +24 percentile points for the one print knowl- edge outcome in this study."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Alphabet Knowledge and Print Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Dialogic Reading Improves Language Outcomes — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Dialogic Reading shows no discernible effects on phonological processing — related
• Dialogic Reading has positive effects on preschool children's oral language, per WWC synthesis of five studies — related
• Level of implementation moderates Dialogic Reading's effects on children's oral language — related
• The potentially negative oral language effect of phonological awareness plus letter knowledge training is likely an artifact of the comparison condition, not the intervention — related
• Dialogic Reading's average oral-language improvement index is +19 percentile points, ranging from –6 to +48 across findings — related
• Dialogic reading favored significant gains on lexical diversity during play and total utterances during book reading, but not on four other measures (Dale et al., 1996) — related
• Phonological awareness training plus letter knowledge training has potentially positive effects on preschoolers' early reading/writing — related
• Four of six standards-meeting studies showed statistically significant positive effects and two showed substantively important positive effects on phonological processing — related