Three repetitions of dictionary word meanings produced significant progress in word explanation, and three more repetitions (six total) brought further progress¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Word explanation improved significantly after three repetitions of the dictionary meanings and improved further after six total repetitions, without rereading the entire story each time. → Korat et al. 2017
Evidence¶
Korat et al. 2017¶
Korat, O., Kozlov-Peretz, O., & Segal-Drori, O. (2017). Repeated E-book Reading and Its Contribution to Learning New Words among Kindergartners. Journal of Education and Training Studies, Vol. 5, No. 7. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i7.2498
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Within-experimental-group comparison across posttest 1 (after three meaning exposures) and posttest 2 (after six) in the randomized study. The article calls this its unique finding: three repetitions suffice for progress in explaining words, and three more bring further progress.
"The findings show that there was significant progress in the ability to explain new words from the story after three repetit ions of the dictionary words, and after three additional repetitions (six in total) the children achieved further progre ss."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Words that received a dictionary explanation in the e-book were explained better by children than words appearing in the story without dictionary support — related
- Kindergartners who independently read an e-book with a built-in dictionary improved in receptive word comprehension and word explanation more than controls in regular kindergarten; results for word production were inconsistent — related
- The more often learners meet a word while reading, the more likely they are to learn it incidentally; a meta-analysis of correlational studies finds a moderate correlation — a broader claim this one bears on
- Neither rereading nor self-explanation changed comprehension test performance itself; effects were specific to monitoring accuracy — related
- Rereading significantly improves metacomprehension monitoring accuracy relative to reading once (Experiment 1) — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.