Oral narration gains generalize to written narration at posttest and are maintained at follow-up¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q4 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i1 SKILL students significantly outperformed BAU on MISL-written narrative at posttest (g = .34) and follow-up (g = .35). → Gillam 2022

Evidence¶

Gillam 2022¶

Gillam, S. L., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Capin, P., Fall, A.-M., Israelsen-Augenstein, M., Holbrook, S., Wada, R., Hancock, A., Fox, C., Dille, J., Magimairaj, B. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2022). Improving Oral and Written Narration and Reading Comprehension of Children at-Risk for Language and Literacy Difficulties: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000766

q4 · i1 · causal · r2

Written narratives elicited from single-scene prompts and scored with the MISL rubric in the RCT. Effects favored SKILL at both time points, "Hedges’g = .34" posttest and "Hedges’g = .35" follow-up.

"Students randomized to the SKILL intervention significantly outperformed students randomized to the BAU condition on their writing sample scored using the MISL rubric at posttest ( c20 = 2.16, p , .01; Hedges’g = .34) and at follow up ( c20 = 2.02, p , .01; Hedges’g = .35)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Oral Language — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• SKILL does not improve standardized reading comprehension overall, with a small low-average effect at follow-up — related
• Oral narrative advantage is maintained five months after intervention on the researcher-designed rubric but not on the norm-referenced TNL-2 — related
• SKILL intervention significantly improves oral narrative comprehension and production immediately after treatment in at-risk Grade 1–4 students — related
• Feasibility studies showed larger narrative gains for SKILL classrooms and high-risk children, with a large effect in a small-scale RCT — related