Claims

Vocabulary learning under embedded instruction declined over the course of the school year

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? The Group × Unit interaction was statistically significant (β = –0.210, p < .001), reflecting an unexpected declining trend in vocabulary learning across units. → Goldstein et al. 2016

Evidence

Goldstein et al. 2016

Goldstein, H., Kelley, E., Greenwood, C., McCune, L., Carta, J., Atwater, J., Guerrero, G., McCarthy, T., Schneider, N., & Spencer, T. (2016). Embedded Instruction Improves Vocabulary Learning During Automated Storybook Reading Among High-Risk Preschoolers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(3), 484-500. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0227

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Multilevel Poisson growth model across six instructional units in the cluster randomized trial found "an unexpected declining trend over time"; the interaction effect size was f2 = .168 (medium).

"the interaction of experimental group by curriculum unit over time was statistically significant (Group × Unitβ = –0.210, SE =0 . 0 4 2 ,p < .001), reflecting an unexpected declining trend over time."

Discussion

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.