View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Impact of a Structured Shared Book Reading Intervention on the Vocabulary Knowledge of Preschool-Age Children: An Exploratory Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Impact of a Structured Shared Book Reading Intervention on the Vocabulary Knowledge of Preschool-Age Children: An Exploratory Study
Language: English
Authors: Lisa B. Cipolletti (ORCID 0009-0009-0432-3783), Amy Murdoch (ORCID 0000-0003-4138-9166), Jennifer Keelor (ORCID 0000-0003-0483-6756)
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(8):3133-3147.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Reading Strategies, Preschool Children, Preschool Education, Vocabulary Development, Books, Story Reading, Intervention, Listening Comprehension, Program Effectiveness, Direct Instruction, Expressive Language, Receptive Language
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-025-01920-z
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: The present study sought to examine the use of a structured, shared book reading intervention on preschool-aged children's vocabulary knowledge using a multiple-probe across stimuli (book) single-case design. Participants included children from two preschool classrooms of three- and four-year-old children at a childcare center located in the Southeast. Across four storybooks, children in both classrooms (n = 12) received the whole-group component, and a small group of children (n = 5) was selected for the small-group intervention. Children were selected for the small group intervention based on their score on the Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI) Language Index screener and a researcher-created expressive measure of target vocabulary (EVM). Each week, children in the small group received three additional lessons that included explicit vocabulary and listening comprehension instruction, the use of representational gestures, and intentional opportunities for different types of practice. Each week, receptive and expressive vocabulary assessment probes measured whether the taught vocabulary was learned. All small-group participants showed increased vocabulary knowledge across the four storybooks from baseline to intervention. These results suggest preschool children benefit from explicit small-group vocabulary instruction within shared storybook reading.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1496621
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGDQftAVdhxbD1Cf-yYhZ4KAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDH-FiN6JrSK-wWKcQAIBEICBm-AyU97KEHKCxqiayEB-oFke2M9YFoNT36bc7Pn9HTZcFtMXiiq1jPhGgYzA1LAYoIlAkBTOfhnW0ivL4z_9ybIK8YHnPo9Xa9UWRHLbLSsk_siz3XgBcbX1ytWBY1kkV-q0v8UphlRKhFxCNJH4H-310u9SlA4nTT4MCiDQQSrFtZoG_q_o5g5x_ZieM4XAJ11MbncXmW47ff40
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189590399;5mx01dec.25;2025Nov28.05:29;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189590399-1">Impact of a Structured Shared Book Reading Intervention on the Vocabulary Knowledge of Preschool-Age Children: An Exploratory Study </title> <p>The present study sought to examine the use of a structured, shared book reading intervention on preschool-aged children's vocabulary knowledge using a multiple-probe across stimuli (book) single-case design. Participants included children from two preschool classrooms of three- and four-year-old children at a childcare center located in the Southeast. Across four storybooks, children in both classrooms (n = 12) received the whole-group component, and a small group of children (n = 5) was selected for the small-group intervention. Children were selected for the small group intervention based on their score on the Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI) Language Index screener and a researcher-created expressive measure of target vocabulary (EVM). Each week, children in the small group received three additional lessons that included explicit vocabulary and listening comprehension instruction, the use of representational gestures, and intentional opportunities for different types of practice. Each week, receptive and expressive vocabulary assessment probes measured whether the taught vocabulary was learned. All small-group participants showed increased vocabulary knowledge across the four storybooks from baseline to intervention. These results suggest preschool children benefit from explicit small-group vocabulary instruction within shared storybook reading.</p> <p>Keywords: Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The foundation for learning to read is established before school begins. Children's early experiences at home and in early childhood settings provide opportunities to hear and produce oral language critical to early reading (Hogan et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref1">21</reflink>]). Preschool-age children who struggle with oral language are at risk for later reading difficulty (Storch & Whitehurst, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref2">44</reflink>]); therefore, early language support is crucial with instruction in preschool focusing on oral language development, including academic vocabulary (Dickinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref3">10</reflink>]). Sharing books with children is important because it offers them language and vocabulary beyond what they hear in daily interactions (Massaro, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref4">32</reflink>]). Research has demonstrated that to have the strongest impact on language and vocabulary, read-alouds—a common activity in preschool classrooms—should be structured and intentional (Coyne et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref5">8</reflink>]; Hargrave & Senechal, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]; Pentimonti et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref7">40</reflink>]; Pillinger & Vardy, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref8">43</reflink>]; Wasik & Bond, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref9">47</reflink>]). Emphasizing the development of academic vocabulary knowledge is important so that as children read more advanced texts, they can understand the meaning of printed words (Hogan et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref10">21</reflink>]). The purpose of the present study was to examine the use of a structured shared book reading intervention on preschool-aged children's vocabulary knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-3">Impact of Oral Language on Later Reading Comprehension</hd> <p>Oral language development underpins early literacy and is related to later reading achievement (Herrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref11">20</reflink>]; NELP, 2008; National Institute for Literacy, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>]). Storch and Whitehurst ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref13">44</reflink>]) found that preschool children's oral language, including vocabulary, predicted their reading comprehension measured in Grades 3 and 4. Later research by the Language and Reading Research Consortium (LRRC) and Chiu ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref14">27</reflink>]) supported Storch and Whitehurst's conclusions, finding a strong relationship between preschool measures of oral language, including vocabulary, and later comprehension skills in Grade 3. Reading comprehension depends on language abilities developed since birth (Hogan et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref15">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-4">Effective Vocabulary Instruction</hd> <p>Knowledge of vocabulary is an essential language skill that develops from birth and is connected to strong reading comprehension (Hogan et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]). Focusing on early language experiences and instruction is important to develop vocabulary knowledge (Hogan et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref17">21</reflink>]). Reviews of research by the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP, 2008) and the Institute of Education Sciences (Herrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref18">20</reflink>]) reported that interventions shown to be effective for increasing oral language skills, including vocabulary for preschool-age children, used explicit and direct instruction. Herrera et al. noted the importance of intentional instruction in small-group settings, within shared book reading and includes comprehension and vocabulary within the same instructional routine to improve language and vocabulary skills. The recommendation to incorporate both vocabulary and comprehension to build language skills aligns with other research that found that in preschool, vocabulary, grammar, and discourse are highly correlated (Language and Reading Research Consortium, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref19">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>A substantial body of research indicates preschool children benefit from a structured shared book reading routine (Coyne et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]; Hargrave & Senechal, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref21">19</reflink>]; Pillinger & Vardy, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref22">43</reflink>]; Wasik & Bond, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref23">47</reflink>]). Shared book reading occurs in many preschool classrooms and, when conducted with intention, provides a valuable means of developing young children's vocabulary (Coyne et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>]; Herrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref25">20</reflink>]; Marulis & Neuman, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref26">31</reflink>]; McKeown & Beck, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref27">33</reflink>]; NELP, 2008; Wasik & Bond, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref28">47</reflink>]). Explicit vocabulary instruction includes intentionally selecting words to teach; for young children, this involves selecting words from written texts used in shared reading and teaching them through the context of the story (Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]). Previous research has provided recommendations for instruction, including providing a child-friendly definition, oral repetition of the word, providing examples and non-examples, and extending instruction beyond the story context (Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]; Coyne et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref32">9</reflink>]; Loftus-Rattan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref33">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Preschool children need to learn and be able to use a large number of words in context to demonstrate both breadth and depth of word knowledge (Dickinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref34">11</reflink>]). <emph>Vocabulary breadth</emph> refers to familiarity with many words, while <emph>vocabulary depth</emph> refers to comprehensive knowledge of words, including knowledge of multiple meanings and an ability to provide definitions of words (Dickinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref35">11</reflink>]). Dickinson et al. investigated the effect of repeated shared storybook reading on the depth of vocabulary learning for preschool-age children. The researchers examined the effects of instruction on students' learning of words directly taught and those only heard as books were read (referred to as exposure words). In this study, children learned to identify and define more words targeted for instruction than words encountered through exposure. The results indicate a positive effect of prior word knowledge on learning new words and the importance of explicit instruction for developing a deep vocabulary.</p> <p>Explicit vocabulary instruction within the context of a storybook that combines different types of verbal and nonverbal input increases word learning. Hadley et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref36">18</reflink>]) used a within-subjects design to investigate the effect of a vocabulary intervention on the depth of vocabulary knowledge for preschool-age children and whether the effect varied by word type. During the storybook intervention, the teacher provided a gesture, when possible, to reinforce the meaning of the target vocabulary word. Data from pre- and post-tests of students' word knowledge revealed that children learned more words through direct instruction. The results suggest that incorporating instruction using gestures, especially for verbs, benefits word knowledge as it supplements verbal information. In addition to explicit vocabulary instruction within a storybook, preschool children benefit from related follow-up activities, such as picture identification of the target words using examples and non-examples and picture identification of the target words (Loftus-Rattan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref37">29</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-5">Importance of Early Instruction for Oral Language and Vocabulary Skill Development</hd> <p>Knowledge of the developing brain supports the importance of early intervention, especially between birth and five (Center of the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2016). Early identification combined with effective instruction and intervention can help prevent reading difficulties (Torgesen, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>]). If a young child needs additional support beyond the core curriculum, preschools should provide strategic, supplemental support, referred to as Tier 2 or supplemental intervention (Carta, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref39">5</reflink>]). In early childhood settings, effective interventions include structured lessons that provide opportunities for student response with immediate corrective feedback (Carta et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Small-group settings provide opportunities for additional child-teacher interactions (Wasik, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref41">46</reflink>]). Children benefit from the individualized instruction afforded by a smaller setting and increased opportunities to produce and hear language (Wasik, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref42">46</reflink>]). Evidence indicates that all preschool children benefit from small-group instruction to improve early literacy skills, but it is crucial for those with low early literacy skills (Herrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref43">20</reflink>]). In a typical preschool setting, however, children tend to spend more time in whole-group activities and centers than in structured, small-group, teacher-led instruction (Greenwood et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref44">15</reflink>]; Phillips et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref45">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Recent research indicates that children with lower levels of language skills benefit from targeted, small-group intervention. Phillips et al. ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref46">42</reflink>]) examined the benefits of small-group vocabulary instruction for preschool and kindergarten. The researchers studied the effect of five small-group language interventions on preschool and kindergarten-age children in need of supplemental instruction. One preschool intervention followed a structured storybook intervention that focused on vocabulary and listening comprehension. Following the 12-week intervention, children in the experimental group scored significantly higher on the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition (EOWPVT-4; Martin & Bronwell, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref47">30</reflink>]) compared to those in the control group.</p> <p>Similarly, children with lower levels of vocabulary knowledge benefit from supplemental, direct instruction in vocabulary to improve the learning of targeted academic words (Coyne et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref48">9</reflink>]. Substantial literature indicates the benefit of instructional routines (e.g., use of student friendly definitions, gestures, and pictorial representations of examples and non-examples) to build preschool children's oral language skills through shared storybook reading and the impact of intervention support for children with low language skills. However, less research exists on the impact of those routines with supplemental small-group instruction for preschool-age children identified with lower language skills.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-6">The Present Study</hd> <p>Providing effective instruction in preschool is important, as oral language skills are predictive of later reading comprehension skills (Hogan et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>]; LRRC & Chiu, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref50">27</reflink>]; Storch & Whitehurst, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref51">44</reflink>]). The present study evaluated the effect of a structured, shared book reading intervention on the vocabulary knowledge of 3- and 4-year-old preschool children. The study sought to answer the following research question: To what extent does direct, small-group vocabulary instruction within a shared book reading intervention increase the vocabulary knowledge of preschool-age children?</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189590399-8">Study Design</hd> <p>The study used a multiple-probe across stimuli (book) single-case design to measure the effect of a structured small-group vocabulary intervention (independent variable) on the academic vocabulary knowledge of preschool children (dependent variable). Single-case design provided the primary investigator a non-disruptive method of evaluating the intervention effectiveness with a small group of children in a real-world classroom setting (Kazdin, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref52">24</reflink>]; Krachtowill et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref53">25</reflink>]). Single-case design allowed the primary investigator to test the intervention's effectiveness across the books (stimuli) using consistent data collection procedures (What Works Clearinghouse, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref54">48</reflink>]). In selecting this design, the primary investigator also considered the feasibility of resources. The study site was in proximity, and there was a small number of children of the target age group at the childcare center. The use of single-case design further allows for some level of experimental control while also being able to provide the intervention to all children who needed it (lowest group in the class). A multiple-probe design was preferred over a multiple-baseline design for the present study as the probes used to test knowledge of the target vocabulary words do not lend themselves to continuous assessment (Kazdin, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref55">24</reflink>]). Each week, three academic words in a new storybook (stimuli) were taught, and the two assessment probes (Expressive Vocabulary Measure and Receptive Vocabulary Measure) were given to see if the children receiving the vocabulary instruction learned the three targeted academic words while the three words to be taught in the next week remain unlearned, or in baseline.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-9">Setting and Participants</hd> <p>Participants included 3- and 4-year-old children from two preschool classrooms at a childcare center located within an urban university in a mid-size city in the Southeast. Enrollment in the two preschool classrooms within the childcare center included 12 children—six boys and six girls, with seven children in one class and five children in the other. In these two classes, ten children were White, one was Hispanic, and one was biracial. English was the primary language for 11 children; one child spoke both English and Spanish in the home. At the start of the study, children ranged in age from 3 years 11 months to 4 years 11 months.</p> <p>The research team screened all children using the Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI) Language Index (Kaminski et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref56">22</reflink>]) as well as the researcher-created Expressive Vocabulary Measure (EVM) and Receptive Vocabulary Measure (RVM) pre-tests. All 12 children across the two classrooms received the whole-group reading instruction. The six children with the lowest scores on the PELI Language Index and who also knew fewer than 30% of the words selected to teach, as indicated by the EVM, met the study's criteria to receive the primary investigator-led small-group instruction. The other six children received play-based small group instruction from their classroom teacher during this time. Children had to attend 80% of the small-group sessions to be included in the final data analysis. See Table 1 for participant demographic, screening, and attendance data. A pseudonym is assigned for each child. All participants were between 48 and 62 months of age at the onset of the study. Three children met the criteria for inclusion in the final data analysis with 100% attendance. Michael, Matthew and David were between 48 and 59 months of age. English was the primary language of all three children. Their scores ranged from 98 to 138 on the PELI Language Index; two children did not orally define any words on the EVM pretest, and one child, David, demonstrated knowledge of one word.</p> <p>Table 1 Demographic characteristics of participants in the small group</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Participants</p></th><th align="left"><p>Gender</p></th><th align="left"><p>Ethnicity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Age</p></th><th align="left"><p>Home language</p></th><th align="left"><p>PELI Language Index</p></th><th align="left"><p>EVM: Known words</p></th><th align="left"><p>Session Attendance</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Michael</p></td><td align="left"><p>Male</p></td><td align="left"><p>White</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.0 years</p></td><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>98</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>100%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Matthew</p></td><td align="left"><p>Male</p></td><td align="left"><p>White</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.1 years</p></td><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>138</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>100%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>David</p></td><td align="left"><p>Male</p></td><td align="left"><p>White</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.11 years</p></td><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>138</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>100%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mark*</p></td><td align="left"><p>Male</p></td><td align="left"><p>White</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.2 years</p></td><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>118</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>69%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kristen*</p></td><td align="left"><p>Female</p></td><td align="left"><p>White</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.7 years</p></td><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>152</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>56%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI); Expressive Vocabulary Measure (EVM) *Not included in the final analysis</p> <p>The primary investigator and a research assistant collected the assessments and implemented the reading intervention (whole group and small group). The primary investigator administered the measures and led the small-group instruction. The research assistant helped administer the language screener and EVM and RVM pre-and post-tests, led the whole-group instructional component and delivered components of the small-group instruction. The research assistant and primary investigator had previous teaching experience.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-10">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189590399-11">Preschool Early Literacy Indicators</hd> <p>Scores on the Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI) Language Index were one participant selection criteria. The PELI Language Index consists of two subtests: the Vocabulary–Oral Language subtest, which measures a child's ability to name and describe common objects, and the Comprehension subtest, which assesses listening comprehension (Kaminski et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref57">22</reflink>]). Two assessors scored 50% of the assessments with inter-rater reliability calculated between 97 and 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-12">Researcher Created Vocabulary Measures: Expressive Vocabulary Measure (EVM) and Receptive Voc...</hd> <p>The research team used two researcher-created measures of vocabulary knowledge, the main dependent variable, to assess children's receptive and expressive knowledge of the academic words at baseline and following instruction. In addition, the expressive measure was used for selection criteria. The proximal measures assess the vocabulary content taught in the small group instruction and were created based on the procedure outlined by Coyne et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref58">9</reflink>]), who modeled their receptive measure after the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition (PPVT-4; Dunn & Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref59">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>The research team administered both measures in two forms—a pre- and post-test measure of all 12 words taught in the intervention and five weekly probes that measured three taught words and three words to be taught in the upcoming week. The pre-and post-test and weekly probes followed the same format and differed only in the number of words tested.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-13">Expressive Vocabulary Measure</hd> <p>In the Expressive Vocabulary Measure (EVM), the child produced or spoke their response when asked to describe what they knew about a word. Because scoring is on a continuum, the scores differentiate between word knowledge quality (Hadley & Dickinson, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref60">17</reflink>]). The research team scored the child's response as incorrect (0 points), partially correct (1 point), or correct (2 points), with a possible total score of 24 points. The response score equaled one if a child responded with an example or partial definition. The EVM took approximately 3 minutes per child, with inter-rater reliability determined at 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-14">Receptive Vocabulary Measure</hd> <p>In the Receptive Vocabulary Measure (RVM), the assessor presented the child with a set of four color pictures. One picture represented the target vocabulary word, and the other three pictures served as distractors. The child heard the target vocabulary word and then selected the picture that represented that word out of four possible choices. One point is awarded for each correct response, with a possible total score of 12 points. The RVM pre-test took approximately two and a half minutes per child, with inter-rater reliability determined at 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-15">Researcher Created Child Acceptability Social Validity Survey</hd> <p>After the study, the primary investigator administered the Child Acceptability Survey to the three children who received the small-group intervention. The survey assessed child engagement and enjoyment, a measure of social validity. The survey consisted of seven questions. The first six questions asked participants to rate their enjoyment of the activities used during instruction using a graphic rating scale. Children selected their response by pointing to one of three faces: smiley, neutral, or sad. In the seventh question, children were asked to indicate their favorite storybook. The primary investigator displayed all four storybooks in front of the children, and they could respond verbally or by pointing.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-16">Implementation Fidelity</hd> <p>The research team monitored program implementation using fidelity checklists that allowed the researcher to evaluate each instructional step as either in place, partially completed, or not done. The checklists also monitored child engagement for each lesson component as high, medium, or low. The research team used a modified version of the Project Ready! Implementation checklist for the 123 Shared Story Routine and 123 Shared Story Routine 2nd Read to reflect the specific instructional routines included in the intervention (Murdoch et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref61">34</reflink>]). The research team completed implementation checks for 100% of the sessions, self-checks in Weeks 1 and 3, and peer checks in Weeks 2 and 4.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-17">Materials</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189590399-18">Storybooks</hd> <p>The primary investigator selected four narrative storybooks for the intervention following themes outlined in the Project Ready! curriculum: Africa, Australia, Astronomy, and Kindness (Murdoch et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref62">34</reflink>]). Three books are included in the Project Ready! curriculum, and the investigator selected one additional book. The primary investigator followed Hargrave and Senechal's ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref63">19</reflink>]) book selection criteria when making the final book selections. The texts contained varied styles of illustration that enhanced and extended the text and provided opportunities for student participation and connection to the characters. They contained rich vocabulary and aligned with the age group. In addition, to the best of the primary investigator's knowledge, the children had not been exposed to the books in their preschool classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-19">Academic Vocabulary</hd> <p>The lessons introduced three target academic vocabulary words from the storybook each week. Word selection followed the guidelines outlined by Beck et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>]) and Murdoch et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref65">34</reflink>]). First, the words were found in written text and were unlikely to be learned through conversation and the everyday experiences of preschool-age children. They could be explained through simple, everyday language using the context of the storybook and were considered useful and interesting. Nouns (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>), verbs (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>), and adjectives (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref68">4</reflink>) were selected. Each target vocabulary word had a representational gesture or hand motion introduced during Session 2 of the small group instruction and used in the subsequent lessons. The primary investigator created the representational gestures by considering how they could be similar to the target vocabulary word "in form or movement" and provide additional semantic information about the word (Barnes et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>], p. 304). For example, for the target vocabulary word <emph>wafted</emph> the definition was carry through the air, so the gesture taught was: move your pointer finger up and circle as if rising.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-20">Data Collection Process</hd> <p>The research team administered the PELI and the pretest form of the EVM and RVM to all 12 children in the two preschool classes. Individual testing followed, with the PELI administered on separate days from the EVM and RVM pretest. The EVM was administered before the RVM to reduce any potential effects from seeing pictures in the receptive measure (Coyne et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref70">9</reflink>]). After the administration of the PELI and the pre-test form of the EVM and RVM, the six lowest scoring children were selected for the targeted small-group intervention.</p> <p>Following selection, the first weekly EVM and RVM probes were administered individually to the children selected for the targeted small group instruction to test the baseline status of six words—three each from Books 1 and 2. Instruction began with the first storybook the following week. Each child was assessed using the EVM and RVM probes at the end of each week. The probes consisted of the three target vocabulary words taught that week (intervention words) and three words that would be taught in the coming week (baseline words). Testing was conducted in person by the primary investigator outside of the preschool classrooms. For each storybook (each stimuli phase), every child had 2–3 baseline data points (pre-test and 1–2 probes) and 2–3 intervention data points (1–2 probes plus post-test) for both the EVM and RVM.</p> <p>After the four-week intervention period, the research team administered the post-test form of the EVM and RVM to the 12 children in the preschool classes. The test was administered individually, and a second adult was present; the EVM test was administered before the RVM. The Child Acceptability social validity survey was also administered individually.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-21">Procedure</hd> <p>The structured vocabulary intervention consisted of four sessions per week for 4 weeks. Each week had one whole group session and three small group sessions focused on the same storybook (see Table 2). One small group worked with the research team during the small group sessions, while the other small group of children engaged with the classroom teacher in play-based small group activities. Four different storybooks were used, each containing three targeted vocabulary words. Books were selected to reflect themes that differed from the classroom instruction, and the research team communicated with the teachers to ensure that no other vocabulary interventions or supports surrounding these books were provided during the study. As outlined in Table 2, each intervention session followed a set structure and included scripted lessons to ensure consistency.</p> <p>Table 2 Vocabulary intervention</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Session</p></th><th align="left"><p>Intervention Title</p></th><th align="left"><p>Minutes</p></th><th align="left"><p>Grouping</p></th><th align="left"><p>Components</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Project Ready! 123 Shared Story Routine</p></td><td align="left"><p>8–15</p></td><td align="left"><p>Whole group</p></td><td align="left"><p>-Language Time: Finger play</p><p>-Before Reading: Introducing the book and topic</p><p>-During Reading: Modeling of thinking aloud, drawing attention to key events and vocabulary</p><p>-After Reading: Elicit students' opinions and checking for understanding</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Project Ready! 123 Shared Story Routine 2nd Read</p></td><td align="left"><p>12–16</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small group</p></td><td align="left"><p>-Before Reading: Attention to special words</p><p>-During Reading: Read and draw attention to key content and vocabulary</p><p>-After Reading: Elicit students' opinions, questions about story elements</p><p>-Activity: Clapping Vocabulary Words and Hand Motions</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Vocabulary Instruction</p></td><td align="left"><p>15–19</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small group</p></td><td align="left"><p>-Story Retell</p><p>-Yes/No and Picture Choice Game</p><p>-Point to the Word Game: Examples/Non-examples</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Vocabulary Instruction - Final Review</p></td><td align="left"><p>14–17</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small group</p></td><td align="left"><p>-Guided Retell</p><p>-Say the Word</p><p>-Find the Missing Word</p><p>-Final Review</p><p>-Read book</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0189590399-22">Session 1: Whole Group Storybook Routine</hd> <p>During Session 1, the research assistant read the selected storybook to the children in each preschool classroom separately. The Project Ready! 123 Shared Storybook routine was used. This routine included steps to develop background knowledge, oral language, listening comprehension, vocabulary, and foundational reading skills (Murdoch et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref71">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-23">Session 2: Small Group Reread</hd> <p>The subsequent three sessions included only the 5 participants led by either the research assistant (retired preschool teacher) or primary investigator. In Session 2, the same storybook was reread using the Project Ready! 123 Shared Story Routine 2nd Read. This routine provided opportunities for active engagement and multiple exposures to academic vocabulary (Pentimonti et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref72">40</reflink>]). It followed a set structure of instructional activities completed before, during, and after reading. Before reading, the investigator drew the children's attention to the target vocabulary words first introduced in the initial reading of the storybook. During the reading, the investigator stopped and highlighted the key vocabulary words and asked questions. After the reading, the investigator asked questions about the children's opinion of the book, story elements such as the characters, setting, problem, and key vocabulary. The follow-up activities involved clapping the vocabulary words into syllables and teaching corresponding hand motions. While teaching the hand motions, the primary investigator's language reinforced the vocabulary words and their definitions. The follow-up activities increased engagement with the academic vocabulary, including the phonological representation, and provided opportunities for the children to use expressive language (Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref73">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-24">Session 3: Small-Group Vocabulary Instruction</hd> <p>Session 3 focused on the target vocabulary words through three activities and incorporated the explicit instruction format outlined by Archer ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>]) with a review, preview, lesson body (I do, we do, you do), and a lesson closing. The series of activities provided children the opportunity to use receptive and expressive language. The lesson began with a guided retelling of the story, where the children assisted in placing illustrations from the story in the correct sequence. During the retelling, the investigator drew attention to the target vocabulary words and invited the children to repeat the word, the definition, and demonstrate the hand motion. The next part of the lesson routine was a yes/no and picture choice game where the research assistant asked the children to identify and repeat the target vocabulary words. In the last activity, the children identified examples and non-examples of the target words and practiced identifying and stating the word.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-25">Session 4: Small-Group Vocabulary Instruction and Final Review</hd> <p>In Session 4, the children engaged in a guided retell and three activities related to the target vocabulary words. The first activity, called <emph>Say the Word</emph>, provided opportunities to view illustrations from the book and then verbalize the target vocabulary words in connection with their definitions. In the second activity, <emph>Find the Missing Word</emph>, the investigator provided the children with a picture representing the target vocabulary word that they used as they stated the missing word. In the final activity, they reviewed all three words and their definitions. Each activity provided opportunities for children to state the target vocabulary words, use the corresponding hand motion, and use the words in contexts both within and outside of the storybook. All three target vocabulary words were used across the activities, providing opportunities for repeated practice necessary for word learning (Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>]). In addition, previously taught vocabulary words were reviewed for maintenance. The lesson concluded with a final reading of the storybook.</p> <p>Following Session 4, the primary investigator assessed each child in the small group on six words, three from that week's book (intervention data points) and three that would be directly taught in the next week's book (baseline data points). The instruction and data collection cycle repeated throughout the 4-week intervention using four storybooks.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-26">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Visual inspection of the graphical data is the primary method of data analysis in single-case design research (Kazdin, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref76">24</reflink>]; Kratochwill et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref77">25</reflink>]; Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref78">28</reflink>]). The primary investigator graphed the EVM and RVM data each week; one multiple-probe graph displayed the EVM data, and one displayed the RVM data. For each of the four books, each child had two EVM and RVM data points in baseline and two data points per measure in intervention, except book two, where each child had three data points in baseline. The number of data points meets the minimum Standards for single-case design research outlined by What Works Clearinghouse ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref79">48</reflink>]). The children's expressive (EVM) and receptive (RVM) knowledge of the taught words (intervention phase) were compared to words that had not been taught (baseline phase) and looked for a clear and immediate increase in scores following instruction.</p> <p>The EVM and RVM data were also analyzed using descriptive statistics to supplement the visual analysis and describe the data (Kazdin, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref80">24</reflink>]). Summary data was displayed in a table format. The median and standard deviation of the small group (<emph>n</emph> = 3) for each storybook were examined by the types of vocabulary probe, expressive and receptive. The pre-and post-test scores for the small group (<emph>n</emph> = 3) and the children who solely participated in the whole group instruction and play-based small group for each class (<emph>n</emph> = 3 and <emph>n</emph> = 4) were reported. This analysis did not include the scores of the two students who attended the small group but did not meet the attendance requirement to be included in the small group data analysis.</p> <p>Implementation fidelity and child engagement were analyzed by creating a table with information about each session for each storybook compiled from the fidelity checklists. The primary investigator computed the percentage of steps fully in place for each session. Any specific steps partially completed or not done were noted to compare the sessions across the storybooks. The mean rating of fidelity overall and by interventionist was calculated for each session across the storybooks. The checklist also monitored child engagement for each lesson component as high, medium, or low, and that information was added to the table for analysis. The primary investigator noted if engagement varied by classroom or by student for each session. To analyze the social validity of the intervention, the primary investigator converted the smiley, neutral, and sad faces on the researcher-created child acceptability graphic rating scale to a 3-point numerical rating scale. The overall rating was calculated by dividing the total score by the number of questions. The primary investigator also examined the range of scores and the frequency of each type of response: smiley (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref81">3</reflink>), neutral (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>), and sad (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>).</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-27">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189590399-28">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Twelve children participated in the whole-group instruction, six of those children were selected for the small-group intervention, five participated in the small group, and three were included in the final analysis. In week one, one child was excluded from the small group intervention and analysis because they requested to leave the small group, even after gentle encouragement. Two other children were excluded from the data analysis (but included in the small group when they were present) with neither child meeting the inclusion criteria of 80% rate of attendance. Three children met the criteria for inclusion in the final data analysis with 100% attendance. Data for the three participants was co-plotted on a multiple-probe across storybooks graph. Figure 1 displays the results for the three participants on the researcher-created expressive (EVM) measure, and Fig. 2 displays the results on the researcher-created receptive vocabulary (RVM) measure. No outliers were observed. The three children's vocabulary data were visually analyzed in each graph for changes in the immediacy of effect, level, variability, and consistency of data patterns across storybooks.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-29">Analysis of Expressive Vocabulary Growth</hd> <p>In the Expressive Vocabulary Measure (EVM), the child produced or spoke their response when asked to describe what they knew about a word, and their response was scored as incorrect (0 points), partially correct (1 point), or correct (2 points). Each probe included words for two books (baseline and intervention book). There were three words per book on each probe, producing a scale of 0–6 for the weekly probes for each book (see Fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Expressive vocabulary measure (EVM)</p> <p>A consistent data pattern was found across the four storybooks. Storybook 1 demonstrated a stable baseline for all three children; the scores ranged between 0 and 1 out of a possible 6. Intervention scores on the EVM ranged from 4 to 6. All three children demonstrated a clear increase in level from baseline to intervention with a documented immediate effect. Storybook 2 had three baseline data points for each child, ranging from 0 to 2. A stable baseline was observed on the EVM for two out of three children. Matthew's baseline points increased on the EVM with a 0 in the first two probes and a 2 in the third baseline probe. Both intervention scores on the EVM for all three participants were 6. All three children again demonstrated a clear increase in level from baseline to intervention with a documented immediate effect. Storybook 3 demonstrated a stable baseline, with the two baseline data points at 0 for all three participants. Both intervention data points were 6. All three children again demonstrated a clear increase in level from baseline to intervention with a documented immediate effect. Finally, Storybook 4 demonstrated the same data pattern with a stable baseline, data points ranging from 0 to 1, and intervention data points for all three participants were 6. Visual analysis of Fig. 1 demonstrated a repeated documented increase in level from baseline to intervention across the four storybooks for the three participants. Across each of the four storybooks, all three children had a clear, immediate increase in expressive vocabulary skill on the words taught in the small group storybook intervention, and this skill increase was maintained across the time of the intervention as other words were being taught (between 1 and 4 weeks). This demonstrated the presence of a functional relation between the structured shared book reading intervention and preschool children's expressive vocabulary knowledge of words taught.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-30">Analysis of Receptive Vocabulary Growth</hd> <p>In the Receptive Vocabulary Measure (RVM), the assessor presented the child with a set of four color pictures; the child heard the target vocabulary word and then selected the picture that represented that word out of four possible choices. One point was awarded for each correct response on the weekly probes on a scale of 0–3. The scale on the RVM (0–3) was smaller than the EVM (0–6), and children could guess the correct answer on the RVM, and thus the measure was not as stable as the EVM.</p> <p>Across the four storybooks, a similar pattern was found, and this pattern matched the pattern in the EVM data (see Fig. 2). Storybook 1 demonstrated a stable baseline for all three children; the two data points ranged from 1 to 2 out of a possible 3. Intervention scores on the RVM ranged from 2 to 3. All three children demonstrated an increase in level from baseline to intervention. Storybook 2 had three baseline data points for each child, ranging from 0 to 3. While there was more variability in baseline on the RVM in Storybook 2, scores for all participants decreased across the three probes. Michael's baseline scores went from 1 to 0, Matthew's scores from 3 to 2, and David's scores from 2 to (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>) Intervention scores ranged from 2 to 3. All three children demonstrated an increase in level from the final two baseline data points to intervention. Storybook 3 had two baseline data points per child ranging from 0 to (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref85">2</reflink>) Baseline scores for two participants increased from a score of 0 to 1 (Michael) or 1 to 2 (Matthew), and scores for one participant decreased from 2 to 1 (David). Intervention scores for all three participants were (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref86">3</reflink>) All three children demonstrated an increase in level from baseline to intervention. Storybook 4 had two baseline data points per child ranging from 0 to 2. Baseline scores for two participants increased from 0 to 1 (Michael) and 1 to 2 (David). Intervention scores for all three participants were 3. All three children demonstrated an increase in level from baseline to intervention.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Receptive vocabulary measure (RVM)</p> <p>Visual analysis of Fig. 2 demonstrated a documented increase in level from baseline to intervention across the four storybooks for the three participants. This effect demonstrated the presence of a functional relation between the structured shared book reading intervention and preschool children's receptive vocabulary knowledge of words taught. There was greater variability in the RVM baseline scores; this measure was less stable than the EVM. Despite the variability observed, in the final post-test probe, all three participants scored a 12 out of 12, demonstrating their knowledge of the target vocabulary words.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-31">Descriptive Statistics</hd> <p>Data from the EVM and RVM were also analyzed through supplemental descriptive statistics. Median scores on the pre-test and post-test for the three participants in the small group and the seven children who participated in only the whole group storybook reading and play-based small group activities (three in Classroom 1 and four in Classroom 2) were calculated. Each individual child's pre-and post-test score was reported by measure (see Figs. 3 and 4). Although the pre-test scores for both groups (whole class instruction and play-based small group and structured small group) were similar, the children who participated in the structured small group instruction learned more target vocabulary words as measured by the EVM and RVM post-test than those who participated in the whole group instruction alone.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Expressive vocabulary measure pre- and post-test</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Receptive vocabulary measure pre- and post-test</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-32">Fidelity of Intervention and Child Engagement</hd> <p>Fidelity implementation checks were completed for every whole and small-group session across the vocabulary intervention. The intervention components were rated as fully in place with a mean fidelity rate of 99% (range of 91–100%) across the four storybooks.</p> <p>The fidelity checklist also monitored child engagement for each lesson component as high, medium, or low. Across the four storybooks, all participants' engagement was consistently medium or high during all four sessions. High engagement across participants was reported for 13 of 16 intervention sessions. Medium engagement was reported on three occasions and resulted from typical preschool occurrences—a fire drill, Halloween, and one child having a particularly hard day.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-33">Social Validity</hd> <p>Social validity information was gathered by administering the Child Acceptability Survey with the three children who received the small-group intervention. To analyze the social validity of the intervention, the smiley, neutral, and sad faces on the seven-question survey were converted to a 3-point scale. The overall rating was 8 out of a possible 9. Across the survey, the participants selected 14 smiley faces, two neutral faces, and two sad faces. One child responded with a sad face to the following two questions: Did you like reading the storybook more than once during the week? Did you like when we did the hand motions for the special words like <emph>basking</emph> (give an example and do hand motion)? The survey results indicated that overall, the children enjoyed the small group intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-34">Discussion</hd> <p>The present study aimed to examine the effect of direct, small-group vocabulary instruction within a structured shared book reading intervention on preschool-aged children's vocabulary knowledge. As predicted, the results across the measures showed the positive effect of the small-group vocabulary instruction within shared book reading for preschool-age children. Across the four storybooks, the intervention increased preschool children's expressive and receptive knowledge of the taught academic vocabulary words (see Figs. 1 and 2). The multiple probe design demonstrated that words were not learned (remained at baseline levels) until they were taught, and the participant's knowledge of the target vocabulary words was maintained as new words were introduced. Despite similar pre-test scores, differences were evident between children who participated in the intervention and those who did not (see Figs. 3 and 4). An experimental effect was demonstrated by clear level changes in the dependent variables (EVM and RVM) following the intervention. Experimental control was achieved by four replications of the effect (i.e., across four storybooks for all three participants; Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref87">28</reflink>]). The results yielded by this study support the use of explicit, small-group vocabulary instruction within shared book reading.</p> <p>Findings indicate that the intervention impacted preschool children's expressive vocabulary and receptive vocabulary knowledge. The extent of the growth in expressive language skills was surprising given that preschool children acquire receptive language faster than expressive language (Gleason & Ratner, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref88">13</reflink>]). Results of the participant's depth of word knowledge suggest the effectiveness of interventions within shared book reading that include explicit vocabulary and listening comprehension instruction, occur in small groups, use representational gestures, and provide intentional opportunities for different types of practice. Each feature was present within the shared book reading intervention and is discussed in greater detail below.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-35">Explicit Small-Group Instruction</hd> <p>This study focused on the effects of direct vocabulary instruction within a small group setting on proximal measures of vocabulary knowledge. Across the storybook intervention, the research team provided direct instruction combining vocabulary and listening comprehension using specific instructional routines designed to incorporate elements of effective vocabulary and comprehension instruction with preschoolers. Each lesson included modeling, scaffolded practice, and opportunities for individual practice, following the explicit instruction framework (Archer, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref89">1</reflink>]). The structure of each scripted lesson provided children with opportunities to respond to questions related to the target vocabulary and the storyline (see Table 2). Participants were prompted to use the target vocabulary within the story's context, and there were multiple opportunities for retrieval. Explicit instruction also extended beyond the storybook as children responded to examples and nonexamples of each word through the Point to the Word Game in Session 3. Activities across the sessions provided children with opportunities to engage with the target vocabulary words in multiple contexts.</p> <p>The small group setting provided children with increased opportunities for child participation and engagement. The research team monitored the participants' responses and ensured active retrieval from each child. High engagement across the intervention along with results of the EVM and RVM suggest that preschool children benefit from small-group interactive vocabulary lessons that intentionally deliver instruction following a brisk pace. This finding is consistent with previous research on vocabulary interventions through storybooks that suggest that explicit vocabulary instruction delivered in a small-group setting within the context of a storybook has a positive effect on students' learning of targeted vocabulary words (Archer, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>]; Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref91">3</reflink>]; Coyne et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref92">9</reflink>]; Herrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref93">20</reflink>]; Loftus-Rattan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref94">29</reflink>]; Phillips et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref95">42</reflink>]). Cabell et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref96">4</reflink>]) found a small-group setting with a structured storybook reading provides increased teacher–child interactions and increased learning. The direct, explicit nature of the instruction is also supported by a body of research on effective instruction (Archer, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>]; Herrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref98">20</reflink>]; NELP, 2008). Previous research also supports the structure of combining vocabulary and comprehension instruction for preschool-age children, given the correlation between the constructs of language (LRRC, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref99">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-36">Use of Gestures</hd> <p>Results of the present study suggest that preschool children benefit from different types of input—verbal and nonverbal—to learn academic vocabulary. In this study, a representational gesture was paired with speech, thus providing additional semantic information about the target vocabulary word. For example, the children were taught to put their hands in front of their faces and bring them down like tears for the target word <emph>gloomy</emph>, meaning very sad. After teaching the gesture, it was used throughout the remaining lessons during the intervention. The gesture captured the children's attention, allowed active engagement, and reinforced word meaning. Anecdotal data collected during the weekly vocabulary probes demonstrated that, on occasion, a child would make the gesture when asked to orally define a word. However, producing the gesture was not tested. In addition, in some instances, when a child did not know a word, the primary investigator would finish the testing and then show them the corresponding gesture, resulting in successful retrieval of the definition. This interesting finding is supported by research on effective instructional strategies for explicit vocabulary instruction for young children (Barnes et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref100">2</reflink>]; Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref101">3</reflink>]; Dickinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref102">11</reflink>]; Hadley et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref103">18</reflink>]; Paulson & Moats, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref104">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Recent research by Barnes et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref105">2</reflink>]) on the use of different types of gestures during shared book reading also found that the use of meaning-related gestures during shared book reading was significantly related to preschool children's receptive vocabulary scores. In their study, teachers did not specifically teach gestures in vocabulary instruction for children to mirror.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-37">Types of Practice</hd> <p>The findings of this study also suggest that preschool-age children benefit from different forms of practice to learn and maintain new word learning. Post-test EVM and RVM data demonstrate that children who participated in the small-group intervention learned new words and maintained their knowledge overall as new words were introduced (see Figs. 3 and 4). Instruction provided during the intervention purposefully included different types of practice to increase word learning. Retrieval-based practice is inherent in explicit instruction (Peavler, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref106">39</reflink>]). During the intervention sessions, instruction in the target vocabulary words allowed for retrieval-based practice, such as orally stating the target word, providing its definition, or producing the hand gesture (Gordon, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref107">14</reflink>]). Practice with the target vocabulary was also spaced: Within each lesson the words were presented throughout the session, and the instruction occurred over four sessions across the week (Gordon, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref108">14</reflink>]). During the fourth session, practice was mixed or interleaved in that children retrieved information about the target vocabulary learned that week and words targeted for instruction in the previous weeks (Peavler, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref109">39</reflink>]). Findings from this study are consistent with research on the use of different types of practice for short and long-term retention of learning (Gordon, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref110">14</reflink>]; Karpicke & Roediger, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref111">23</reflink>]). Previous research also indicates how the explicit instruction framework provides for different types of practice (Archer, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref112">1</reflink>]; Peavler, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref113">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-38">Limitations</hd> <p>Several limitations to the design should be considered when drawing inferences from this study. Single-case design research typically involves a small number of participants (Kazdin, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref114">24</reflink>]). Data from three male children in one preschool setting were included in the final analyses. The focus on individuals limits the generalizability to an entire population of preschool-age children. Systematic replications including additional children from different contexts would increase the generalizability of the findings to other preschool children.</p> <p>The participant's level of language and their homogeneity also present limitations to this study. Though the participants selected for this study scored the lowest out of the two preschool classes on the PELI Language Index, none of their scores indicated risk (See Table 1). The benchmark goal for the PELI Language Index at the beginning of the year for 3- and 4-year-old children is 62, and each participant's score exceeded the benchmark (Kaminski et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref115">22</reflink>]). In addition to the participant's language skills, they were not diverse regarding their home language or ethnicity. Therefore, findings from this study should be viewed with that understanding. Future research with children whose language scores are below the benchmark or indicate risk and includes a diverse sample would allow the findings to be generalized to a broader population.</p> <p>In addition to the limitation present with the sample population, the duration of the intervention is a limitation. Replication across the four storybooks documented an effect of the intervention (See Figs. 1 and 2), but the duration was relatively short at 4 weeks. Findings from the study would be strengthened if future research extended the number of weeks, and in doing so, there might be a documented effect on a broad measure of language, such as the PELI, at post-test.</p> <p>The researcher-created Receptive Vocabulary Measure (RVM) was less stable than the Expressive Vocabulary Measure (EVM). Greater variability in baseline scores was observed across the participants, and from pre- to post-test, some scores declined (See Figs. 2 and 4). Children were selecting the correct picture to represent the target vocabulary word out of a possible four choices and could too easily guess the correct answer. While the assessment structure was based on the procedure used by Coyne et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref116">9</reflink>]), further research could examine ways to strengthen a picture-based researcher-created measure. For example, the measure could use specific drawings or artist rendered illustrations instead of available stock photographs.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-39">Future Research</hd> <p>The strengths of this intervention warrant further research. Future research could examine using the researcher-created small-group vocabulary intervention with preschool-age children who are considered at-risk based on their scores on the PELI. While the participants selected for the small-group intervention scored the lowest in the two preschool classes on the PELI, their Language Index did not indicate risk. Additionally, future research using the intervention could include a measure of listening comprehension that incorporates the target vocabulary, similar to the measure used by Coyne et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref117">9</reflink>], who found listening comprehension was a useful measure of comprehension and indicative of the impact of vocabulary instruction for children who were not yet fluent readers.</p> <p>Additional research is also needed to understand further the effect of representational gestures on word learning and who might benefit the most from this instructional strategy. This instructional strategy may be especially useful in building vocabulary knowledge for preschool children who are multilingual learners or those with lower vocabulary skills as indicated by a broad language measure. In addition, it would be interesting to include gestures in post-testing probes, similar to the study by Hadley et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref118">18</reflink>]), in which preschool-age children were asked to define a target vocabulary word either orally or by gesture.</p> <p>Future research could also measure the maintenance of word learning over a longer period. In the current study, the post-test data was collected four weeks after the start of the intervention, and additional research could extend the number of weeks of the intervention or the time of post-testing. Research could also explore maintaining more words by extending the intervention, testing children on more than 12 words, and examining how the children use the target vocabulary words in their language interactions across the day. Qualitative measures such as observing children's language use in the preschool classroom and identifying patterns of word use could augment the quantitative measures of growth in academic vocabulary. Researchers also could gain insights through semi-structured interviews with teachers to understand how they observe children using academic vocabulary in meaningful ways and how they encourage children to use new vocabulary in their communication with others.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-40">Implications</hd> <p>Although the results should be interpreted in light of the limitations above, there are potential implications for preschool educators and those creating and selecting preschool curricula to implement. This study adds support to the literature that preschool-age children can learn academic vocabulary when taught in an engaging manner using effective instructional strategies within the context of a storybook (Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref119">3</reflink>]; Coyne et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref120">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref121">9</reflink>]; Dickinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref122">11</reflink>]; Hadley et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref123">18</reflink>]; Herrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref124">20</reflink>]; Loftus-Rattan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref125">29</reflink>]; Phillips et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref126">42</reflink>]; Wasik & Bond, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref127">47</reflink>]). It is critical that preschool curricula intentionally develop vocabulary knowledge in early childhood because oral language abilities in preschool are related to reading comprehension in later years (Hogan et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref128">21</reflink>]; LRRC & Chui, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref129">25</reflink>]; Storch & Whitehurst, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref130">44</reflink>]). Results of this study also suggest the benefits of explicit small-group instruction to improve early literacy skills, especially for children who may need supplemental support. Structuring the preschool classroom to include effective use of varying group structures to meet student needs should be considered.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-41">Conclusion</hd> <p>Effective early literacy interventions begin in early childhood settings (Herrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref131">20</reflink>]). Research has confirmed the importance of intentional instruction in each domain of literacy for preschool children: language, phonological awareness, print knowledge, decoding, early writing, and general literacy (Herrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref132">20</reflink>]; National Early Literacy Panel, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref133">36</reflink>]) delivered through quality preschool curriculum aligned with evidence-based early literacy research (Carta et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref134">6</reflink>]; Griffin & McCardle, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref135">16</reflink>]; Hererra et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref136">20</reflink>]; Murdoch et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref137">35</reflink>]; Phillips et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref138">41</reflink>]). This study contributes to the literature on effective early vocabulary instruction. Read alouds are a common instructional practice in the preschool classroom, and our findings suggest they can be structured to explicitly teach academic vocabulary to young children. Small-group vocabulary instruction within shared reading provides opportunities for increased interaction, and when the instruction includes varied opportunities for engagement, practice, and response, preschool children learn new vocabulary.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-42">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189590399-43">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>There are no conflicts of interest nor are there financial or non-financial interests directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication.</p> <hd id="AN0189590399-44">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0189590399-45"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref74" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Archer, A. L. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref66" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barnes EM, Hadley EB, Lawson-Adams J, Dickinson DK. Nonverbal supports for word learning: Prekindergarten teachers' gesturing practices during shared book reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2023; 64: 302-312. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.04.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref29" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, I. L, McKeown, M. G, & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref68" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cabell SQ, Zucker TA, DeCoster J, Melo C, Forston L, Hamre B. Prekindergarten interactive book reading quality and children's Language and literacy development: Classroom organization as a moderator. Early Education and Development. 2019; 30; 1: 1-18. 10.1080/10409289.2018.1514845</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref39" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Carta, J. J. (2019). Introduction to multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) in early education. In J. J. Carta, & R. M. Young (Eds.), Multi-tiered systems of support for young children: Driving change in early education (pp. 1–14). Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref40" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carta, J. J, Greenwood, C. R, & Abbott, M. (2019). Developing and sustaining high-quality tier 1 early literacy and language practices. In J. J. Carta & R. M. Young (Eds.), Multi-tiered systems of support for young children: Driving change in early education (pp. 97–111). Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University (2016, May). From best practices to breakthrough impacts: A science-based approach to building a more promising future for young children and families. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/from-best-practices-to-breakthrough-impacts/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref5" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Coyne MD, Simmons DC, Kame'enui EJ, Stoolmiller M. Teaching vocabulary during shared storybook readings: An examination of differential effects. Exceptionality. 2004; 12; 3: 145-162. 10.1207/s15327035ex1203_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref32" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Coyne MD, McCoach DB, Ware SM, Loftus-Rattan SM, Baker DL, Santoro LE, Oldham AC. Supporting vocabulary development within a multitiered system of support: Evaluating the efficacy of supplementary kindergarten vocabulary intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2022; 114; 6: 1225-1241. 10.1037/edu0000724</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickinson DK, Golinkoff RM, Hirsh-Pasek K. Speaking out for Language: Why Language is central to reading development. Educational Researcher. 2010; 39: 305-310. 10.3102/0013189X10370204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickinson DK, Nesbitt KT, Collins MF, Hadley EB, Newman K, Rivera BL, Ilgez H, Nicolopoulou A, Golinkoff RM, Hirsh-Pasek K. Teaching for breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Learning from explicit and implicit instruction and the storybook texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019; 47: 341-356. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.07.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L. M, & Dunn, L. M. (2007). PPVT-4 Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Pearson Assessments.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gleason, J. B, & Ratner, N. B. (2017). The development of language (9th ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gordon K. The advantages of retrieval-based and spaced practice: Implications for word learning in clinical and educational contexts. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools. 2020; 51; 4: 955-965. 10.1044/2020_LSHSS-19i-00001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenwood CR, Beecher C, Atwater J, Petersen S, Schiefelbusch J, Irvin D. An ecobehavioral analysis of child academic engagement: Implications for preschool children not responding to instructional intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 2018; 37; 4: 219-233. 10.1177/0271121417741968</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffin, J. A, & McCardle, P. (2013). Contributions of large-scale federal research projects to the early literacy knowledge base. In T. Shanahan, & C. J. Lonigan (Eds.), Early childhood literacy: The National early literacy panel and beyond (pp. 21–43). Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hadley EB, Dickinson DK. Measuring young children's word knowledge: A conceptual review. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. 2020; 20; 2: 223-251. 10.1177/1468798417753713</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hadley EB, Dickinson DK, Hirsh-Pasek K, Golinkoff R, Nesbitt K. Examining the acquisition of vocabulary knowledge depth among preschool students. Reading Research Quarterly. 2016; 51; 2: 181-198. 10.1002/rrq.130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargrave AC, Sénéchal M. A book reading intervention with preschool children who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2000; 15; 1: 75-90. 10.1016/S0885-2006(99)00038-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herrera, S, Phillips, B. M, Newton, Y, Dombek, J. L, & Hernandez, J. A. (2021). Effectiveness of early literacy instruction: Summary of 20 years of research (REL 2021–084). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. <ulink href="http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs">http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, T. P, Cain, K, & Bridges, M. S. (2013). Young children's oral Language ability and later comprehension. In T. Shanahan, & C. Lonigan (Eds.), Early childhood literacy: The National early literacy panel and beyond (pp. 217–232). Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaminski, R, Abbott, M, Bravo-Aguaya, K, & Good, R. (2021). Preschool early literacy indicators: Technical manual. Acadience Learning, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karpicke JD, Roediger HL. Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhanced long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2007; 33; 4: 704-719</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazdin. (2021). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill TR, Horner RH, Levin JR, Machalicek W, Ferron J, Johnson A. Single-case design standards: An update and proposed upgrades. Journal of School Psychology. 2021; 89: 91-105. 10.1016/j.jsp.2021.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Language and Reading Research Consortium. The dimensionality of Language ability in young children. Child Development. 2015; 86; 6: 1948-1965. 10.1111/cdev.12450</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Language and Reading Research Consortium &Chiu YD. The simple view of reading across development: Prediction of grade 3 reading comprehension from prekindergarten skills. Remedial and Special Education. 2018; 39; 5: 289-303. 10.1177/0741932518762055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford JR, Lane JD, Severini KE. Systematic use of visual analysis for assessing outcomes in single case design studies. Brain Impairment. 2018; 19; 1: 4-17. 10.1017/BrImp.2017.16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loftus-Rattan SM, Mitchell AM, Coyne MD. Direct vocabulary instruction in preschool: A comparison of extended instruction, embedded instruction, and incidental exposure. The Elementary School Journal. 2016; 116; 3: 391-410. 10.1086/684828</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, N, & Bronwell, R. (2010). Expressive one-word picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Academic Therapy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marulis LM, Neuman SB. The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children's word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2010; 80; 3: 300-335. 10.3102/0034654310377087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Massaro DW. Reading aloud to children: Benefits and implications for acquiring literacy before schooling begins. The American Journal of Psychology. 2017; 130; 1: 63-72. 10.5406/amerjpsyc.130.1.0063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKeown L, Beck IL. Effects of vocabulary instruction on measures of Language processing: Comparing two approaches. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2014; 29; 4: 520-530. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.06.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murdoch, A, Warburg, R, Aielli, M, & Corbo, B. (2022a). Preschool instructional materials. The Center for Reading Science. https://<ulink href="http://www.readingscience.org/preschool">www.readingscience.org/preschool</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murdoch A, Warburg R, Corbo E, Strickler W. Project ready! An early Language and literacy program to close the readiness gap. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2022; 38; 4: 340-358. 10.1080/10573569.2021.1954570</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National early literacy panel. National Institute for Literacy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute for Literacy. (2009). Learning to talk and listen. National Institute for Literacy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paulson, L, & Moats, L. (2018). LETRS for early childhood educators. Sopris West Educational Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peavler J. What is practice?. Perspectives on Language and Literacy. 2023; 49; 1: 20-23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pentimonti, J, Justice, L, & Piasta, S. (2013). Sharing books with children. In T. Shanahan & C. J. Lonigan (Eds.), Early childhood literacy: The National Early Literacy Panel and beyond (pp. 117–134).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips, D. A, Lipset, M. W, Dodge, K. A, Haskins, R, Bassok, D, Burchinal, M. R, Duncan, G. J, Dynarski, M, Magnuson, K. A, & Weiland, C. (2017). Puzzling it out: The current state of scientific knowledge on preschool effects: A consensus statement. Brookings Institute. https://<ulink href="http://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/duke%5fprekstudy%5ffinal%5f4-4-17%5fhires.pdf">www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/duke%5fprekstudy%5ffinal%5f4-4-17%5fhires.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips BM, Kim YSG, Lonigan CJ, Connor CM, Clancy J, Otaiba A. Supporting Language and literacy development with intensive small-group interventions: An early childhood efficacy study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2021; 57: 75-88. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pillinger C, Vardy E. The story so Far: A systematic review of the dialogic reading literature. Journal of Research in Reading. 2022; 45; 4: 533-548. 10.1111/1467-9817.12407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Storch SA, Whitehurst GJ. Oral Language and code related precursors to reading. Developmental Psychology. 2002; 38; 6: 934-947. 10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torgesen JK. Avoiding the devastating downward spiral: The evidence that early intervention prevents reading failure. American Educator. 2004; 28: 6-19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wasik B. When fewer is more: Small groups in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2008; 35: 515-521. 10.1007/s10643-008-0245-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wasik B, Bond MA. Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and Language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2001; 93; 2: 243-250. 10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> What Works Clearinghouse (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE). This report is available on the What Works Clearinghouse website at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lisa B. Cipolletti; Amy Murdoch and Jennifer Keelor</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref138"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1496621
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Impact of a Structured Shared Book Reading Intervention on the Vocabulary Knowledge of Preschool-Age Children: An Exploratory Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lisa+B%2E+Cipolletti%22">Lisa B. Cipolletti</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0009-0009-0432-3783">0009-0009-0432-3783</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amy+Murdoch%22">Amy Murdoch</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4138-9166">0000-0003-4138-9166</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jennifer+Keelor%22">Jennifer Keelor</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0483-6756">0000-0003-0483-6756</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(8):3133-3147.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Strategies%22">Reading Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Books%22">Books</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Story+Reading%22">Story Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Listening+Comprehension%22">Listening Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Direct+Instruction%22">Direct Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expressive+Language%22">Expressive Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Receptive+Language%22">Receptive Language</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-025-01920-z
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The present study sought to examine the use of a structured, shared book reading intervention on preschool-aged children's vocabulary knowledge using a multiple-probe across stimuli (book) single-case design. Participants included children from two preschool classrooms of three- and four-year-old children at a childcare center located in the Southeast. Across four storybooks, children in both classrooms (n = 12) received the whole-group component, and a small group of children (n = 5) was selected for the small-group intervention. Children were selected for the small group intervention based on their score on the Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI) Language Index screener and a researcher-created expressive measure of target vocabulary (EVM). Each week, children in the small group received three additional lessons that included explicit vocabulary and listening comprehension instruction, the use of representational gestures, and intentional opportunities for different types of practice. Each week, receptive and expressive vocabulary assessment probes measured whether the taught vocabulary was learned. All small-group participants showed increased vocabulary knowledge across the four storybooks from baseline to intervention. These results suggest preschool children benefit from explicit small-group vocabulary instruction within shared storybook reading.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1496621
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1496621
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-025-01920-z
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 3133
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Reading Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Books
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Story Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Listening Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Direct Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expressive Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Receptive Language
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Impact of a Structured Shared Book Reading Intervention on the Vocabulary Knowledge of Preschool-Age Children: An Exploratory Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lisa B. Cipolletti
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amy Murdoch
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jennifer Keelor
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1