Syntes: Interactive Book Reading in Early Education (Mol, Bus & de Jong 2009)

Källa: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309332561 (RER 79(2), 979–1007); full text: Leiden thesis ch.4, https://hdl.handle.net/1887/16211

Verified content

• [full text] Meta-analysis of 31 (quasi-)experiments (N = 2,049 / Table 4.2 oral-language set N = 2,025) training educators to involve children actively before, during and after joint book reading.
• [full text] Oral language overall d = .54 (95% CI [.33, .74], p < .001); expressive vocabulary d = .62 [.29, .95]; receptive vocabulary d = .45 [.22, .68].
• [full text] Alphabet knowledge d = .39; phonological sensitivity d = .43; orthographic awareness d = .41.
• [full text] Control activity moderator: control with a non-language intervention d = .95; control with no intervention / standard programme d = .34 (Q(1) = 9.82, p < .01).
• [full text] Dialogic Reading (DR) teacher-delivered: d = −.08 [.−.59, .43]; DR experimenter-delivered: d = .58 [.04, 1.11] (Q(1) = 3.06, p = .08). Teacher–small group oral language d = .15 ns; teacher–large group d = .48.
• [full text] Authors: experimenter findings were not simply replicable in natural classroom settings.

Project use

• [assessment] Applied 2026-10-27 extra7 as C20 kill-condition survival (first attack): overall oral-language advantage vs control fails the “no more vocabulary growth” kill. Teacher-delivery limit recorded in Bounds and the practical rule.

Added 2026-10-16 (abstract); full text 2026-10-27 by the project (extra7). [full text] = read in the full text; [assessment] = the project's own assessment.