https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100290">
 

The Impact of Shared Book Reading on English Language Learners’ Language and Literacy Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis GTN

Claire Noble, University of Liverpool, ESRC International Centre for Language and Communicative Development (LuCiD)
Giovanni Sala, Osaka University, JSPS International Research Fellow
Michelle Peter, University of Liverpool, ESRC International Centre for Language and Communicative Development (LuCiD)
Jamie Lingwood, University of Leeds
Caroline Rowland, University of Liverpool, ESRC International Centre for Language and Communicative Development (LuCiD)
Fernand Gobet, University of Liverpool, ESRC International Centre for Language and Communicative Development (LuCiD)

© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).

Abstract

Shared book reading is thought to have a positive impact on young children's language devel-

opment, with shared reading interventions often run in an attempt to boost children's language

skills. However, despite the volume of research in this area, a number of issues remain out-

standing. The current meta-analysis explored whether shared reading interventions are equally

effective (a) across a range of study designs; (b) across a range of different outcome variables; and

(c) for children from different SES groups. It also explored the potentially moderating effects of

intervention duration, child age, use of dialogic reading techniques, person delivering the in-

tervention and mode of intervention delivery.

Our results show that, while there is an effect of shared reading on language development, this

effect is smaller than reported in previous meta-analyses (g ̅ = 0.194, p = .002). They also show

that this effect is moderated by the type of control group used and is negligible in studies with

active control groups (g ̅ = 0.028, p = .703). Finally, they show no significant effects of differ-

ences in outcome variable (ps ≥ .286), socio-economic status (p = .658), or any of our other

potential moderators (ps ≥ .077), and non-significant effects for studies with follow-ups (g ̅

= 0.139, p = .200). On the basis of these results, we make a number of recommendations for

researchers and educators about the design and implementation of future shared reading interventions.