View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Effects of Shared Reading on the Geometry Vocabulary Knowledge of Preschool Children at Risk for Language Delays

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Effects of Shared Reading on the Geometry Vocabulary Knowledge of Preschool Children at Risk for Language Delays
Language: English
Authors: Taryn Wade (ORCID 0000-0002-2325-1334), Lindsay Dennis (ORCID 0000-0003-1509-7573)
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2026 54(1):27-40.
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: 14
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Geometry, Vocabulary, Reading, Preschool Children, Language Impairments, Scaffolding (Teaching Technique), Questioning Techniques, At Risk Persons, Instructional Effectiveness
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01791-w
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: This study examined the effect of a shared reading routine on the geometry vocabulary knowledge of four preschool children at risk for language delays. Literacy-based interventions can be used to teach vocabulary for children at risk for language delays, incorporating interactive questioning techniques and explicit definitions. Children were taught geometry vocabulary, specifically attributes (i.e., characteristics) of two-dimensional shapes and examples from the storybooks (i.e., contextualized examples) and personal experiences (i.e., decontextualized examples). A dialogic shared reading activity was used with the PEER scaffolding steps and selected question prompts from CROWD with multiple exposures to the target words. This study utilized a single-case, multiple probe across word sets (i.e., tiers) and intervention sessions were delivered one-on-one with each participant. A probe, referred to as a knowledge check, was administered in every session across phases. Each participant improved in some aspects of geometry vocabulary knowledge. Suggestions for future research to build upon this intervention are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503908
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHZ1oLz1wKO4vhVdwP828bZAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDzrJAR7tjl5yWSpHgIBEICBm0Om1d1SZpp58pnBB5OI6q9yilmXadHClnnj5Osq0Q8iYY6v2Eb5Fy4UBDoSYqh5Tsk5OiMABQlZaMRaHXMBd0PnUlzBkJRTkYwsWkqj53zs3tVFPPxJcd5fAaXoknE4S8pZNhj1iRslInLv_9Rzt75yI4DO_f2UH5OZUq8LwwP_igHdXIEFbOy__YJJRe-ztAYJykUdYnkRVy5_
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191072473;5mx01jan.26;2026Jan27.05:19;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191072473-1">The Effects of Shared Reading on the Geometry Vocabulary Knowledge of Preschool Children at Risk for Language Delays </title> <p>This study examined the effect of a shared reading routine on the geometry vocabulary knowledge of four preschool children at risk for language delays. Literacy-based interventions can be used to teach vocabulary for children at risk for language delays, incorporating interactive questioning techniques and explicit definitions. Children were taught geometry vocabulary, specifically attributes (i.e., characteristics) of two-dimensional shapes and examples from the storybooks (i.e., contextualized examples) and personal experiences (i.e., decontextualized examples). A dialogic shared reading activity was used with the PEER scaffolding steps and selected question prompts from CROWD with multiple exposures to the target words. This study utilized a single-case, multiple probe across word sets (i.e., tiers) and intervention sessions were delivered one-on-one with each participant. A probe, referred to as a knowledge check, was administered in every session across phases. Each participant improved in some aspects of geometry vocabulary knowledge. Suggestions for future research to build upon this intervention are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: Shared reading; Preschool; Math vocabulary; Language delay; Geometry; Early childhood; Medical and Health Sciences Public Health and Health Services</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <p>Young children enter school with diverse experiences and opportunities to learn math. Specifically, children with identified language delays enter preschool with less developed vocabulary knowledge than peers (McLeod et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref1">31</reflink>]) and are particularly at risk for academic difficulties, including in the core areas of mathematics and reading. Research indicates language ability is a strong predictor of mathematical ability (Purpura et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref2">41</reflink>]). Early math skills include informal language-based skills (e.g., counting or comparing), and content-specific language (e.g., more, few, near), and children with delays in language abilities may have more difficulty in developing these math language skills (Purpura et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref3">39</reflink>]). Math language encompasses more complex, domain-specific language and this may support the relationship between math performance and literacy skills (Purpura et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref4">39</reflink>]; Schmitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref5">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is estimated that approximately one half to two-thirds of children with identified math difficulties have reading difficulties (Barbaresi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>]; Jordan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]). Some math difficulties indicate a core deficit in language, and this deficit can be reflected in reading difficulties (Jordan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]). Mathematical thinking develops prior to children gaining mathematical vocabulary, though acquiring that vocabulary allows children to express those ideas with words and justify their thinking (Presser et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref9">38</reflink>]). Research on early mathematical development has shown that young children's exposure to mathematical language in preschool and at home varies and may have a significant impact on mathematical knowledge development (Jordan & Levine, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref10">24</reflink>]; Pleng et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref11">37</reflink>]). This co-morbidity between mathematics and reading indicates that children at risk for academic difficulties can benefit from early intervention in preschool to support building of mathematical language and concepts. For the purposes of this study, we first describe the benefits of shared book reading (SBR), followed by a discussion of a specific type of SBR intervention, dialogic reading (DR), that can be used to teach mathematical content.</p> <p>Research suggests leveraging SBR can be a useful pedagogical strategy to support young children who are at-risk for later developing learning disabilities in mathematics (Shamir & Baruch, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref12">44</reflink>]). For example, previous studies have investigated the effects of book readings on children's learning outcomes in mathematics (Casey et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>]; Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]; Hardy, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]; Jennings et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref16">22</reflink>]; Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen & Iliada, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref17">46</reflink>]; Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref18">48</reflink>]; Young-Loveridge, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref19">56</reflink>]). Additional studies focus on the positive effects of book readings on children's engagement and interest in mathematics (Elia et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>]; Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen & Van den Boogaard, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref21">47</reflink>]; Whitney et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref22">54</reflink>]). It is important to note the first two studies are qualitative, while the third is a single-case research design; none focus exclusively on preschool age children and geometry. The current study attempts to address this gap.</p> <p>Shared book reading allows for explicit instruction about unfamiliar vocabulary within the context of helping children find meaning in stories (Combs & Higgins, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>]). As a cornerstone for language and literacy, vocabulary is a strong predictor of reading scores and later academic success (Dickinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>], National Institute for Literacy, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref25">33</reflink>]). Additional research suggests SBR can have immediate effects on children with poor expressive vocabulary skills (Hargrave & Sénéchal, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref26">16</reflink>]) as well as longitudinal effects on low-income children's levels of reading comprehension (Dickinson & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref27">9</reflink>]) and children with identified learning and developmental disabilities (Green et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref28">14</reflink>]). Further, SBR can have an impact on word learning when explicit definitions are provided during the process (Marulis & Neuman, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref29">30</reflink>]; Mol et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref30">32</reflink>]). This work is noteworthy, especially given the early achievement gaps present in mathematics and strong support indicating that early interventions can accelerate children's development (Neuman et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref31">35</reflink>]; Sarama & Clements, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref32">42</reflink>]). SBR provides opportunities for teachers and children to expand their knowledge and use of mathematical concepts and language in the classroom, particularly when teachers use dialogic techniques as they read (Flack et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref33">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Dialogic reading (DR) is empirically supported and utilizes specific prompts to elicit a child's participation (What Works Clearinghouse, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref34">52</reflink>]; What Works Clearinghouse, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref35">53</reflink>]). The adult uses a reading technique known by the acronym PEER, which describes scaffolding steps (i.e., <bold>p</bold>rompt, <bold>e</bold>valuate, <bold>e</bold>xpand, <bold>r</bold>epeat). The adult prompts the child with a question, evaluates the child's response, expands on the child response by modeling with added semantic content, and finally asks the child to repeat the expansion (Lonigan & Whitehurst, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref36">29</reflink>]; Towson et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref37">45</reflink>]; Whalon et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref38">50</reflink>]). The Prompt in PEER refers to five types of question prompts known by the a<bold>c</bold>ronym CROWD (i.e., <bold>c</bold>ompletion, <bold>r</bold>ecall, <bold>o</bold>pen-ended, <bold>w</bold>h-, and <bold>d</bold>istancing). The CROWD prompts facilitate language and the teaching of new words (Purpura et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref39">41</reflink>]; Whalon et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref40">50</reflink>]). The adult gradually talks less, and the child gradually talks more (i.e., increasing expressive language) and the process is broken down into three levels (Flynn, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref41">13</reflink>]). Level one may include basic labeling questions (e.g., What is this?); level two questions may encourage longer responses (e.g., What do you see here?); and level three questions may relate to the child's personal experiences (e.g., Where have you seen a triangle?).</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-2">Current Study</hd> <p>Early math instruction is language-based (Nelson et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref42">34</reflink>]) and SBR in preschool can support language development (Mol et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref43">32</reflink>]). Despite the effective use of SBR to increase knowledge and skills in language and literacy, there is limited research on the use of SBR, specifically DR, to teach mathematics to young children (Hojnoski et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref44">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref45">20</reflink>]). Additionally, recent studies (i.e., Hardy, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]) utilizing SBR to teach math content, do not include geometric vocabulary as a targeted skill. Therefore, there continues to be a need for rigorous research evaluating the use of DR to teach geometric vocabulary. The key components of DR (i.e., PEER sequence with CROWD prompts) provide children with multiple opportunities to hear, respond to, and receive corrective feedback on the targeted skill (i.e., geometric vocabulary). The purpose of this study was to examine the benefits of the use of shared reading in a mathematical context specifically when teaching preschool children at risk for language delays. This study poses the following research question: What is the effect of a shared reading routine on the geometry vocabulary knowledge of preschool children at risk for language delays?</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-3">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191072473-4">Participants and Setting</hd> <p>Four participants were recruited from a private community-based childcare center. Participant inclusion criteria was as follows: (a) 36 to 71 months old, (b) teacher recommendation that child would benefit from a math vocabulary intervention, (c) consistent school attendance (i.e., present in classroom minimum 4 days per week), (d) English as a first language, and (e) can count to 5. Demographic information (i.e., age, ethnicity) was collected from parents/caregivers of consenting participants. To determine whether participants would benefit from the intervention, the researcher provided packets, including the consent, to the director who shared them with teachers in the preschool classrooms. The teachers consulted and determined which children they thought would benefit from the intervention; the parents of those children were provided with consents.</p> <p>To provide a more comprehensive description of each participant's language and math skills, a battery of standardized assessments was administered (i.e., Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool-3; CELF Preschool-3; Wiig et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref47">55</reflink>]; Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Third Edition: Receptive; BBCS-3: R and Expressive; BBCS-3: E; Bracken, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>]). The BBCS-3: R and BBCS-3: E each consist of 11 total subtests and this study utilized eight receptive subtests, six of which can be used to calculate a school readiness composite (i.e., colors, numbers/counting, shapes, letters, size/comparison), two additional math-related subtests (i.e., direction/position, quantity), and one expressive subtest (i.e., shapes). The CELF Preschool-3, BBCS-3: R, and BBCS-3: E have been established in the field as reliable and valid assessments. Table 1 includes participant demographic information and assessment results.</p> <p>Table 1 Participant information</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Participant, age (years: months)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Ethnicity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Pre-academic math measures (selected subtests BBCS-3)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Language assessment (CELF Preschoool-3)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Ava, 4:3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Caucasian</p></td><td align="left"><p>Receptive</p><p>School Readiness Composite: 9</p><p>Direction Position Subtest: 8</p><p>Quantity: 4</p><p>Expressive</p><p>Shapes: 8/8 2D and 0/3 3D</p><p>Can count to 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Core Language: 80</p><p>Receptive Language</p><p>Index:77</p><p>Expressive Language Index:</p><p>86</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rory, 3:6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Caucasian</p></td><td align="left"><p>Receptive</p><p>School Readiness Composite: 11</p><p>Direction/Position: 10</p><p>Quantity: 10</p><p>Expressive</p><p>Shapes: 4/8 2D and 0/3 3D</p><p>Can count to 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Core Language: 93</p><p>Receptive Language Index:</p><p>88</p><p>Expressive Language Index:</p><p>93</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Luke, 3:6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Caucasian</p></td><td align="left"><p>Receptive</p><p>School Readiness Composite: 7,</p><p>Direction/Position: 4</p><p>Quantity: 7</p><p>Expressive</p><p>Shapes: 7/8 2D and 0/3 3D</p><p>Can count to 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Core Language: 83</p><p>Receptive Language Index:</p><p>79</p><p>Expressive Language Index:</p><p>86</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Lily, 3:5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Caucasian</p></td><td align="left"><p>Receptive</p><p>School Readiness Composite: 12</p><p>Direction/Position: 11</p><p>Quantity: 2</p><p>Expressive</p><p>Shapes: 8/8 2D and 0/3 3D</p><p>Can count to 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Core Language: 95</p><p>Receptive Language Index:</p><p>92</p><p>Expressive Language Index:</p><p>95</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>All sessions were face-to-face and took place seated at a table in a large room in the participant's school. The participating child and the interventionist were present for each session. The interventionist was a doctoral candidate in special education. The interventionist did not know the students or teachers personally prior to the study. Sessions occurred at a time and place approved by the director and participant's teacher. Sessions typically occurred between 10:00am and 11:30am, after circle time/recess and before lunch.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-5">Experimental Design</hd> <p>This study utilized a single-case, multiple probe across word sets (i.e., tiers) design to evaluate the effects of the intervention (Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref49">27</reflink>]). The study included three phases: baseline, intervention, and maintenance. A multiple probe design is ideal because the behavior of interest is academic and not reversible (Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref50">27</reflink>]), and the repeated probe measures and controlled replication of effects across phases allows the researcher to demonstrate experimental control (Hojnoski et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref51">19</reflink>]). This multiple probe design helped to reduce fatigue of the young preschool participants because word sets that are in the baseline phase will not require data collection for every single session. Baseline data overlapped vertically (What Works Clearinghouse, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref52">51</reflink>]) and the first three sessions included three probe points for each case (i.e., across the three word set tiers).</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-6">Materials</hd> <p>The interventionist and participant wore personal protective equipment (i.e., masks), materials were sanitized after each use, hand sanitizer and sanitizing wipes were available on the table. Stickers and stamps were on hand to serve as reinforcers. Knowledge checks (i.e., probes) and the vocabulary screener were paper/pencil and completed by the interventionist. Traditional storybooks were used.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-7">Book and Word Selection</hd> <p>A list of books was identified by searching resources available through the Erikson Institute and the Development and Research in Early Math Education (DREME) Network (list available upon request from the authors). The first author then reviewed each of the identified storybooks based on the following criteria: developmentally appropriate for preschool, included geometry vocabulary (i.e., 2-D shapes depicted in illustrations and/or mentioned in text), and provided multiple opportunities to see and hear geometric vocabulary. The list of books was narrowed to 15. Next, experts in the field of early childhood (e.g., doctoral students, faculty, early childhood educators) reviewed the 15 books and associated geometry vocabulary (i.e., shapes with associated attributes and examples) and assigned a score based on the previously mentioned criteria; a total of 10 books met all the criteria and were selected for inclusion in the study. From those 10 books, a total of six targeted shape words (i.e., circle, square, triangle, rectangle, oval, and rhombus) were selected and randomized to create three word sets in which children would be taught shape attributes and examples. Target vocabulary beginning with the same letter or that were too similar in terms of attributes (e.g., circle/oval, square/rectangle) were placed in different words sets. If storybooks contained printed text of vocabulary words from word sets that had not been taught yet, text specific to untaught words were not read. For example, in the storybook Circus Shapes, participants learned about circles and squares. If there was a page that included attributes of a triangle, the researcher did not read those attributes and used that page to point out circles and squares instead. Materials were piloted before the study for the purpose of practicing reading books aloud and using the questioning prompts with preschool-aged children that were not included in the study. Table 2 provides a list of books, targeted shape words, and corresponding attributes.</p> <p>Table 2 Storybooks, shapes, & attributes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Title</p></th><th align="left"><p>Author</p></th><th align="left"><p>Shapes</p></th><th align="left"><p>Attributes</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>City shapes</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Murray, Diane</p></td><td align="left"><p>Circle</p></td><td align="left"><p>(Perfectly) round, no corners</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Square</p></td><td align="left"><p>Four sides all the same, four corners</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Goodnight Construction Site: Bulldozer's Shapes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Rinker, Sherry D.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Circle, Square</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Circus Shapes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Murphy, Stuart J.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Circle, Square</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Round is a Mooncake: A Book of Shapes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Thong, Roseanne</p></td><td align="left"><p>Circle, Square</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Kittens First Full Moon</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Henkes, Kevin</p></td><td align="left"><p>Triangle</p></td><td align="left"><p>Three sides, three corners, can be different sizes and directions</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rectangle</p></td><td align="left"><p>Four sides, two are long and two are short, four corners</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Icky Bug Shapes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pallotta, Jerry</p></td><td align="left"><p>Triangle, Rectangle</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Round is a Tortilla</p></td><td align="left"><p>Thong, Roseanne</p></td><td align="left"><p>Triangle, Rectangle</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mice on Ice</p></td><td align="left"><p>May, Eleanor</p></td><td align="left"><p>Triangle, Rectangle</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Walter's Wonderful Web</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Hopgood, Tim</p></td><td align="left"><p>Oval</p></td><td align="left"><p>Round, no corners, "stretched" circle, two sides go in to make it thin</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rhombus</p></td><td align="left"><p>Four sides all the same, four corners, sits on a point</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Shaping Up Summer</p></td><td align="left"><p>Flatt, Lizann</p></td><td align="left"><p>Oval, Rhombus</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Have You Seen My Monster?</p></td><td align="left"><p>Light, Steve</p></td><td align="left"><p>Oval, Rhombus</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Shapes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Reiss, John</p></td><td align="left"><p>Oval, Rhombus</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191072473-8">Dependent Variable</hd> <p>The primary dependent variable was expressive knowledge of the six target vocabulary words as measured by a probe, referred to as a knowledge check. For each targeted vocabulary word, the participant was (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>) asked to provide an attribute (i.e., characteristics of the shape) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>) provide either a contextualized or decontextualized example. Responses were scored on a scale of 0 to 2 for a total of four possible points in each knowledge check. For each word, a 2-point response included one attribute and one example (i.e., contextualized or decontextualized). An example response to receive 2 points for circle is round and kitten's bowl. A 1-point response would include either one attribute or one example but not both (i.e., round or kitten's bowl). A 0-point response demonstrated no knowledge (i.e., incorrect, no response, repeats word, repeats question prompt, related but inadequate response) and an example response is shape.</p> <p>At each tier, participants were taught two vocabulary words per word set (i.e., word set 1, word set 2, and word set 3). Participants could earn up to four points for each session (i.e., up to 2 points per word). Mastery criteria was met when a score of 3 out of 4 correct responses (75%) was reached for three intervention sessions. To avoid remaining in a word set for an extended period of time and to reduce participant fatigue, the intervention sessions did not need to be consecutive to meet mastery criteria; therefore, after 10 sessions, the participants moved to the next word set. Due to concerns regarding child responses to questions about shape attributes (e.g., child providing the same or non-sensical response), a decision was made to change the question (i.e., What do you know about [target word]? Tell me everything you know about [target word] to A [target word] is what? What does a [target word] have?).</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-9">Procedures</hd> <p>During sessions, storybooks were held within clear view of the participants. Participants received verbal prompts as needed on an individualized basis to stay on task, sit in seat, wear mask, etc. To encourage engagement, the interventionist reminded participants of the sticker/stamp reward they would receive at the end of the session. Sessions occurred approximately three to four times per week and the duration of each session was approximately 10–12 min each. Participants could take breaks as needed; a single session was never spread over two days due to the inconsistency in the exposure of the target words.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-10">Knowledge Check (Baseline)</hd> <p>During baseline, data was collected periodically and determined a priori, with a minimum of three consecutive baseline data points before a participant moved into the intervention phase for each word set. Storybooks were not read during the baseline phase. The interventionist asked the knowledge check questions for all target vocabulary words (i.e., 3 sets of 2 words each) prior to any word set (i.e., tier) and recorded participant responses. Corrective feedback was not provided for either correct or incorrect responses; however, participants were reinforced for participation.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-11">Shared Book Reading (Intervention)</hd> <p>The interventionist worked with each participant one-on-one and engaged in a shared reading activity followed by the knowledge check. A script of questions and prompts was used throughout each storybook session (please see examples in this section) to ensure consistent and equal exposure to each of the targeted vocabulary words and to facilitate child engagement and participation. Research suggests the use of scripted prompts allows the educator to focus engaging with the child, rather than trying to come up with questions/responses in the moment (Dennis et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref55">8</reflink>]). The interventionist read one storybook per session to the participant and taught attributes and examples of each target vocabulary word. Each book was read no more than 3 times each (Hassinger-Das et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref56">17</reflink>]; Purpura et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref57">41</reflink>]), and a different story book was read for each session (e.g., Book 1, Book 2, Book 3, Book 4, Book 1). The shared reading intervention included selected CROWD prompts (i.e., open-ended questions, wh-questions, and distancing) and PEER (i.e., prompt, evaluate, expand, repeat). During sessions, multiple opportunities (e.g., 3–5) to respond to questions were provided to each participant for each target vocabulary word in the set. Open-ended, wh-, and distancing questions were paired with statements from the researcher to elicit examples of both examples and attributes. For example, the researcher would state: "A rectangle has four sides, two sides are long and two are short. It has four corners." Following this statement the researcher would provide a level one or two question prompt: "What do you see on this page that's rectangle?" "What shape is this?" (i.e., level 1) or "What does a rectangle have?" (i.e., level 2). The difference between level one and two is that the child might answer "circle" for the level one question and the child might answer "corners" for the second level question. Distancing questions were also prefaced by a researcher comment; for example, the research would state: "A circle is perfectly round with no corners. The cat's moon is a circle. A cookie can also be a circle," followed by the question prompts: <emph>"</emph>Where have you seen a [target word]?" "What else is a [target word]?)" (i.e., level 3). Following the PEER sequence, corrective feedback (i.e., evaluation; affirmation of a correct response or a direct model for an incorrect response), an expansion, and a request to repeat were provided.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-12">Maintenance</hd> <p>Maintenance was collected one- and two-weeks following intervention for each tier and followed the same procedures as previously described for the baseline phase.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-13">Interobserver Agreement</hd> <p>Interobserver agreement (IOA) was completed by a research assistant (RA) prior to the beginning of the study. First, the researcher and student met to discuss the knowledge check and scoring rubric. Next, the researcher and RA coded practice videos independently and met to discuss agreements and disagreements. The doctoral student met 90% reliable for three consecutive videos prior to coding study videos.</p> <p>IOA was collected for a minimum of 20% of a priori randomly selected sessions for each participant within each condition. Knowledge checks were scored in real time by the researcher and reviewed via video by the RA for all participants across conditions. Throughout data collection the researcher and RA met to discuss any disagreements and came to consensus on the scores. Therefore, IOA was calculated to be 100% for all participants across all phases.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-14">Procedural Fidelity</hd> <p>A second RA was trained to collect procedural fidelity using researcher-developed checklists (i.e., one for baseline and a separate for intervention) prior to the beginning of the study. Checklist items were scored as 0 or 1 point. Baseline checklist items included table materials set up, video recording device active, asking participant probe (i.e., knowledge check) questions and recording responses, no corrective feedback provided during or after probe questions, and video recording stopped. Intervention checklist items included the aforementioned items with additional items related to the storybook in view of the participant and consistency in the questioning and PEER strategies. First, the researcher and RA met to discuss both the baseline and intervention checklists prior to any practice coding. Then, the researcher and RA coded pilot practice videos independently and met to discuss agreements and disagreements. The RA had to be at least 90% reliable for three consecutive videos prior to coding study videos. Procedural fidelity data was collected for a minimum of 20% of a priori randomly selected sessions for each participant within each condition to ensure fidelity throughout the duration of the study. Fidelity was 100% for all participants across all phases.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-15">Social Validity</hd> <p>The purpose of the social validity questionnaire was to gather insight into teacher/caregiver attitudes and opinions regarding the effectiveness of the intervention, the level of ease to implement the intervention, and how the intervention might fit in the typical school and home routine respectively. Upon completion of the study, teachers viewed two video recordings of an intervention session. Videos were selected that showed examples of the intervention being implemented as intended; no other children walking by in the background to protect their privacy; and good volume in which viewers can hear the researcher and the participant clearly. Following viewing the videos, teachers were given a short questionnaire that they could complete anonymously. Due to the procedures at the childcare center, caregivers were not readily accessible to the researcher and caregiver social validity was not obtained. Teachers reported the intervention was practical for use in the classroom. Suggestions for improvements included reading in a quieter place with little distraction and incorporating cut-out shapes as an additional visual and tactile aide during book reading. Two of four participants were described by the classroom teacher to be using shape words more often while in the classroom setting.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-16">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Visual analysis was used to determine the impact of the shared book reading intervention on children's expressive knowledge of math vocabulary. Visual analysis is a systematic procedure used to evaluate the specific data characteristics of an individual's performance under different experimental conditions to determine the presence of a functional relation (Horner et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref58">21</reflink>]; Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref59">27</reflink>]). Collecting, graphing, and evaluating data allow researchers to make experimental decisions. Both formative analysis (i.e., examining level, trend, and variability within and across conditions), as well as summative analysis (i.e., presence of overlap, consistency, and immediacy of change; Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref60">28</reflink>]) were utilized in this study. The demonstration of experimental control across conditions or people needs to be replicated several times (three replications is the minimum) to ensure confidence of the relationship between treatment and outcome (Kratochwill et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref61">26</reflink>]; Kratochwill & Levin, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref62">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Visual analysis was used to determine the presence of a functional relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable, which would be evidenced by at least three demonstrations of effect (What Works Clearinghouse, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref63">51</reflink>]); meaning, there is a significant change in the outcome variable upon introduction of the independent variable. Specific to this study, we anticipated four replications (i.e., changes in geometric vocabulary knowledge due to the shared reading routine), in all four participants.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-17">Results</hd> <p>To answer the research question, data from the knowledge checks (i.e., points out of 4 total) were graphed and analyzed visually (see Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4). The star next to data points indicates a change in one of the two questions asked on the knowledge check. Specifically, "What do you know about [target word]? Tell me everything you know about [target word]" was changed to "A [target word] is what?" "What does a [target word] have?". The horizontal dotted line indicates the mastery criteria (i.e., 3 out of 4 points earned).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Participant graph Ava. Note. BL = baseline; IV = intervention; ★ = when probe question changed; horizontal dotted line = mastery criteria</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-18">Ava</hd> <p>In word set 1, Ava demonstrated some level of knowledge (range: 1–2 points) in baseline. An immediacy of effect was not realized from baseline to intervention; however, after three intervention sessions, visual analysis indicated a change in level. The trend was positive and accelerating. There was a one-point dip in session 10, however, Ava did meet mastery criteria and moved on to the next word set. Baseline and intervention phases were stable. There was a 30% overlap between baseline and intervention data points. The first maintenance session showed a decrease from intervention levels but in the second maintenance session, Ava met mastery criteria. There was a demonstration of effect in word set 1.</p> <p>In word set 2, an immediacy of change was not demonstrated. Ava generalized some of what she learned from word set 1 in her responses to word set 2 baseline knowledge check questions (i.e., responding how many sides or corners a shape had and decontextualized examples). She did meet mastery criteria in five intervention sessions. However, the intervention scores were variable, and the trend and level showed little to no change. There was an 80% overlap between baseline and intervention data points. The first and second maintenance sessions were consistent with Ava's performance in intervention.</p> <p>In word set 3, Ava did not demonstrate an immediate change from baseline to intervention session 1. Though subsequent sessions were variable, she demonstrated an accelerating trend from sessions 13 to 16, meeting mastery criteria two times before the trend began to decelerate. Baseline data were stable, intervention data were variable, and there was a 40% overlap between baseline and intervention data points. The first and second maintenance sessions were consistent with Ava's performance in intervention. A functional relationship between the intervention and dependent variable was not observed (See Fig. 1).</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-19">Rory</hd> <p>In word set 1, Rory demonstrated an immediacy of effect from baseline to intervention. The trend is positive and accelerating. There was a one-point dip in session 12 before Rory went on to meet mastery criteria in the three subsequent sessions. Baseline and intervention phases were stable. There was a 0% overlap between baseline and intervention data points. The first and second maintenance sessions were aligned with Rory's performance in intervention. There was a demonstration of effect in word set 1.</p> <p>In word set 2, visual analysis did not indicate an immediacy of effect. Rory did meet mastery criteria in sessions 13, 17, and 19; however, data were variable. The trend was positive and accelerating. Rory demonstrated no change in level from the last baseline session to the first intervention session, but visual analysis supported a level change from baseline to intervention at the conclusion of this word set. Baseline data was stable, intervention data was variable. There was an 60% overlap between baseline and intervention data points. The first and second maintenance sessions were aligned with Rory's performance in intervention.</p> <p>In word set 3, an immediacy of effect was not demonstrated, though by session 15, Rory's data showed a small level and trend change which then remained stable for the duration of that word set intervention. There was a 40% overlap between baseline and intervention data points. The first and second maintenance sessions indicated Rory did not retain knowledge of word set 3 shapes; however, his willingness to provide responses may have impacted this data. Specifically, he responded, "I don't know" or "No thank you" and did not respond to follow up prompts to elicit any further responses. A functional relationship between the intervention and dependent variable was not observed (See Fig. 2).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Participant graph Rory. Note. BL = baseline; IV = intervention; ★ = when probe question changed; horizontal dotted line = mastery criteria</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-20">Lily</hd> <p>In word set 1, Lily demonstrated some level of knowledge (range: 0–2 points) in baseline. An immediacy of effect was not demonstrated from baseline to intervention; however, after four intervention sessions, visual analysis indicated a change in level as well as a positive and accelerating trend. There was a 57% overlap between baseline and intervention data points. The first and second maintenance sessions demonstrated that Lily maintained mastery criteria in her responses to the knowledge check. There was a demonstration of effect in word set 1.</p> <p>In word set 2, an immediacy of effect was not demonstrated. Lily did not meet mastery criteria and it is speculated this is in part due to her mixing up rectangle and triangle. She would often give the attributes for rectangle when asked about triangle and vice versa. She demonstrated knowledge of attributes; for example, responding with more than one detail (e.g., has four sides, two are long, two are short). There was an 60% overlap between baseline and intervention data points. The first and second maintenance sessions were aligned with Lily's performance in intervention.</p> <p>In word set 3, Lily demonstrated an immediacy of effect from baseline to intervention. No overlap between baseline and intervention data points was observed. The trend was positive and accelerating. The first maintenance session showed a decrease from intervention levels but in the second maintenance session, Lily's performance aligned more closely with her intervention performance. There was a demonstration of effect in word set 3. A functional relationship between the intervention and dependent variable was not observed (See Fig. 3).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Participant graph Lily. Note. BL = baseline; IV = intervention; ★ = when probe question changed; horizontal dotted line = mastery criteria</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Participant graph Luke. Note. BL = baseline; IV = intervention; ★ = when probe question changed; horizontal dotted line = mastery criteria</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-21">Luke</hd> <p>In word set 1, Luke demonstrated an immediacy of effect and from baseline to intervention. Across intervention data points, minimal change was observed. However, Luke did meet mastery criteria one time in session 8. There was no overlap between baseline and intervention data points. The first and second maintenance sessions were aligned with Luke's performance in intervention. Word set 1 demonstrated an effect.</p> <p>In word set 2, Luke demonstrated an immediacy of effect from baseline to intervention. Results were similar to word set 1, in that minimal change was seen across intervention data points; however, Luke did meet mastery criteria one time in session 11. Baseline and intervention data were variable and there was 90% overlap. The first maintenance session aligned with Luke's intervention levels but in the second maintenance session, Luke met mastery criteria.</p> <p>In word set 3, Luke demonstrated an immediacy of effect from baseline to intervention. The level and trend were consistent with the two previous word sets. There was an 80% overlap between baseline and intervention. Data collection was discontinued after the fifth session due to Luke's sporadic absences throughout the research study. The first and second maintenance sessions indicated Luke did not retain knowledge of word set 3 shapes. A functional relationship between the intervention and dependent variable was not observed (See Fig. 4).</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-22">Discussion</hd> <p>Young children with identified language delays enter preschool with less developed vocabulary knowledge than peers (McLeod et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref64">31</reflink>]) and are particularly at risk for academic difficulties, including in the core areas of mathematics and reading. The purpose of this study was to implement a dialogic shared reading intervention to support children at risk for language delays in developing math vocabulary. Children were taught geometry vocabulary (i.e., attributes of two-dimensional shapes and examples from the storybooks and personal experiences). The PEER scaffolding steps and selected question prompts from CROWD were implemented to provide multiple exposures to the target word.</p> <p>The results suggest there was some growth in math vocabulary knowledge when using a shared book reading routine to teach geometric vocabulary words. Specifically, participants were able to describe some attributes of shapes, provide some examples of shapes, and make connections to their personal interests/experiences. However, similar to previous studies, changes between baseline and intervention were variable and inconsistent. For example, Hojnoski et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref65">19</reflink>]) measured parent and child math utterances during storybook reading and results indicated child utterances were not consistent or uniformly significant. In this study, participants benefitted from the illustrations and questioning strategies during book reading to learn and discuss shape attributes and examples. The removal of the visual support to assess math vocabulary knowledge on the knowledge check proved to be difficult for participants in providing accurate responses as compared to their responses during the intervention book reading portion. Findings from O'Rear and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref66">36</reflink>]) suggest that researchers and educators have some flexibility when deciding the types of materials provided to children when assessing math skills (e.g., cardinality, shape identification). While a functional relation was not established for any of the participants, it is important to note this study is the first to use single-case methodology to teach 2-D shape attributes and make connections to children's background knowledge. The variability in children's scores suggests revisions to the assessment may be necessary. Future studies may incorporate visuals (i.e., pictures) when assessing young children's geometric knowledge.</p> <p>In a study by Clements and Sarama ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref67">5</reflink>]) typically developing children (i.e., participants between 41 and 51 months) began to develop the ability to describe basic 2- dimensional shapes in their own words, including describing attributes and parts. In another study by Verdine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref68">49</reflink>]), language skills were a factor that determined the difference in shape knowledge demonstrated by typically developing 25-month-old children compared to typically developing 30-month-old children, as learning shape words overlaps with learning words in general. Similar results were seen in the current study as participants did demonstrate the ability to describe and interact with the target shapes with scaffolding (e.g., multiple exposures to words, multiple visual examples, immediate corrective feedback, individualized examples). It is possible the scaffolding strategies were not sufficient for children to acquire the targeted skills. More intensive support such as least to most prompting may be incorporated into future studies utilizing DR as an intervention to teach geometric math vocabulary.</p> <p>Regarding shared book reading, this study aligns with previous literature suggesting this intervention can result in an increase in math vocabulary knowledge. In previous math-focused shared reading interventions, studies were primarily randomized control trials (e.g., Hassinger-Das et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref69">17</reflink>]; Purpura et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref70">41</reflink>]) and of the single-case studies (e.g., Hendrix et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref71">18</reflink>]; Hojnoski et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref72">19</reflink>]), many were caregiver-implemented. The specific framework utilized in this study, dialogic reading (DR), promoted interactive engagement between child and adult (Purpura et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref73">40</reflink>]). The shared reading routine with the inclusion of scripts was consistent with previous studies from Purpura and colleagues (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref74">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref75">41</reflink>]). A more recent single-case research design (Hardy, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref76">15</reflink>]) included researcher developed books that allowed for more control over number of exposures to math language and associated question prompts. Unique to this study is the combination of specific DR prompts embedded within a shared reading routine, to target the geometric vocabulary knowledge of preschool age children. Further development of the DR intervention is needed to ensure it is effective and efficient.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-23">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>Several limitations in this study must be addressed. First, storybooks were not read in baseline. It is unknown if participants would have had a behavior change with storybooks alone. For example, Hendrix et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref77">18</reflink>]) read books in baseline to measure the effect of caregiver training on math utterances and the researchers were able to determine if math utterances changed from book reading alone (i.e., without caregiver training).</p> <p>A second limitation is the wording of the knowledge check questions and potential subsequent impact on child responses. The question aimed at eliciting responses about shape attributes was changed early in the study and did help somewhat; however, there is room for improvement in this area. In future studies, the questions can be modified; for example, "What clues tell you it's a circle?" The scoring rubric may benefit from modification as well. In this study, it was on a 0–2-point scale and in the future a larger scale (i.e., 0-3-point) and/or scoring criteria varying based on the target word could possibly better capture child level math vocabulary knowledge. For example, the rubric could award points for responses providing two examples or two attributes instead of criteria only awarding points for providing at least one of each (i.e., attribute and example). Least to most prompting can be implemented during both instruction and probes (i.e., knowledge check) in future studies. As suggested by Cooper et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref78">7</reflink>]), least to most prompting can give the child the opportunity to respond to the question with the least amount of assistance and the adult can scaffold with increased assistance with each attempt (e.g., "I don't know" response) as needed.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-24">Implications for Research and Practice</hd> <p>Pre-teaching prior to an intervention phase to focus on the target words could support the participants to understand the routine and what is being asked of them during the reading sessions and the knowledge check. This could include using multiple exemplars such as a wide variety of cut-out shapes that have different sizes and orientation and doing a shape matching activity (Clements & Sarama, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref79">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers can use classroom routines, such as center time activities and outside play, to further integrate geometry vocabulary and concepts into the preschool day. For example, teachers may consider teaching geometric content during shared reading activities, including with books that are not selected specifically for that purpose. Dialogic reading techniques, like those utilized in this study, can be incorporated into shared book reading sessions, with extension activities that promote children's continued use of geometric vocabulary. For example, adults can use geometric vocabulary while children are engaged in an activity such as sorting blocks of different shapes and comparing similarities and differences of those shapes. Additionally, teachers could introduce other mathematical concepts by encouraging children to utilize different tools to measure blocks. In adult-child interactions, the adult can expand upon the child's personal experiences or interests. This information can be used to create further examples to support learning.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-25">Conclusion</hd> <p>Providing instruction in mathematical domains, specifically geometry, is important in the preschool years. This study contributes to the limited empirical evidence currently available, suggesting shared book reading, specifically dialogic reading, can be used to teach geometric vocabulary to preschool age children. Results across participants were variable, but positive, suggesting this type of intervention can be beneficial for supporting children's geometric vocabulary. Future research is needed to determine the best approach to assessing children's geometric knowledge; specifically related to attributes of shapes.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191072473-27">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0191072473-28">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0191072473-29"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref6" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Barbaresi WJ, Katusic SK, Colligan RC, Weaver AL, Jacobsen SJ. Math learning disorder: Incidence in a population-based birth cohort, 1976-82, Rochester, Minn. Ambulatory Pediatrics. 2005; 5; 5: 281-289. 10.1367/A04-209R.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref48" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bracken, B. A. (2006). Bracken bBasic concept scale (3rd ed.). Psychological Corp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref13" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Casey B, Erkut S, Ceder I, Young JM. Use of a storytelling context to improve girls' and boys' geometry skills in kindergarten. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2008; 29; 1: 29-48. 10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref14" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Clarke D. Making measurement come alive with a children's storybook. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom. 2002; 7; 3: 9-13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref67" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Clements, D. H, & Sarama, J. (2017/2019). Learning and teaching with learning trajectories [LT]2. Retrieved from Marsico Institute, Morgridge College of Education, University of Denver.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref23" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Combs, S, & Higgins, K. N. (2023). The relationship between shared picturebook reading and language development in young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01611-7. Advanced online publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref78" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cooper, J. O, Heron, T. E, & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref55" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dennis, L. R, Farquharson, K, Reed, A, Summy, R, Westmoreland, J, & Clark, K. (2024). The effects of practice-based coaching on the implementation of shared book reading strategies for speech-language pathologist assistants and paraeducators working with children with language delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 43(4), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214231198691</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref27" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dickinson, D. K, & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers' book readings on low-income children's vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(2), 105–122.</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; 4: 305-310. 10.3102/0013189X10370204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elia I, Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen M, Georgiou A. The role of picture books on children's cognitive engagement with mathematics. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2010; 18: 125-147. 10.1080/1350293X.2010.500054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flack ZM, Field AP, Horst JS. The effects of shared storybook reading on word learning: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology. 2018; 54; 7: 1334-1346. 10.1037/dev0000512</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flynn, K. S. (2011). Developing children's oral language skills through dialogic reading: Guidelines for implementation. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(2), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991104400201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green KB, Gallagher PA, Hart L. Integrating mathematics and children's literature for young children with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention. 2018; 40; 1: 3-19. 10.1177/1053815117737339</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hardy, J. K. (2024). The effects of systematic instruction with math books to teach math to preschoolers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01686-w. Advanced online publication.</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> Hassinger-Das B, Jordan NC, Dyson N. Reading stories to learn math: Mathematics vocabulary instruction for children with early numeracy difficulties. Elementary School Journal. 2015; 116; 2: 242-264. 10.1086/683986</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hendrix NM, Hojnoski RL, Missal KN. Shared book reading to promote math talk in parent-child dyads in low-income families. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 2019; 39; 1: 45-55. 10.1177/0271121419831762</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hojnoski RL, Columba HL, Polignano J. Embedding mathematical dialogue in parent-child shared book reading: A preliminary investigation. Early Education and Development. 2014; 25; 4: 469-492. 10.1080/10409289.2013.810481</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hojnoski RL, Polignano J, Columba HL. Increasing teacher mathematical talk during shared book reading in the preschool classroom: A pilot study. Early Education and Development. 2016; 27; 5: 676-691. 10.1080/10409289.2016.1102018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner R, Carr E, Halle J, McGee G, Odom S, Wolery M. The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children. 2005; 71: 165-179. 10.1177/001440290507100203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jennings CM, Jennings JE, Richey J, Dixon-Krauss L. Increasing interest and achievement in mathematics through children's literature. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 1992; 7: 263-276. 10.1016/0885-2006(92)90008-M</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordan, N. C. (2007). Do words count? Connections between mathematics and reading difficulties. In M. M. Berch, & D. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordan NC, Levine SC. Socioeconomic variation, number competence, and mathematics learning difficulties in young children. Developmental Disabilities. 2009; 15; 1: 60-68. 10.1002/ddrr.46</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill, T, & Levin, J. (2015). Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315725994</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill, T. R, Hitchcock, J, Horner, R. H, Levin, J. R, Odom, S. L, Rindskopf, D. M. & Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website: <ulink href="http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc%5fscd.pdf">http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc%5fscd.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford JR, Zimmerman KN, Harbin ER, Ward SE. Improving the use of evidence-based instructional practices for paraprofessionals. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities. 2018; 33; 4: 206-216. 10.1177/1088357617699178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford JR, Barton EE, Severini KE, Zimmerman KN. A primer on single-case research designs: Contemporary use and analysis. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 2019; 124; 1: 35-56. 10.1352/1944-7558-124.1.35</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lonigan, C. J, & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80038-6.</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> Mcleod RH, Kaiser AP, Hardy JK. The relation between teacher vocabulary use in play and child vocabulary outcomes. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 2019; 39; 2: 103-116. 10.1177/0271121418812675</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mol SE, Bus AG, de Jong MT. Interactive book reading in early education: A tool to stimulate print knowledge as well as oral language. Review of Educational Research. 2009; 79; 2: 979-1007. 10.3102/0034654309332561</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute for Literacy. (2009). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel (ERIC Publication No. ED. 508381). National Institute for Literacy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson, P. M, Klingbeil, D. A, & Parker, D. C. (2020). An evaluation of the incremental impact of math intervention on early literacy performance (pp. 431–442). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman SB, Newman EH, Dwyer J. Educational effects of a vocabulary intervention on preschoolers' word knowledge and conceptual development: A cluster-randomized trial. Reading Research Quarterly. 2011; 46; 3: 249-272. 10.1598/RRQ.46.3.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Rear, C. D, Zippert, E. L, Ehrman, P, Westerberg, L, Lonigan, C. J, & Purpura, D. J. (2023). Use them or lose them: Are manipulatives needed to assess numeracy and geometry performance in preschool? Infant and Child Development, 32(5), Article e2444. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2444.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pleng, P, Weckbacher, L. M, & Okamoto, Y. (2024). Pentagon or five-angle shape? Exploring the effects of shape names on young children's geometric shape knowledge. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01667-z. Advanced online publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Presser AL, Clements M, Ginsburg H, Ertle B. Big math for little kids: The effectiveness of a preschool and kindergarten mathematics curriculum. Early Education and Development. 2015; 26; 3: 399-426. 10.1080/10409289.2015.994451</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Purpura DJ, Logan JAR, Hassinger-Das B, Napoli AR. Why do early mathematics skills predict later reading? The role of mathematical language. Developmental Psychology. 2017; 53; 9: 1633-1642. 10.1037/dev0000375</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Purpura DJ, Napoli AR, Wehrspann EA, Gold ZS. Causal connections between mathematical language and mathematical knowledge: A dialogic reading intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2017; 10; 1: 116-137. 10.1080/19345747.2016.1204639</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Purpura DJ, Schmitt SA, Napoli AR, Dobbs-Oates J, King YA, Hornburg CB, Westerberg L, Borriello GA, Bryant LM, Anaya LY, Kung M, Litkowski E, Lin J, Rolan E. Engaging caregivers and children in picture books: A family implemented mathematical language intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2021; 113; 7: 1338-1353. 10.1037/edu0000662</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sarama, J, & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research. Learning trajectories for young children. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmitt SA, Purpura DJ, Elicker JG. Predictive links among vocabulary, mathematical language, and executive functioning in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2018; 180: 55-68. 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.12.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shamir A, Baruch D. Educational e-books: A support for vocabulary and early math for children at risk for learning disabilities. Educational Media International. 2012; 49; 1: 33-47. 10.1080/09523987.2012.662623</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Towson, J. A, Akemoglu, Y, Watkins, L, & Zeng, S. (2021). Shared interactive book reading interventions for young children with disabilities: A systematic review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021%5fAJSLP-20-00401. Advanced online publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen M, Iliada E. Kindergartener's performance in length measurement and the effect of picture book reading. Zdm Mathematics Education. 2011; 43: 621-635. 10.1007/s11858-011-0331-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen M, Van den Boogaard S. Picture books as an impetus for kindergartners' mathematical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning. 2008; 10: 341-373. 10.1080/10986060802425539</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen M, Elia I, Robitzsch A. Effects of reading picture books on kindergartners' mathematics performance. Educational Psychology. 2016; 36; 2: 323-346. 10.1080/01443410.2014.963029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verdine BN, Lucca KR, Golinkoff RM, Hirsh-Pasek K, Newcomb NS. The shape of things: The origin of young children's knowledge of the names and properties of geometric forms. The Journal of Cognition and Development. 2016; 17; 1: 142-161. 10.1080/15248372.2015.1016610</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whalon K, Delano M, Hanline MF. A rationale and strategy for adapting dialogic reading for children with autism spectrum disorder: RECALL. Preventing School Failure. 2013; 57; 2: 93-101. 10.1080/1045988X.2012.672347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> What Works Clearinghouse (2020). What Works Clearinghouse Standards Handbook, Version 4.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/WWC-Standards-Handbook-v4-1508.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> What Works Clearinghouse. (2007). WWC intervention report: Dialogic reading. Washington, D. C: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/WWC_Dialogic_Reading_020807.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> What Works Clearinghouse. (2015). WWC intervention report: Shared book reading. Washington, D. C: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention%5freports/wwc%5fsharedbook%5f041415.pdf">http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention%5freports/wwc%5fsharedbook%5f041415.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitney T, Lingo AS, Cooper J, Karp K. Effects of shared story reading in mathematics for students with academic difficulty and challenging behaviors. Remedial and Special Education. 2017; 38; 5: 284-296. 10.1177/0741932517698964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiig, E. H, Secord, W. A, & Semel, E. (2020). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals preschool (3rd ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young-Loveridge J. Effects on early numeracy of a program using number books and games. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2004; 19: 82-89. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.001</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Taryn Wade and Lindsay Dennis</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref73"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503908
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Effects of Shared Reading on the Geometry Vocabulary Knowledge of Preschool Children at Risk for Language Delays
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Taryn+Wade%22">Taryn Wade</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2325-1334">0000-0002-2325-1334</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lindsay+Dennis%22">Lindsay Dennis</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1509-7573">0000-0003-1509-7573</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2026 54(1):27-40.
– 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: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Geometry%22">Geometry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary%22">Vocabulary</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading%22">Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Impairments%22">Language Impairments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scaffolding+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22">Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questioning+Techniques%22">Questioning Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22At+Risk+Persons%22">At Risk Persons</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01791-w
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examined the effect of a shared reading routine on the geometry vocabulary knowledge of four preschool children at risk for language delays. Literacy-based interventions can be used to teach vocabulary for children at risk for language delays, incorporating interactive questioning techniques and explicit definitions. Children were taught geometry vocabulary, specifically attributes (i.e., characteristics) of two-dimensional shapes and examples from the storybooks (i.e., contextualized examples) and personal experiences (i.e., decontextualized examples). A dialogic shared reading activity was used with the PEER scaffolding steps and selected question prompts from CROWD with multiple exposures to the target words. This study utilized a single-case, multiple probe across word sets (i.e., tiers) and intervention sessions were delivered one-on-one with each participant. A probe, referred to as a knowledge check, was administered in every session across phases. Each participant improved in some aspects of geometry vocabulary knowledge. Suggestions for future research to build upon this intervention are discussed.
– 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: EJ1503908
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503908
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01791-w
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 27
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Geometry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Impairments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questioning Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: At Risk Persons
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Effects of Shared Reading on the Geometry Vocabulary Knowledge of Preschool Children at Risk for Language Delays
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Taryn Wade
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lindsay Dennis
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 54
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1