Efficacy of Supplemental Early Vocabulary Efficacy of Supplemental Early Vocabulary Instruction Instruction

Linked Directly with the Core Beginning Reading Linked Directly with the Core Beginning Reading ProgramProgram

J. Ron NelsonUniversity of Nebraska, Lincoln

CollaboratorsPat Vadasy & Elizabeth SandersWashington Research Institute

IES Research ConferenceWashington, DC

2010

Outline of PresentationOutline of Presentation

Background◦ Assumptions guiding the development of the intervention

◦ Conceptual framework for the intervention

◦ Linkage with core beginning reading programs

Study Methods◦ Research design

◦ Sample

◦ Intervention conditions

Study Outcomes◦ Year one proximal and distal implementation effects

◦ Year two proximal and distal follow-up effects

Assumptions Guiding the Development of the Assumptions Guiding the Development of the InterventionIntervention Although familiar to most English speaking students, high

frequency root words may not be known by ELs (Biemiller, in press; McKeown et al., 1983)

Lexical quality hypothesis holds that knowledge of word meanings facilitates word recognition (Perfetti & Hart, 2002)◦ Learning to decode high frequency root words (e.g., lip, tap, ham,

sack) used for beginning reading instruction and practice is supported in L1 students by their familiarity with the meanings

◦ EL children who are not/less familiar with the words used to teach decoding skills are not able to monitor their pronunciation and recognize when they have successfully sounded out these words

This suggests teaching the meanings of high frequency, decodable root words used in core beginning reading programs to insure that Els practice decoding with words that are in their speaking as well as reading vocabulary

Students with stronger word identification skills are more likely to expand their vocabulary knowledge through reading practice (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998)

Little vocabulary instruction takes place in schools prior to 3rd grade (Biemiller, in press)◦ Singular focus on decoding may reduce students’ word awareness

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTERVENTIONINTERVENTION

Change in Reading Vocabulary & ComprehensionMeasureWRMT-R/NU Word Comprehension Cluster

Change in Reading Vocabulary & ComprehensionMeasureWRMT-R/NU Word Comprehension Cluster

Change in Root Word VocabularyInstructional Components2, 3, 4, 5, & 6MeasureCBM Root Word Vocabulary

Change in Root Word VocabularyInstructional Components2, 3, 4, 5, & 6MeasureCBM Root Word Vocabulary

Change in Word Reading SkillsInstructional Components1 & 3MeasureWRMT-R/NU Basic Skills Cluster

Change in Word Reading SkillsInstructional Components1 & 3MeasureWRMT-R/NU Basic Skills Cluster

Instructional Components Proximal Effects Distal Effects

Proximal=linked directly with the instructional focus of the interventionDistal=not linked directly with the instructional focus of the intervention

Example LessonExample Lesson

Linkage with Core Beginning Reading Linkage with Core Beginning Reading ProgramsPrograms

Frequent+

Decodable________

=184 Root Words

Zeno, Ivens, Millard,and Duvvuri 1995

StudyStudy Methods: DesignMethods: Design Cluster randomized trial

◦ Two cohorts from six elementary schools: one cohort per year for two consecutive years Each cohort was pre-tested (fall), post-tested (spring), and

follow-up-tested (winter following intervention year)

◦ Within classrooms, students were randomly assigned to one of two small groups (n=2 to 5); groups were then randomly assigned to treatment or comparison conditions

Sample◦ Spanish-speaking K students

Scores fell within the limited or non-English speaker levels of the Oral Language component of the norm-referenced, Pre-Literacy Language Assessment Scales 2000 (pre-LAS 2000)

◦ Final 2-cohort sample comprised 29 (n=93) treatment and 28 (n=92) comparison groups

◦ Final 2-cohort follow-up sample comprised 29 (n=74) treatment and 28 (n=66) comparison groups

Study Methods: Intervention ConditionsStudy Methods: Intervention Conditions Treatment: Early Vocabulary Connections: First Words to

Know and Decode Comparison: Modified version of Interactive Book Reading

◦ Used picture cards to introduce words rather than prop boxes

◦ Three prong instructional Sequence Introduce and define the target (root word) and conceptually

connected e.g., target=bank: conceptually connected=money, teller, and safe

Discuss target and conceptually connected words during and after storybook reading

Provide opportunities for children to use target and conceptually connected words independently after storybook reading

Across conditions◦ Same root words taught in both conditions

◦ Delivered by paraeducators in small groups outside of the classroom (20 min per day, 5 days per week, from Oct to Apr (dosage=55% of program)

◦ General and component treatment fidelity for both conditions were very high Small or no correlation between fidelity and outcome measures (rs

range from .09 to .22)

Study Methods: Dependent MeasuresStudy Methods: Dependent Measures

Root word vocabulary (proximal)◦ 50 multiple choice items (target words were randomly selected

from the 184 target words included in the program) Student was required to match a meaning read by the tester

with choice of three words read by the student: one target and two distractors

Reading vocabulary (distal)◦ Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised/ Normative Update

(WRMT-R/NU; Woodcock, 1987/1998) Word Comprehension cluster

Word Reading (proximal)◦ WRMT-R/NU Basic Reading Skills Cluster

ResultsResults

Analytic approach◦ 3-level HLM models

Student scores (Level 1) nested within small groups (Level 2), nested within school (Level 3)

Pre-tests used as covariate Allowed for estimation of random effects due to small groups and

schools

Results◦ Year one proximal and distal implementation effects

Vocabulary Proximal root word vocabulary (d=1.04) Distal reading vocabulary (d=.38)

Proximal word reading (d=.69)

◦ Year 2 proximal and distal follow-up Vocabulary

Proximal root word vocabulary (d=.23) Distal reading vocabulary (d=.29)

Proximal word reading (d=.35)

*Effects were stronger when receptive vocabulary (PPVT-IIIA) was used as covariate in the HLM models