Try the all-new QuickBooks Online for FREE.  No credit card required.


Document Sample
nelson Powered By Docstoc
					   Efficacy of Supplemental Early Vocabulary Instruction
Linked Directly with the Core Beginning Reading Program

                          J. Ron Nelson
                 University of Nebraska, Lincoln

                 Pat Vadasy & Elizabeth Sanders
                 Washington Research Institute

                 IES Research Conference
                     Washington, DC
Outline 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 Intervention
   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

   Instructional Components        Proximal Effects             Distal Effects

                              Change in
                              Word Reading Skills
                              Instructional Components
                              1&3                              Change in
                              Measure                          Reading Vocabulary &
                              WRMT-R/NU Basic Skills Cluster   Comprehension
                                                               WRMT-R/NU Word
                                                               Comprehension Cluster

                              Change in
                              Root Word Vocabulary
                              Instructional Components
                              2, 3, 4, 5, & 6
                              CBM Root Word Vocabulary

  Proximal=linked directly with the instructional focus of the intervention
  Distal=not linked directly with the instructional focus of the intervention
Example Lesson
  Linkage with Core Beginning Reading Programs

 Zeno, Ivens, Millard,
  and Duvvuri 1995

=184 Root Words
Study Methods: 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 Conditions
   Treatment: Early Vocabulary Connections: First Words to Know and
   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
       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 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
    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

Shared By: