ERIC ED605483: Moving Forward Four Words at a Time: Effects of a Supplemental Preschool Vocabulary Intervention

0.49 MB·English

by  ERIC

LSHSS
Research Article
Moving Forward Four Words at a Time:
Effects of a Supplemental Preschool
Vocabulary Intervention
Lindsey A. Peters-Sanders,a Elizabeth S. Kelley,b Christa Haring Biel,a Keri Madsen,a
Xigrid Soto,a Yagmur Seven,a Katharine Hull,a and Howard Goldsteina
Purpose:Thisstudyevaluatedtheeffectsofanautomated, effectsofthebooksandembeddedlessonsonlearningof
small-groupinterventiondesignedtoteachpreschoolers targetvocabularywords.
challengingvocabularywords.Previousstudieshaveprovided Results:Treatmenteffectswereobservedforallchildren
evidenceofefficacy.Inthisstudy,weevaluatedtheeffects acrossmanyofthebooks.Learningofatleast2points
oftheprogramafterdoublingthenumberofwordstaught (i.e.,1word)wasreplicatedfor74.5%of149books
from2to4wordsperbook. testedacrossthe17participants.Onaverage,children
Method:Seventeenpreschoolchildrenlistenedto1 learnedtodefine47%ofthetargetvocabularywords(17
prerecordedbookperweekfor9weeks.Eachstorybook outof36).
hadembedded,interactivelessonsfor4targetvocabulary Conclusions:Resultssupportincluding4challenging
words.Eachlessonprovidedrepeatedexposurestowords wordsperbook,aschildrenlearnedsubstantiallymore
andtheirdefinitions,child-friendlycontexts,andmultiple wordswhen4wordsweretaught,incomparisontoprevious
opportunitiesforchildrentorespondverballytoinstructional studies.Withinaniterativedevelopmentprocess,results
prompts.Participantswereaskedtodefinetheweekly ofthecurrentstudytakeus1stepclosertocreatingan
targetedvocabularybeforeandafterintervention.Arepeated optimalvocabularyinterventionthatsupportsthelanguage
acquisitionsingle-casedesignwasusedtoexaminethe developmentofat-riskchildren.
V
ocabularydevelopmentbeginsatanearlyage Thekeytopreventingreadingdifficultiesisimproved
andisinfluencedbyseveralfactors.Ayoungchild’s identificationofat-riskchildrencombinedwithearlyinter-
vocabularyopportunities,linguisticsupport,and ventionsthatfocusonlanguage-relatedoutcomes(Gettinger
literacy-relatedlearningexperiencesathomecansignifi- &Stoiber,2008;Greenwoodetal.,2013;Snow,Burns,&
cantlyaffecttheirorallanguagedevelopment(Dickinson& Griffin,1998).Earlychildhoodclassroomshavebegunto
Tabors,2001;Greenwoodetal.,2017;Hart&Risley,1995). adoptaresponsetointerventionmodel,whichprovidesed-
Fewerlanguageexperiencescanresultinlimitedorallan- ucatorswithaframeworkforidentifyinganddifferentiat-
guageskillsandslower ratesof languagedevelopment, inginstructionforchildrenwithlimitedlanguageandearly
which isevident as early aspreschool,andoften persist literacyskills(Greenwoodetal.,2014).Oncechildrenare
throughoutachild’seducation.Childrenwithlimitedoral screenedandidentified,educatorsimplementaresponse-to-
languageskillswillstruggletoacquireacademicvocabulary interventionapproachteachingspecificskillsandmonitoring
crucialtocomprehension,placingthematahigherriskfor children’sprogresstoensurethatchildrenarelearning.
developingfuturereadingdifficulties. Orallanguageprogramsthattargetvocabularyac-
quisitioninearlychildhoodareparamount.Researchindi-
catesthatvocabularyknowledgeisoneof,ifnot“the,”most
importantcorrelatetoreadingcomprehension(Dickinson,
aDepartmentofCommunicationSciences&Disorders,Universityof Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2010;Taffe,Blachowicz,&
SouthFlorida,Tampa
Fisher,2009).Severalstudieshaveshownsignificantlinks
bDepartmentofSpeech,LanguageandHearingSciences,University
ofMissouri,Columbia
CorrespondencetoLindseyA.Peters-Sanders:[email protected] Disclosure:HowardGoldsteinandElizabethKelleyareauthorsofStoryFriends
Editor-in-Chief:HollyL.Storkel andhaveafinancialinterest,astheyreceiveroyaltiesfromsalesthroughPaul
BrookesPublishing.ThisinteresthasbeenreviewedbytheUniversityofSouth
ReceivedFebruary28,2019
FloridaandtheUniversityofMissouriinaccordancewiththeirIndividualConflict
RevisionreceivedJune19,2019
ofInterestpolicy,forthepurposeofmaintainingtheobjectivityandtheintegrityof
AcceptedAugust10,2019 research.Allotherauthorshavedeclaredthatnocompetinginterestsexistedatthe
https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-19-00029 timeofpublication.
Language,Speech,andHearingServicesinSchools (cid:129) Vol.51 (cid:129) 165–175 (cid:129) January2020 (cid:129) Copyright©2020AmericanSpeech-Language-HearingAssociation 165
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Xigrid Soto on 03/11/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
betweenchildren’searlyvocabularyknowledgeandlater thoseprovidedbyBeckandcolleagues(Becketal.,2002,
readingcomprehensionsuccess(Cunningham&Stanovich, 2013),toselectwordsforvocabularyinstruction(e.g.,Coyne,
1997;Scarborough,2001;Snowetal.,1998).In ameta- McCoach,Loftus,Zipoli,&Kapp,2009;Neuman&Dwyer,
analysis of 37 studiesevaluating theeffect of vocabulary 2009;Pollard-Durodolaetal.,2011;Storkeletal.,2017;
instruction on passagecomprehensioninstudents from Tuckwiller,Pullen,&Coyne,2010).
prekindergartenthroughGrade12,Elleman,Lindo,Morphy,
andCompton(2009)reportedapositiveoveralleffecton
Vocabulary Instruction
passagecomprehensionoutcomes.This effect was even
greater forstudents whowereidentified withreading dif- Readingaloudtochildrenhasbeenwidelyrecom-
ficulties(e.g.,Nash&Snowling,2006). mendedasameanstofacilitateyoungchildren’svocabu-
Althoughvocabularyknowledgehasbeenidentified larygrowth(Bus,vanIjzendoorn,&Pellegrini,1995;Lane
asanimportantcomponentofemergentliteracyskills,pre- &Wright,2007).However,simplyreadingstoriestochil-
schoolvocabularyinstructionislimitedandvariesgreatly drendoes not appear sufficienttosignificantlyimpact
inearlychildhoodclassrooms(Dickinson,2011;Greenwood thelearningofchallenging,moresophisticatedvocabulary
etal.,2013).Explicitvocabularyinstructionrarelyoccurs words.Additionalexplanationandexplicit instruction
inearlychildhoodclassroomsandleastfrequentlyoccurs arenecessary fora read aloud to impact wordlearning
inclassroomsservinglow-incomestudents(Wright,2012). (Dickinson& Smith,1994;Hargrave& Sénéchal,2000).
Thedevelopmentofeffectiveinterventionsthattargetvo- BeckandMcKeown(2007)refertothisasrichinstruction.
cabularygrowthisneededtobuildfoundationallanguage During richinstruction,wordmeanings areexplained
skillsnecessarytobecomecompetentreaders.Withearly usingchild-friendlylanguage,andmultipleexamplesofthe
intervention,it ismorelikelythat at-riskchildren will wordsinavarietyofcontextswereprovidedforthechildren.
progresstomeet therigorousgrade-levelliteracyexpecta- Children learnand retain more target words whenread
tionsdictatedbystateandfederaleducationstandards. aloudsemployrich,directinstructionembeddedwithinsto-
rybooksthatproviderepeatedexposurestowordsandtheir
meaningsthanwhencomparedtoreadingaloneinelemen-
Vocabulary Selection
tarygrades(Beck&McKeown,2007;Coyneetal.,2009;
Tomaximizethetimespentteachingintheclass- Justice,Meier,&Walpole,2005;Storkeletal.,2017)and
room,itisimportanttoselecttherightwordsforinstruction. preschool classrooms (Goldstein et al.,2016; Kelley,
Beck,McKeown,andKucan(2002)developedatiered Goldstein,Spencer,&Sherman,2015; Spencer et al., 2012;
frameworkforwordselection.Theyrecommendtargeting Vuattoux, Japel, Dion, & Dupéré, 2014).For example,
challenging,high-utilitywordsforinstructionastheseare Justice et al. (2005) examined the effects of a storybook
wordschildrenwillnothearoftenineverydayconversation interventionthatincludedelaboratedinstructionfortar-
butwillencounterinacademictexts(e.g.,significant,estab- getedvocabulary.Usingpopular storybooks,sixvocabu-
lish,obvious).Thesearetypicallynewtermsforfamiliar larywordswereselectedthatwereunlikelytobefamiliar
concepts.Forexample,achildmayalreadyknowthecon- tokindergarten children.Half of thewordswereelabo-
cept of important, so he or she will beable to use that ratedduringthereadaloud(i.e.,taughtexplicitly),andthe
knowledge to understand the more sophisticated term otherhalfwerenot.Theyfoundthatchildrenmadesignifi-
significant.Biemiller (2006) takes amoredevelopmental cant learning gains for elaborated words compared to
approachtowordselection.Forpreliteratechildren(before nonelaboratedwordsandcomparedtotheirpeersinthe
thirdgrade),hesuggestsspecificinstructionaltargets,which comparisongroupwhoreceivedbusinessasusual.Storkel
areknownby40%–70%ofchildrenattheendofsecond etal.(2017)expandeduponthestudyconductedbyJustice
grade(e.g.,buckle,parcel,blab).Incontrast,Beck,McKeown, etal.byusingthesametreatmentconditionandinvesti-
andKucan(2013)arguethatchildrendonotlearnwords gatedthenumberofexposureschildrenwithspecificlan-
inaspecificdevelopmentalorderorahighlysequenced guageimpairmentrequiredtoenhancewordlearning.They
manner.Severalresearchersplaceemphasisonusingguide- foundthat 36exposurestoawordleadtooptimallearn-
linesforappropriatewordselectionversusteachingwords ingandthatexposuresdistributedovertimewerebetter
fromapredeterminedlist(Becketal.,2002;Nation,2001; thanexposuresthatwereconcentratedtoaspecifictime
Stahl&Nagy,2007).Oneconcernaboutselectingwords period.
froma predetermined word list is thatmany of thewords Themajorityofthesestudiesutilizedagroupdesign
onthatlistwillrequirelittletonoexplicitinstruction(e.g., toexaminetheeffectsofinstruction on word learning
flood,listen,stab).Classroomteachershavebeenfoundto (Beck& McKeown,2007;Coyneetal.,2009;Goldstein
spendtimeteachingmoreofthesebasicwords,whichyoung et al.,2016;Justice et al.,2005;Vuattoux etal.,2014).
childrenwilltypicallylearnwithouttheneedforinstruction Treatment effectsfrom groupexperimentaldesigns are
(Wright&Neuman,2014).Instead,valuableinstructional generalizabletoapopulationingeneral,yetitisimpossible
timeshould bedevotedtosophisticated wordsbecause toexaminethenuancesassociatedwithindividualperfor-
thesewordswarrantmoreattentionandexplanation.For mancewhencomparingoutcomesatthegrouplevel.Single-
this reason,manyresearchers of vocabulary instruction caseexperimentaldesignsallowforamoreindividualized
havefavoredusingcarefullydevelopedguidelines,suchas examinationoftreatmenteffects(Horneretal.,2005).Few
166 Language,Speech,andHearingServicesinSchools (cid:129) Vol.51 (cid:129) 165–175 (cid:129) January2020
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Xigrid Soto on 03/11/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
researchers haveusedthis approachwhen investigating Thepurposeofthisstudywastoassesstheefficacy
theeffects of an instructionalprogramonwordlearning andfeasibility of teaching fourchallengingvocabulary
(Kelleyetal.,2015;Spenceretal.,2012).However,analyz- wordsinabookeachweek.Wewerealsointerestedinex-
ingresponsetoinstructionattheindividuallevelisabene- aminingtheeffectsthisprogramhadonchildrenwitha
ficialapproach to intervention developmentbecauseit rangeoflanguageabilities.Itwashypothesizedthatchildren
helpselucidatetheindividualdifferencesthatmayfacilitate wouldlearnmorewordswiththeincreaseintargetwords
orhinderlearning. taughteachweek,butthislearningmaydifferamongchil-
Considerable evidencespeaks to thepotentialfor drenwithvaryinglanguageabilities.Specifically,wehy-
embeddinginterventionintobookreadingcontextswhen pothesizedthatthosewithhigherinitiallanguageabilities
teachingyoungchildrennewvocabulary.Yet,thereismuch wouldhavegreaterwordlearninggainsthantheirpeers
tobelearnedabouttheeffectsofsuchintervention.For withlowerabilities.Thisresearchaddressedthefollowing
example,weneedtoinvestigatethedifferentialeffectsthese questions:
instructionalmethodshaveonpreschoolerswithvarying
1. Towhatextentdopreschoolchildrendemonstrate
languagelevelsandlearningprofiles.Researchershavepre-
vocabularylearningwhenexplicitinstructionoffour
sentedcontradictoryevidenceontheeffectsofchildren’s
targetwordsisembeddedwithinprerecordedstory-
initiallanguageabilityonvocabularyacquisition.Several
bookactivitiespresentedtosmallgroupsofchildren?
studiesfoundthosewithhigherinitiallanguageabilities
madegreaterwordlearninggainscomparedtopeerswith 2. Aredifferentialeffectsobserved forchildren with
lower initialabilities (Coyne,Simmons,Kame’enui,& differinginitiallanguageabilities?
Stoolmiller,2004;Goldsteinetal.,2017;Penno,Wilkinson,
&Moore,2002;Robbins&Ehri,1994),whileothersfound Method
nodifferenceinwordlearningoutcomesbetweenat-risk
Participants
and typically developing children (Biemiller& Slonim,
2001).Morestudiesareneededtobetterunderstandthe Twenty-one4-and5-year-oldsenrolledinavoluntary
relativebenefitsexplicitvocabularyinstructionhasonall prekindergartenschoolreadinessprogramwererecruited
childrenandhowinterventioncouldbeadaptedtomaximize fromtwochildcarefacilitiesintheTampaarea.Thesefa-
learningforchildrenwithvaryingexperiencesandabilities. cilitiesprimarilyservechildrenfromlow-incomefamilies.
Onechildwasexcluded fromthestudy becauselimited
Englishlanguageskillspreventedhimfromcompletinglan-
Story Friends Intervention
guageassessments.Threeparticipantslefttheschoolsduring
StoryFriends(Goldstein&Kelley,2016)isanoral thestudy,soresultsforthe17participantswhocompleted
languageinterventionprogramdesignedforpreschoolthat thefulldurationofthestudyarereported.
providesexplicitvocabularyinstruction.Smallgroupsof Childrencompletedtwonorm-referencedmeasures
childrenlistenusingheadphonesandrespondtoembedded todescribethelanguageabilitiesofparticipants:ameasure
lessonswithinprerecordedstorieswithadultsupervision. ofsingle-wordreceptivevocabulary(PeabodyPictureVocab-
Twochallengingvocabularywordsareembeddedineach ularyTest–FourthEdition[PPVT-4];Dunn&Dunn,2007)
book with rich,explicit instructionthat provides child- andanomnibuslanguagemeasure(ClinicalEvaluationof
friendlydefinitions,providesmultiplecontextsforwords, LanguageFundamentalsPreschool–SecondEdition[CELF
allowsforactiveresponding,andprovidesmultipleoppor- Preschool-2];Wiig,Secord,&Semel,2004).Bothmeasures
tunitiesforpracticeandlearning.SeeTable1forasample providestandardscoreswithameanof100andanSDof
vocabularylesson.Resultsfrom Story Friends efficacy 15.Participants’performanceonthesemeasuresispresented
studies(Goldsteinetal.,2016;Kelleyetal.,2015;Spencer inTable2.
etal.,2012)foundthatchildrenlearned,onaverage,30%– Inpreviousstudies,thisinterventionwasonlyimple-
50%oftargetwordsinstructed.Thesepromisingresults mented withchildren who had limitedlanguagerelative
suggestthepotentialtocapitalizefurther on thelearning tonormativemeansonthePPVT-4(standardscoreswithin
gainsdemonstratedinpriorefficacystudiesbyincreasing 0.5–1.5SDs,92–78;Goldsteinet al.,2016;Greenwood
thenumberofwordstaughtperbook. et al.,2016;Kelleyetal.,2015;Spenceretal.,2012).In
Table1.Samplevocabularylesson:Ellie’sFirstDay.
Vocabularyword enormous
Embedded,explicit Ellieisenormous!Sheisreallybig!Enormous.Sayenormous.Enormousmeansreallybig.Whatwordmeans
instruction reallybig?Enormous!Greatjob!Let’ssee.Canyoutellmesomethingsthatareenormous?I’mthinkingof…
aschoolbus!Amountain!Orabuilding!Thosearethingsthatarereallybig.Now,pretendyouaregoing
togiveEllieahug.Remember,sheisenormous,somakeyourarmsreallybig!Whew!Tellme,whatdoes
enormousmean?Reallybig!That’sright!
Endofstoryreview Lookatthepictureofthedumptruck.Itisreallybig!Thedumptruckisenormous.Sayenormous.Tellme,
whatdoesenormousmean?Reallybig!Greatjob!
Peters-Sandersetal.:MovingForwardFourWordsataTime 167
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Xigrid Soto on 03/11/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
Table2.Characteristicsofparticipants. (2013) tieredframework,andtheyreviewedthecriteria
andprocessusedinselectingwordsforpreviousversions.
CELF
Eachresearcherwentthroughthestoriestocreatealistof
School Child Age Gender PPVT-4 Preschool-2
possiblewordsthatfitthestories’contextandmetourcri-
F F1 4;7 Female 83 88 teria.Thesewordswereoftenmoresophisticatedsynonyms
F2 4;5 Male 90 83 ofwordsalreadyinthestory(e.g.,burstinsteadofpop).
F3 4;6 Male 93 90 Weavoidedwordswithsimilarsemanticandphonological
F4 4;6 Male 93 96
featuresastargetwordsinthesamebooktominimizeword
F5 4;3 Male 100 96
F6 4;5 Female 110 114 confusion.Forexample,previousstudiesindicatedthat
F7 4;10 Male 120 100 childrenconfused“enormous”and“ignore,”perhapsbecause
F8 4;9 Female 123 121 thewordssoundedsimilar.Decisionsaboutwordselection
F9 4;5 Male 127 114
andplacementinthestoriesweremadebygroupdiscussion
J J1 4;2 Female 70 63
J2 4;4 Male 72 83 andconsensus.Inafewcases,wehadtorewordthestory to
J3 4;2 Male 77 59 makethenewtarget wordfit;however,this didnotalter
J4 4;1 Male 81 69 theoverallstorystructure,sominimaleditsweremade.
J5 4;9 Male 93 90
J6 5;0 Male 108 92
J7 5;2 Male 109 92 StoryFriendsEmbedded,ExplicitInstruction
J8 4;5 Female 118 119
Inthecurrentstudy,eachStoryFriendsbookpro-
M(SD) 4;6 98.1(18.2) 92.3(18.2) videdpreschoolerswithembedded,explicitinstructionfor
fourchallengingvocabularywords.Samplevocabularytar-
Note. SchoolFreceivedForestFriends,andSchoolJreceived getsareprovidedinTable3.Wecreatedembeddedlessons
JungleFriends.Ageatthebeginningofthestudyisreportedinyears; forthenewtargetwordsthatmatchedtheexistinglessons
months.PPVT-4=PeabodyPictureVocabularyTest–FourthEdition
usingsystematicinstructionallanguage.Eachlessonin-
(Dunn&Dunn,2007);CELFPreschool-2=ClinicalEvaluationof
LanguageFundamentalsPreschool–SecondEdition(Wiigetal.,2004). cludesasimpledefinitionandchild-friendlycontextsrelat-
ingthewordtoyoungchildren’severydayexperiences.
Throughoutthelesson,thenarratorprovidesmultipleop-
portunitiesforchildrentorespond(e.g.,saythewordor
thisstudy,wewereinterestedinexaminingthedifferential definition)andrepeatedexposurestotheword.Children
effectsthisprogramhadonchildrenwithabroaderrange hearthewordeightto11timesinonelesson.Thetarget
ofinitiallanguageabilities,soweincludedchildrenwith wordsarereviewedagainattheendofthestoryusingan
standardscores±2.0 SDs(70–130) on either thePPVT-4 additionalchild-friendlycontext,andchildrenaregiven
ortheCELFPreschool-2.TheaveragePPVT-4scorewas theopportunitytosaythewordandthedefinition.
98.1(SD =18.2,range:70–127),andtheaverageCELF
Preschool-2scorewas92.3(SD=18.2,range:59–121).
StoryFriendsImplementation
Interventiontookplaceinanadjacentclassroom
Procedure freefromdistractions.Interventionsessionswereconducted
StoryFriendsWordSelectionProcess insmallgroups(threetofourchildren),withanadultfacil-
Inpreviousversionsoftheprogram,eachbookin- itatorwho was amemberof theresearchteam (trained
cludedlessonsfortwotargetvocabularywords.Forthe undergraduateandgraduateresearchassistants).Children
currentstudy,anadditionaltwowordswereselected,and listenedtothesameprerecordedstorybook3daysaweek
lessonsforthenewwordswerecreated.Becausethebooks underheadphonesinasmallgroupwhiletheadultfacilita-
wererelativelysimple,shortstories,itwasfeasibletoadd torsupervised.Thefacilitatormonitoredchildren’sbehav-
twoadditionalwordswithoutmakingthelisteningsessions iorsduringthelesson(i.e.,childrenturnedtothecorrect
muchlonger.Longersessionsmighthaveanegativeimpact page,respondedtoinstruction,keptheadphoneson).Two
onchildren’sattentionalcapabilitiesandwerelikelyto seriesofStoryFriendswereused,JungleFriendsandForest
exceedthe10–15 min allottedintypicalclassrooms for
rotationsthroughaseriesofsmall-groupactivities. Table3.Vocabularytargetsinrevisedbooks.
Toselecttheadditionaltargetvocabulary,weused
thesameprocessforwordselectionthatKelleyetal.(2015) Book Originalversion Revisedversion
usedduringpastiterationsofStoryFriendsdevelopment.
Threemaincriteriawereconsidered:(a)thewordshadto Ellie’sFirstDay enormous bolt
different enormous
fitwithintheexistingstories,(b)wordscouldbedefinedin
destroy
aneasilyunderstandableway,and(c)thereweremultiple different
child-friendlycontextsfortheword.Fourmembersofthe Pablo’sPricklyProblem terrified prepare
researchteam,includingthedevelopersoftheprevious protect terrified
protect
two-word versions,workedtogethertoselectwords.The
burst
researchteam memberswerefamiliar with Beck et al.’s
168 Language,Speech,andHearingServicesinSchools (cid:129) Vol.51 (cid:129) 165–175 (cid:129) January2020
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Xigrid Soto on 03/11/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
Friends,oneineachclassroom.Afterthethirdlisten,chil- The fidelity checklist was also used to record child
dren’svocabularylearningwasassessedusingacurriculum- behaviors during the lessons to monitor active responding
basedvocabularymeasure. that included repeating the word, responding to instruc-
tion by verbally answering a question or acting out a re-
sponse (e.g., Now, pretend you are going to give Ellie a
Measures
hug. Remember, she is enormous, so make your arms really
Norm-ReferencedLanguageMeasures big!), and repeating the definition. On average, children
Twostandardized,norm-referencedlanguagemea- responded to instruction 61% of the time, ranging from
sureswereadministeredtoallconsentedchildrenpriorto 50% to 82%.
theintervention.ThePPVT-4 (Dunn & Dunn,2007),a Twentypercent of theweeklymasterymonitoring
measureofreceptivevocabulary,wasusedtocharacterize probeswererandomlyselectedandassessedforadministra-
children’sreceptivevocabularyandtoidentifyparticipants. tionfidelityandscoringreliability.Atrainedresearchstaff
Theaveragesplit-halfreliabilityforthePPVT-4isreported memberblindtoassessmentperiod(pre-orposttest)lis-
as.94,andtest–retestreliabilityis.93acrossageandgrade tenedtotheaudio-recordedtestingsessionsandcompleted
levels. The Core Language score (CLS) of theCELF proceduralchecklistsspecifictotheprobeprotocol.The
Preschool-2 (Wiig et al., 2004) was used to characterize administrationfidelityforthisstudyaveraged99.6%,rang-
participants’generallanguageabilityandoveralllanguage ing from 88% to 100%.Scoringwascompletedusinga
performance.TheCLSincludesthreesubtests:Sentence detailed scoringguidecreatedfor themastery monitoring
Structure, WordStructure,andExpressive Vocabulary. probesthatincludesascoringrubricandsampleresponses.
Reportedsplit-halfreliabilityfortheCLSrangesfrom.92 Item-by-item interrater agreementcalculatedforscoring
to.94forchildrenbetween4and5yearsofage,andtest– reliability averaged98.8%,ranging from 75% to100%.
retestreliabilityfortheCLSisreportedtobe.89. Toensurechildrenreceivedtheintendeddosageof
theintervention(listenstothestorythreetimes),atten-
Curriculum-BasedMeasure dancelogswerekeptnotingthenumberoftimeschildren
TheStoryFriendsmasterymonitoringprobewas werepresentandparticipatedintheinterventionandany
theprimaryoutcomemeasureforvocabularylearning. behaviorincidentsthatimpededorprohibitedparticipa-
Themasterymonitoring probes are aresearcher-created, tion.Onaverage,childrenlistenedtoeachbook2.9times.
curriculum-basedmeasuredevelopedforusewith Story Of54interventionsessions,thereweretwobehaviorinci-
Friends.Themasterymonitoring probes havebeen the dentsthatimpededachild’sparticipation inthelistening
measureofvocabularylearninginpreviousStoryFriends center.Overall,attendanceandbehaviordidnotseemto
studies (Goldsteinet al.,2016;Greenwoodet al.,2016; interferewithchildren’sparticipationintheinterventionor
Kelley et al.,2015;Spencer etal.,2012).Foreachtarget theresultsofourstudy.
word,childrenareaskedtoprovideadefinitioninresponse
to anopen-ended question,thatis, “Tellme,what does
Experimental Design
(targetword)mean?”Responsesarescoredona0-to2-point
scale:0pointsforanincorrectresponse,1pointforapartial A repeatedacquisition experimentaldesign was
orrelatedresponse,and2pointsforacorrectresponse. usedtoexaminetheeffectsofinstructiononwordlearning.
Inthecurrentstudy,themasterymonitoringprobeswere Therepeatedacquisitiondesignisanalternativetomulti-
administeredbeforeandaftereachweekofintervention. plebaselinedesignswhenexaminingmultiplesetsofnonre-
Allassessmentswereadministeredindividuallybytrained versibletargetbehaviors(Gast&Ledford,2014;Kennedy,
researchstaffmembers.Theinternalconsistencyofthe 2005).Unlikeamultiplebaselinedesign,arepeatedacquisi-
mastery monitoringprobeswashighforthis sample tiondesignallowsforrepeatedmeasurementofthesame
(Cronbach’sα=.95). behavior(e.g.,vocabularyknowledge)whentheresponse
setsaredifferent(e.g.,differenttargetwordseachweek)
duringbriefbaselineandtreatmentphases.Thevocabulary
Fidelity and Reliability
targetsfortheStoryFriendsprogramarechallengingwords,
Trainedobserversassessed implementation fidelity rarelyknownand/orusedbypreschoolers.Forthisstudy,
for20%ofthevocabularylessonsusinganobservation repeateddemonstrationofwordlearningwasevaluatedby
checklist.Thechecklist includedkey componentsof the comparingpre-andpostinterventionresponsestodetermine
small-grouplisteningcenter and facilitatorbehavior(i.e., theextenttowhichinstructionfacilitatedvocabularylearn-
eachchildhasabookandiswearingheadphones,facilita- ing.Inrepeatedacquisitiondesign,experimentalcontrolis
toriswearingheadphones,correctandcompleteaudiois demonstratedbythereplicationoflearningeffectswithin
played,behavior expectations arereviewed,nonspecific andacrossparticipants.Eachbookprovidesanopportu-
positivefeedbackisgiven,facilitatordoesnotprovidead- nitytolearnfourwordsreplicatedninetimeswithinpartic-
ditionalinstruction).Theaverageimplementationfidelity ipants,aswellas replicated across subjects(n= 17);thus,
was94%,rangingfrom70%to100%.Thereweretwoses- 9 ×17= 153 possible replications of experimentaleffects.
sionswithlowfidelityduetobehaviorincidentsthatim- Improvementsarejudged by posttest scoresexceeding
pactedtheimplementationofthelisteningcenter. pretestscoresforeachbook.
Peters-Sandersetal.:MovingForwardFourWordsataTime 169
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Xigrid Soto on 03/11/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
Results demonstratedeffectsforonlyfourbookswithanaverage
gainof1pointperbook(range:0–3).
Theeffectsofexplicit,embeddedvocabularyinstruc-
tionoffourtargetwordsperbookwereanalyzedbygraph-
ingthescoresofthemasterymonitoringprobesforeach
Discussion
child.Figure1includespanelsforeachparticipantthatare
orderedfromlowtohighPPVT-4standardscores,which Thepurposeofthisstudywastoexaminetheextent
areshownundereachparticipantID.AsshowninFigure1, towhichpreschoolchildrendemonstratevocabularylearn-
apretestscore(opencircle)andposttestscore(closedcircle) ingwhenexplicitinstructionoffourtargetwordsperbook
foreachbookwereplottedforeachchild. was embedded within prerecorded storybook activities.
Consistentwithrepeatedacquisitiondesigns,evidence Additionally,wewereinterestedinexaminingthedifferen-
oftreatmenteffectsisrepeatedlyexaminedbycomparing tialeffectsthisprogramhadonchildrenwitharangeof
pretestandposttestscoresforeachbookwithinandacross languageabilities.
participants.Atreatmenteffectforeachbookwasdefined PreviousstudiesexaminingtheeffectsofStoryFriends
asanincreaseofatleast2pointsfrompretesttoposttest, taughttwowordsperbook.WecontinuedtouseBeck
representing an improvement consistent with at least a etal.’s(2013)frameworkforwordselectiontoincorporate
completedefinitionforonewordorpartialdefinitionsfor twoadditionalinstructionaltargetsintopreexistingstories.
twowords.Forexample,inFigure1,ChildJ1hadascore Resultsindicatechildrenwerestillabletolearnsophisti-
of0atpretestandascoreof2atposttestforBook2.For catedwordswhenweincreasedthenumberofinstructional
eachparticipant,ninereplicationsoftreatmenteffectswere targets.Onaverage,childrenlearnedapproximately47%
possible(oneperbook).Forexample,ChildF1hadseven ofthevocabularywordstaught(17of36).Providingdecon-
replicationsoftreatmenteffects(Books2,3,4,6,7,8,9). textualizeddefinitionsisachallengingtaskforpreschoolers
Treatmenteffectswerereplicatedacrossallchildrenfor andsubjecttomeasurementerror.Forexample,ahigher
manyofthebooks,111of149possiblereplications(75%). pretestscorethanposttestscorecouldreflectachildbeing
Wehadmissingdataforfourbooksbecauseofattendance. abletoprovidepartialdefinitionsforafewwordsatpre-
Treatmenteffectswereobservedforameanof6.7books test,butnotatposttest.Alternatively,childrensometimes
perchild(range:3–9).Onrareoccasions,childrenhadhigher confusedefinitionsamongnewwordsatposttest.
pretestscoresthanposttestscores.Forexample,ChildF7 Table4summarizestheaveragewordlearningout-
hadascoreof2atpretestandascoreof0atposttestfor comesfrompreviousStoryFriendsstudies.Wordlearning
Book9.Acrossallparticipantsandbooks,thisonlyoccurred wasassessedusingthesameprocedureinallofthesestud-
fivetimes(3%). ies;childrenwereaskedtodefinethevocabularytargets
Word-levelresultswereexaminedbycalculatinggain usingthesameprompt(“Tellme,whatdoes(word)mean?)
scoresforeachchildandeachword.Vocabularyscores andscoredusingthesamecriteria(2pointsforacorrect
werelowatpretest(M=0.22pointsperbook),indicating definition, 1 point for a partial or related response, and
childrenhadlimitedknowledgeoftargetwordspriorto 0pointsforanincorrectresponse).Childreninthecurrent
intervention.Onaverage,childrenlearned17words,that studylearnedmorewordsandthesecondhighestpercent-
is,approximatelytwowordsperbook. ageofwordscomparedtochildrenwhoreceivedthetwo-
Next,weexaminedhowpre-interventionvocabulary wordversion.Childrenlearnedlessthanonewordaweek
andlanguageskillsrelatedtovocabularylearning.Inter- inthestudiesofGoldsteinetal.(2016)andGreenwood
correlationsamongchildren’slanguagescoresandword etal.(2016)andapproximatelyonewordaweekinthe
learningrevealedstrongpositiverelationsbetweenPPVT-4 studyofSpenceretal.(2012).Overall,childreninthecur-
scoresandwordlearning(r=.57,p<.05)andCELF rentstudylearnedapproximatelytwowordsaweek,twice
Preschool-2scoresandwordlearning(r=.70,p<.01).Our asmanywordsthanthepreviousstudies.Eventhoughthe
results suggest a relation exists between the number of averagepercentageofwordlearningislowerthanthere-
vocabularywordschildrenlearnedandtheirpre-intervention sultsofKelleyetal.(2015;47%comparedtotheir56%),
orallanguageskills.ChildrenwithhigherPPVT-4scores thenumberofwordslearnedisgreaterasaresultofthe
knewmorewordsatpretestandlearnedmorewordsduring four-wordversionofStoryFriends,withchildrenlearning
interventionthanchildrenwithlowerPPVT-4scores.For 17wordscomparedtotheir10.Whenweincreasethe
example,inFigure1,ChildJ1,whosePPVT-4scorewas number of instructional targets, children learned more
70,hadapretestscoreof0foreachbook.ChildF9,whose wordsbecausemorewordsweretaught.
PPVT-4scorewas127,hadanaveragepretestscoreof2.9 Intercorrelationsrevealedpreliminaryevidencethat
pointsperbook(range:0–6),indicatingthatshecould differencesinlanguageabilitiescontributedtodifferences
providethefulldefinitionfor1.5wordsorhadpartialknowl- inwordlearning.Weconsidertheseresultspreliminaryin
edgeofthreewordsperbook.Second,thereareobserved lightofarelativelysmallsamplesize.However,thisrela-
differencesinchildren’swordlearning.Forexample,Child tionwasnotevidentinpriorStoryFriendsinvestigations,
F5,whosePPVT-4scorewas100,demonstratedeffectsfor whichfoundthatinitialPPVT-4andCELFPreschool-2
allninebooks,withanaveragegainof6.2pointsperbook scoresdidnotinfluencevocabularylearning(Goldstein
(range:4–8points).ChildJ3,whosePPVT-4scorewas77, etal.,2016;Kelleyetal.,2015).The limited range of
170 Language,Speech,andHearingServicesinSchools (cid:129) Vol.51 (cid:129) 165–175 (cid:129) January2020
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Xigrid Soto on 03/11/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
Figure1.Vocabularymasterymonitoringprobescoresatpretest(○)andposttest(●).GraphsareorganizedbyPeabodyPictureVocabulary
Test–FourthEdition(PPVT-4)scoreandstudentnumber.
Peters-Sandersetal.:MovingForwardFourWordsataTime 171
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Xigrid Soto on 03/11/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
Table4.SummaryofStoryFriendsstudies.
PPVT-4 CELFPreschool-2 Average
word
Study n Version M(SD) Range M(SD) Range learning
Spenceretal.(2012) 9 2-word 84.3(5.45) 78–96 86.44(7.18) 73–94 8/18(45%)
Kelleyetal.(2015) 9 2-word 83.44(4.22) 77–90 89.11(8.43) 79–98 10/18(56%)
Goldsteinetal.(2016) 85 2-word 83.9(5.32) 71–96 83.10(11.07) Notreported 5/18(28%)
Greenwoodetal.(2016) 9 2-word 86.9(11.4) 73–107 72.60(14.20) 50–102 5/18(28%)
Thisstudy 17 4-word 98.1(18.15) 70–127 92.30(18.16) 59–121 17/36(47%)
Note. PPVT-4=PeabodyPictureVocabularyTest–FourthEdition;CELFPreschool-2=ClinicalEvaluationofLanguageFundamentals
Preschool–SecondEdition.
children’sPPVT-4andCELFPreschool-2standardscores word.Wethendiscoveredthatchildrencouldnoteasily
couldexplainwhyGoldsteinetal.(2016)andKelleyetal. definethewordsmart;eventhedefinitionwasstilltoo
(2015)didnotobservethesimilarrelations,asitismore abstract,whichmadethewordwisemoredifficulttolearn.
difficulttodetectrelationswhenconductinganalyseswitha Interestingly,alleightchildrenwereabletodefinethe
restrictedrangeoftestscores. wordsprint,aseeminglymoreconcreteword.Weassume
Researchhasdemonstratedconflictingevidenceon thatmanychildrenalreadyhadastrongrepresentationfor
theeffectsinitiallanguageabilityhasonvocabularylearn- the concept running, which may have facilitated their
ing. In many studies, children with higher vocabulary learningofsprint.Thesophisticatedwordswechoosefor
scoresatpretestlearnmorewordsininterventionthan instructionshouldbe“amorerefinedlabelforconcepts
childrenwithlowervocabularyscores(e.g.,Coyneetal., withwhichyounglearnersarealreadyfamiliar”(Beck&
2004;Pennoetal.,2002).However,Justiceetal.(2005) McKeown, 2007,p.253).Thereisadelicatebalance
reported the opposite: Children with lower vocabulary between identifying the words that children will acquire
scoresmadethelargestgains.Resultsofourstudycorrob- andincorporateintotheirlexiconandwordsthatmaynot
orateresultsofthosewhofoundthatchildrenwithlimited belearnedbecausetheyaretoodifficult.
oral language skills may struggle to learn sophisticated Althoughwordfrequencynorms,phonotacticproba-
targetwords(Coyneetal.,2004;Goldsteinetal.,2017; bilities,andotherlexicalcharacteristicshavebeenshown
Pennoetal.,2002;Robbins&Ehri,1994).Languageability to relate to word learning, concreteness or imageability
alonemaynottrulyrepresentachild’sriskstatus.Itcould seemstohaveespeciallystrongeffects(Gillette,Gleitman,
bethatthecombinationofseveraluniquefactorscontrib- Gleitman,&Lederer,1999;McDonoughetal.,2011).
utestoachild’sabilitytoacquirenewvocabularywords. Resultsfromourstudyindicatethatmoreabstractwords
MarulisandNeuman(2010)foundsignificantdifferential maybehardertoteach;acloserexaminationofconcrete-
effectsonwordlearningoutcomeswhensocioeconomic ness levels and word learning is warranted in future re-
statuswascombinedwithotherriskfactors(e.g.,special search.Findingsfromadditionalinvestigationscouldhelp
educationstatus).Futurestudiesshouldbedonetodetermine guidethewordselectionprocesswhendesigningavocabu-
factorsassociatedwithwordlearning(e.g.,homeliteracy laryprogramforyoungchildren.
practices,maternaleducationlevel).Anunderstandingof
thesefactorswillhelpusdesignavocabularyprogramthat
Limitations and Future Directions
willmeetthediverselearningneedsofallstudents.
Wefoundgreatvariabilityinlearningofvocabulary Therearelimitationsworthnoting.Inthecurrent
targets,withsomewordsthatmanychildrenlearnedand study,membersoftheresearchteamimplementedthe
somethatveryfewlearned.Thedifferencesinvocabulary small-grouplessonsinthisstudywithstrictadherenceto
learningcouldbeattributedtothewordschosenforin- lessondosage.Dosagewasapriority,andmake-upses-
struction.Childrenmaybemorelikelytolearnwordsthat sionswereeasilydeliveredbyresearchstaffwhenchildren
aremoreconcreteregardlessoflanguageabilitycompared returnedafteranabsence.Becauseofthis,implementation
to words that are more abstract. McDonough, Song, fidelitywasveryhigh.Althoughtheautomatednatureof
Hirsh-Pasek,Golinkoff,andLannon(2011)found a rela- StoryFriendseliminatesmostbarriersthateducatorsface
tion between imageability and age of acquisition when inachievingimplementationfidelity,itmaybemorediffi-
examining word learning in young children. They found cultforeducatorstofindtimetoensurechildrenreceive
that words that were more concrete or highly imageable threelessonsperweek,particularlywhenchildrenareabsent
wereeasiertoacquireandacquiredearlierthanwordsthat frequently.Thus,dosagemaybeaffectedandimplementa-
weremoreabstract.Findingsfromourstudysupportthis. tionmaybereducedwheneducatorsactasinterventionists.
Asanexample,childrenstruggledtolearnthewordwise Futurestudieswillexaminethefeasibilityandfidelityof
(definedassmart),amoreabstractconcept.Only37.4% implementationwheneducatorsimplementthefour-word
ofchildren(threeofeight)wereabletocorrectlydefinethe versionofStoryFriendsinauthenticpreschoolsettings.
172 Language,Speech,andHearingServicesinSchools (cid:129) Vol.51 (cid:129) 165–175 (cid:129) January2020
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Xigrid Soto on 03/11/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
StoryFriendsisdesignedtobeimplementedthree the extent to which these short activities enhance word
timesaweek,butitcouldbe,forchildrenwithhigher learningiskeytodevelopingacomprehensivevocabulary
languageabilities,threelistensarenotnecessary.Further programthatisflexibleenoughtomeettheinstructional
investigationiswarrantedtodeterminetheoptimaldosage needsofallchildren.
forgroupsofchildrenwithdifferingpre-interventionlan-
guageabilities.Thisprogramisintendedtobeusedasa
Conclusion
supplemental program in preschool classrooms. Used
alone,teachingfourwordsaweekisinsufficienttoimpact Whenbooksandlessonswererevisedtoincludemore
theiroveralllanguagedevelopment.Vocabularyinstruction vocabularywordsandlessons,childreninthecurrentstudy
shouldoccurthroughouttheday.Whenthishappens,chil- learnedmorewordsthanchildreninpreviousstudieswhen
drenarelearningmorethanjustfourvocabularywordsa fewerwordsweretaught.Thisfindingsuggeststhatincreas-
week.Teachersshouldenhancewhole-groupreadalouds ingthenumberofwordstaughttofourwordsperbook
byteachingnovelvocabularywordsfromstorybooksand withintheStoryFriendsprogramisfeasibleandwillresult
explainwordsthatrelatenewthemesfortheweek,includ- inlargerincreasesinvocabularyknowledge.Thesefindings
ingscience,socialstudies,art,ormusic.Indoingso,teachers addtoourunderstandingofbestpracticesforvocabulary
willprovidechildrenwithrichlanguageexperiencesthat interventioninpreschoolandprovidefurtherevidencethat
willenhancetheirvocabularygrowth. childrencanlearnsophisticatedvocabularywheninstruc-
Meaningfulmeasurementofvocabularylearningin tionisexplicit,isrepeatedoften,andprovideschild-friendly
preschool children presents a challenge. In the current contexts.
study,wechosetofocusontheabilityofchildrentodefine
thetargetvocabularywordsandtolimittheamountof
testingtowhatateachermightreasonablybeabletoaccom- Acknowledgments
plish.Althoughthemasterymonitoringprobeprovideda
ThisresearchwassupportedbyGrantR324A150132from
rigoroustestofthedecontextualized,definitionalvocabu-
theInstituteofEducationSciencesawardedtotheUniversityof
laryknowledgeofyoungchildren,itdidnotcaptureinfor- SouthFlorida.Thisarticlewascompletedinpartialfulfillment
mationaboutreceptiveknowledgeoraboutchildren’s oftherequirementsofthedoctoraldegreeofferedthroughthe
abilitytousethevocabularywordsineverydayconversa- DepartmentofCommunicationSciences&Disorders,University
tions.Futurestudiesmightaddressthislimitationbyin- ofSouthFlorida.
cludingmultiplemeasuresofvocabularyknowledgeorby
probingvocabularyuseinmultiplecontexts.
References
Itisimportanttonotethatparticipantsinthecurrent
studyhadhigherpre-interventionvocabularyandlanguage Beck,I.L.,&McKeown,M.G.(2007).Increasingyounglow-
scoresthaninpreviousstudies,whichmayexplainsome incomechildren’soralvocabularyrepertoiresthroughrichand
ofthevocabularylearning.Table4alsosummarizesthe focusedinstruction.TheElementarySchoolJournal,107(3),
differencesinparticipantsacrosstheStoryFriendslineof 251–271.
Beck,I.L.,McKeown,M.G.,&Kucan,L.(2002).Bringing
research.Participantsinthecurrentstudyhadawiderange
wordstolife:Robustvocabularyinstruction.NewYork,NY:
ofinitiallanguageabilitiesasmeasuredbythePPVT-4and
GuilfordPress.
theCELFPreschool-2.TheaveragePPVT-4andCELF
Beck,I.L.,McKeown,M.G.,&Kucan,L.(2013).Bringingwords
Preschool-2standardscoreswerehighercomparedtothe tolife:Robustvocabularyinstruction(2nded.).NewYork,
standardscoresofparticipants frompreviousstudies.In- NY:GuilfordPress.
cludingchildrenwithhigherinitiallanguageabilitiesmay Biemiller,A.(2006).Vocabularydevelopmentandinstruction:A
haveinfluencedthewordlearningoutcomesforthisstudy. prerequisiteforschoollearning.InD.K.Dickson&S.B.
Wefoundthattheylearnedmorewordsasaresultofthe Neuman(Eds.),Handbookofearlyliteracyresearch(Vol.2,
explicit,embeddedinstructioncomparedtotheirpeerswith pp.41–51).NewYork,NY:GuilfordPress.
Biemiller,A.,&Slonim,N.(2001).Estimatingrootwordvocabu-
lowerinitiallanguageabilities.GiventhatStoryFriends
larygrowthinnormativeandadvantagedpopulations:Evidence
wasdesignedtobeusedwithchildrenwhohavelimited
foracommonsequenceofvocabularyacquisition.Journalof
orallanguageskills,futurestudieswillexaminetheeffects
EducationalPsychology,93(3),498.
thisrevisedversionhasonthewordlearningofchildren Bus,A.G.,vanIjzendoorn,M.H.,&Pellegrini,A.D.(1995).
whomayrequiresupplementalinstructiontoacquireso- Jointbookreadingmakesforsuccessinlearningtoread:A
phisticatedvocabulary. meta-analysisonintergenerationaltransmissionofliteracy.
Regardlessofpre-interventionlanguageabilities,all ReviewofEducationalResearch,65,1–21.
childreninthecurrentstudybenefittedfrominstruction. Coyne,M.,McCoach,D.,Loftus,S.,Zipoli,R.,Jr.,&Kapp,S.
(2009).Directvocabularyinstructioninkindergarten:Teach-
However,itcanbedifficultforeducatorstoimplementthe
ingforbreadthversusdepth.TheElementarySchoolJournal,
small-groupStoryFriendslessonswiththeirwholeclass.
110(1),1–18.
Developinginstructionalstrategiesthateducatorscanuse Coyne,M.,Simmons,D.C.,Kame’enui,E.J.,&Stoolmiller,M.
outsidethesmall-grouplisteningcenter(e.g.,wholegroup,
(2004).Teachingvocabularyduringsharedstorybookread-
transitiontimes,centers)maybeeasierforeducatorsto ings:Anexaminationofdifferentialeffects.Exceptionality,
implementwithallstudentsthroughouttheirday.Examining 12(3),145–162.
Peters-Sandersetal.:MovingForwardFourWordsataTime 173
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Xigrid Soto on 03/11/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
Cunningham,A.E.,&Stanovich,K.E.(1997).Earlyreading Hargrave,A.C.,&Sénéchal,M.(2000).Abookreadinginterven-
acquisitionanditsrelationtoreadingexperienceandability tionwithpreschoolchildrenwhohavelimitedvocabularies:
10yearslater.DevelopmentalPsychology,33(6),934. Thebenefitsofregularreadinganddialogicreading.Early
Dickinson,D.K.(2011).Teachers’languagepracticesandacademic ChildhoodResearchQuarterly,15(1),75–90.
outcomesofpreschoolchildren.Science,333(6045),964–967. Hart,B.,&Risley,T.R.(1995).Meaningfuldifferencesinthe
Dickinson,D.K.,Golinkoff,R.M.,&Hirsh-Pasek,K.(2010). everydayexperienceofyoungAmericanchildren.Baltimore,
Speakingoutforlanguage:Whylanguageiscentraltoreading MD:Brookes.
development.EducationalResearcher,39(4),305–310. Horner,R.H.,Carr,E.G.,Halle,J.,McGee,G.,Odom,S.,&
Dickinson,D.K.,&Smith,M.W.(1994).Long-termeffectsof Wolery,M.(2005).Theuseofsingle-subjectresearchtoiden-
preschoolteachers’bookreadingsonlow-incomechildren’s tifyevidence-basedpracticeinspecialeducation.Exceptional
vocabularyandstorycomprehension.ReadingResearchQuar- Children,71(2),165–179.
terly,29,104–122. Justice,L.M.,Meier,J.,&Walpole,S.(2005).Learningnew
Dickinson,D.K.,&Tabors,P.O.(2001).Beginningliteracywith wordsfromstorybooks:Anefficacystudywithat-riskkinder-
language:Youngchildrenlearningathomeandschool.Baltimore, gartners.Language,Speech,andHearingServicesinSchools,
MD:Brookes. 36(1),17–32.
Dunn,L.M.,&Dunn,D.M.(2007).PeabodyPictureVocabulary Kelley,E.S.,Goldstein,H.,Spencer,T.D.,&Sherman,A.(2015).
Test–FourthEdition.CirclePines,MN:AGS. EffectsofautomatedTier2storybookinterventiononvocabu-
Elleman,A.M.,Lindo,E.J.,Morphy,P.,&Compton,D.L. laryandcomprehensionlearninginpreschoolchildrenwith
(2009).Theimpactofvocabularyinstructiononpassage-level limitedorallanguageskills.EarlyChildhoodResearchQuarterly,
comprehensionofschool-agechildren:Ameta-analysis.Jour- 31,47–61.
nalofResearchonEducationalEffectiveness,2(1),1–44. Kennedy,C.H.(2005).Single-casedesignsforeducationalresearch.
Gast,D.,&Ledford,J.(2014).Singlecaseresearchmethodology: UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Applicationsinspecialeducationandbehavioralsciences.New Lane,H.B.,&Wright,T.L.(2007).Maximizingtheeffectiveness
York,NY:Routledge. ofreadingaloud.TheReadingTeacher,60(7),668–675.
Gettinger,M.,&Stoiber,K.(2008).Applyingaresponse-to-interven- Marulis,L.M.,&Neuman,S.B.(2010).Theeffectsofvocabulary
tionmodelforearlyliteracydevelopmentinlow-incomechildren. interventiononyoungchildren’swordlearning:Ameta-analysis.
TopicsinEarlyChildhoodSpecialEducation,27(4),198–213. ReviewofEducationalResearch,80(3),300–335.
Gillette,J.,Gleitman,H.,Gleitman,L.,&Lederer,A.(1999). McDonough,C.,Song,L.,Hirsh-Pasek,K.,Golinkoff,R.M.,&
Humansimulationsofvocabularylearning.Cognition,73(2), Lannon,R.(2011).Animageisworthathousandwords:Why
135–176. nounstendtodominateverbsinearlywordlearning.Develop-
Goldstein,H.,&Kelley,E.S.(2016).StoryFriends:Anearlyliteracy mentalScience,14(2),181–189.
interventionforimprovingorallanguage.Baltimore,MD:Brookes. Nash,H.,&Snowling,M.(2006).Teachingnewwordstochildren
Goldstein,H.,Kelley,E.S.,Greenwood,C.,McCune,L.,Carta, withpoorexistingvocabularyknowledge:Acontrolledevalua-
J.,Atwater,J.,...Spencer,T.(2016).Embeddedinstruction tionofthedefinitionandcontextmethods.InternationalJournal
improvesvocabularylearningduringautomatedstorybook ofLanguage&CommunicationDisorders,41(3),335–354.
readingamonghigh-riskpreschoolers.JournalofSpeech, Nation,I.S.(2001).Learningvocabularyinanotherlanguage.
Language,andHearingResearch,59(3),484–500. Stuttgart,Germany:ErnstKlettSprachen.
Goldstein,H.,Ziolkowski,R.A.,Bojczyk,K.E.,Marty,A., Neuman,S.B.,&Dwyer,J.(2009).Missinginaction:Vocabulary
Schneider,N.,Harpring,J.,&Haring,C.D.(2017).Academic instructioninpre-K.TheReadingTeacher,62(5),384–392.
vocabularylearninginfirstthroughthirdgradeinlow-income Penno,J.F.,Wilkinson,I.A.,&Moore,D.W.(2002).Vocabu-
schools:Effectsofautomatedsupplementalinstruction.Journal laryacquisitionfromteacherexplanationandrepeatedlisten-
ofSpeech,Language,andHearingResearch,60(11),3237–3258. ingtostories:DotheyovercometheMattheweffect?Journal
Greenwood,C.R.,Carta,J.J.,Atwater,J.,Goldstein,H., ofEducationalPsychology,94(1),23.
Kaminski,R.,&McConnell,S.(2013).Isaresponsetointer- Pollard-Durodola,S.D.,Gonzalez,J.E.,Simmons,D.C.,Kwok,O.,
vention(RTI)approachtopreschoollanguageandearlyliter- Taylor,A.B.,Davis,M.J.,...Simmons,L.(2011).Theeffects
acyinstructionneeded?TopicsinEarlyChildhoodSpecial ofanintensivesharedbook-readinginterventionforpreschool
Education,33(1),48–64. childrenatriskforvocabularydelay.ExceptionalChildren,77(2),
Greenwood,C.R.,Carta,J.J.,Goldstein,H.,Kaminski,R.A., 161–183.
McConnell,S.R.,&Atwater,J.(2014).Thecenterforresponse Robbins,C.,&Ehri,L.C.(1994).Readingstorybookstokinder-
tointerventioninearlychildhood:Developingevidence-based gartnershelpsthemlearnnewvocabularywords.Journalof
toolsforamulti-tierapproachtopreschoollanguageand EducationalPsychology,86(1),54.
earlyliteracyinstruction.JournalofEarlyIntervention,36(4), Scarborough,H.S.(2001).Connectingearlylanguageandlit-
246–262. eracytolaterreading(dis)abilities:Evidence,theory,and
Greenwood,C.R.,Carta,J.J.,Guerrero,G.,Atwater,J.,Kelley, practice.InS.Neuman&D.Dickinson(Eds.),Handbookforre-
E.S.,Kong,N.Y.,&Goldstein,H.(2016).Systematicreplica- searchinearlyliteracy(pp.97–110).NewYork,NY:Guilford
tionoftheeffectsofasupplementary,technology-assisted, Press.
storybookinterventionforpreschoolchildrenwithweak Snow,C.E.,Burns,M.S.,&Griffin,P.(1998).Preventingread-
vocabularyandcomprehensionskills.TheElementarySchool ingdifficultiesinyoungchildrencommitteeonthepreventionof
Journal,116(4),574–599. readingdifficultiesinyoungchildren.Washington,DC:National
Greenwood,C.R.,Carta,J.J.,Walker,D.,Watson-Thompson,J., ResearchCouncil.
Gilkerson,J.,Larson,A.L.,&Schnitz,A.(2017).Conceptual- Spencer,E.,Goldstein,H.,Sherman,A.,Noe,S.,Tabbah,R.,
izingapublichealthpreventioninterventionforbridgingthe Ziolkowski,R.,&Schneider,N.(2012).Effectsofanauto-
30millionwordgap.ClinicalChildandFamilyPsychology matedvocabularyandcomprehensionintervention:Anearly
Review,20(1),3–24. efficacystudy.JournalofEarlyIntervention,34(4),195–221.
174 Language,Speech,andHearingServicesinSchools (cid:129) Vol.51 (cid:129) 165–175 (cid:129) January2020
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Xigrid Soto on 03/11/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions