Vocabulary Instruction for Students who Read Braille
Mackenzie Savaiano
Donald Compton, Deborah Hatton, Blair Lloyd
AER International
July 31, 2014
Slide 2 - Overview
Why is Vocabulary Important?
My Study
Research Questions
Basic Design
Examples of Results
What Does This Mean for Instruction?
Slide 3 - Figure of Reading Comprehension Model
Description: The figure is a flow chart with five major boxes – braille tactile input,
word identification, comprehension processes, prior knowledge, linguistic system.
Except for tactile input, these boxes contain more information. Word Identification:
there are three circles – orthographic units, phonological units, word
representation. Orthographic units and phonological units are connected by a
double-headed arrow and surrounded by a box. This box is connected to word
representation by a double-headed arrow. Comprehension Processes: there are
four boxes – surface code, textbase, situation model, and inferences. Surface
code is connected to textbase by a double-headed arrow, and textbase is
connected to situation model by a double-headed arrow. The inferences box is
connected to surface code and textbase by double-headed arrows. Prior
Knowledge: includes general background knowledge and vocabulary. Linguistic
System: includes syntax, morphology, and phonolfy. Beginning at the bottom of
the chart, a single-headed arrow leads from braille tactile input to word
identification. Continuing up, a double-headed arrow connects word identification
to comprehension processes. At the top, a double-headed arrow connects word
identification to prior knowledge. Finally, another double-headed arrow connects
comprehension processes to linguistic system.
Reciprocal relationship between vocabulary, comprehension, and amount of
reading (Nagy, 2005)
Students who are blind have less exposure to text
Affects amount of background knowledge
Slide 4 - Vocabulary Instruction
Direct instruction (Jitendra, Edwards, Sacks, & Jacobson, 2004; Marulis &
Neuman, 2010; NICHD, 2000; Pany & Jenkins, 1978; Pany, Jenkins, & Schreck,
1982)
Word spellings presented
Facilitates word learning (Ehri & Rosenthal, 2007; Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008)
Braille does not affect spelling ability (Clark & Stoner, 2008; Clark-Bischke &
Stoner, 2009; Wall-Emerson, Holbrook, & D’Andrea, 2009)
Slide 5 - In Print
Spelling Not Present (description: drawing of a big truck)
Spelling Present (description: drawing of a big truck with the word “rig”
underneath)
Slide 6 - In Braille?
Spelling Not Present (description: empty box)
Spelling Present (description: photograph of braille flashcard with top right corner
cut and the word ashamed written in braille using contractions)
Slide 7 - Research Question
Do students who are blind learn:
1) the meanings of words more efficiently and
2) to spell words more accurately
via flashcard vocabulary instruction relative to auditory only vocabulary
instruction?
Slide 8 - Design
Adapted alternating treatments design (AATD; Sindelar, Rosenberg, & Wilson,
1985; Wolery, Gast, & Hammond, 2010)
Nonreversible behaviors
Compare efficiency of instructional strategies
Description: Table showing differences between the two instructional strategies Flashcard and Auditory Only. There are three columns for each instructional
strategy – word, definition, sentence. There are two rows - speech, braille. The
letter “x” in a box indicates that the instructional strategy includes this item.
Flashcard includes: word, definition, sentence in speech and word in braille.
Auditory Only includes: word, definition, and sentence in speech.
Slide 9 - Pretests
EVALS Braille Reading Assessment (Texas School for the Blind and Visually
Impaired, 2007)
Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update Braille Adaptation (WJ-III BA; Jaffe &
Henderson, 2010)
Word ID
Word Attack
Passage Comprehension
Developmental Spelling Inventory (Ganske, 2000)
Slide 10 - Description of Participants
Description: Table includes three columns of participants names: Peter, Helen,
Vincent. Table includes seven rows: age (in years), classification, visual diagnosis,
visual acuity, braille contractions, WJ-III Braille Adaption, Psychological
Assessment (WISC-IV). The following information follows the order of rows. Peter:
12.7; MD (blind and LD); bilateral anophthalmia; NLP (O.U.); 131/189 (69%);
Letter-word ID=2.5 GE, Passage Comp.=1.9 GE, Word Attack=2.5 GE; Verbal
Comp.=68, Working Memory=80, Verbal Deviation=68. Helen: 11.1; Blind; optic
nerve hypoplasia; NLP (O.S.), LP (O.D.); 168/189 (89%); Letter-word ID=4.9 GE,
Passage Comp.=2.1 GE, Word Attack=14.8 GE; Verbal Comp.=81, Working
Memory=68, Verbal Deviation=73. Vincent: 9.5; MD (blind, LD, OHI, Autism);
retinopathy of prematurity; LP (O.U.); 169/189 (89%); Letter-word ID=3.2 GE,
Passage Comp.=2.1 GE, Word Attack=2.8 GE; Verbal Comp.=93, Working
Memory=88, Verbal Deviation=90. Abbreviations: MD = multiple disabilities; LD =
learning disabilities; OHI = other health impaired; ASD = autism spectrum
disorder; ID = intellectual disabilities; NLP = no light perception; O.U. = both eyes;
O.S. = left eye; LP = light perception; O.D. = right eye; CF = counts fingers; WJ-III
= Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement; WISC-IV = Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children IV; RIAS = Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales
Slide 11 - Word Sets
The Living World Vocabulary (Dale & O’Rourke, 1981)
The English Lexicon Project (Balota et al., 2007)
Medical Research Council (MRC) Psycholinguistic Database (Coltheart,
1981)
Equivalence
Length
Number of syllables
Part of speech
Grade level
Frequency
OLD
PLD
Imageability/concreteness
Number of contractions
Slide 12 - Definitions
Triangulated from 3 sources
The Living World Vocabulary (Dale & O’Rourke, 1981)
Merriam-Webster Word Central
Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary
Criteria
Five or fewer words
Did not include the word or part of the word
Slide 13 - Sentences
Criteria
Used the exact form of the word
Provided additional context for the word
Did not restate the definition
Had ten or fewer words
Slide 14 - Dependent Variables
Definition Recall
2 = correct response
1 = generalized response
0 = incorrect
Spelling
2 = correct spelling, contracted
1 = correct spelling, uncontracted or incorrect contraction
0 = incorrect
Slide 15 - General Procedures
Probe
Ask for meaning
Ask for spelling
Instruction
Target word
Participant repeats
Target word definition
Target word in sentence
Target word definition
Participant repeats definition
Slide 16 - General Procedures
Probe
Ask for meaning: What does [frantic] mean?
Ask for spelling: How do you spell [frantic]?
Instruction
Target word
Participant repeats
Target word definition
Target word in sentence
Target word definition
Participant repeats definition
Slide 17 - General Procedures
Probe
Ask for meaning
Ask for spelling
Instruction
Target word
Participant repeats
Target word definition
Target word in sentence
Target word definition
Participant repeats definition
Description: Some words within instruction are highlighted to emphasize the
repetition built into the procedure. “Target word” is highlighted in bold four times;
“definition” is highlighted in green two times; “participant repeats” is highlighted in
red two times.
Slide 18 - General Procedures
Probe
Ask for meaning
Ask for spelling
Instruction
The next word is tweed. What is the word?
Participant repeats
Tweed means wool cloth.
The man wore tweed pants.
Tweed means wool cloth. What does tweed mean?
Participant repeats definition
Description: The words are highlighted as in the previous slide, except the general
wording is replaced with words from a specific example. “Tweed” is highlighted in
bold four times; “wool cloth” is highlighted in green two times; “participant repeats”
is highlighted in red two times.
Slide 19 - General Results
Sessions to Mastery
Description: Table of Number of sessions to mastery for each participant. There
are four rows: Flashcard, Auditory, Best Alone (Auditory). Peter: 6, 4, 8. Helen: 23,
17, 16. Vincent: 9, 7, 6.
Slide 20 - General Results
Average time per session
Description: Table of average time per session in minutes (range). There are three
column: Initial Probe, Comparison, Best Alone. Peter: 10.5(9.0-12.3) n=5;
12.8(7.2-16.4) n=6; 10.8(8.9-11.9) n=8. Helen: 7.3(6.5-8.6) n=3; 10.5(6.3-13.2)
n=23; 10.9(7.6-13.3) n=16. Vincent: 10.4 (9.4-12.2) n=3; 21.2(15.3-25.6) n=9;
25.4(22.5-27.7) n=6.
Slide 21 - Peter: Graph of Definition Recall
Slide 22 - Vincent: Graph of Definition Recall
Slide 23 - Peter: Graph of Spelling
Slide 24 - Helen: Graph of Spelling
Slide 25 - What Does This Mean for Instruction?
Surprising results - not consistent with previous findings with students who read
print (i.e., Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008)
Listening and reading braille may require more cognitive load than listening and
reading print
Less efficient for certain student profiles
Slide 26 - Profile - Helen
Description: Shows Helen’s column from Slide 10 with emphasis placed on WJ-III
scores and working memory score from the WISC-IV.
Slide 27 - Helen: Graph of Definition Recall
Slide 28 - Profile - Vincent
Description: Shows Vincent’s column from Slide 10 with emphasis placed on MD
classification.
Slide 29 - Vincent: Graph of Spelling
Slide 30 - Can We Still Use Flashcards?
YES!
Differences between two conditions was not instructionally relevant (though it was
scientifically relevant)
Slight procedural change
Importance of spelling outweighs benefits of learning meanings 3 days
sooner
Separate listening and reading tasks
Slide 31 - Questions
Contact:
msavaiano2@unl.edu
Slide 32 - References
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B.,
Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English
lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445-459.
Clark, C. & Stoner, J. B. (2008). An investigation of the spelling skills of braille
readers. Journal of Visual Impairments & Blindness, 102(9), 553-563.
Clark-Bischke, C., & Stoner, J. B. (2009). An investigation of spelling in the written
compositions of students who read braille. Journal of Visual Impairment &
Blindness, 103(10), 668-679.
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497-505.
Dale, E., & O'Rourke, J. (1981). The living word vocabulary. Chicago, IL: World
Book.
Ehri, L. C., & Rosenthal, J. (2007). Spellings of words: A neglected facilitator of
vocabulary learning. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 389-409.
Ganske, K. (2000). Word journeys: Assessment-guided phonics, spelling, and
vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Ganske, K. (1999). The
developmental spelling analysis: A measure of orthographic knowledge.
Educational Assessment, 6, 41-70.
Slide 33 - References
Jaffe, L. E., & Henderson, B. W. (with Evans, C. A., McClurg, L. & Etter, N.).
(2010). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement Normative Update – Braille
Adaptation (2nd ed.). Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.
Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Sacks, G., & Jacobson, L. A. (2004). What
research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 70, 299-322.
Marulis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary instruction on
young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,
80, 300-335.
Nagy, W. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and
comprehensive. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning
vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp.27-44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000).
Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidencebased assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No.
00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S.
Pany, D., & Jenkins, J. R. (1978). Learning word meanings: A comparison of
instructional procedures. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 21-32.
Slide 34 - References
Pany, D., Jenkins, J. R., & Schreck, J. (1982). Vocabulary instruction: Effects on
word knowledge and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5,
202-215.
Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading
comprehension skill. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A
handbook (pp. 227-247). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L. C. (2008). The mnemonic vale of orthography for
vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 175-191.
Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating
treatments design for instructional research. Education & Treatment of Children, 8,
67-76.
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired. (2007). EVALS: Evaluating
visually impaired students using alternate learning standards emphasizing the
expanded core curriculum [Assessment tool]. Austin, TX: Texas School for the
Blind and Visually Impaired.
Wall-Emerson, R. W., Holbrook, M. C., & D’Andrea, F. M. (2009). Acquisition of
literacy skills by young children who are blind: Results from the ABC Braille Study.
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103(10), 610-624.
Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., & Hammond, D. (2010). Comparative intervention
designs. In D. Gast (Ed.), Single subject research methodology in behavioral
sciences (pp. 329-381). New York, NY: Routledge.