Hammill Institute on Disabilities Vocabulary Intervention for Kindergarten Students: Comparing Extended Instruction to Embedded Instruction and Incidental Exposure Author(s): Michael D. Coyne, D. Betsy McCoach and Sharon Kapp Source: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Spring, 2007), pp. 74-88 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30035543 Accessed: 24-06-2015 16:53 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FOR VOCABULARYINTERVENTION KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS: EXTENDED TO INSTRUCTION INSTRUCTIONAND COMPARING EMBEDDED INCIDENTAL EXPOSURE Michael D. Coyne, D. Betsy McCoach, and Sharon Kapp Abstract. The purpose of the two studies reported in this article was to evaluate the effectiveness of extended vocabulary instruction during storybook reading with kindergarten students within a small-group intervention setting. Extended vocabulary instruction is characterized by explicit teaching that includes both contextual and definitional information, multiple exposures to target words in varied contexts, and experiences that promote deep processing of word meanings. In Study One, we compared extended instruction of target words to incidental exposure. In Study Two, we compared extended instruction to embedded instruction (i.e., providing simple definitions within the context of the story). Our findings indicated that extended instruction resulted in greater word learning than either incidental exposure or embedded instruction. Moreover,students maintained much of their understanding of word meanings six to eight weeks after instruction. Implications are discussed in relation to a tri-level approach to vocabulary instruction and intervention for kindergarten students at risk for language and reading disabilities. MICHAEL D. COYNE,Ph.D., assistantprofessor,Universityof Connecticut. Ph.D., assistantprofessor,Universityof Connecticut. D. BETSYMCCOACH, SHARON KAPP,M.A.,a doctoralstudent,Universityof Connecticut. Children begin kindergartenwith important differences in vocabularyknowledge. While some children enter school with thousands of hours of exposure to books and a wealth of rich and supportive oral language experiences, others begin school with very limited knowledge of language and word meanings (Hart & Risley, 1995; National ResearchCouncil, 1998). This vocabularygap grows largerin the early gradesas children with limited vocabulary knowledge grow much more discrepantover time from their peers who have rich vocabulary knowledge (Becker, 1977; Stanovich, 1986). Biemillerand Slonim (2001) estimatedthat most of the vocabularydifferences among children emerge before grade two, at which point children with high vocabularies know approximately 4,000 more root word meanings than children who are experiencing delays in vocabularydevelopment. Compounding this situation, children who have difficulty learning word LearningDisabilityQuarterly 74 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions identification skills are also less able to develop their vocabulary knowledge through independent reading (Cunninghan & Stanovich,1998). Young children who fall behind their peers in developing vocabularyknowledge are at significant risk for experiencing serious reading and learning difficulties and, ultimately,being identifiedas having a languageor reading disability. Although vocabulary knowledge is less related to the acquisition of beginning code-based reading skills such as phonemic awarenessand word identification skills, it becomes increasinglymore predictive of overall reading proficiency as students progressthrough the elementarygrades (Scarborough, 2005; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). As the vocabulary gap among students widens and texts become more complex, vocabulary knowledge becomes a critical determinant of successful comprehension (Becker, 1977; Stahl, 1991). Similarly,longitudinalresearchsuggests that earlylanguageand vocabularydeficitsarepredictive of laterlearningdisabilitiesrelatedspecificallyto readingcomprehension(Catts,Hogan, & Adlof 2005). Similarto the researchon preventingword identification difficulties,there is mounting evidence of a corresponding need to targetvocabularydevelopmentefforts on prevention and early intervention, before an insurmountable vocabularygap arises between students at riskfor readingdisabilityand their peerswho are not at risk(Biemiller,2001; RandReadingStudyGroup,2002). Currently, however, very little intentional, teacherdirected vocabulary instruction or intervention takes place in schools, particularly before third grade (Baumann,Kame'enui,& Ash, 2003). An extensive and growing literature suggests that structuredand supportedoral language activities, such as listening to and discussingstorybooks,is a promising way to promote languageand vocabularydevelopment in young children (Bus, van Ijzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Van Kleck,& Stahl, & Bauer,2003; Whitehurstet al., 1999). For example, studies have found that children can learn the meanings of unknown words through incidental exposure during shared storybook reading activities (Elley, 1989; Nicholson & Whyte, 1992; Senechal & Cornell, 1993; Robbins & Ehri, 1994). Research has also shown that children can learn word meanings through incidental exposure while viewing video narratives (Oetting, Rice, & Swank, 1995). Unfortunately, these activities are not equally effective for all students. That is, children who are at risk for reading disability with lower initial vocabularies are less likely than their peers with higher vocabularies to learn words incidentally while listening to stories (Coyne, Simmons, Kame'enui, & Stoolmiller, 2004; Nicholson & Whyte, 1992; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Senechal, Thomas, & Monker, 1995) and viewing videotapes (Oetting et al., 1995). It is possible that these students are less able to make use of context to infer word meaningsbecauseof limited vocabulary and content knowledge (Stahl, 1991). In response to this finding, researchershave called for more intentional, teacher-directedvocabulary instructionand interventionto complement traditional storybookreadingactivitiesfor young childrenwho are at risk for language and reading difficulties (Biemiller 2001; Penno, Wilkinson, & Moore,2002; Stahl & Shiel, 1999). Forexample, Robbinsand Ehri(1994) concluded that "becausechildrenwith weakervocabulariesareless likely to learn new words from listening to storiesthan childrenwith largervocabularies,teachersneed to provide more explicit vocabularyinstruction for children with smallervocabularies"(p. 61). Only a limited number of studies have investigated the effectivenessof directlyteaching word meanings to young children within the context of storybookreading. The most frequently evaluated instructional approachhas been to provide students with embedded explanationsof targetwords when encounteredduring story reading. For example, Penno et al. (2002) conducted a study in which 47 young children (mean age 6 years, 6 months) were randomlyassignedto two storybook reading conditions. In the control condition, children listened to three readingsof a storybookdistributedover three weeks. In the treatment condition, children listened to three readings of the same storybook but also receivedexplanationsby the adult reader of target vocabularywords embedded within the context of the story. Explanationsconsisted of (a) using a simpler synonym, (b) role playing or acting out the word'smeaning, or (c) pointing to a picturein the book that illustrated the word's meaning. At posttest, the researchersfound that childrenin the treatmentcondition identified more target words in a multiple-choice test and included more target words in a retelling of the story. These resultsconvergewith findings of other studies evaluatingthe effectivenessof providing simple explanations of target words in the context of storybook reading activities (Biemiller & Boote, 2005; Brett, Rothlein, & Hurley, 1996; Elley, 1989; Senechal, 1997). Taken together, these studies suggest that primary-grade students can learn the meanings of unknown words when provided with embedded definitions while listening to stories read aloud. Moreover, students are more likely to learn word meanings when teachers provide direct instruction compared to incidental exposure during read-alouds. However, although this type of vocabulary instruction is time efficient, it may not provide the level of intensity that many students at risk for disability require to gain access to the complexities of language and word meanings needed to significantly affect Volume30, Spring2007 75 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions learning outcomes (Gersten,1998; Vaughn, Gersten,& Chard,2000). While introducing simple definitions is one way to explicitly teach vocabulary,an alternateapproachis to provide more intensive and extended instruction in word meanings. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) described extended instruction as a robust approach that "offers rich information about words and their uses, providesfrequentand variedopportunitiesfor students to think about and use words, and enhances students' languagecomprehensionand production"(p. 2). There is little research on extended vocabulary instructionin gradesK-2;the literatureon rich vocabularyinstructionis more extensive in grades3 and above (Baumannet al., 2003; National ReadingPanel, 2000). Extended vocabulary instruction is characterizedby explicit, conspicuousteaching that includes using both contextual and definitional information, giving multiple exposures to target words in varied contexts, and encouragingdeep processing (National ReadingPanel, 2000; Stahl, 1986; Stahl & Fairbanks,1986). Activities that encourage deep processing challenge students to move beyond memorizingsimple dictionarydefinitions to understandingwords at a richer,more complex level by, for example, describing how they relate to other words and to their own experiences(McKeown& Beck, 2003). Anothercriticalfeatureof extended instructionis increasingthe numberof encounterswith targetvocabularyby providingstudentswith opportunitiesto interact with and discuss target words in varied contexts beyond those offeredin the story. Beck, McKeown,and their colleagues (Beck,Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Perfetti, 1983; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, 1985) conducted a programof researchthat evaluated the effectivenessof rich, extended vocabularyinstruction with students in upper-elementarygrades. This program provided students with definitions of words and also extended instructionby including experiences that promoted and reinforceddeep processingof word meanings. Students were exposed to target words frequently within and acrosslessons and given opportunities to manipulate words in varied and meaningful over, their findings indicated that increasing the amount of instruction (i.e., increasing instructional time and exposures to target words) resulted in substantial gains in word learning. The growingresearchbase which is providingencouraging evidence about the effectivenessof directvocabulary instruction, especially extended instruction, with young children has focused almost completely on whole-class approaches that may not be supportive enough for those students most at riskfor learningdisabilities (Coyne et al., 2004; Penno et al., 2002). The purposeof the two studiesreportedin this article, therefore,was to extend the researchon directvocabulary instructionwith young children by evaluatingthe effectiveness of an extended instructional approach with kindergartenstudents within a small-groupintervention setting. In addition, we wanted to examine the amount and quality of word learning that children experienceas a resultof extended instructioncompared to incidental exposure and embedded instruction, approachesthat have been studiedmore widely. Finally, we were interested in how students most at risk for language and reading difficulties responded to the extended vocabularyapproach. In StudyOne, we compared rich instruction of target words to incidental exposure during story reading. In Study Two, we compared rich instruction to embedded instruction (i.e., providing simple definitions within the context of the story). ways. The results of these studies demonstrated that a carefully designed program of direct vocabulary instruction can have positive effects on both students' word learning and comprehension. Extended vocabulary instruction has not been investigated systematically with young school-age children. The preliminary results of one exploratory study are promising, however. Beck and McKeown (2007) found that kindergarten and first-grade students were able to learn complex vocabulary through a rich instructional a K-4 elementary school in a small town in the Northeast. The school serves a large percentage of students who would be considered at risk for experiencing reading difficulties based on demographic data and performance on state literacy assessments. Thus, approximately 55% of the students qualify for free or reducedpriced meals out of a total enrollment of 300. On the most recent state mastery test, 37% of grade-four students met the state goal in reading compared to 58% of students statewide. Approximately 55% of students are STUDY ONE The purpose of Study One was to compare extended instruction of targetvocabularyto incidental exposure during storybookreadings.The specific researchquestions were as follows: (a) Does extended vocabulary instruction result in greaterword learning than incidental exposure? and (b) Do students maintain their knowledge of word meanings without planned review or instruction? Method Participants Participantswere kindergartenstudentswho attended approach implemented in whole-class settings. More- Hispanic,and 40%are Caucasian. LearningDisabilityQuarterly 76 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions In March, consent forms were distributed to the parentsof all 38 studentsfrom the school's two kindergarten classrooms;35 were returned.Becauseof space constraints, 32 students from this pool were randomly selected to take part in the study. One student was not able to participate due to a scheduling conflict, which resulted in a final group of 31 students who completed the study. Participantsincluded 15 males and 16 females; 20 students were Caucasian and 11 were Hispanic.The averageage was 5 years, 10 months, ranging from 5 years, 3 months to 6 years, 6 months. Participants'mean PPVTscore was 98.52 (sd = 14.44). Procedures The researchquestionswereaddressedusing an experimental design with two within-subjectsfactors,type of instruction (storywords taught using extended instruction and storywordsreceivingincidentalexposure)and time (posttestand delayedposttest). There are severalbenefits of using a within-subjects methodology to investigate vocabulary instruction. First, because each student received both types of instructional procedures, we were able control for between-subjectvariability,thus increasing our power considerably. Second, in vocabulary instruction, directly teaching the meaning of one word does not immediately affect learning the meanings of other words, especially during short, focused intervention studies. Therefore, carryovereffects that often make within-subject designs unfeasible in educational research are eliminated. Third, within-subject designs control for almost all threats to internal validity, making this methodology particularlyrigorous and trustworthy. Finally,a number of researchteams have used within-subjects designs successfully in research on vocabularyinstruction and intervention (e.g., Beck & McKeown,2007; Biemiller& Boote, 2005). All participantslistened to three readingsof the storybook TheThreeLittlePigsby JamesMarshall(1989). We selected six targetwords from the story that we consideredimportantfor understandingthe storyand unlikely to be known by kindergartenstudents.Wordsincluded two nouns (sow,cauldron),two verbs(loitering,approach- words that were not taught. For example, students in Version A received extended instruction on sow, loitering, and scrumptiousand incidental exposure on cauldron, approaching,and sturdy, whereas students in Version B received extended instruction on cauldron, and sturdyand incidental exposureon sow, approaching, loitering,and scrumptious. Both versionsof the intervention included identical instructionalprocedures. We randomly assignedparticipantsto either Version A or B. The interventionwas deliveredto small groups of three to four students by four graduate students who were members of the researchteam. Each interventionist taught one group receivingVersionA of the intervention and one group receiving Version B. The intervention was delivered in three 20- to 30-minute sessions over the course of one week. Priorto the study, all interventionistswere trainedin how to implement the intervention. The training session focused on lesson formats, instructional procedures, and lesson materials. Trainers modeled the procedures and then provided interventionists with opportunities to practice the procedureswith guided feedback.Criticalcomponents of the interventionswere identified, and an observationchecklistwas developed to document and evaluate fidelity of implementation (Gersten,Baker,& Lloyd, 2000; Gresham,MacMillan, & Bocian, 2000). CriticalcompoBeebe-Frankenberger, nents incorporatedinto the fidelity checklist included whether or not interventionists (a) delivered each instructional element, (b) modeled proceduresappropriately, (c) maximized opportunities to respond, (d) providederrorcorrection,and (e) read storybookswith enthusiasm. The project directorobserved each interventionist during one of the three instructional sessions. Fidelityof implementation averagedabove 90% for each interventionist. Description of Instructional Conditions Extended instruction. The extended instruction condition was designed to directlyteach the meanings of three targetvocabularywords within the context of story reading.In addition, the instructionwas designed to extend children'sunderstandingof target words by ing), and two adjectives (sturdy, scrumptious). In the story, target words appeared in contexts that were generally supportive (Beck et al., 2002). In other words, the story context provided students with sufficient information to infer the meanings of target words. The story was slightly modified so that each target word appeared only once. We created two versions of the intervention in which target words were counterbalanced across conditions to control for word effects. Each version included three target words that were providing them with interactive opportunities to process word meanings at a deeper and more refined level and to increase students' exposures to target vocabulary by providing opportunities to interact with and discuss target words in varied contexts beyond those offered in the story. The development of the extended instruction condition was informed by principles distilled from research on effective vocabulary instruction for students in grade three and above (e.g., Baumann et al., 2003; National taught using extended instruction and three target ReadingPanel, 2000; Stahl & Fairbanks,1986; see also Volume30, Spring2007 77 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Coyne, Simmons,& Kame'enui,2003) as well as suggestions from Beck et al. (2002) for designing vocabulary instruction for primary-agechildren. The development of the intervention was also informedby the extensive literatureinvestigating instructional practices for students with learning disabilitiesand students at risk for academic failure (Coyne, Kame'enui, & Carnine, in press;Gersten,1998;Swanson& Hoskyn, 1998;Vaughn et al., 2000). For example, the instruction carefully attended to three instructionalprinciplessupportedby a large body of converging intervention research:conspicuous instruction, instructional scaffolding, and opportunities for practice with high-quality feedback (Coyne, Zipoli, & Ruby,2006). Priorto each readingof the storybook,interventionists prompted students to pronounce the three target words.Studentswere then encouragedto listen for each of the "magic words" in the story and to raise their hands whenever they heard one. When target words were encountered in the story, interventionists asked students to identify the word and then rereadthe sentence containing the word (e.g., "Oh, good. Some of you raisedyour hands! What word did you hear? Yes, approaching.'And while busy gathering apples in the highest tree, he saw the wolf approaching.'")Students werethen providedwith a simple definition of the word (e.g., "Approachingmeans comingcloser.").Next, the interventionistrereadthe sentence and replacedthe target word with its definition (e.g., "Now I'll say the sentence again with the words that mean approaching. 'Andwhile busy gatheringapplesin the highest tree, he saw the wolf coming closer.'").Finally, students were promptedto once again pronounce the targetword to reinforcephonological representations(e.g., "Everyone say approaching.").The purpose of these procedures was to offer students both a simple definition of each targetword and contextualsupportfor the word'suse in the story (Stahl & Fairbanks,1986). The story reading portion of the intervention averaged10-20 minutes per session. Aftereach readingof the storybook,the interventionists engaged students in activities that provided them with opportunities to interact with and discuss target words in rich and varied contexts beyond those offered in the story (Beck et al., 2002). Each activity began by reintroducing the target word and reviewing how it was used in the story (e.g., "Remember, while the pig was busy gathering apples in the highest tree, he saw the wolf coming closer. Try to think about our magic word that means coming closer. Yes! Approaching means coming closer."). Students then engaged in activities that encouraged deep processing and increased exposures to target words ing examples of target words (e.g., "I'll tell you about some things. If you think it is strong, say 'That'ssturdy!' If you think it is not very strong, say 'Uh oh, that's not very sturdy!'- A tall tower made of cards,this school, a big huge rock, a snowman on a hot sunny day."); answeringquestions about target words (e.g., "Thegirl looked across the yard and saw her friend running towardher. What magic word does this makeyou think of? Yes, approaching!"); formulatingsentenceswith target words (e.g., "Everybodygets a turn makingup a sentence with the word cauldronin it. Startyour sentence by saying, 'If I had a cauldron ...' For example, I could say, 'If I had a cauldron,I would cook a big pot of macaroni and cheese!'");and respondingto sentences containing more than one targetword (e.g., "Ifa stormwas approaching,would you go into a sturdyhouse?"). Interventionistsfollowed up students' answers with open-ended questions that encouraged students to extend and elaborate on their initial responses (McKeown& Beck, 2004). For example, if a student responded to the question "Why do you think a cauldron is sturdy?"with the answer "Becausethe pot is big," the interventionistmight follow up by asking "So why would a big pot be sturdy?"The goal of this type of open-ended question was to prompt an extended responsethat demonstrateda full understandingof the target word such as "Becausea cauldron is made of metal, which is very strong."Finally,the interventionist would provide correctivefeedbackby restating and reinforcingthe students'responses "Yes,a cauldron,or a big pot, would be sturdybecauseit is very strong!"The post-readingvocabularyactivities averaged10-15 minutes per session. Incidental exposure.The three targetwords receiving the incidental exposurecondition appearedin the story but were not taught or discussed directly. In other words, studentsheardeach word three times within the context of the story(i.e., once per storyreading).We did not control for frequencyof exposureto targetvocabulary between the two conditions. An increasednumber of encounterswith targetvocabularyis a criticalfeature of extended instructionand a key distinction between a extended instructional approach and an approach that relies on incidental exposure. In effect, we were comparing the relative effectiveness and efficiency of an approach that purposefully maximizes exposures to target vocabulary with an approach that, by definition, relies on infrequent and naturally occurring encounters. Measures According to the National Reading Panel (2000), specific vocabulary growth is best assessed through researcher-developed measures because such measures in variedand meaningful contexts, including recogniz- aremore sensitiveto gains achievedthroughinstruction LearningDisabilityQuarterly 78 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions than are standardizedtools. For this study, three individually administered measures were developed that assessedparticipants'knowledge of specific vocabulary targetedin the interventionconditions. Expressive measure of story word definitions (expressive definitions). The expressive definitions measure is an experimenter-developed individual assessmentthat measuresstudents'knowledgeof the six targetword definitions.Forexample,for the targetword cauldron,the student is asked"Whatdoes the wordcauldronmean?"The student's response is recordedverbatim. The student is then asked a follow-up question, "Tellme anything else you know about the word cauldron." Responses to both prompts are scored together. Responsesare given 2 points for a complete response (e.g., "a cauldronis a big pot"), 1 point for a partialor related response (e.g., "you cook soup"), and 0 points for an unrelatedresponseor no response.Eachstudent receives a separatetotal score for taught target words and untaught targetwords. The maximum score possible for either taught or untaught words is 6 (i.e., 2 points possible for each of three words). Receptivemeasure of story word definitions (receptive definitions). The receptive definitions measure is an experimenter-developedindividual assessment that measures students' knowledge of the six target word definitions. Students are read questions that requirea yes or no answer.Eachtargetwordis representedby two questions, one that correspondsto the correct definition and one that correspondsto an incorrectdefinition (M. G. McKeown,personalcommunication,January13, 2004). For example, the two questions for the target word cauldronwere "Isa cauldrona big pot?"and "Isa cauldron a mean person?"The questions for the word sturdy were "Does sturdy mean strong?" and "Does sturdymean broken?" Studentsreceive 1 point for each correctanswerand 0 points for each incorrectanswer.The two questions for each of the six target words are separatedand distributed across the measure.Each student receives a separate total score for taught target words and untaught target words. The maximum possible score for either taught or untaught words is 6 (i.e., 2 points possible for each of three words). Receptive measure of understanding story words in context (context). The context measure is an experimenter-developed individual assessment that measures students' understanding of target words used in novel contexts. Students are read questions that require a yes or no answer. Each target word is represented by two questions, one that corresponds to the correct usage and one that corresponds to an incorrect usage (M. G. McKeown,personalcommunication,January13, 2004). Forexample,the two questionsfor the targetword cauldronwere "Canyou put waterin a cauldron?"and "Can a cauldrontalk?"The questionsfor the word sturdywere "Woulda metal bridge be sturdy?"and "If something was sturdy,would it be easy to break?" Studentsreceive 1 point for each correctanswerand 0 points for each incorrectanswer.The two questions for each of the six target words are separatedand distributed acrossthe measure.Each student receives a separate total score for taught target words and untaught target words. The maximum possible score for either taught or untaughtwords is 6 (i.e., 2 points possible for each of three words). Peabody Picture VocabularyTest-III(PPVT;Dunn & Dunn, 1999). The PPVTis a standardized,individually administeredtest of receptivelanguageand vocabulary that assesses a student's ability to comprehend word meanings. The PPVTwas administeredto characterize participants'overall receptivevocabularyknowledge priorto the startof the intervention.In the PPVT, students are presentedwith four picturesand are asked to point to the picture that correspondswith a word spoken by the examiner. Standardscores are derivedbased on the number of correctitems and the student'schronologicalage. The PPVThas a mean of 100 and a standarddeviationof 15. Reportedtest-retestreliabilityis .77, and alternateform reliabilityis .82 (Dunn & Dunn, 1999). Overall,research suggestshigh reliabilityand validityfor the PPVT(Salvia & Ysseldyke,1998). Data Collection and Scoring Data collection took place at pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest. Pretest data were collected approximately one week prior to the start of the intervention. Posttestdata were collected between one and five days after the third reading of the storybook.The delayed posttest was administered eight weeks after posttest. The three experimenter-developed measures were administered at all three data collection points. The PPVTwas administeredonly at pretest. Membersof the researchteam administeredall measures. Data collectors were requiredto demonstrate at least 90% reliability for administration.All measures were scored by one member of the research team. The project director randomly selected and independently scored 20% of the assessment protocols to check for scoring reliability. Agreement was 100%. Results The pretest data indicated that students had no measurable knowledge of target word meanings prior to receiving the intervention. On average, students were unable to produce even partial definitions for any word and scored statisticallyno better than chance on the Volume30, Spring2007 79 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions receptive definitions and context measures (i.e., three out of six yes/no questions). There were also no statistically significant differences between students' knowledge of words across instructional conditions at pretest. Descriptivedata from the pretest are displayed in Table 1. To compareextended instructionof targetvocabulary to incidental exposure during storybook readings, ANOVAswere conducted for each of repeated-measures the three measures:expressivedefinitions,receptivedefinitions, and context. ANOVAwas chosen instead of MANOVAbecause we were interested in examining both the effects of the treatmenton the students'word learning and the ability of the three researcher-developed measuresto detect differencesin word learning. Therefore,the three dependent variableswere treated ANOVAsconseparately.Eachof the repeated-measures tained two within-subjectsfactors:extended instruction versus incidental exposure and posttest versus delayed posttest. Pretestscores were not used as a covariatein the analysesbecausestudentsdid not possess any measurableknowledgeof targetwordsbeforethe startof the intervention, and the inclusion of pretest scores in the analyses, therefore, would not have influenced the results. Effect size was calculated for each comparison by subtractingthe scale mean for the words receiving incidental exposurefrom the scale mean for the words receiving extended instruction and dividing the difference by the standarddeviation of the mean difference between the incidentaland extendedwords.Descriptive data including effect sizes from the posttest and delayed posttest are displayedin Table2. On the expressive definitions measure, students scored significantly higher on words that received extended instructionthan words that receivedincidental exposure, F(1, 30) = 104.36, p <. 001. The main effect for time (posttest vs. delayed posttest) was also significant, F(1, 30) = 11.54, p = .002. However, this finding was qualified by a statistically significant interaction between type of instruction and time. Examinationof this interaction revealedthat while the vocabularyscores on taught words decreasedfrom the posttest to the delayed posttest, the vocabularyscores on the un-taught words remained constant, primarily because students had very little knowledge of untaught words to lose. On the receptive definitions measure, students also scored significantly higher on words that received extended instruction than words that receivedincidental exposure,F(1, 30) = 40.96, p < .001. The effect of timewas not statisticallysignificant,F(1, 30) = 1.09, p = .30, and there was no statistically significant interaction be-tween time and type of instruction, F(1, 30) = .172, p =. 68. On the context measure,studentsagain scoredsignificantly higher on words that receivedextended instruction than words that receivedincidental exposure,F(1, 30) = 29.45, p < .001. The effect of time was not statistically significant,F(1, 30) = .61, p = .44, and there was no interaction between time and type of instruction, Table 1 Pretest Scores for Study One Pretest No Instruction Extended Instruction Measures M SD M SD d Definitions Expressive .21 .56 .41 .73 -.32 ReceptiveDefinitions 2.90 1.54 3.03 .91 -.11 Context 3.10 1.24 2.97 .94 .12 LearningDisabilityQuarterly 80 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 111 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Study One: Extended Instruction Compared with Incidental Exposure Delayed Posttest Posttest Extended Instruction No Instruction Extended Instruction No Instruction M SD M SD d M SD M SD d 4.45 1.84 .58 .92 2.27 3.10 2.37 .74 .93 1.36 Definitions 4.90 1.35 3.45 1.41 1.00 5.03 1.17 3.68 1.30 1.04 Context 4.81 1.11 3.32 1.25 1.02 4.39 1.43 3.52 1.39 .53 Measures Expressive Definitions Receptive F(1, 30) = 3.03, p = .09. The results of these analyses indicate that students did learn the words taught using extended instruction to a greater extent than they learned words that were merely encountered incidentally duringstorybookreading. We also conducted analyses to determine whether studentsdid betterthan chance on the receptivedefinitions and context measuresat posttest. Becauseeach of these measures consisted of six yes/no questions, we would expect that students would receive a score of three correctbased on chance. For story words taught using extended instruction, students scored significantly above the chance level on both the definitions (t = 7.85, p <. 001) and context measures (t = 9.08, p < .001);however,on storywordsnot taughtexplicitly, studentsscoredat the chancelevelon both the definitions (t = 1.78,p = .09) andcontextmeasures(t = 1.44, p = .16). Method Participants Participantswere kindergartenstudentswho attended a K-8school in a largecity in the Northeast.The school servesa largepercentageof studentswho would be consideredat riskfor experiencingreadingdifficultiesbased on demographicdata and performanceon state literacy assessments.Approximately57%of studentsqualifyfor free or reduced-pricedmeals out of a total enrollmentof 575. On the most recent state mastery test, 17% of grade-fourstudents met the state goal in readingcomparedto 58%of studentsstatewide.Approximately67% of studentsareHispanic,25%areAfricanAmerican,and 6%are Caucasian. In April,consent formsweredistributedto the parents of all 56 students from the school's three kindergarten classrooms; 34 were returned. Because of space constraints,32 students were randomly selected from this pool to take part in the study. Participantsincluded 22 males and 10 females;23 studentswere Hispanic,5 students were African American,2 students were Asian, and 2 studentswere Caucasian.The averageage was 5 years, 11 months, rangingfrom 5 years, 4 months to 7 years, 0 months. Participants'mean PPVTscore was STUDY TWO Thepurposeof StudyTwowasto compareextended instructionof targetvocabularyto embeddedinstruction duringstorybookreadings.The specificresearch questionswereas follows:(a)Doesextendedvocabulary instructionresultin greaterwordlearningthanembed- 95.81 (sd = 9.89). ded instruction?and (b) Do studentsmaintaintheir Procedures knowledgeof wordmeaningswithoutplannedreview We used the same within-subjects design and followed the same proceduresas in Study One. Students or instruction? Volume30, Spring2007 81 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions listened to three readings of The ThreeLittle Pigs in small groups over the course of one week. Students were randomly assigned to one of two versions of the intervention. However, in Study Two three target words received extended instruction while three words received embedded instruction. Once again, words were counterbalanced across condition. The same interventionists provided instruction and each taught both conditions. Fidelity of implementation remained above 90%. The extended instruction condition was the same as in Study One. In the embedded instruction condition, interventionists provided students with simple definitions of target words when encountered in the story. Then, the interventionists reread the sentence and replaced the target word with its definition. The same procedure was used to introduce words in the extended condition. In other words, interventionists provided explanations of all six target words within the context of the story. However, only the three target words receiving extended instruction were included in postreading activities designed to encourage deep processing. As in Study One, we purposefully did not control for frequency of encounters with target words between the extended and embedded instructional approaches. Again, we were interested in the relative effectiveness of an approach that is time efficient but provides fewer encounters with target words (i.e., embedded instruction) compared to an approach that is more time intensive but provides more encounters in varied contexts (i.e., extended instruction). Assessments again included the expressive definitions, receptive definitions, and context measures, as well as the PPVT. Data collection took place at posttest and at delayed posttest (six weeks after posttest). We did not collect pretest data because an examination of the Study One pretest revealed that students did not possess any appreciable knowledge of target words. In addition, there was not a significant correlation between pretest and posttest scores in Study One. Our finding in Study Two that students scored at chance level at posttest even after instruction on some measures supported our assumption that target words were unknown at pretest. Moreover, the within-subjects counterbalanced design controlled for any pretest differences among students. Results To compare extended instruction of target vocabulary to embedded instruction during storybook readings, we again conducted repeated-measures ANOVAs for each of the three measures: expressive definitions, receptive definitions, and context. Each of the repeated-measures factors: ANOVAs contained two within-subjects extended instruction versus embedded instruction and posttest versus delayed posttest. Descriptive data, including effect sizes from the posttest and delayed posttest, are displayed in Table 3. On the expressive measure, students scored significantly higher on words that received extended instruction than on words that received embedded instruction, F(1, 30) = 93.073, p < .001. There was no statistically Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Study Two: Extended Instruction Compared with Embedded Instruction Delayed Posttest Posttest Measures Extended Instruction Extended Instruction No Instruction No Instruction M SD M SD d M SD M SD d Expressive Definitions 3.61 2.08 1.03 1.47 1.70 3.75 2.13 1.59 2.08 1.31 Receptive Definitions 5.39 .96 4.48 1.15 .99 5.06 1.24 4.62 1.04 .35 Context 4.84 1.10 3.26 1.09 1.12 4.72 1.05 3.75 1.29 .61 LearningDisabilityQuarterly 82 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions significant difference, F(1, 30) = 2.1, p = .16, between scores at posttest and delayed posttest. Furthermore, there was no statisticallysignificantinteractionbetween time and type of instruction,F(1, 30) = 1.75, p = .20. On the receptive definitions measure, students also scored significantly higher on words that received extended instruction than on words that received embeddedinstruction,F(1, 30) = 21.05, p < .001. Again, the effect of time was not statisticallysignificant,F(1, 30) = .86, p = .36, and therewas no interactionbetween time and type of instruction,F(1, 30) = 2.98, p = .10. On the context measure,studentsagain scoredsignificantly higher on words that receivedextended instruction than on wordsthat receivedembeddedinstruction, F(1, 30) = 30.87, p < .001. The effect of time was not significant, F(1, 30) = 1.34, p =. 26, but this was qualified by a statistically significant interaction between time and type of instruction, F(1, 30) = 4.52, p = .04. Whereasstudents' context scores on words introduced using extended instruction decreased slightly from posttest to delayed posttest, their context scores on wordsintroducedusing embeddedinstructionincreased slightly from posttest to delayedposttest. We also conducted analyses to determine whether studentsdid betterthan chance on the receptivedefinitions and context measuresat posttest. Forstory words taught using extended instruction, students scored significantly above the chance level on both the receptive instruction was differentially effective, favoring students with higher overall receptivevocabulary,a finding similar to other studies of direct vocabulary instruction with young students (e.g., Penno et al., 2002). Although the relationship between PPVTand word learning was positive, students with lower PPVT scoresstill demonstratedsubstantialword learningwith extended instruction.Forexample, studentswith PPVT standardscoresbelow 90 had a mean scoreof 2.83 (sd = 1.76) on the expressivedefinitions measure for words taught through extended instruction. This still compares favorably with words taught in the embedded condition, for which the mean for all students on the expressive definitions measures was 1.02 (sd = 1.47). Stated differently, although students most at risk for language and reading disabilities did not respond as stronglyto extended instructionas studentsat less risk, they still experiencedmorewordlearningthan the average student experiencedwith embeddedinstruction. GENERALDISCUSSION The purpose of the two studies reportedhere was to evaluate an extended instructionalapproachfor teaching vocabularyto kindergartenstudentswithin a smallgroup intervention setting. In StudyOne, we compared extended instructionof targetwordsto incidentalexposure during story reading.In StudyTwo, we compared extended instructionto embeddedinstruction. Comparisons of Instructional Conditions definitions (t = 13.92, p <. 001) and context measures Our findings indicated that extended instruction (t = 9.32, p < .001). Forstorywordstaught using embedresultedin greaterword learningthan either incidental ded instruction,students scoredabove the chance level exposureor embeddedinstructionon all measuresused: on the definitions (t = 7.18, p <. 001) but scored at an expressiveand receptivemeasureof targetword defchance on the context measures(t = 1.31, p = .20). initions and a receptivemeasurethat assessed student Differential Responsiveness to Extended understandingof target words used in novel contexts. Instruction Large effect sizes were observed at posttest favoring We were also interestedin whether students most at extended instruction compared with incidental exporiskfor languageand readingdisabilitiesrespondeddif- sure as well as extended instruction compared with ferentially to the extended vocabulary instruction. embedded instruction. Although receptive vocabulary Overallreceptivevocabularyknowledgeis a strong pre- knowledgemoderatedstudents'responseto instruction, dictor of language and comprehension outcomes studentsat greaterriskfor languageand readingdisabil(Scarborough, 2005; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). ities with lower initial PPVTscoresstill experiencedsubTherefore,we used students' PPVTscores assessed at stantial word learning through extended instruction, pretest as an indicator of risk. Combining scores across both studies, the relationship between PPVT and posttest scores on the expressive definitions measure was positive (r = .44), indicating that students with higher initial PPVT scores were more likely to learn word meanings through extended instruction that students with lower initial PPVTscores. This relationship is depicted in Figure 1. Similar relationships were found between PPVTand the receptive definitions (r = .56) and context scores (r = .50). especially compared to words taught through embedded instruction and incidental exposure. It is also possible to examine descriptively the absolute level of word learning that resulted from each instructional approach. For example, if the mean score of students on the expressive definitions measure was 6 points out of 6, it would indicate that they were able to produce complete 2-point definitions for each of the three target words. Similarly, if the mean score was 3, it would suggest that students were able to produce partial These results suggest that the extended vocabulary 1-point definitionsfor each word or perhapsa complete Volume30, Spring2007 83 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 1. Relationshipbetween initial PPVTscores and expressivedefinitions scores for words taught with extended instruction acrossboth studies. 6 5 Posttest at 4 Score 3 Definitions 2 Expressive 1 070 80 100 90 InitialPPVT Standard Scores 110 120 R Sq Linear = 0.195. definition for one word and a partial definition for one word. On the receptive definitions and context measures, a mean score of 6 out of 6 would indicate that students were able to correctly answer two yes/no questions about each of the three target words. On the other hand, a score of 3 on these measures would indicate that students performed no better than chance. Incidental exposure to target words across three readings of the story resulted in almost no appreciable word learning. Thus, students' mean score of .58 on the expressive definitions measure at posttest indicates that, on average, they produced less than one partial definition of one word. On the receptive definitions and con- text measures, they scored no better than chance. Although other studies have found that children do learn the meanings of story words through incidental exposure (e.g., Elley, 1989; Nicholson & Whyte, 1992; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Senechal & Cornell, 1993), we were not able to replicate this finding. It is possible that our measures were not sensitive enough to detect the subtle gains in word knowledge that result from only three exposures to target words - even those occurring in generally supportive contexts. Embedded instruction of target words during story reading resulted in some word learning, but this was almost entirely limited to the ability to recognize the LearningDisabilityQuarterly 84 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions definitions of targetwords.On the receptivedefinitions measure,studentswere able to answercorrectlyapproximately 4.5 out of 6 yes/no questions. On average, students were not able to produceany complete definitions of targetwords.Finally,they scoredno betterthan chance on the context measure,indicatingthat embedded instructiondid not have an effect on students'ability to understandtargetwordsused in novel contexts. Extended instruction produced the most full and complete word knowledge. Across both studies, students on averagewere able to produce partial definitions of all three targetwordsor full definitions for two out of three words. In addition, students were able to answercorrectlyat least five out of six yes or no questions relatedto the definitions of targetwords. Finally, students were also able to answer approximatelyfive out of six questions in which targetwords were used in novel contexts. Durability of Effects We were also interested in whether students would maintain their understandingof storywords from each of the three conditions without planned reviewor reinforcement at a six- to eight-week delayed posttest. We purposefullychose target words that kindergartenstudents were unlikely to know and that would rarelybe encountered incidentally during school. We also confirmed with classroomteachers that target words were not discussed in class between the posttest and the delayed posttest. Resultsindicated no main effect for time acrossfour of the six analyses, indicating that, on the whole, students' word knowledge remainedstable over time. The other two analyses were characterizedby interaction effects. In Study One, students' ability to produce definitions of target words taught with extended instruction decreasedcomparedto words receiving incidental exposure.In StudyTwo, students'understandingof target wordsin context taught using extended instruction decreased differentially compared to students understanding of target words taught using embedded instruction. In summary,findings suggest that direct instruction reinforceand maintain strongand complete lexical representations(Beck& McKeown,2007). IMPLICATIONSFOR PRACTICE An ongoing discussionin the vocabularyresearchliteraturecenterson the feasibilityand worth of providing direct vocabulary instruction. For example, some researchershave arguedthat the number of words that children need to learn is so great that the role of direct instruction in helping children develop vocabulary knowledge is insignificant and inconsequential (Anderson & Nagy, 1992). More recently, however, other researchershave begun to question this assertion. Lowerestimates of the number of root-wordmeanings that typical students acquire in a year suggest that direct instruction can provide students with a significant proportionof words they will learn, especiallystudents at risk for experiencing reading difficultieswith less developed vocabularies (Biemiller,2001; Stahl & Shiel, 1999). We find the argument for the worth of direct vocabularyinstruction compelling for two additional reasons: (a) direct approaches are typically effective (McKeown& Beck,2004), and (b) evidence suggests that at-riskstudents are less likely to infer word meanings during incidental exposure (Coyne et al., 2004; Robbins& Ehri, 1994). Even if one accepts the premise that direct vocabulary instruction is worthwhile, teachers and interventionists must decide how to best leverage scarce instructional time. The results of this researchsuggest that teachers need to align the allocation of instructional time with the goals of vocabulary instruction and intervention (see also Kame'enui, Carnine, & Freschi,1982). For example, if the goal of instruction is to simply introducestudentsto new word meanings,then embedded instruction may be adequate.This approachmay help studentscreatean initial representationof a word's meaning that can serve as a foundation that will facilitate the building of more complete representations when words are encounteredagain, either incidentally or as the resultof teacher-directedinstruction(Biemiller & Boote, 2005). This approachis also an efficient use of of word meanings has a robust and lasting effect on students' knowledge of target vocabulary even without comprehensive review and/or practice (Biemiller & Boote, 2005). However, a trend reveals that higher and more complete levels of word knowledge (i.e., ability to produce word definitions and understand words in novel contexts) may be more susceptible to deterioration. Evidence of this trend may also be observed in the smaller effect sizes at the delayed posttests. Perhaps more systematic review or at least continued encounters instructional time. In this study, providing definitions in the context of story readings took approximately one minute or a total of three minutes per word over the course of the three storybook readings. If the goal of instruction is to provide students with complete and full knowledge of word meanings; however, embedded instruction is not sufficient. Most telling, in this study embedded instruction did not increase students' ability to understand target words used in novel contexts or produce full definitions of of target words in supportive contexts are needed to those words. In contrast, by increasing encounters to Volume30, Spring2007 85 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions target words in varied and meaningful contexts, extended instruction produced more complete word knowledge across all measures. Therefore,if students need to make immediate use of word meanings to support comprehension or expressive language, extended instruction may be necessary. However, extended instruction is more time intensive. For example, in these studies, providing extended instruction took approximately5 minutes per word for each readingfor a total of 15 minutes per word over the three storybook readings.In addition, the more complete word learning that resultedfrom extended instructionwas more likely to deteriorate over time, suggesting that continued review and practicemay be necessaryto maintain high levels of word knowledge. Although extended instruction representsa greaterinvestment in time, it does not seem unreasonable given the resulting breadth and durabilityof word knowledge. A Tri-LevelApproach to Vocabulary Instruction and Intervention in Kindergarten To addressthe multiple goals of vocabularyinstruction and intervention in kindergarten,we suggest a trilevel approach. First,we recommend that teachers or interventionists read storybooksto children that contain variedand complex vocabulary.Although we were not able to detect any effects of incidental word learning in these studies,there is a compelling evidence base suggestingthat, over time, much of children'svocabulary development occurs as the result of incidental and cumulative exposure (Landauer& Dumais, 1997; Nagy & Scott, 2000). Even subtle and incremental gains in word knowledge that seem insignificant in the short term become meaningful across time and collective exposuresto words in varied contexts. Moreover,storybooks provide an excellent medium for vocabulary development. The complexity of the vocabularyfound in children'sbooks is greaterthan in all of adult conversation, except for courtroom testimony (Hayes& Ahrens, 1988). Storybooksalso contain beautiful pictures and engaging stories that can motivate students to attend to words and their meanings (Guthrie& Humenick,2004). Second, we suggest that teachers or interventionists provide embedded instruction on a subset of targeted words contained in the storybook. These should be words that students are unlikely to know but that are functionally important in academic discourse (Beck et al., 2002; Snow, 1991). Although these words may not be immediately critical for comprehending the story, they are words that students will continue to encounter in school and in texts. Finally, we suggest that teachers or interventionists provide extended instruction on a second set of words from the story. These words would be similar to the type of words receiving embedded instruction but would be immediately essential for understanding important ideas and concepts in the story. Kindergartenstudents who are at riskfor readingdisability differfrom their peers in both breadthof knowledge (i.e., the total number of word meanings known) and depth of knowledge (i.e., how well meanings of individual words are known). A tri-level approach to vocabularyinstructionwould addressthe multi-faceted vocabulary needs of these students by introducing a large number of word meanings with the goal of increasing breadth of knowledge as well as providing extended instructionon a smallersubset of words with the goal of increasingdepth of knowledge. Across both studies, we found that students with lower receptive vocabularyknowledge were less likely to learn word meanings through extended instruction than their peers with higher vocabulary knowledge. This finding replicates results in studies of incidental word learning (e.g., Robbins& Ehri, 1994) and embedded vocabulary instruction (e.g., Penno et al., 2002) with kindergartenstudents. Takentogether, these findings supportthe existence of Matthew Effects(i.e., the rich getting richerwhile the poor get poorer)in vocabulary development (Stanovich, 1986). Thus, it may be necessary to intensify vocabularyinstruction for students who aremost at riskfor languageand readingdisability. Providing small-group intervention to these students using a tri-level approachmay be one way to increasethe intensity of instruction for those students with the greatestneeds. It will be important for future research to evaluate the efficacy of extended vocabulary interventions, specificallywith students who are most at risk for later language and reading disability. Although receptive vocabulary (e.g., PPVT) is one strong predictor of responseto vocabularyinstruction, there may be other measures, or combinations of measures, that better identify at-risk students (see Scarborough, 2005). Future studies should also investigate the long-term effects of extended vocabularyintervention, not only on measures of target words, but also on generalized measures of vocabulary knowledge and comprehension. CONCLUSION Results of this research suggest that kindergarten students can learn new word meanings through extended and direct vocabulary instruction within the context of storybook reading activities. Thus, statistically significant and educationally meaningful differences were found between extended instruction and both inciden- tal exposureand embeddedinstruction. While inciden- LearningDisabilityQuarterly 86 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions tal exposure resulted in almost no measurableword learning, and embedded instruction produced partial knowledge of word meanings, extended instruction resulted in more full and complete word knowledge. Moreover, students maintained much of their understanding of word meanings six to eight weeks after instruction without review or practice. Extendedand directvocabularyinstructionmay be a promising way to increaseyoung students' vocabulary knowledge, especially in the context of a tri-level approach to vocabulary instruction and intervention that includes multiple exposuresto storybookscontaining complex and varied vocabulary as well as both embedded and extended instruction on carefully selected target words. This approach delivered in a small-group intervention setting may be particularly beneficial for students at risk for language and reading disability who require greater intensity of vocabulary support to offset pervasiveMatthew Effectsin vocabulary development. Coyne, M. D., Kame'enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (in press). Effectiveteachingstrategiesthat accommodatediverselearners(3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: MerrillPublishing Company. Coyne, M. D., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2003). Vocabularyinstruction for young children at-riskof experiencing readingdifficulties:Teaching word meanings during shared storybook readings. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Kame'enui (Eds.), Vocabularyinstruction:Researchtopractice(pp. 41-58). New York: GuilfordPublishing Company. Coyne, M. D., Simmons, D. C., Kame'enui,E.J., & Stoolmiller,M. (2004). Teaching vocabularyduring shared storybook readings: 12,145-162. An examination of differentialeffects.Exceptionality, Coyne, M. D., Zipoli, R., & Ruby, M. (2006). Beginning reading instruction for students at-riskof reading disability:What, how, & when. Interventionin School& Clinic,41, 161-168. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. AmericanEducator,22(1-2), 8-15. Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1999). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised.Circle Pines, MN: AmericanGuidance Service. Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabularyacquisition from listening to stories. ReadingResearchQuarterly,24, 174-187. Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities: An overview. Learning DisabilitiesResearchand Practice,13, 162-170. Gersten, R., Baker,S., & Lloyd,J. W. (2000). Designing high quality research in special education: Group experimental design. REFERENCES Journalof SpecialEducation,34(1), 2-18. Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1992). The vocabulary conunM. E., & Gresham, F. M., MacMillan,D. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, drum. AmericanEducator,16(4), 14-18, 44-47. Bocian, K. M. (2000). Treatmentintegrity in learning disabilities Baumann,J. F., Kame'enui,E.J., & Ash, G. E. (2003). Researchon intervention research:Do we really know how treatments are vocabularyinstruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. implemented? LearningDisabilitiesResearch& Practice,15, 198Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.),Handbookof researchon teachingthe 205. Englishlanguagearts (pp. 752-785). New York:MacMillan. Guthrie,J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating students to Beck, I. L., & McKeown,M. G. (2007). Increasingyoung children's read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading oral vocabulary repertoriesthrough rich and focused instrucmotivation and achievement. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra tion. ElementarySchoolJournal,107, 251-271. (Eds.), The voice of evidencein readingresearch(pp. 329-354). Beck, I. L., McKeown,M. G., & Kucan,L. (2002). Bringingwordsto Baltimore:BrookesPublishing. life:Robustvocabularyinstruction.New York:Guilford. Hart, B., & Risley, R. T. (1995). Meaningfuldifferencesin the everyBeck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of day experienceof young Americanchildren.Baltimore: Paul H. long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading Brookes. comprehension. Journalof EducationalPsychology,74, 506-521. Hayes, D. P., & Ahrens, M. (1988). Vocabularysimplification for Becker,W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadchildren:A special case of 'motherese.'Journalof ChildLanguage, vantaged: What we have learned from field research. Harvard 15, 395-410. EducationalReview,47, 518-543. Kame'enui, E., Carnine, D., & Freschi, R. (1982). Effects of text Biemiller, A. (2001, Spring). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, construction and instructional procedures for teaching word and sequential. AmericanEducator,24-28, 47. meanings on comprehension and recall. Reading Research Biemiller,A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building Quarterly,17(3), 367-388. vocabulary in primarygrades.Journalof EducationalPsychology, Landauer,T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997) A solution to Plato'sprob98, 44-62. lem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, inducBiemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimatingroot word vocabution and representationof knowledge.PsychologicalReview,104, lary growth in normative and advantaged populations: 211-240. Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498-520. Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and explanations of target words. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 415-422. Bus, A. G., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A metaanalysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-21. Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kahmi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities(pp. 25-40). Mahwah, NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Marshall, J. (1989). The three little pigs. New York: Dial. McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Direct and rich vocabulary instruction. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Kame'enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 13-27). New York: Guilford Publishing Company. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1983). The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 3-18 McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly,20, 482-496. Volume30, Spring2007 87 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabularyprocesses. In M. L. Kamil,P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson,& R. Barr(Eds.),Handbook of readingresearch,Vol. 3 (pp. 269-284). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teachingchildrento read:An evidence-basedassessmentof the scientificresearchliteratureon reading and its implications for reading instruction:Reportsof the subgroups.Bethesda,MD:National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. National ResearchCouncil. (1998). Preventingreadingdifficultiesin youngchildren.Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nicholson, T., & Whyte, B. (1992). Matthew effects in learning new words while listening to stories. In C.K.Kinzer& D. J. Leu (Eds.),Literacyresearch,theory,andpractice:Viewsfrommanyperspectives:Forty-first yearbookof the nationalreadingconference(pp. 499-503). Chicago:The National ReadingConference. Oetting, J. B., Rice, M. L., & Swank, L. K. (1995). Quick incidental learning (QUIL)of words by school-age children with and without SLI.Journalof Speechand HearingResearch,38, 434-445. Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I.A.G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabularyacquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew Effect? Journalof EducationalPsychology,94, 23-33. Rand Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding. Washington, DC: Rand. Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journalof EducationalPsychology,86, 54-64. Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (Ed.). (1998). Assessment(7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Scarborough, H. (2005). Developmental relationships between language and reading: Reconciling a beautiful hypothesis with some ugly facts. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 3-24). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum. Senechal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers'acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journalof ChildLanguage,24, 123-138. Senechal, M., & Cornell, E. H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. ReadingResearchQuarterly, 28, 360-374. Senechal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker,J. (1995). Individual differences in 4-year-old children's acquisition of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journalof EducationalPsychology,87, 218229. Snow, C. E. (1991). The theoretical basis for relationships between language and literacy in development. Journalof Researchin ChildhoodEducation,6, 5-10. Stahl, S. A. (1986). Three principles of effective vocabulary instruction. Journalof Reading,29, 662-668. Stahl, S. A. (1991). Beyond the instrumentalist hypothesis: Some relationships between word meanings and comprehension. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings. Hillsdale, NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks,M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Reviewof Educational Research,56, 72-110. Stahl, S. A., & Shiel, T. G. (1999). Teaching meaning vocabulary: Productive approaches for poor readers. In Read all about it! Readings to inform the profession (pp. 291-321). Sacramento: California State Boardof Education. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. ReadingResearchQuarterly,21, 360-406. Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and coderelated precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structuralmodel. DevelopmentalPsychology,38, 934-947. Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimentalintervention researchon students with learning disabilities:A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Reviewof EducationalResearch,68, 277321. Van Kleck,A., Stahl, S. S., & Bauer, E. B. (2003). On readingbooks to children: Parents and teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. ExceptionalChildren,67, 99-114. Whitehurst, G. J., Zevenbergen, A. A., Crone, D. A., Schultz, M. D., Velting, O. N., & Fischel,J. E. (1999). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention from Head Start through second grade. Journalof EducationalPsychology,91, 261-272. The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305G030250 to the University of Connecticut. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not representviews of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. Please address correspondence to: Michael Coyne, Department of Educational Psychology, 249 Glenbrook Road, Unit 2064, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-2064; e-mail: mike.coyne@uconn.edu ERRATUM Woodward,J. (2006). Developing automaticity in multiplication facts: Integrating strategy instruction 29(4), 269-289. with timed practice drills. LearningDisabilityQuarterly, Due to an editing error the following citation was incomplete: p. 271: "Inthis respect,strategyinstructionhelps develop number sense, a topic of emerginginterest in the specialeducation literature(Baroody& Coslick, 1998; Gersten& Chard,1999; Woodward& Montague,2002)." The correspondingreferencewas omitted from the referencelist: Woodward,J., & Montague, M. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with learning disabilities. Journalof SpecialEducation,36(2), 89-101. LearningDisabilityQuarterly 88 This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:53:24 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions