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