Vocabulary Intervention for
Adolescents Attending Secondary
School in an Area of Socioeconomic
Disadvantage: A Whole Class Teaching
Approach
Sue Franklin, Aoife Murphy, Annemarie
Breen, Molly Hanlon, Aoife McNamara, Aine
Bogue and Emily James
Background
• 50-80% of students in areas of SED have
persistent communication difficulties (Lindsay et
al 2010)
• Vocabulary knowledge is particularly poor
(Spencer et al. 2012)
• Between the ages of 12 & 17, adolescents are
exposed to approximately 10,000 new words in
school textbooks alone (Clark 2003)
• Many teachers are not confident with regard to
best practice for vocabulary instruction (Berne
and Blachowicz 2009)
Need for integrated services
• Attendance rates are poor for children from disadvantaged
backgrounds accessing clinic based speech and language
therapy services (McGough et al. 2006, Quigley, 2006).
• Students who receive SLT support in the clinic often miss
class time and also have unwanted attention drawn to their
needs when they are taken out of the classroom.
• The integration of SLT services within the educational
system could better meet the needs of secondary school
students:
– SLTs’ curriculum knowledge would increase,
– Students’ new language skills would more easily generalise to
the classroom
– Teachers would be equipped with strategies to support children
with language needs.
NBSS/UL collaboration
•
•
•
•
•
•
The NBSS/UL SLT service works in NBSS partner mainstream post-primary schools
in the Republic of Ireland supporting students with and at risk of behaviour
difficulties
The relationship between SLCN and behaviour difficulties is well documented in
the research literature (Durkin & Conti-Ramsden 2010, Ripley & Yuill, 2005)
The SLT service works at a national level to provide training to post-primary school
teachers around speech language and communication needs (SLCN)
It has also been working in partner schools in Limerick to assess the need and
develop treatment for SLCN for students with identified behaviour difficulties
In the second year of the NBSS/UL collaboration, an adapted version of Joffe’s
(2011) Vocabulary Enrichment Programme was carried out with groups of students
in collaboration with learning support teachers
It was suggested by some teachers that this programme should be applied more
widely – it is this classroom based adaptation of the VEP which is reported here.
Aims
1) to investigate the need for targeting vocabulary
development in post-primary school in areas of
SED
2) to evaluate the efficacy of a vocabulary
intervention programme which focusses on
multiple vocabulary learning strategies, using
teacher led whole class instruction
3) to measure any perceived change in behaviour
following intervention
4) to evaluate the teachers’ perceptions of carrying
out the programme
Method
• This study used an RCT design with convenience sampling
• Four Irish schools with identified DEIS status were approached to
take part in the current study
• Two of the schools were assigned to the treatment group. All
children in first year received the intervention programme for one
school term.
• The other two schools were randomly assigned to the control group
(and offered the programme at a later date)
• Both groups were tested pre-and post treatment in their respective
schools.
• Testers assessed different participants at Time 1 (September) and
Time 2 (January) and were thus blinded to participants’ previous
scores
• Following post-testing, semi-structured interviews were carried out
with the teachers regarding their experience of the programme.
Participant information*
Intervention
Control
128
75
71 F, 57 M
75 F
Age Range
11 .11 – 13.10
12.00 – 13.11
Mean age
12. 7
12 .7
Number of
Participants
Gender
*Children with English as an additional language were
included in the programme but their results were not
analysed
Intervention
• The SLT provided two 2.5 hour sessions of training to
the 11 teachers in the intervention schools. A 30-45
minute overview session was delivered to all staff in
each school, prior to starting the programme. This
provided an overview of the intervention programme
and the research.
• Packs of materials were made available to the teachers
for each week of the programme
• The SLT was available to give advice each week
• The programme was carried out in place of the usual
English lessons, with all but one of the teachers
working with a learning support teacher.
• The programme took 12 weeks
Adapted VEP Programme
Session
Topic Covered
Session 1: Introduction: What are words?
Session 2: Describing words using senses, characteristics and
antonyms/synonyms
Session 3: Word Maps; Syllables; Rhyme; Categorisation
Session 4: More syllables; Alliteration; Parts of speech - Nouns/ Verbs
Session 5: Parts of speech (adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions,
prepositions, pronouns, articles, interjections)
Session 6: Identifying parts of speech; Complex Word Maps;
Understanding word families
Session 7: Prefix, Roots and Suffixes; Dictionary Use.
Session 8: Similarities and Differences; Multiple meaning words;
Dictionary Use
Session 9: Use of Spiderwebs; Understanding and using idioms;
Dictionary use
Session 10: Using word detective strategies; Dictionary use
Sessions 11 &
12 were revision
sessions
Assessments, pre and post
• CELF 4 subtests
– Word Classes Receptive Subtest
– Word Classes Expressive Subtest
– Word Definitions Subtest
– Word Associations Subtest (not standardized)
• BPVS-3
• Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire –
Teacher Version (Goodman, 2000)
Pre-treatment testing
• It can be seen from the language pre-tests that well over half the
students score in the vocabulary difficulties range:
Students
vocabulary
difficulties
%%Students
in thein
Vocabulary
Difficulties
Range PreIntervention range pre-therapy
Intervention
Control
Word Classes
Receptive
56.8
50.67
Word Classes
Expressive
60.93
70.67
Word
Definitions
66.41
69.33
BPVS-3
67.19
65.33
Analyses
• Scores for both treated and control groups might
improve pre to post because of maturation, or the
stimulation of attending a new school.
• So need to establish whether improvement is greater
for treated group.
– ANCOVAs were carried out on the groups looking at effects
of time with age as a covariate.
– Also looked at whether each test improved separately for
treated and control groups.
• ANOVAs were carried out on the behavioural
questionnaires comparing outcomes for the treated
and control groups.
• Finally the teachers’ interviews were thematically
analysed.
Results – vocabulary tests
ANCOVAs
• There was no significant difference in outcome
for the word classes receptive, word
definitions or word associations.
• The treated group scored significantly higher
on the word classes receptive and the BPVS3
• (ANOVAs for standard scores did not show any
significant interactions)
Vocabulary scores: no significant effect
of treatment
Word Classes Receptive
15
13
51
12
11
Control
10
Treated
9
8
7
Pre-therapy
Post-therapy
Mean Number Correct
Word Definitions
Word Associations
50
Mean Number Correct
Mean Number Correct
14
49
48
Control
47
Treated
46
20
45
19.5
44
Pre-therapy
19
18.5
18
Control
17.5
Treated
17
16.5
16
Pre-therapy
Post-therapy
Post-therapy
Vocabulary scores: effect of treatment
significant
Word Classes Expressive
BPVS
15
131
14
Mean Number
Correct
130
Mean Number Correct
13
12
129
128
Control
11
Treated
Control
Treated
127
10
126
9
125
8
7
124
Pre-therapy
Post-therapy
Pre-therapy
Post-therapy
T-Tests comparing standard scores preand post-treatment
Intervention
Test
WC Receptive
WC Expressive
Word Definitions
BPVS
Mean pre
Mean Sig?
post
7.77 8.45 Yes
6.3 7.06 Yes
6.28 6.88 Yes
83.7 86.3 Yes
Control
Test
WC Receptive
WC Expressive
Word Definitions
BPVS
Mean pre
Mean Sig?
post
7.8 8.4 Yes
6.08 6.47 No
6.25 6.96 Yes
84.9 86.2 No
• Intervention group scores
had all improved
significantly after
treatment.
• Control group scores
were also significantly
different after therapy
except for
– WC expressive
– BPVS
SDQ results (behavioural questionnaire)
• The SDQ gives a measure of ‘overall stress’,
where improvement -> a lower score
• There is a significant interaction between time
and treatment group.
• The behaviour of the control children is rated
as better at pre-test and worse at post-test.
• At post-test the intervention group are rated
as having significantly better behaviour.
SDQ scores pre- and post- treatment
10
9
Mean Overall Stress
8
7
6
5
Control
4
Treated
3
2
1
0
Pre-intervention
Post-intervention
Results: Themes from teacher interviews
(2)
Challenging
Features of
the VEP
Theme 1
‘For years I have been giving
out about first years coming in
not knowing...the basic
rudiments of the language. I
felt that this was an
opportunity’
‘if they came across
a new word, guess
or have a go at it,
whereas before it
would have been Sir
what’s this mean?’
‘it highlighted four or five
students in my group
that were having
difficulties accessing
vocabulary … now we
can look at that’
‘They loved the
individual sessions,
the visuals, the
structure of it, getting
their handouts.’
‘broke a lot of
barriers for
kids accessing
language’
Theme 2
‘would love to do
this programme
throughout all of
first year’
‘I found it very top heavy, I
found that there was an
awful lot of work to do.’
‘I think that in terms of
support...like making sure that
the course went smoothly and
classroom management was
obviously a lot better as a
result of having two teachers
than one’
‘I had to handle
the group on my
own, which I did
find difficult’.
Theme 3
‘I’m not specifically an
English teacher...I was a
little bit concerned that I
might not be able to
deliver the programme
myself effectively’
‘If there was
anything at all
we needed to
get in contact
with her we
were well
supported’.
The training
‘just
completely
made sense
to me’
‘(The SLT) was there on
a weekly basis...we
could always touch
base and I knew the
issues would be grand’
‘It was great that all
staff knew about it
because (the SLT) came
in and did a
presentation to staff
about speech,
language and
communication needs’
Conclusions – quantitative measures
• Standardised testing indicated that approximately 65%
of the children scored in the vocabulary difficulties
range
• This indicates the need for class-based interventions
• The intervention group improved more than the
control group on CELF4 Word Classes Expressive and
the BPVS 3, yet the programme did not teach specific
vocabulary
• Need to look at longer –term effects of the
intervention
• The effect of the intervention on behaviour measures
should be further investigated
Conclusions – qualitative measure
• Teachers
– were extremely positive about their experience of
collaborative working
– generally felt the pupils benefited from the
programme although thought 12 weeks was too short
a timescale
– were pleased to receive training around SLCN
• Suggests more collaborative models should be
developed
• AND post-primary teacher education should
include more information on SLCN
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Berne, J. I. and Blachowicz, C. L. (2008) ‘What reading teachers say about vocabulary instruction: Voices from the classroom’,
The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 314-323.
Clark, E. V. (2003) First Language Acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Durkin, K. & Conti-Ramsden, G. 2010. Young people with specific language impairment: A review of social and emotional
functioning in adolescence. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 26 (2), 105-121.
Goodman, R., Ford, T., Simmons, H., Gatward, R. & Meltzer, H. 2000. Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
(SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 177 (6), 534-539.
Joffe, V.L. 2011. Vocabulary Enrichment Programme, Milton Keynes, UK: Speechmark Publishers.
Lindsay, G., Dockrell, J., Desforges, M., Law, J. and Peacey, N. (2010) ‘Meeting the needs of children and young people with
speech, language and communication difficulties’, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45(4), 448460.
McGough, A., Carey, S. and Ware, J. (2006). Early Years Provision for Children from Birth to Six Years with Special Needs in
Two Geographical Areas in Ireland [online],
available:http://www.cecde.ie/english/pdf/Targeted%20Projects/Early%20Years%20Provision%20(SED).pdf [accessed 05
February 2014].
Quigley, U. (2006) Services Available to and being Accessed by Children with Special Educational Needs in Designated
Disadvantaged and Non-Designated Disadvantaged Primary Schools in Limerick: A Comparative Study, unpublished thesis
(M.Ed.), Mary Immaculate College Limerick and the University of Limerick.
Ripley, K. & Yuill, N. 2005. Patterns of language impairment and behaviour in boys excluded from school. British Journal of
Educational Psychology 75, 37–50.
Spencer, S., Clegg, J. and Stackhouse, J. (2012) ‘Language and disadvantage: a comparison of the language abilities of
adolescents from two different socioeconomic areas’, International Journal of Language and Communication
Disorders, 47(3), 274-284.