Direct Vocabulary Instruction With
Two 5th-Grade English-Language
Learners With Language-Learning
Disabilities: A Treatment Study
Laura Green
Melissa Stockholm
Jennifer Cearley
Lareshea Sheffield-Anderson
Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX
T
he percentage of public school students
in the United States who were Englishlanguage learners (ELLs) was higher in
school year 2012–13 (9.2%, or an estimated 4.4 million students) than in 2002–03 (8.7%, or an estimated
4.1 million students) and also in 2011–12 (9.1%, or
an estimated 4.4 million students; National Center
for Education Statistics, 2014). Many of these ELLs
(roughly 79%) speak Spanish as their first language.
Children who are ELLs face the challenges of learning to speak, read, and write in English and learn
the content of academic subjects while adjusting to
ABSTRACT: Purpose: This quasi-experimental study
investigated the effects of a direct vocabulary intervention program that was implemented in a typical
public-school treatment setting with 2 5th graders
who were English-language learners with significant
language-learning disabilities.
Method: The 10-week intervention targeted 10 words
from the students’ current classroom social studies unit
and was characterized by the presentation of simple
definitions, use of the target words in context, creation
of vocabulary maps, discussion and expansion of word
Contemporary Issues
in
Communication Science
and
the cultural and linguistic environments of American
schools (Kayser, 2004).
Similar to monolingual children, vocabulary
knowledge for bilingual children predicts academic
achievement across the curriculum (Saville-Troike,
1984; Snow & Kim, 2007). A major determinant
of poor reading comprehension in Latino children
(Garcia, 1991; Verhoeven, 1990) and other lagging
readers is low vocabulary (National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, 2000). Characterized by reduced contextual support (i.e., pictures,
gestures), academic English—the language of books
meanings, and written language activities.
Results: Improvement was noted on both students’
knowledge of the targeted words, and no change was
observed on a set of untreated control words.
Conclusion: These results lend preliminary support to
the effectiveness of the direct vocabulary intervention
approach for English-language learners with language-learning disabilities.
KEY WORDS: school-based services, language disorders, intervention, cultural and linguistic diversity
Green • et
Vocabulary
Disorders • Volume 42 • 191–201
Fallal.:
2015Direct
© NSSLHA
1092-5171/15/4202-191
Instruction
191
and the classroom—is critical for students to master
in order to understand difficult texts and content-area
textbooks, solve mathematical word problems, and
take tests (Cummins, 1984). ELLs face challenges
because they often lack the academic English vocabulary necessary for understanding and learning from
texts (Dutro & Moran, 2003; Garcia, 1991; Gersten
& Baker, 2000; Verhoeven, 1990). Additionally, ELLs
can have an impaired depth of word knowledge, even
for frequently occurring words (August et al., 1999;
Verhallen & Schoonen, 1993). Once established,
differences in vocabulary knowledge tend to remain
(Biemiller & Slonim, 2001; Hart & Risley, 1995;
Juel, Biancarosa, Coker, & Deffes, 2003). Explicit
vocabulary instruction in academic terminology and
sophisticated vocabulary is one way that teachers can
begin to close the vocabulary gap between ELLs and
their English-dominant peers (Blachowicz, Fisher,
& Watts-Taffe, 2005; Carlo, August, & McLaughlin,
2004; Graves, 2006; Snow & Kim, 2007).
Another vocabulary study with ELLs examined
the effectiveness of two techniques for presenting
words to first-grade Spanish-dominant students who
had been randomly assigned to one of two treatment
groups (Vaughn-Shavuo, 1990). Both groups of ELLs
received vocabulary instruction during a 30-min daily
English-as-a-second-language class. One group was
exposed to words that were presented in individual
sentence contexts; the other group was exposed to
words that were presented in meaningful narratives.
This latter group was also provided with opportunities to dictate their own sentences using the target
words and was shown picture cards that illustrated
the word meanings. By the end of the training, the
latter group, who had received the more elaborated
instruction, showed better ability to use the English
vocabulary.
Carlo et al. (2004) examined the effects of an
intervention that was designed to build depth of word
knowledge and reading comprehension in 254 bilingual and monolingual students in nine fifth-grade
classrooms. Instruction was provided four times per
week for 30–45 min, target words were selected from
brief reading passages, and activities were designed
to help the children make semantic links to other
words and concepts in order to attain a deeper and
richer understanding of a word’s meaning. Following
the intervention, the students showed improvement on
several measures of vocabulary and comprehension.
Mosher (1999) used direct vocabulary instruction with 23 at-risk fourth graders from a variety of
cultural and language backgrounds who scored in the
below-average range on a standardized vocabulary
test. Postintervention data indicated that the direct
instruction of vocabulary through teacher-directed
lessons and independent student lessons resulted in
steady vocabulary growth. Thus, similar to the positive effects seen with native English speakers, direct
and elaborated vocabulary instruction has some evidence to support its use with ELLs.
Vocabulary Instruction
for Typically Developing ELLs
Given the importance of vocabulary to oral and
written language comprehension (National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development, 2000),
it is surprising that in the past 25 years, there have
been few quasi-experimental or experimental studies focused on English vocabulary teaching among
elementary-school language-minority children. This is
in contrast to a great deal more research on vocabulary learning among monolingual English speakers
(August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005).
Perez (1981) reported a study of the vocabulary
learning of 75 language-minority Mexican American
third graders who received 20-min daily oral instruction in word meanings (e.g., synonyms, antonyms,
multiple meanings) for 3 months. One group received
instruction in pronunciation of the words and memorization of definitions. The second group used the
same list of words and focused on making semantic
maps with the words and making predictions of word
meanings. A third group developed a matrix showing
the relationships among the words and predicted word
meanings. A fourth group completed the same chart
as the third group and completed cloze sentences.
The children in all four groups were asked to complete written recalls about the social studies chapter
on the second and third days of the lessons and again
4 weeks later. The group that constructed relationship
maps and completed cloze sentences outperformed the
other groups. Perez concluded that active processing
of word meanings leads to greater recall and understanding.
192
Contemporary Issues
in
Communication Science
Vocabulary Needs of Students
With Language-Learning Disabilities (LLDs)
Vocabulary challenges are compounded for ELLs who
have LLDs, as these individuals often have more limited vocabulary knowledge than ELLs without LLDs
and are at risk of wider language weaknesses and
reading comprehension difficulties that can negatively
impact their educational achievement (Nash & Snowling, 2006). Children with LLDs tend to read less,
encounter fewer new words, learn less vocabulary, and
understand less of what they read (Byrns & Dunnam,
2010). They have a smaller vocabulary size relative to their typical peers and may also demonstrate
and
Disorders • Volume 42 • 191–201 • Fall 2015 word-finding difficulties (Newman & German, 2002),
poor word-learning strategies (Ellis-Weismer & Evans,
2002; Gray, 2004), and higher error rates (McGregor
& Windsor, 1996) in comparison to their typical-age
peers. Additionally, Biemiller and Slonim (2001) found
that children who enter school with limited vocabulary
knowledge grow much more discrepant over time from
their peers with rich vocabulary knowledge.
A few studies have investigated vocabulary
intervention with preschool and early school-age
ELLs with LLDs, with several specifically comparing
bilingual intervention to intervention in the second
language only (Perozzi, 1985; Perozzi & Sanchez,
1992; Thordardottir, 2010). The researchers found that
vocabulary intervention resulted in positive changes,
with greater changes seen following bilingual intervention. Bos, Allen, and Scanlon (1989) worked
with 42 elementary bilingual students with learning
disabilities, comparing the differential effects of three
interactive cognitive strategies (i.e., semantic feature
analysis, semantic mapping, and semantic/syntactic
feature analysis) versus basic instruction in word definitions on vocabulary acquisition. Results indicated
that the children using the semantic/syntactic feature
analysis strategy scored significantly higher than the
basic word definition instruction group on vocabulary
measures. Beyond this study, a review of published
efficacy research on language intervention for bilingual children with LLDs (Thordardottir, 2010) listed
no other studies that examined vocabulary intervention with ELLs in the later elementary grades.
In summary, ELLs know fewer English vocabulary words than monolingual English speakers and
know less about the meanings of these words (August
et al., 2005). For ELLs with LLDs, these vocabulary
learning challenges are compounded by additional
linguistic difficulties. As practitioners, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are called to address these
students’ unique language/learning needs and, even
further, to justify their clinical practices on the basis
of research evidence (Justice & Fey, 2004). The latter
task can be very difficult when, to date, very few
intervention studies have been completed with ELLs
with LLDs (Goldstein, 2006; Thordardottir, 2010).
Direct Vocabulary Instruction
Learning is fundamentally and profoundly dependent on vocabulary knowledge (Baker, Simmons, &
Kame’enui, 1998). Students can learn vocabulary
indirectly through exposure, conversations with others,
being read to, or reading on one’s own (Cunningham
& Stanovich, 1998). Students also learn vocabulary
directly through explicit instruction, which should involve clear explanations of word meanings along with
thought-provoking, playful, and interactive follow-up
(Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2013). Instructional techniques for promoting vocabulary learning presuppose
a relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension (Pany, Jenkins, & Schreck, 1982).
It is hypothesized that, if relevant vocabulary can be
directly taught and learned before reading begins, then
understanding of the meaning of the text will increase.
In a summary of published research on vocabulary
instruction (Jitendra, Edwards, Sacks, & Jacobson,
2004), one approach that proved successful in improving the vocabulary skills of ELLs and of students
with LLDs was direct instruction. Direct instruction of
vocabulary includes an explicit, systematic presentation
of a word and its meaning (Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee,
1999). During direct instruction, teachers facilitate the
active participation of students, check for student understanding of the target words, and provide repeated
opportunities for the students to use the new words in
context. Such activities include having students define
the target words orally, use these words in sentences,
select correct word meanings in multiple-choice
formats, discuss word meanings in context, and/or
match words and meanings in a game format (Paul &
Norbury, 2012). This approach has been found to be
effective in increasing word knowledge and reading
comprehension for students with learning disabilities
(Jitendra et al., 2004). Bryant, Goodwin, Bryant, and
Higgins (2003) reported that students who received
some activity-based methods or elaborated exposure
along with traditional instruction did better learning
new vocabulary than students who received dictionary
instruction alone. Given its reported success with ELLs
and with students with LLDs, direct instruction of
vocabulary was chosen to facilitate vocabulary growth
with two fifth-grade students who were ELLs with
diagnosed LLDs.
Treatment Research in a Public-School Setting
One additional consideration in planning this intervention study was the practicality of establishing
experimental control and gathering sufficient data to
show treatment effects within the confines of a typical speech-language treatment caseload. This idea of
implementation science, or the investigation of how
what we do actually works in practice, was recently
addressed at the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Foundation’s 2014 Implementation Science Summit.
Implementation science was defined by one presenter
as “the study of variables and conditions required to
promote the systematic uptake, sustainability and effective use of evidence based programs and practices
in typical service and social settings” (Boothroyd,
2014).
Green et al.: Direct Vocabulary Instruction
193
Although not measured with specific dependent
variables in this preliminary study, the concept of
implementation has applicability as intervention in
a real-world, school-based setting can be fraught
with problems such as controlling for the effects of
ongoing classroom instruction, dealing with scheduling changes and student absences, adding in time for
additional progress measurement, and maintaining the
integrity of the treatment program while serving a
full caseload of students. Although these difficulties
are significant, there is a dearth of clinical research
evidence available in the area of language disorders
in children (Cirrin & Gillam, 2008), and even less is
known about the practicality of conducting intervention studies in school-based settings. Thus, preliminary evidence about a treatment program gathered in
a clinical setting can provide some assurance that the
approach can be effective for the students and worth
the time and effort required for gathering additional
experimental evidence. Therefore, this study addressed the following research question: Can smallgroup direct vocabulary instruction in a public-school
speech-treatment setting result in increased vocabulary knowledge for two fifth-grade ELLs who have
been diagnosed with significant LLDs?
Table 1. Intelligence test (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children—Fourth Edition—Spanish; WISC–4; Wechsler,
2005), achievement test (Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of
Achievement: English; WJTA–III; Woodcock, McGrew, &
Mather, 2007), and Bilingual Verbal Abilities Test (BVAT;
Ruef, Munoz-Sandoval, Cummins, & Alvarado, 1998)
performance ratings for Students 1 and 2.
Measure
Student 1 Student 2
WISC–4 Verbal Comprehension 69
WISC–4 Perceptual Reasoning
79
WISC–4 Working Memory
74
WISC–4 Processing Speed
94
WISC–4 Full Scale IQ
73
WJTA–III Oral Language
53
WJTA–III Listening Comprehension 61
WJTA–III Oral Expression
44
BVAT Bilingual Verbal Ability
69
BVAT English Language proficiency 48
BVAT Picture Vocabulary
unavailable
BVAT Oral Vocabulary
60
BVAT Verbal Analogies
58 93
104
80
100
92
69
66
61
78
62
46
73
80
Note. All scores are based on M = 100; SD = 15.
Method
Table 2. English and Spanish Clinical Evaluation of
Language Fundamentals—Fourth Edition (Wiig, Semel,
& Secord, 2003, 2006) core and index scores for Students 1 and 2.
Participants
The female participants (Student 1 and Student 2),
ages 11;9 (years;months) and 11;6, respectively,
were enrolled in an urban public-school, fifth-grade
classroom in North Texas. Both participants spoke
Spanish as their primary language and English as
their secondary language and received all instruction
in English (dual-language services ended after third
grade). They qualified as students with a learning
disability, qualified for speech-language services due
to significantly below-average standardized language
test scores (e.g., Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals—Fourth Edition, Spanish [Wiig, Semel,
& Secord, 2006] Core Language Scores of 75 and
78), had normal vision and hearing, had expressive
and receptive language goals on their individualized
education plans, received speech-language services
together in two weekly 30-min sessions, and were
treated in English by two graduate students who were
licensed speech-language pathology assistants.
The participants’ relevant standardized IQ, achievement, and language test results are provided in Tables
1 and 2. Per teacher report, both students were struggling in their content-area classes (e.g., science, social
studies), with grades of Cs or lower. Participation
194
Contemporary Issues
in
Communication Science
Index
Student 1
Student 2
English
Core Language
48
Receptive Language
64
Expressive Language
51
Language Content
58
Language Memory
45
Spanish
Core Language
75
Receptive Language
82
Expressive Language
77
Language Content
74
50
64
53
62
48
78
85
78
79
in the federal lunch program was used as a general
index of socioeconomic status, and the percentage of
students enrolled in the federal lunch program at the
girls’ elementary school was 98%. Institutional review
board approval was obtained for the study.
Vocabulary Measures
Ten history words from the fifth-grade social studies
textbook chapter that were to be targeted in the students’ upcoming unit were provided by the classroom
teacher. Upon evaluation, the word list included
and
Disorders • Volume 42 • 191–201 • Fall 2015 several words that were considered more “general
purpose” or Tier 2 words (Beck et al., 2013) such
that they were for mature language users and could
be applicable in a variety of reading contexts or
across more than one content area (e.g., debt, act,
protest, repeal, quarters, merchants) and others that
were more low frequency and specific to the academic unit being taught, or Tier 3 words ((e.g., parliament, taxation, and massacre; Beck et al., 2013). A
set of science words from a fifth-grade classroom
unit on the skeletal-muscular system was also gathered but remained untreated so as to serve as a
control measure. Definitions in both word sets were
equated for length (average definition length: 7.5
words). Before treatment began, the students’ knowledge of both the social studies and science words
was examined through completion of a paper–pencil
task in which the students matched each target word
to its definition. The items were read aloud to the
students so that reading ability was not a detriment to
task performance.
The history and science vocabulary paper–pencil
matching tasks were administered twice, 2 days apart,
to establish stable baseline performance before treatment. During the initial baseline tasks, the clinicians
also inquired about the students’ answer choices (e.g.,
“Why did you choose that one as the right answer?”).
Each student chose the correct meanings for one to
two words on one or more of the baseline tasks, but
neither child chose the same correct answer each
time, nor could explain the answer choice by providing additional clarification. Thus, these answers were
not thought to indicate a true understanding of the
words, and vocabulary performance on both measures
was deemed stable. The same social studies and science vocabulary tasks were re-administered four times
during the 11-week treatment phase, constituting an
AB design with an untreated control condition. All
task administration took place in the speech room.
Vocabulary Intervention
Following baseline data collection, the participants
were seen for 30-min sessions once weekly in the
school’s speech room for direct vocabulary instruction
(their second weekly 30-min session was devoted to
addressing their other language goals). Nine sessions
of direct vocabulary instruction were completed.
The treatment schedule is provided in Appendix A.
Intervention began by introducing the 10 history
vocabulary words to the students. Simple, kid-friendly
definitions (see Appendix B for example definitions)
were provided and discussed with the students, and
the concepts were tied to information or experiences
they were familiar with (e.g., an example of debt
would be asking your parents to buy something for
you and you agree to pay them back. The money you
owe to your parents is your debt.).
With clinician scaffolding, the students created
a ring of vocabulary word cards with a word on one
side and its definition on the other. These cards were
referred to during the next several treatment sessions
for assistance in reviewing and remembering the
word meanings. The word meanings were reviewed
at the beginning of each session, and the words were
also discussed in sentence contexts (e.g., “The troops’
quarters were at the back of the camp.”). Vocabulary
maps (Byrns & Dunnam, 2010; see Appendix C for
an example of a vocabulary map), discussion questions (e.g., “How would you feel if the government
repealed the law that allowed you to drive at 16 and
changed the age to 21?”), written application activities (e.g., “Pretend you are a colonist in 1763 and
write a letter to the British about why you don’t like
what they are doing.”), and games (e.g., guessing and
defending the correct definition to earn points) were
completed to help deepen the students’ understanding
of the social studies words.
As treatment progressed and the students became
more familiar with the definitions, the vocabulary rings
were removed from treatment. Words with multiple
meanings (e.g., quarters, act) were also addressed,
and their additional definitions were provided and
discussed in order to deepen the children’s semantic
knowledge. The linguistic complexity of the intervention tasks was progressive. Specifically, the students
began with completing tasks that required them to
recognize the definitions and then moved to tasks that
involved using the words in sentences or providing the
target word when given contextual clues.
Results
The purpose of this study was to examine the treatment effects of direct vocabulary instruction that was
implemented with two fifth-grade ELLs with LLDs.
In order to examine changes in comprehension of history vocabulary words over time, we collected data in
baseline (A) and treatment (B) conditions. Additionally, comprehension of untreated science vocabulary
words was measured over time to serve as a control
condition.
To examine treatment effects within a singlesubject experimental design, data can be visually
examined for changes in level, trend, and/or slope
(Byiers, Reichle, & Symons, 2012). Thus, we graphed
both sets of vocabulary scores separately for each
student, allowing for comparison of social studies
vocabulary performance across baseline and treatment
Green et al.: Direct Vocabulary Instruction
195
conditions and to science vocabulary performance
in a baseline condition only (see Figures 1 and 2).
Per visual inspection of the baseline conditions, both
students demonstrated relatively stable performance
on both word sets. Although Student 1 had what
appeared to be a slight upward trend in her social
studies baseline data, her one to two correct answers
were attributed to guessing, and her actual knowledge
of the words was felt to be consistent. She demonstrated 0% correct identification of the untreated
science words on both baseline measures. Student
2 demonstrated stable baseline scores on the social
studies vocabulary task and a slight rising trend on
the untreated science words.
Per visual inspection of the treatment condition,
both students demonstrated an upward trend and/or
a rising slope in performance on the social studies
vocabulary task directly following the onset of direct
vocabulary instruction. Overall, Student 1’s social
studies vocabulary comprehension scores improved
from 20% at baseline to 80% accuracy post intervention, and Student 2’s scores improved from 10% at
baseline to 100% accuracy post intervention. One
hundred percent of these data points were nonoverlapping (i.e., no vocabulary task scores returned to
baseline levels once treatment was initiated). Last,
per visual inspection of the untreated science vocabulary data during the treatment phase, the students
demonstrated no change (Student 1) or a downward
trend (Student 2) in science vocabulary knowledge.
Overall, the students’ ability to identify the meanings
of these words began and ended at 0%.
Figure 1. Student 1’s performance on the social studies
and science vocabulary comprehension tasks during
baseline (Sessions 1 and 2) and treatment (Sessions
Figureconditions.
1: Student 1’s Performance on History and Science Vocabulary Comprehension Tasks During
3–12)
Baseline (Sessions 1 and 2) and Treatment (Sessions 3-12) Conditions
Discussion
Percentage Correct
Percentage Correct
This study provides preliminary evidence that the use
of direct vocabulary instruction can have a positive
effect on the word knowledge of students who are
learning English as a second language and who also
have significant LLDs. Data from all three analyses
support this conclusion. First, improved performance
from the initial baseline was seen on both students’
vocabulary scores. Second, 100% of nonoverlapping
data indicated that, once direct vocabulary instruction
was started, the students’ performance on the vocabulary measure never regressed to pretreatment, baseline
levels. Third, no improvement was seen in the students’ knowledge of the untreated science words. A
control measure such as this provides some reassurance that the changes seen in vocabulary performance
Figure 2. Student 2’s performance on the social studies
were not a result of maturation, practice effects, or
and science vocabulary comprehension tasks during
participation in the classroom curriculum.
baseline (Sessions 1 and 2) and treatment (Sessions
Several additional observations can also be made.
Figure 2: Student 2’s Performance on History and Science Vocabulary Comprehension Tasks During
3–12)
conditions.
The first is that these students were indeed able to
Baseline (Sessions 1 and 2) and Treatment (Sessions 3-12) Conditions
learn the meanings of the complex words, despite the
severity of their LLDs and the fact that services were
provided in English only. The combination of secondlanguage learning and an LLD can make learning
new academic vocabulary a daunting task. Given this
challenge, some researchers have recommended that
bilingual children receive intervention that incorporates both languages (American Speech-LanguageHearing Association, 1985). Yet, the reality of the
public-school setting is that many of these students
are served by monolingual clinicians and are treated
in the community language.
Recently, Thordardottir, Rvachew, and Menard
(2012) found no significant difference between
196
Contemporary Issues
in
Communication Science
and
Disorders • Volume 42 • 191–201 • Fall 2015 monolingual and bilingual treatment groups when using focused stimulation to increase the mean length
of utterance of 4-year-olds. Although the current study
involved older students who were no longer in duallanguage classrooms, their bilingual verbal abilities
(see Table 1) and overall language abilities in English
(see Table 2) were very low. The direct instruction
approach allowed the two students to understand and
store word meanings and even apply them in different
contexts and written language activities. Their improved performance on the targeted vocabulary words
provides additional evidence that intervention in the
community language, in this case, English, can be
effective in improving language skills in ELLs with
LLDs. In addition, the classroom teacher reported
increased participation in classroom discussions and
improved performance on the social studies unit exam
from which the target words were selected.
Second, when considering how much treatment is
necessary (i.e., treatment “dosage”) for these students to be successful in learning a new concept, this
study provides a starting point for future research.
Although some improvement was demonstrated soon
after treatment began, the data collected in the time
series design provided evidence that the girls were
not proficient in their understanding and use of
the majority of the targeted vocabulary words until
around the eighth treatment session. In their summary of vocabulary intervention research, Jitendra et
al. (2004) described several intervention studies using
direct vocabulary or cognitive strategy instruction
with typically developing ELLs or with monolingual
English speakers with learning disabilities that followed similar time frames (e.g., seven to ten 30- or
50-min sessions across 5–10 weeks). Future research
might identify how much intervention is necessary
for learning to take place and could also identify the
most effective location for service delivery.
The students in the current study had been struggling to learn and perform successfully in their social
studies classroom, which is not uncommon for students
with LLDs. Additional studies might compare direct
vocabulary instruction implemented in the classroom,
either via the SLP or in consultation with the classroom teacher, with a small-group intervention like
the one in this study. Teachers who teach vocabulary
explicitly and daily, targeting key academic terms and
high-utility vocabulary words, can make meaningful
differences in a child’s vocabulary and future academic
success (National Center for Reading First, 2008). At
this juncture, we just do not have sufficient knowledge
about the success of this type of classroom intervention with ELLs with LLDs or, for that matter, a body
of even general empirical evidence demonstrating the
effectiveness of inclusion intervention by SLPs.
Last, this study provides anecdotal evidence to
support the implementation of a treatment research
protocol in a public-school treatment setting. Specifically, an experimental intervention program was
identified and was successfully integrated into the
existing treatment schedule, and baseline and treatment data were systematically collected to document
client improvement and treatment effects. Future
research from an implementation science perspective
might involve the measurement of specific variables
to provide insight into the practicality of intervention
research in a public-school setting. Such variables
might include measurement of the amount of extra
time required to search the literature and design and
carry out a treatment study, examination of treatment
fidelity, or a survey of SLPs’ attitudes about research
(e.g., a self-rating scale).
Limitations
There were several limitations to this study. The
quasi-experimental design only allowed for preliminary evidence of treatment effects. Additionally, treatment with only two participants limits generalizability. It cannot be assumed that vocabulary knowledge
would improve in children with other disabilities or
that performance on this study’s task would generalize to other vocabulary tasks. There was also a risk
for examiner bias because the clinicians administering the treatment also completed all of the data
collection. Another limitation was that the school
year ended shortly after vocabulary intervention was
discontinued, so there was no opportunity to take an
additional posttreatment measure to assess the maintenance of vocabulary knowledge. Last, additional
measures of reading comprehension would have provided further support for instructional success following treatment, but service delivery time constraints
prohibited additional testing.
Conclusions
This study, although only providing preliminary evidence of the use of direct vocabulary intervention for
ELLs with LLDs, brings some important issues to the
forefront of school-age language treatment research.
First, the issue of dosage became apparent: How
much treatment time is necessary and should be allocated to vocabulary learning for ELLs with LLDs?
Second, the study brings to bear the issue of service
delivery, both with regard to the use of the community language (vs. in combination with a student’s
first language) and to the effectiveness of this type
of intervention in the treatment room versus in an
inclusion model where direct vocabulary instruction
Green et al.: Direct Vocabulary Instruction
197
is infused into the classroom. Last, the study provides evidence that quasi-experimental studies can be
conducted in real-world settings. In summary, there
is additional work to be done so that intervention
programs such as direct vocabulary instruction, over
time, become evidence-based options for school-age
ELLs with LLDs.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21,
397–414.
Byrns, G., & Dunnam, S. (2010, March). Speech, language, and literacy: Vocabulary development. Seminar
presented at the Texas Speech, Language and Hearing
Association Convention, Ft. Worth, TX.
Carlo, M., August, D., & McLaughlin, B. (2004). Closing
the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms.
Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188–215.
References
Cirrin, F., & Gillam, R. (2008). Language intervention
practices for school-age children with spoken language
disorders: A systematic review. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 110–137.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1985).
Clinical management of communicatively handicapped
minority language populations [Position Statement].
Available from www.asha.org/policy
Cummins, J. (1984). Implications of bilingual proficiency
for the education of minority language students. In P.
Allen, M. Swain, & C. Brumfit (Eds.), Language issues
and education policies: Exploring Canada’s multilingual
resources (pp. 21–34). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005).
The critical role of vocabulary development for English
language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 20, 50–57. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.x
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What
reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22(1–2),
8–15.
Dutro, S., & Moran, C. (2003). Rethinking English
language instruction: An architectural approach. In G.
Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level
of English literacy (pp. 227–258). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
August D., Carlo, M., Lively, T., Lipman, D., McGlaughlin, P., & Snow, C. (1999, April). Enhancing vocabulary
knowledge and reading comprehension in English language learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Baker, S. K., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J.
(1998). Vocabulary acquisition: Instructional and curricular bases and implications. In D. C. Simmons & E.
J. Kameenui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about
children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics
(pp. 219–238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis-Weismer, S., & Evans, J. (2002). The role of processing limitations in early identification of specific
language impairment. Topics in Language Disorders,
22(3), 15–29.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing
words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Garcia, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English
reading test performance of Spanish-speaking Hispanic
children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371–392.
Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word
vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary
acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3),
498–520. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.498
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454–470.
Goldstein, B. (2006). Clinical implications of research on
language development and disorders in bilingual children.
Topics in Language Disorders, 26(4), 305–321.
Blachowicz, C. Z., Fisher, P. J., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2005).
Integrated vocabulary instruction: Meeting the needs of
diverse learners in grades K–5. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Graves, M. F. (2006). Building a comprehensive vocabulary program. New England Reading Association Journal,
42(2), 1–7.
Gray, S. (2004). Word learning by preschoolers with specific language impairment: Predictors and poor learners.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
47(5), 1117–1132.
Boothroyd, R. (2014, March). Applied implementation
research: Addressing the “how” of real world practice.
Presentation at the ASHFoundation Implementation Science Summit, Rockville, MD.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences
in the everyday experience of young American children.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Bos, C., Allen, A., & Scanlon, D. (1989). Vocabulary
instruction and reading comprehension with bilingual
learning disabled students. National Reading Conference
Yearbook, 38, 173–179.
Jitendra, A., Edwards, L., Sacks, F., & Jacobson, L.
(2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction
for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 299–322.
Bryant, D., Goodwin, M., Bryant, B., & Higgins K.
(2003). Vocabulary instruction for students with learning
disabilities: A review of research. Learning Disabilities
Quarterly, 26, 117–128.
Juel, C., Biancarosa, G., Coker, D., & Deffes, R. (2003).
Walking with Rosie: A cautionary tale of early reading
instruction. Educational Leadership, 60(7), 12–19.
Byiers, B., Reichle, J., & Symons, F. (2012). Single-subject experimental design for evidence-based practice.
198
Contemporary Issues
in
Communication Science
and
Disorders • Volume 42 • 191–201 • Fall 2015 Justice, L., & Fey, M. (2004). Evidence-based practice in
schools: Integrating craft and theory with science and
data. The ASHA Leader, 9(17), pp. 4–10.
Kayser, H. (2004). Biliteracy and second-language learners.
The ASHA Leader, 9(12), pp. 4–29.
McGregor, K., & Windsor, J. (1996). Effects of priming
on the naming accuracy of preschoolers with word-finding deficits. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research,
39(5), 1048–1058.
Mosher, D. (1999). Improving vocabulary knowledge and
reading attitudes in 4th grade students through direct
vocabulary instruction (Unpublished master’s thesis). St.
Xavier University, Chicago, IL.
Nash, H., & Snowling, M. (2006). Teaching new words
to children with poor existing vocabulary knowledge:
A controlled evaluation of the definition and context
methods. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 41(3), 335–354. doi:10.1080/13682
820600602295
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Number
and percentage of public school students participating in
programs for English language learners: Selected years,
2002–03 through 2012–13. Retrieved from https://nces.
ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_204.20.asp
National Center for Reading First. (2008). Effective
vocabulary instruction, a reading first quality brief.
Retrieved from www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/index.html
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel:
Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment
of the scientific research literature on reading and its implication for reading instruction. Report of the subgroups
(NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Newman, R. S., & German, D. J. (2002). Effects of
lexical factors on lexical access among typical languagelearning children and children with word finding difficulties. Language and Speech, 45(3), 285–317.
Pany, D., Jenkins, J. R., & Schreck, J. (1982). Vocabulary instruction: Effects on word knowledge and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5,
202–215.
Paul, R., & Norbury, C. (2012). Language disorders from
infancy through adolescence. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Perez, E. (1981). Oral language competence improves reading skills of Mexican American third graders. Reading
Teacher, 35(1), 24–27.
Perozzi, J. (1985). A pilot study of language facilitation for
bilingual, language-handicapped children: Theoretical and
intervention implications. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 50, 403–406.
Perozzi, J., & Sanchez, M. (1992). The effect of instruction in L1 on receptive acquisition of L2 for bilingual
children with language delay. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 348–353.
Ruef, M., Munoz-Sandoval, A., Cummins, J., & Alvarado, C. (1998). Bilingual Verbal Abilities Test. Itasca, IL:
Riverside.
Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second
language learning for academic achievement? TESOL
Quarterly, 18, 199–219. doi:10.2307/3586690
Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1998). What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning
needs: Bases and basics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Snow, C. E., & Kim, Y. (2007). Large problem spaces:
The challenge of vocabulary for English language learners. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum
(Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading
comprehension (pp. 123–139). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Thordardottir, E. (2010). Towards evidence-based practice
in language intervention for bilingual children. Journal of
Communication Disorders, 43, 523–537.
Thordardottir, E., Rvachew, S., & Menard, S. (2012,
November). Efficacy of language intervention for bilingual children. Poster presentation at the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association annual convention,
Atlanta, GA.
Vaughn-Shavuo, F. (1990). Using story grammar and language experience for improving recall and comprehension
in the teaching of ESL to Spanish-dominant first graders
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hofstra University,
Hempstead, NY.
Verhallen, M., & Schoonen, R. (1993). Vocabulary knowledge of monolingual and bilingual children. Applied
Linguistics, 14, 344–363.
Verhoeven, L. (1990). Acquisition of reading in a second
language. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(2), 90–114.
Wechsler, D. (2005). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children—Fourth Edition—Spanish. San Antonio, TX:
Harcourt Assessment.
Wiig, E., Semel, E., & Secord, W. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Fourth Edition. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wiig, E., Semel, E., & Secord, W. (2006). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Fourth Edition, Spanish. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001;
2007). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Contact author: Laura Green, P.O. Box 425737, Denton,
TX. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Green et al.: Direct Vocabulary Instruction
199
Appendix A. Treatment Schedule
Appendix B. Word Definitions
Week 1: Week 2: Weeks 3–4:
Week 5: Social Studies Definitions (treatment words): Average
length: 7.5 words
Repeal – to take back or to cancel a law
Quarters – places to live
Parliament – the lawmaking part of the British government
Merchants – shopkeepers or other business people
Massacre – murder of people who cannot defend themselves
Protest – disapproval, disagreement, or complaint
Settlers – people who move to a new country or area
Debt – something that is owed or that one has to pay or
perform for another
Acts – laws made and passed by the government
Taxation – when people to are required to pay money to
the government
Administer baseline vocabulary tasks
Administer baseline vocabulary tasks
Direct vocabulary instruction
Re-administer vocabulary tasks/Direct vocabulary instruction
Week 6–7: Direct vocabulary instruction
Week 8: Re-administer vocabulary tasks/Direct vocabulary instruction
Week 9: No treatment (spring break)
Week 10: Re-administer vocabulary tasks/Direct vocabulary instruction
Week 11: Direct vocabulary instruction
Week 12: Direct vocabulary instruction/Re-administer
vocabulary task
Science Definitions (control words): Average length: 7.5
words
Femur – thigh bone
Cartilage – tough bands of tissue that hold bones together
Contract – to make or become shorter or smaller
Pivot – a pin on which something turns
Cardiac – related to, near, or acting on the heart
Joint – place where two or more bones are joined
Socket – an opening that forms a holder for something
Organ – part of an animal that does a particular job
System – group of organs that perform one or more vital
functions
Hinge – a jointed piece that allows a swinging part to open
200
Contemporary Issues
in
Communication Science
and
Disorders • Volume 42 • 191–201 • Fall 2015 Appendix C. Example Vocabulary Graphic Organizer
Appendix C: Example Vocabulary Graphic Organizer
2. Definition: Underline
4. Context: Circle the correct sentence
3. Illustration
1. The girl had 3
dimes, 2
pennies, and 5
quarters.
the key words
2.
1. Word
5. Words that are related:
Choose one related word
Quarters
The
“quartering act”
ordered the
colonists to
provide quarters
for the British
soldiers.
6. My Definition:
A. Colonists
Write your own definition
B. Laws
C. Money
D. Houses
Green et al.: Direct Vocabulary Instruction
201