Effects of a Supplemental Vocabulary Program in Third-Grade Reading/Language Arts

Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Early Literacy Development: An Analysis of IsiXhosa and IsiZulu Traditional Children’s Folktales and Songs

“…Such an approach is likely to enhance their understanding and use of certain concepts in varying contexts: thus increasing their vocabulary. This finding aligns with the view that vocabulary development is a cognitive process and it supports learners to construct meaning of what they learn (Apthorp 2006;Biemiller et al 2006;Harmon et al 2010). Therefore, this finding suggests that folktales as part of IKS, play a significant role in the cognitive development of young children (Nyota et al 2008).…”

Et si la danse pouvait contribuer à développer le vocabulaire de jeunes enfants? 1

“…Apthorp (2006) estime d'ailleurs que des élèves ayant bénéficié de moins de stimulations langagières peuvent, dès la maternelle, connaitre près de 4 000 mots de moins que leurs pairs bénéficiant d'expériences riches et variées à la maison. Des différences significatives existent ainsi entre le vocabulaire des enfants provenant de ces deux milieux et cet écart a tendance à s'accentuer avec le temps (Anderson et Nagy, 1992;Coyne, Simmons, Kame'enui et Stoolmiller, 2004).…”

Converging Recommendations for Culturally Responsive Literacy Practices: Students with Learning Disabilities, English Language Learners, and Socioculturally Diverse Learners

“…Teachers should engage students with instructional goals in order to encourage deep and active processing of words and meanings. During extended talk, teachers pose cognitively challenging questions to activate higher order thinking and prompt effective vocabulary growth and reading comprehension (Apthorp, 2006;Ivey & Broaddus, 2007;Kim et al, 2006). Strategies that are based on these recommendations are cited as collaborative strategic reading (CSR) (Kim et al, 2006); instructional conversations (Goldenberg, 2013), cognitive strategy instruction (Hansfield & Jiménez, 2009); language experience approach (LEA) (Dorr, 2006); and direct and extended vocabulary instruction (Coyne et al, 2010).…”

“…The second approach addresses dialogue between peers and is an important opportunity for ELLs, students with learning disabilities, and socioculturally diverse learners to reflect on ideas and engage with their peers (Apthorp, 2006;Coyne et al, 2010;Ivey & Broaddus, 2007;Medina, 2010;Wohlwend, 2008). Recommended practices include collaborative reading 9 strategies (CSR) (Kim et al, 2006), literature circles (Medina, 2010), reciprocal teaching (Hansfield & Jiménez, 2009), peer-tutoring, book discussions, learning together through inquiry and questioning (Hansen-Thomas & Cavagnetto, 2010;Ivey & Broaddus, 2007;Mahdavi & Tensfeldt, 2013), and peer assisted learning strategies (PALS) (Mahdavi & Tensfeldt, 2013).…”

“…Evidence-based strategies for teaching reading in all three areas highlighted grouping structures to promote collaboration. In teaching reading and writing to students with learning disabilities (LD) and students who are English language learners (ELLs), large group instruction, small group instruction, and peer partners are instructional arrangements recommended to maximize learning potential (Anderson & Corbett, 2008;Apthorp, 2006;Barr, Eslami, & Joshi, 2012;Calderon, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011;Coyne et al, 2010;Dorr, 2006;Facella, Rampino, & Shea, 2005;Gersten et al, 2007;Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005;Kim et al, 2006;Mahdavi & Tensfeldt, 2013;Saunders et al, 2013). These studies explored various forms of grouping structures that enable teachers to increase instructional time and provide students opportunities to actively respond.…”