English Language Learners and English-Only Learners' Response to Direct Vocabulary Instruction

Crevecoeur, Yvel C.; Coyne, Michael D.; McCoach, D. Betsy

doi:10.1080/10573569.2013.758943

Cited by 36 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of the present study mentioned above were in congruence with Wanzek (2014), Coyne, et al (2009), Coyne, et al (2010), Handayani's (2012), Silverman and Hines (2009), Silverman (2007), and Crevecoeur, Coyne and Mccoach (2014) who came to the point that students' L2 vocabulary learning would improve when it was thought using the DM.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Relationship between Gender and Vocabulary Teaching Methodology among Iranian EFL Children: A Comparison of TPR and Direct Method

Naeini¹,

Shahrokhi²

2015

ALLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study intended to examine the impact of methodology on EFL vocabulary learning of elementary school boys and girls. To achieve this end, 40 elementary female and male students aged 9-10 were selected from among 60 students studying at a language institute in Isfahan, Iran. The students were selected based on the results of an overall language proficiency test as a placement test that had been prepared by the institute that identified students' level of proficiency. They were further divided into two experimental groups. Next, a pretest was used to identify the number of words students knew before treatment. The experimental group A learned vocabulary through Direct Method and in the experimental group B students learned vocabulary through Total Physical Response. After 12 weeks of instruction a post-test was administrated to measure and compare the results of vocabulary learning of two groups after treatment. The data collected were put to statistical analysis using SPSS. The results of t-test showed the positive effect of TPR on learners' L2 vocabulary knowledge. With regard to the impact of gender on learners' L2 vocabulary knowledge, findings revealed that there were not any statistically significant differences between the male and female learners' vocabulary score.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Relationship between Gender and Vocabulary Teaching Methodology among Iranian EFL Children: A Comparison of TPR and Direct Method

Naeini¹,

Shahrokhi²

2015

ALLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The oldest students observed the largest treatment effects (see Table 8) but the younger learners did still make some gains, albeit smaller than the older adolescents. (August et al, 2016;Crevecoeur et al, 2014) and spelling and pronunciation activities .…”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This aspect is however not essential for dialogic book-reading interventions to be beneficial (Crevecoeur et al, 2014. Since most schools already implement book reading for younger learners, these would be a low-cost and simple intervention to carry out in the UK context.…”

Section: Implications For the Ukmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interventions discussed here used adultsupported shared reading, one of which(Leacox & Jackson, 2014) with additional computer software to facilitate the reading. Four interventions included giving definitions to new vocabulary items when they occurred in the story(August et al, 2016;Crevecoeur et al, 2014; In addition, there was pre-teaching of vocabulary items(August et al, 2016;Leacox & Jackson, 2014) post-reading reinforcement…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of language and literacy interventions in children and adolescents with English as an additional language (EAL)

Oxley

Cat

2019

The Language Learning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: A synthesis of evidence discussing the effectiveness of language and literacy interventions in children with English as an additional language. Our key research questions were: 1) What intervention studies have been published since 2014 addressing the language and literacy development of children with English as an additional language? 2) What is the impact of those interventions? We sought to update a 2015 systematic review evaluating language and literacy outcomes for EAL children (Murphy & Unthiah, 2015) with current intervention studies and to see which of those interventions could be adapted for classrooms in the UK. Methods: Four databases were searched; PsychInfo, British Education Index, Education Resources Information Center and Web of Science. Only peer reviewed journal articles published between 2014 and 2017 and written in English were included. The population tested were children of school age with English as an Additional Language who were classed as typically developing. All interventions had language or literacy as an outcome. Data was extracted using a standardised form and quality was assessed through a risk of bias analysis. From this screening process, 26 studies were eligible for inclusion in the current review. Key Findings:  Explicit vocabulary instruction and targeted oral language practise yield language gains for EAL learners, with a tendency for larger intervention gains in learners with the lowest initial pre-test scores.  Shared reading interventions show positive effects when combined with the preteaching of vocabulary, embedded definitions into the text, or post-reading reinforcement activities.  Voice recognition software appears promising, as demonstrated in three interventions with small to medium effects on reading fluency and comprehension.  There is a lack of interventions taking place in the UK.  There is a lack of interventions for adolescents, especially those in upper secondary school (ages 14-18).  More interventions targeting continued professional development for teachers are recommended. Conclusions: Children with English as an additional language can benefit from targeted interventions. Suggestions are made as to how the most beneficial interventions could be replicated in the UK. Limitations: Limitations include a variability in terms of the rigour of intervention methodologies, leading to a high risk of bias and inconsistent effect sizes for several studies in this report. A proportion of successful interventions used the child's first language to aid learning. Such interventions might not be replicable in the UK, where classrooms typically feature children from a very large number of different home languages.

show abstract

“…We excluded studies if we could not determine whether the comprehension measure included taught vocabulary (e.g., Taboada & Rutherford, 2011), as this was a question of interest for our work. We excluded studies that were secondary analyses of data from another included study (e.g., Crevecoeur, Coyne, & McCoach, 2014). Table 1 provides a summary of inclusion criteria used in this analysis compared with previous meta-analyses.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension

Wright

Cervetti

2016

Reading Research Quarterly

177

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although numerous studies have identified a correlational relationship between vocabulary and comprehension, we know less about vocabulary interventions that impact reading comprehension. Therefore, this study is a systematic review of vocabulary interventions with comprehension outcomes. Analyses of 36 studies that met criteria are organized around (a) type of comprehension measure (i.e., comprehension of passages that included taught words or more generalized comprehension measures) and (b) type of intervention (i.e., direct teaching of word meanings or word‐learning strategies). The authors looked for patterns in characteristics of vocabulary instruction within these analyses. Their findings led to four major themes: (1) Teaching of word meanings supported comprehension of text containing the target words in almost all cases; (2) instruction that focused on some active processing was typically more impactful than a definition or a dictionary method for supporting comprehension of text containing the target words, but we do not know how much instruction is sufficient; (3) there is very limited evidence that direct teaching of word meanings, even long‐term, multifaceted interventions of large numbers of words, can improve generalized comprehension; and (4) there is currently no empirical evidence that instruction in one or two strategies for solving word meanings will impact generalized comprehension. However, studies that actively teach students to monitor their understanding of vocabulary and to use multiple, flexible strategies for solving word meanings are a promising area for future research. The authors discuss the implications of these themes, as well as critical avenues for future vocabulary research.

show abstract

English Language Learners and English-Only Learners' Response to Direct Vocabulary Instruction

Cited by 36 publications

References 30 publications

Relationship between Gender and Vocabulary Teaching Methodology among Iranian EFL Children: A Comparison of TPR and Direct Method

Relationship between Gender and Vocabulary Teaching Methodology among Iranian EFL Children: A Comparison of TPR and Direct Method

A systematic review of language and literacy interventions in children and adolescents with English as an additional language (EAL)

A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About