Vocabulary Intervention for Kindergarten Students: Comparing Extended Instruction to Embedded Instruction and Incidental Exposure

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.

A Pilot Study of the Impact of Double-Dose Robust Vocabulary Instruction on Children's Vocabulary Growth

“…At pretest, children averaged 14 words correctly identified and at posttest, children averaged 21 words correctly identified, which corresponds to learning of about seven words overall. Similar results have been reported in a number of studies (e.g., Beck et al, 1982;Biemiller & Boote, 2006;Coyne et al, 2007;Penno, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002), suggesting that we have made little headway since 1982 when Beck and co-authors noted that students' learning of words targeted in their intervention was far less than what they expected: "Acquiring word meanings to a high level is not an easy task, even with intensive instruction" (p. 518). Unfortunately in this study our scoring metric didn't allow us to determine the exact number of words children learned in each condition.…”

“…Although there is sufficient information in the literature for professionals to develop vocabulary interventions that are explicit and robust, does increasing the dosage of these interventions help those children who most need vocabulary enhancement? Although this study shows a general benefit of double-dose instruction over single-dose instruction, and complements prior work attempting to do the same (e.g., Coyne et al, 2007), will this approach help the most vulnerable children across the grades? Furthermore, it is important to determine the longer term impacts of robust vocabulary interventions.…”

“…In the first variation, which we call the Basic condition, teachers implement structured vocabulary lessons (about one lesson per week) targeting 24 academically relevant words during a 21-week period of implementing a broader language-based instruction, Let's Know!. The vocabulary lessons were designed to embody those characteristics of instruction seen in many effective, robust vocabulary interventions (Beck & McKeown, 2007;Biemiller & Boote, 2006;Coyne, McCoach, & Kapp, 2007;Coyne et al, 2010;Pollard-Durodola et al, 2011): (a) explicit discussion and defining of targeted words, (b) exposure to these words in varied contexts, including read-alouds, and (c) ongoing opportunities to elaborate the meaning of words and connections with other words via various work with words (e.g., use of graphic organizers). In the second condition, which we call the Double-Dose condition, each vocabulary lesson in the Basic condition was followed by a supplemental vocabulary support lesson featuring additional activities to deepen children's knowledge of targeted words, similar to the extended-instruction approach described by Coyne and colleagues (2010).…”

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

“…Des études ont révélé que dans les milieux défavorisés, les jeunes enfants vivent moins d'expériences soutenant le développement des compétences orales et écrites que dans les milieux plus aisés (Coyne, McCoach et Knapp, 2007;Hart et Risley, 2003;Korat, 2005). 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.…”

Learning Word Meanings from Teachers’ Repeated Story Read-Aloud in EFL Primary Classrooms

“…This also explains the relatively low scores on the L1 meaning-matching test among the low-proficiency children in the present study. In other words, knowledge of a second language influences the ability to draw on L1 or other cognitive resources and affects the rate of efficiency of processing higher-level cues, such as the semantic, syntactic, and contextual cues available when teachers read aloud (Coyne, McCoach, & Kapp, 2007). Such a causal relation is apparently bidirectional (Robbins & Ehri, 1994).…”