We investigated whether individual differences in overall receptive vocabulary knowledge measured at the beginning of the year moderated the effects of a kindergarten vocabulary intervention that supplemented classroom vocabulary instruction. We also examined whether moderation would offset the benefits of providing Tier-2 vocabulary intervention within a multitiered-system-of-support (MTSS) or response-to-intervention framework. Participants included students from two previous studies identified as at risk for language and learning difficulties who were randomly assigned in clusters to receive small-group vocabulary intervention in addition to classroom vocabulary instruction (n = 825) or to receive classroom vocabulary instruction only (n = 781). A group of not-at-risk students (n = 741) who received classroom vocabulary instruction served as a reference group. Initial vocabulary knowledge measured at pretest moderated the impact of intervention on experimenter-developed measures of expressive vocabulary learning and listening comprehension favoring students with higher initial vocabulary knowledge. Tier-2 intervention substantially counteracted the Matthew effect for target word learning. Intervention effects on listening comprehension depended on students’ initial vocabulary knowledge. Implications present benefits and challenges of supporting vocabulary learning within an MTSS framework.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonR. C.NagyW. E. (1993). The vocabulary conundrum (Tech. Rep. No. 570). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
2.
ApthorpH.RandelB.CherasaroT.ClarkT.McKeownM.BeckI. (2012). Effects of a supplemental vocabulary program on word knowledge and passage comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5, 160–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2012.660240
3.
BakerS. K.SimmonsD. C.KameenuiE. J. (1998). Vocabulary acquisition: Research basics. In SimmonsD. C.KameenuiE. J. (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs (pp. 183–217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G.KucanL. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford.
5.
BiemillerA. (2010). Words worth teaching: Closing the vocabulary gap. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill SRA.
6.
BiemillerA. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential. American Educator, 25, 24–29.
7.
BiemillerA.SlonimN. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498-520. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.3.498
8.
BlewittP.RumpK. M.ShealyS. E.CookS. A. (2009). Shared book reading: When and how questions affect young children’s word learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 294.
9.
CoyneM. D. (2016, December). Testing and replicating the efficacy of a supplemental kindergarten vocabulary intervention implemented within a tiered instructional framework. Paper presented at the IES Principal Investigators Meeting, Washington, DC.
10.
CoyneM. D.McCoachD. B.KappS. (2007). Vocabulary intervention for kindergarten students: Comparing extended instruction with embedded instruction and incidental exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 74–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035543
11.
CoyneM. D.McCoachD. B.LoftusS.ZipoliR.KappS. (2009). Direct vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Teaching for breadth vs. depth. Elementary School Journal, 110, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1086/598840
12.
CoyneM. D.McCoachD. B.LoftusS.ZipoliR.RubyM.CrevecoeurY.KappS. (2010). Direct and extended vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Investigating transfer effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3, 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345741003592410
13.
CoxheadA. (2006). Essentials of teaching academic vocabulary. New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin.
14.
DunnL. M.DunnD. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.
15.
EwersC. A.BrownsonS. M. (1999). Kindergarteners’ vocabulary acquisition as a function of active vs. passive storybook reading, prior vocabulary, and working memory. Reading Psychology, 20, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/027027199278484
HartB.RisleyT. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
19.
HoffE. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental Psychology, 49, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027238
20.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyW. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
21.
KanP. F.KohnertK. (2012). A growth curve analysis of novel word learning by sequential bilingual preschool children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 452–469. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728911000356
22.
Lugo-NerisM. J.JacksonC. W.GoldsteinH. (2010). Facilitating vocabulary acquisition of young English language learners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/07-0082)
23.
MarulisL. M.NeumanS. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80, 300–335. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310377087
24.
MertonR. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79, 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1086/354848
25.
NagyW. E.HermanP. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In McKeownM. G.CurtisM. E. (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
PennoJ. F.WilkinsonI. A. G.MooreD. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect?Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.1.23
28.
ShaywitzB. A.HolfordT. R.HolahanJ. M.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.FrancisD. J.ShaywitzS. E. (1995). A Matthew effect for IQ but not for reading: Results from a longitudinal study. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 894–906. https://doi.org/10.2307/748203
29.
SilvermanR.CrandellJ. D.CarlisL. (2013). Read alouds and beyond: The effects of read aloud extension activities on vocabulary in Head Start classrooms. Early Education & Development, 24, 98–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.649679
30.
StahlS. A. (1986). Three principles of effective vocabulary instruction. Journal of Reading, 29, 662–668.
31.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.21.4.1
32.
SternbergR. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
SternbergR. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In McKeownM. G.CurtisM. E. (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89–106). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00070
35.
WanzekJ. (2014). Building word knowledge: Opportunities for direct vocabulary instruction in general education for students with reading difficulties. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30, 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.789786
