In this multi-year study, we taught English/Language Arts teachers of students with learning disabilities in middle school to incorporate 15 min of daily vocabulary activities with students in their intact special education English/Language Arts classes. During Year 1, teachers taught 48 words to their sixth grade students, who learned and retained the words significantly better than the students in business-as-usual (BAU) control classes. In the current study, we report the second year results, as the sixth grade students entered seventh grade. Students (n = 42) in treatment classes again learned 48 new vocabulary words significantly better than similar students in BAU (n = 21) special education classes. In seventh grade, students also outperformed BAU students on maintenance of these age-appropriate words (p < .001) and on a standardized measure of vocabulary (p = .04).
ApplebeeA. N.LanguerJ. A.NystrandM.GamoranA. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685–730. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685
2.
AugustD.CarloM.DresslerC.SnowC. E. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.x
3.
BeckI.McKeownM. G.KucanL. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. Guilford Press.
4.
BiemillerA. (2010). Words worth teaching. Science Research Associates/McGraw-Hill.
5.
BosC. S.AndersP. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510390
6.
BulgrenJ. A.MarquisJ. G.DeshlerD. D.LenzB.SchumakerJ. B. (2013). The use and effectiveness of a question exploration routine in secondary English language arts classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12018
7.
CarloM.AugustD.McLaughlinB.SnowC. E.DresslerC.LippmanD. N.LivelyT. J.WhiteC. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-205
CromleyJ. G.AzevedoR. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
11.
CumminsJ. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–240.
12.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945.
13.
EbbersS. M.DentonC. A. (2008). A root awakening: Vocabulary instruction for older students with reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00267.x
14.
EllemanA. M.LindoE. J.MorphyP.ComptonD. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802539200
15.
EngelmannS.JohnsonG.CarnineL.MeyerL.BeckerW.EiseleJ. (1988). Corrective reading decoding strategies. Science Research Associates, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
16.
GrossenB.CarosJ.CarnineD.DavisB.DeshlerD.SchumakerJ.BulgrenJ.LenzK.AdamsG.JantzenJ.-E.MarquisJ. (2002). Big ideas plus a little effort produce big results. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 70–73.
17.
HallC.RobertsG. J.ChoE.McCulleyL. V.CarrollM.VaughnS. (2017). Reading instruction for English learners in the middle grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 763–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9372-4
18.
HartB.RisleyT. R. (1992). American parenting of language-learning children: Persisting differences in family-child interactions observed in natural home environments. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1096–1105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.1096
19.
HolahanJ. M.FerrerE.ShaywitzB. A.RockD. A.KirschI. S.YamamotoK.MichaelsR.MarchioneK. E.ShaywitzS. E. (2018). Growth in reading comprehension and verbal ability from grades 1 through 9. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36, 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916680984
20.
HughesC. A.MorrisJ. R.TherrienW. J.BensonS. K. (2017). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12137
21.
JenkinsJ. R.FuchsL. S.van den BroekP.EspinC.DenoS. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719
22.
JitendraA. K.EdwardsL. L.SacksG.JacobsoonL. A. (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000303
23.
KamilM. L.BormanG. D.DoleJ.KralC. C.SalingerT.TorgesenJ. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4027). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
24.
KintschW. (2012). Psychological models for reading comprehension and their implications for assessment. In SabatiniJ. P.AlbroE. R.O’ReillyT. (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 21–38). Rowman & Littlefield.
25.
LaRussoM. D.DonovanS.SnowC. E. (2016). Implementation challenges for tier one and tier two school-based programs for early adolescents. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 154, 11–30.
26.
LawrenceJ. F.CrossonA. C.Pare-BlagoevE. J.SnowC. E. (2015). Word generation randomized trial: Discussion mediates the impact of program treatment on academic word learning. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 750–786. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215579485
27.
LesauxN. K.HarrisJ. R. (2017). An investigation of comprehension processes among adolescent English learners with reading difficulties. Topics in Language Disorders, 37, 182–203. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000120
28.
LesauxN. K.HarrisJ. R.SloaneP. (2012). Adolescents’ motivation in the context of an academic vocabulary intervention in middle school classrooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56, 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00132
29.
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J.FallerS. E.KelleyJ. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 196–228. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3
30.
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J.KelleyJ. G.HarrisJ. R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 1159–1194. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532165
Mancilla-MartinezJ.LesauxN. K. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers’ word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82, 1544–1560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01633.x
33.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L.BlakeR. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 218–253. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1
34.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L.OmansonR. C.PopleM. T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 522–535. https://doi.org/10.2307/747940
35.
McKeownM. G.CrossonA. C.MooreD. W.BeckI. L. (2018). Word knowledge and comprehension effects of an academic vocabulary intervention for middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 55, 572–616. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217744181
36.
NagyW.TownsendD.LesauxN.SchmidtN. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
37.
O’ConnorR. E.BeachK. D.SanchezV. M.KimJ. J.Knight-TeagueK.OrozcoG.JonesB. (2019). Teaching academic vocabulary to sixth grade students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(4), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718821091
38.
PanyD.JenkinsJ. R. (1978). Learning word meanings: A comparison of instructional procedures. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 202–215.
RodriguezA.RodriguezD. (2017). English learners with learning disabilities: What is the current state?Insights on Learning Disabilities, 14, 97–112.
41.
RosenthalJ.EhriL. C. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.175
42.
SnowC. E.LawrenceJ. F.WhiteC. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903167042
43.
StahlS. A.FairbanksM. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170287
44.
SternbergR. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In McKeownM. G.CurtisM. E. (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89–105). Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
SwansonH. L.DeshlerD. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940303600205
46.
TownsendD.CollinsP. (2009). Academic vocabulary and middle school English learners: An intervention study. Reading & Writing, 22, 993–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9141-y
47.
WallaceG.HammillD. D. (2013). The comprehensive receptive and expressive vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Pro-Ed.
48.
WeiX.BlackorbyJ.SchillerE. (2011). Growth in reading achievement of students with disabilities, ages 7–17. Exceptional Children, 78, 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107800106
49.
WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S.RodriguezD. (1998). The development of children’s motivation in school contexts. Review of Research in Education, 23, 73–188.
50.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. Riverside.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
