Vocabulary instruction for an English language learner with visual impairment: A multiple-components intervention including tactile representations

Abstract

English language learners with visual impairment are an underserved, under-researched group. One particular challenge faced by educators is conveying content knowledge in the secondary setting, particularly if students lack the expected background knowledge for coursework. In this study, an English language learner with visual impairment was taught biology vocabulary using tactile representations, along with the more traditional strategies of vocabulary in context and morphology. Using a multiple baselines design, the intervention was found to improve the student’s knowledge. Results support the use of tactile representations along with language-based vocabulary teaching for English language learners with visual impairment.

Keywords

Biology education English language learners evidence-based instruction multiple-baseline design pedagogy secondary education single-case research tactile representation vocabulary

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chorpita

B. F.

(2003). The frontier of evidence-based practice. In Kazdin

A. E.

Weisz

J. R.

(Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 42–59). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Conroy

P. W.

(2005). English language learners with visual impairments: Strategies to enhance learning. Rehabilitation Education for Blindness and Visual Impairment, 37, 101–108.

Cummins

(1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles, CA: National Dissemination and Assessment Center.

Cummins

Swain

(1986). Bilingualism in education. London, England: Longman.

Ferrell

K. A.

(2006). Evidence-based practices for students with visual disabilities. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28, 42–48.

Haladyna

T. M.

(1999). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Horton

E. L.

Renganathan

Toth

B. N.

Cohen

A. J.

Bajcsy

A. V.

Bateman

Oliveira

M. A.

(2017). A review of principles in design and usability testing of tactile technology for individuals with visual impairments. Assistive Technology, 29, 28–36.

Ingraham

C. L.

Oka

E. R.

(2006). Multicultural issues in evidence-based interventions. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 22, 127–149.

Kamei-Hannan

Holbrook

M. C.

Ricci

L. A.

(2012). Applying a response-to-intervention model to literacy instruction for students who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106, 69–80.

10.

Kazdin

A. E.

(2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

11.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Hitchcock

Horner

R. H.

Levin

J. R.

Odom

S. L.

Rindskopf

D. M.

Shadish

W. R.

(2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Document/229

12.

Lesaux

N. K.

Kieffer

M. J.

Faller

S. E.

Kelley

J. 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.

13.

Milian

Ferrell

(1998). Educating limited English proficient students with visual impairments. Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado.

14.

Milian

Pearson

(2005). Students with visual impairments in a dual-language program: A case study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99, 715–720.

15.

Nash

Snowling

(2006). Teaching new words to children with poor existing vocabulary knowledge: A controlled evaluation of the definition and context methods. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 41, 335–354.

16.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Model for comprehensive and integrated school psychological services. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/standards/2010standards/2_PracticeModel.pdf

17.

Osterlind

S. J.

(1998). Constructing test items: Multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance, and other formats (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

18.

Parsonson

B. S.

Baer

D. M.

(1992). The visual analysis of data, and current research into the stimuli controlling it. In Kratochwill

T. R.

Levin

J. R.

(Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 15–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

19.

Rosenblum

L. P.

Herzberg

T. S.

(2015). Braille and tactile graphics: Youths with visual impairments share their experiences. Journal of Visual Impairments & Blindness, 109, 173–184.

20.

Rule

A. C.

Stefanich

G. P.

Boody

R. M.

Peiffer

(2011). Impact of adaptive materials on teachers and their students with visual impairments in secondary science and mathematics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 865–887.

21.

Sahin

Yorek

(2009). Teaching science to visually impaired students: A small-scale qualitative study. US-China Education Review, 6, 19–26.