We provided a multicomponent academic vocabulary intervention to six English learners with learning difficulties in a fifth-grade general education setting. A multiple probe design across word sets and replicated across students evaluated the effects of the intervention on students’ use of expressive language to read and define content-specific academic vocabulary words. After the academic vocabulary intervention, which incorporated English as a Second Language and self-regulation procedures, students improved their abilities to read and define words above baseline levels. Students’ performance on follow-up measures at 1, 3, and 6 months revealed maintenance of positive effects. Evaluations of the intervention reflected high levels of student satisfaction. Implications for practice and further research are discussed.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching (What works for special needs learners). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
2.
AugustD.Branum-MartinE.Cardenas-HaganFrancisD. J. (2009). The impact of an instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade English language learners. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 345–376.
3.
AugustD.CarloM.DresslerC.SnowC. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50–57. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.x
4.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Washington, DC: National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.
5.
BillingsleyF. F.WhiteO. R.MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
6.
BoardmanA. G.VaughnS.BuckleyP.ReutebuchC.RobertsG.KlingnerJ. (2016). Collaborative strategic reading for students with learning disabilities in upper elementary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 82, 409–427. doi:10.1177/0014402915625067
7.
CenaJ.BakerD. L.Kame’enuiE. J.BakerS. K.ParkY.SmolkowskiK. (2013). The impact of a systematic and explicit vocabulary intervention in Spanish with Spanish-speaking English learners in first grade. Reading and Writing, 26, 1289–1316. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9419-y
8.
CoyneM. D.McCoachB.KappS. (2007). Vocabulary intervention for kindergarten students: Comparing extended instruction to embedded instruction and incidental exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 74–88. doi:10.2307/30035543
9.
CumminsJ. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.
10.
FieldS.MartinJ.MillerR.WardM.WehmeyerM. (1998). A practical guide for teaching self-determination. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
11.
GastD. L.LloydB. P.LedfordJ. R. (2014). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (Eds.), Single case research methodology (2nd ed., pp. 274–285). New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
GerstenR.BakerS. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470.
13.
HarrisK.FriedlanderB.SaddlerB.FrizzelleR.GrahamS. (2005). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of academic performance. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 145–156. doi:10.1177/00224669050390030201
14.
HelmanA. L.CalhoonM. B.KernL. (2015). Improving science vocabulary of high school English language learners with reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 40–52. doi:10.1177/0731948714539769
15.
HerreraS. G.PerezD. R.EscamillaK. (2010). Teaching reading to English language learners: Differentiated literacies. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, U.S.C. §. (1400). et seq. (2004).
17.
JoeA. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition?Applied Linguistics, 19, 357–377.
18.
KimW.Linan-ThompsonS. (2013). The effects of self-regulation on science vocabulary acquisition of English language learners with learning difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 225–236. doi:10.1177/0741932513476956
19.
KlingnerJ. K.BoardmanA. G.EppolitoA. M.SchonewiseE. A. (2012). Supporting adolescent English language learners’ reading in the content areas. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 10(1), 35–64.
20.
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. doi:10.3102/0002831214532165
21.
MarzanoR. J.SimmsJ. A. (2013). Vocabulary for the Common Core. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.
22.
Muñoz-SandovalA. F.WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2005). Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz: Pruebas de aprovechamiento. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
23.
NagyW.HermanP. A.AndersonR. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233–253. doi:10.2307/747758
24.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2015). National assessment of educational progress 2015 reading assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences.
25.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
26.
ParibakhtT. S.WescheM. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In CoadyJ.HuckinT. (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
28.
Richards-TutorC.BakerD. L.GerstenR.BakerS. K.SmithJ. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82, 144–169. doi:10.1177/0014402915585483
29.
SáenzL. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 231–247.
30.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1998). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221–242.
31.
SnowC. E.UccelliP. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In OlsonD. R.TorranceN. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32.
VaughnS.MartinezL. R.Linan-ThompsonS.ReutebuchC. K.CarlsonC. D.FrancisD. J. (2009). Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh grade English language learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 297–324.
33.
WanzekJ.SwansonE.VaughnS.RobertsG.FallA.-M. (2016). English learner and non-English learner students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 82, 428–442. doi:10.1177/0014402915619419
34.
WescheM.ParibakhtT. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–39.
35.
WIDA Consortium. (2010). Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State to State for English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs®): ACCESS interpretive guide for score reports. Madison, WI: Author.
36.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock Johnson III—Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
