Few studies have considered academic vocabulary interventions for students who have learning disabilities (LD) and also are English learners (EL). This research explored the effects of the third year of the Creating Habits that Accelerate Academic Language of Students (CHAAOS) vocabulary intervention for eighth-grade students who received English Language Arts instruction (ELA) in special education classes. Over 70% of student participants had LD and over half were EL. Special education teachers delivered 12 weeks of intervention spaced across 7 months to 36 students. Researchers compared outcomes on receptive and expressive measures with 17 students in business-as-usual (BAU) special education ELA. Students receiving the CHAAOS intervention learned the 48 taught words better than students in BAU conditions, retained their knowledge of words 4 weeks following the close of the intervention, and ended the year with higher vocabulary scores on a standardized measure than students in BAU classes. Students who were EL performed similarly on receptive knowledge of words to students who were native English speakers. This study documents the effectiveness of explicit vocabulary routines for students who have LD and are also EL.
AhmedY.FrancisD. J.YorkM.FletcherJ.BarnesM.KuleszP. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in Grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002
2.
ArcherA.HughesC. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Press.
3.
AugustD.Branum-MartinL.Cardenas-HaganE.FrancisD. J.PowellJ.MooreS.HaynesE. F. (2014). Helping ELLs meet the Common Core State Standards for literacy in science: The impact of an instructional intervention focused on academic language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7, 54–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.836763
4.
BiemillerA. (2010). Words worth teaching. SRA/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.GranerP. S.DeshlerD. D. (2013). Literacy challenges and opportunities for students with learning disabilities in social studies and history. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12003
7.
CainK.OakhillJ.LemmonK. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671
8.
CarloM. S.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 classes. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–215. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.39.2.3
9.
CattsH. W.AdolfS. M.WeismerS. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388
10.
CoxheadA. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.
11.
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
12.
CromleyJ. G.Snyder-HoganL. E.Luciw-DubasU. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019452
13.
CrossonA.McKeownM.RobbinsK.BrownK. (2019). Key elements of robust vocabulary instruction for emergent bilingual adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50, 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18-0127
14.
EllemanA. M.OslundE. L.GriffinN. M.MyersK. E. (2019). A review of middle-school vocabulary interventions: Five research-based recommendations for practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50, 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18-0145
EnglertC. S.DunsmoreK. (2004). The role of dialogue in constructing effective literacy settings for students with language and learning disabilities. In SillimanE. R.WilkinsonL. C. (Eds.), Language and literacy learning in schools (pp. 201–237). Guilford Press.
17.
FoormanB. R.KoonS.PetscherY.MitchellA.TruckenmillerA. (2015). Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th-10th grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 884–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000026
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
20.
HartB.RisleyT. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Paul H. Brookes.
21.
HelmanA.CalhounM. B.KernL. (2015). Improving science vocabulary of high school English language learners with reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714539769
22.
HjetlandH. N.LervagA.LysterS. H.HagtvetB. E.HulmeC.Melby-LervagM. (2019). Pathways to reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from 4 to 9 years of age. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000321
23.
HolahanJ. M.FerrerE.ShaywitzB. A.RockD. A.KirschI. S.YamamotoK.MichaelsR.MarchioneK.ShaywitzS. E. (2018). Growth in reading comprehension and verbal ability from grades 1 through 9. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(4), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916680984
24.
HughesC. A.MorrisJ. R.TherrienW. J.BensonS. K. (2017). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disability Research & Practice, 32, 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12142
25.
JenkinsJ. R.FuchsL. S.Van den BroekP. (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
26.
JenkinsJ. R.MatlockB.SlocumT. A. (1989). Two approaches to vocabulary instruction: The teaching of individual word meanings and practice in deriving word meaning from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 215–235. https://doi.org/10.2307/747865
27.
JitendraA.EdwardsL.SacksG.JacobsonL. (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000303
28.
JonesS.LaRussoM.KimJ.KimH.SelmanR.UccelliP.BarnesS.DonovanS.SnowC. (2019). Experimental effects of word generation on vocabulary language, perspective taking, and reading comprehension in high-poverty schools. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12, 448–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1615155
29.
JozwikS. L.DouglasK. H. (2017). Effects of multicomponent academic vocabulary instruction for English learners with learning difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40, 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717704967
30.
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.
31.
KennedyM.DeshlerD.LloydJ. (2015). Effects of multimedia vocabulary instruction on adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413487406
32.
KiefferM. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educational Researcher, 39, 484–486. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10378400
33.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
34.
KrathwohlD. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 212–218.
35.
KuderS. J. (2017). Vocabulary instruction for secondary students with reading disabilities: An updated research review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717690113
36.
LawrenceJ. F.CrossonA. C.Pare-BlagoevE. J.SnowC. E. (2015). Word generation randomized trial. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 750–786. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215579485
37.
LesauxN. K.HarrisJ. R. (2013). Linguistically diverse students’ reading difficulties: Implication for models of learning disabilities identification and effective instruction. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 69–84). Guilford Press.
38.
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
39.
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(3), 572–616. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217744181
40.
McLeskeyJ.BarringerM.-D.BillingsleyB.BrownellM.JacksonD.KennedyM.LewisT.MaheadyL.RodriguezJ.ScheelerM. C.WinnJ.ZieglerD. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.
41.
NagyW.TownsendD. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
42.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). The common core state standards.
43.
O’ConnorR. E.BeachK. D.SanchezV. M.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
44.
O’ConnorR. E.SanchezV. M.BeachK.BocianK.RobertsS.ChanO. (2017). Building better bridges: Teaching adolescents who are poor readers in 8th grade to comprehend history text. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40, 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717698537
45.
O’ConnorR. E.SanchezV. M.JonesB.SuchiltL.YoukhannaV.BeachK. D.WidamanK. (2020). Systematic CHAAOS: Teaching vocabulary in English/Language Arts special education classes in middle school. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717698537
ProctorC. P.CarloM.AugustD.SnowC. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.246
49.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. Routledge.
50.
RodriguezA.RodriguezD. (2017). English learners with learning disabilities: What is the current state?Insights on Learning Disabilities, 14, 97–112.
51.
ScammaccaN.RobertsG.VaughnS.EdmondsM.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC. K.KleinC.TorgesenJ. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling reading: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Center on Instruction, RMC Research.
52.
SeifertK.EspinC. (2012). Improving reading of science text for secondary students with learning disabilities: Effects of text reading, vocabulary learning, and combined approaches to instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712444275
53.
SwansonE.WanzekJ.McCulleyL.Stillman-SpisakS.VaughnS.SimmonsD.FogartyM.HairrellA. (2016). Literacy and text reading in middle and high school social studies and English Language Arts classrooms. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 32, 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2014.910718
54.
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
55.
TruckenmillerA. J.ParkJ.DaboA.NewtonY. W. (2019). Academic language instruction for students in grades 4 through 8: A literature synthesis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12, 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1536773
56.
VaughnS.MartinezL. R.WilliamsK. J.MiciakJ.FallA.RobertsG. (2019). Efficacy of a high school extensive reading intervention for English learners with reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000289
57.
VaughnS.WexlerJ.LerouxA.RobertsG.DentonC.BarthA.FletcherJ. (2012). Effects of intensive reading intervention for eighth-grade students with persistently inadequate response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411402692
58.
WallaceG.HammillD. D. (2013). The Comprehensive Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Pro-Ed.
59.
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.
