This study documented the perspectives of school-based speech–language pathologists (SLPs) who provide vocabulary intervention to students with language impairment. SLPs (n = 357) working in school settings completed an online survey that included multiple choice, multiple answer, and open-ended questions about service delivery, intervention approaches, and teaching techniques and activities. Percentages, frequency counts, and a qualitative analysis of open-ended questions created a broad account of vocabulary intervention practices. Results showed that SLPs use a variety of approaches and techniques to address vocabulary deficits in school-age children.
AnglinJ. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(10), 1–166.
2.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G. (2007). Increasing young low income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 251–271.
3.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G.KucanL. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
4.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G.McCaslinE. S. (1983). Vocabulary development: All contexts are not created equal. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 177–181.
5.
BowersP. N.KirbyJ. R.DeaconS. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179. doi:10.3102/0034654309359353
6.
BoyleJ.McCartneyE.ForbesJ.O’HareA. (2007). A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of direct versus indirect and individual versus group modes of speech and language therapy for children with primary language impairment. Health Technology Assessment, 11(25), 1–158.
7.
CarlisleJ. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 464–487.
8.
CarnineD.KameenuiE. J.CoyleG. (1984). Utilization of contextual information in determining the meaning of unfamiliar words. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 188–204.
9.
CirrinF. M.GillamR. B. (2008). Language intervention practices for school-age children with spoken language disorders: A systematic review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, S110–S137.
10.
CoxheadA. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.
11.
DollaghanC. A. (2007). The handbook for evidence-based practice in communication disorders. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
12.
FeyM. E. (1986). Language intervention with young children. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
13.
FisherD. (2007). Creating a schoolwide vocabulary initiative in an urban high school. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12, 337–351.
14.
GoerssB. L.BeckI. L.McKeownM. G. (1999). Increasing remedial students’ ability to derive word meaning from context. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20, 151–175.
15.
HoffE. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74, 1368–1378. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00612
16.
JusticeL. M.SchmittM. B.MurphyK. A.PrattA.BianconeT. (2014). The “robustness” of vocabulary intervention in the public schools: Targets and techniques employed in speech-language therapy. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 49, 288–303.
17.
LoweH.HenryL.MüllerL.JoffeV. L. (2018). Vocabulary intervention for adolescents with language disorder: A systematic review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 53, 199–217.
18.
LublinerS.SmetanaL. (2005). The effects of comprehensive vocabulary instruction on Title I students’ metacognitive word-learning skills and reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 163–200.
19.
McGregorK. K.NewmanR. M.ReillyR. M.CaponeN. C. (2002). Semantic representation and naming in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 998–1014.
20.
NashH.SnowlingM. (2006). Teaching new words to children with poor existing vocabulary knowledge: A controlled evaluation of the definition and context methods. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 41, 335–354.
21.
ParsonsS.LawJ.GascoigneM. (2005). Teaching receptive vocabulary to children with specific language impairment: A curriculum-based approach. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21, 39–59. doi:10.1191/0265659005ct280oa
22.
PlumbA. M.PlexicoL. W. (2013). Autism spectrum disorders: Experience, training, and confidence levels of school-based speech-language pathologists. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(1), 89–104.
23.
ReedD. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades k-12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 36–49.
24.
RichesN. G.TomaselloM.Conti-RamsdenG. (2005). Verb learning in children with SLI: Frequency and spacing effects. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1397–1411.
25.
SajiN.ImaiM.SaalbachH.ZhangY.ShuH.OkadaH. (2011). Word learning does not end at fast-mapping: Evolution of verb meanings through reorganization of an entire semantic domain. Cognition, 118, 45–61.
26.
SchatzE. K.BaldwinR. S. (1986). Context clues are unreliable predictors of word meanings. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 439–453.
27.
StahlS. A.FairbanksM. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110.
28.
StahlS. A.NagyW. E. (2006). Teaching Word Meanings. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
SteeleS. C. (2014). Effects of morphological-based intervention on vocabulary learning in school-age children with language learning difficulties. EBP Briefs, 9(2), 1–7.
30.
SteeleS. C.MillsM. T. (2011). Vocabulary intervention for school-age children with language impairment: A review of evidence and good practice. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 27, 354–370.
31.
StorkelH. L.VoelmleK.FierroV.FlakeK.FlemingK. K.Swinburne RomineR. (2017). Interactive book reading to accelerate word learning by kindergarten children with specific language impairment: Identifying an adequate intensity and variation in treatment response. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48, 16–30.
32.
ThroneburgR. N.CalvertL. K.SturmJ. J.ParamboukasA. A.PaulP. J. (2000). A comparison of service delivery models: Effects on curricular vocabulary skills in the school setting. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 10–20.
33.
TomblinJ. B.Mainela-ArnoldE.ZhangX. (2007). Procedural learning in adolescents with and without specific language impairment. Language Learning and Development, 3, 269–293.
34.
van TilborgA.DeckersS. R. J. M. (2016). Vocabulary selection in AAC: Application of core vocabulary in atypical populations. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 1(12), 125–138. doi:10.1044/persp1.SIG12.125
35.
WagovichS. A.NewhoffM. (2004). The single exposure: Partial word knowledge growth through reading. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13, 316–328.
36.
WarrenS. F.FeyM. E.YoderP. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities Research Reviews, 1, 70–77.
37.
WindfuhrK. L.FaragherB.Conti-RamsdenG. (2002). Lexical learning skills in young children with specific language impairment (SLI). International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 37, 415–432.
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.
