who's learning what words and how fast? preschoolers' vocabulary growth in an early...

Journal of Research in Childhood Education2008, Vol. 22, No. 3

Copyright 2008 by the Association forChildhood Education International

0256-8543/08

49

Abstract. This study examined the composition of vocabulary and preschoolers’ vocabulary learning in an early literacy program. Fifty-six children with typical achievement, special needs, and at risk for disabilities participated. Curricu-lum-based measures (CBM) were used to track children’s receptive and expressive vocabulary growth over three curriculum units. Root and rare word compositional analyses described the vocabulary to be learned. Children’s performance across units and by word type were compared. Results showed that the preschoolers gained vocabulary and CBM was sensitive in measuring progress; the rate varied between groups, however, with typically achieving children making significant gains over time. Composition of vocabulary appeared more influential on children’s expres-sive rather than receptive vocabularies, with less growth by groups to recall rare words than root or basic words. Results suggest greater attention to the composi-tion of vocabulary in early literacy programs and the need for CBM to monitor the vocabulary growth of diverse young learners.

Kathleen RoskosJohn Carroll UniversityCevriye ErgulArizona State UniversityTanis Bryan Karen Burstein Southwest Institute for Families and Children with DisabilitiesJames ChristieArizona State UniversityMyae HanUniversity of Delaware

Who’s Learning What Words and How Fast:Preschoolers’ Vocabulary Growth in anEarly Literacy Program

Learning vocabulary is an essential com-ponent of early literacy achievement. Vo-cabulary is at the heart of oral language comprehension and foundational for domain knowledge and later reading comprehension (Hirsch, 2003). The size of children’s vocabu-lary supports the development of decoding skills, providing a storehouse of linguistic information (sounds, rhymes, meanings)

Authors’ Note: This research was funded by an Early Reading First grant from the United States Department of Education awarded in 2003. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the USDE.

to map onto printed words (Wagner et al., 1997) and to sharpen phonological sensitiv-ity (Fowler, 1991; Metsala, 1999). Rate of vocabulary acquisition is also influential in realizing literacy potential, since the basis for learning associated words “depends quite strongly on how well-developed one’s vocabu-lary already is” (Robbins & Ehri, 1994, p. 217). As Hart and Risley (2003) report, vo-cabulary at age 3 is strongly associated with reading comprehension at the end of grade 3, and predicts the trajectory of word acqui-sition that impacts future academic learn-ing. Vocabulary size and rate of growth are central to the development of early literacy skills, which eventually carry the day in a

Roskos, ERgul, BRyAN, BuRstEIN, ChRIstIE, ANd hAN

50

child’s learning to read and write at school. The importance of developing children’s vo-cabulary in preschool education, therefore, cannot be overemphasized. Virtually all early childhood programs place a strong emphasis on learning lan-guage and words through social interaction with adults and peers. Joint activities, such as looking at picture books and sto-rybook reading, appear to be particularly conducive to vocabulary learning (Bus, van Ijzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Elley, 1989; Ninio & Bruner, 1978; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). In adult-child activity in general, Snow (2002) reports the signifi-cance of teachers’ use of extended discourse and rare words at preschool as predictors of 4th-grade reading comprehension (see also the Home-School Study of Language and Literacy Development; Snow, Dickinson, & Tabors, n.d.). Play, especially pretend play, strengthens children’s use of lexical and syntactical features of language (Bruner, 1984) and narrative production (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001)—important skills needed for comprehending and producing decontex-tualized texts in later reading and writing (Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005). The strong emphasis on the need for rich language experiences in preschool educa-tionhas only recently translated, however, into compositional analyses of words that children should be learning for beginning reading instruction. According to Biemiller and Slonim (2001), young children need to be acquiring about two new word meanings per day, on average, from the age of 1, in order to build up a stock of about 6,000 root words needed for grade 2 reading comprehension. Root words literally help children to “grow” more words and keep pace with peers in de-veloping age-normal vocabulary that meets the reading demands of late primary and middle grade texts. Growth in rare word, or specialized vocabulary, is also critical for the development of domain knowledge in content areas (e.g., science), which speeds up basic listening and reading comprehension processing (Hirsch, 2003). Those children lacking domain-specific vocabulary cannot

construct a meaningful mental model of what is being said or what is being read in school contexts (Chall & Jacobs, 2003). To develop sufficient vocabulary that sup-ports beginning reading acquisition and future reading comprehension, early literacy programs need to provide strong foundation-al root and specialized vocabulary geared to the academic content domains and build them up over multiple exposures (Stahl, 2003; Walsh, 2003). Lacking an adequate vocabulary store, children may be able to sound out words they read, but encounter difficulty in constructing meaning from text. To succeed at reading, children “must acquire and use grade-level vocabulary plus some post-grade-level vocabulary,” which means they need to be steadily gaining vocabulary at home and school (Biemiller, 2003). Typically standardized measures, such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn & Dunn, 1997), are used to assess vocabulary growth. These are only general measures with indirect links to vocabulary collections in early literacy programs and less sensitivity to children’s short-term vocabulary gains. Practical, reliable “ev-eryday” assessment tools to measure word acquisition therefore are needed to supply teachers with the information they need for instructional decision-making. Curriculum-based measures, for example, allow teachers to continuously measure growth in children’s performance and to determine if they are progressing at an expected rate (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2002). Thus, while considerable research reports the development of children’s comprehension vocabularies in the home setting (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995), less information is available on their progress in educational settings, and from their participation in early lit-eracy programs that aim to prepare them for school. Given the weight of vocabulary size and rate of growth as variables in learning to read and later reading comprehension (Biemiller, 2004; Stahl, 2003), it is clear that curriculum programs must carefully consider the collection of words to be taught

PREsChoolERs’ VoCABulARy gRowth

51

and employ sensitive measures to monitor progress. But research evidence related to achieving these goals is lacking. This study focuses on the vocabulary learning that occurs in connection with Doors to Discovery (Wright Group/McGraw-Hill, 2002), a widely used, commercially published early literacy program. To build up descriptive information on vocabulary in early literacy education, the aims of this study were to chart the vocabulary growth of children with typical development, special needs, and at risk for disabilities participat-ing in the Doors program, using a curricu-lum-based measurement (CBM) approach. Secondarily, the study sought to examine variations in the children’s receptive and expressive vocabularies by describing the kinds of words children were learning across curricular themes used in the Doors program, based on a compositional analysis of the program’s vocabulary collection.

MethodSubjectsThe subjects were 56 children in 15 preschool classrooms in rural communities in the southwestern region of the United States, near the border with Mexico. The children’s ages ranged from 43 to 65 months (M = 53.7 months). Information was available on a subset of these children’s language (n = 39) and socioeconomic backgrounds (n = 41). Sixty-two percent of the subjects in this sub-set were from monolingual Spanish families, 26 percent spoke both English and Spanish at home, and 13 percent were from families that spoke only English. Ninety percent of children in the subset were eligible for free lunch, and 10 percent received reduced-rate lunches. Based on community demograph-ics, one can assume that most of the other children in the study came from low-income Spanish-only or bilingual families. In order to obtain a satisfactory sample representative of the local population, teachers were asked to select from their classrooms two students with typical achievement, two with special needs, and one student at-risk for disabilities to be

included in weekly CBMs. Students who were typically achieving were identified by their teachers based on their classroom per-formance, while students with special needs were receiving special education services and had Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs). Speech and language delays were the most common type of disability among students with special needs. Students de-fined as at risk had been referred but had not qualified for special education services. Teachers selected 30 students with typical achievement, 30 with special needs, and 15 at risk for disabilities. However, 2 students with typical achievement, 10 with special needs, and 7 at risk were excluded from the analysis due to their frequent absences and incomplete data. Of the 56 students, 28 were typically achieving, 20 were students with special needs, and 8 were at risk for disabilities. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Third Edition (PPVT-III) means and standard deviations, gender, home language, and socioeconomic status for the groups are presented in Table 1.

Curriculum in UseThe teachers used Doors to Discovery (Wright Group/McGraw-Hill, 2002), a widely used published early literacy program. Based on a critical review (Author, 2005), the program’s curriculum shows a fairly even distribution of research-based instructional components for developing essential early literacy skills: oral language (23 percent), vocabulary (17 percent), phonological aware-ness (17 percent), alphabet knowledge (24 percent), and print knowledge (20 percent). Most early literacy instruction occurs in whole group settings (69 percent), followed by small group (28 percent) and play settings (3 percent) for skill development. The Doors program is organized into one-month “explorations” or units that focus on topics that appeal to young children, such as vehicles, insects, and the body. In this study, three instructional units were examined: Vroom! Vroom! (transportation), Backyard Detectives (nature), and Tabby Tiger’s Diner (food and restaurants).


52

The Doors to Discovery program includes three interrelated instructional blocks: • Large-Group Time—Song and rhyme posters are used as a “warm up,” followed by shared reading of big books in which the teacher encourages children to read along and engage in book-related talk. Three books are used for shared reading in each unit: a narrative storybook, an informational book, and a concept book. When stories are initially introduced, the teacher conducts a “picture walk,” going over the illustrations in the book, speking in both Spanish and English. Subsequent readings of the story are in English only. Picture word cards are used before and after reading to draw children’s attention to key vocabulary words. Instruction also focuses on concepts of print, phonological awareness skills, and alphabet knowledge. This instruction usually lasts 20 minutes.

• Discovery Centers—After large-group time, children spend 40 minutes engaging in self-selected activities in a variety of learning centers, including dramatic play, art, blocks, writing, mathematics, and science. The teacher manual contains lists of Wonderful Words that the teachers are to use with the children while they are engaging in center activities. • Small-Group Time—During the second 10-minute segment of discovery center time, the teacher meets with small groups of students and conducts intensive vocabulary lessons using an interactive book—a wordless big book that contains a number of illustrations that are related to the unit theme. For ex-ample, Our Big Book of Driving, which is used in the unit on transportation, contains pairs of pages that contain pictures of dif-ferent types of vehicles (bus, ambulance, motorcycle), parts of a car (door, tire, speed-

Table 1PPVT-III Means and Standard Deviations, Gender, Home Language,

and Socioeconomic Status for Children with Special Needs, Children Who Were At Risk, and Children With Typical Achievement

Children With Special Needs

Children Who Are At Risk

Children WithTypical Achievement

PPVT-III

M 55.35 46.13 58.92

SD 12.07 6.85 17.18

Gender

Male N 15 5 11

Female N 5 3 17

Home Language

Spanish N 9 6 9

English N 1 0 4

Spanish & English N 6 2 2

Spanish & Cocopah N 0 0 1

Socioeconomic Status

Free Lunch N 13 4 20

Reduced-Price Lunch N 0 2 2


53

ometer), a scene of a busy intersection, and a humorous vehicle that combines parts of an automobile and an airplane. The teacher meets with a different small group each day, so that each child receives small-group instruction with the interactive book once a week for 10 minutes. Each week, the lesson focuses on a different pair of pages. By the end of the four-week unit, each child has had an opportunity to interact with vocabulary on all the pages in the book. Since most of children are Spanish speakers, they are encouraged to discuss the pictures, initially in Spanish and then in English. Once a week, during the third 10-minute-segment of discovery center time, teachers use Our Big Scrapbook, a blank big book, with a small group of children. The teacher and children create books together empha-sizing children’s oral language and models for writing. Children dictate sentences, usu-ally about photographs of their play activi-ties or artwork, and the teacher writes their language in the big scrapbook. Sometimes a sentence frame is used (e.g., “(Name of child) likes to play with the _______.”), and other times the children’s language is unstruc-tured. The teacher manual contains a list of Wonderful Words, consisting of vocabulary for the teacher to emphasize during the les-son. The teacher only meets with one small group per week, so each child receives small-group instruction with the scrapbook for 10 minutes each month. Completed scrapbooks are placed in the classroom library center for children to read during the center time.

Instrumentation Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - III (PPVT-III; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) is an in-dividually administered, norm-referenced test of receptive vocabulary available in two forms. Each form contains five training items, followed by 175 test items arranged in order of increasing difficulty. The child selects one of four illustrations that match the meaning of a stimulus word. Raw scores are converted to age-referenced norms. The PPVT-III is a reliable measure: internal con-sistency reliability ranging from .92 to .98,

split-half reliability ranging from .86 to .97, test-retest reliability ranging from .91 to .94, and alternate form reliability ranging from .88 to .96 (Dunn & Dunn, 1997). Criterion validity showed that the PPVT-III was ad-equately correlated (coefficients ranged from .69 to .91) with a variety of widely recognized measures of language. Curriculum-Based Measurement. Cur-riculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is an alternative approach to academic assess-ment that has been widely used in recent years. It is a fast and easy-to-use method of assessing academic progress using test materials based on the classroom’s curricu-lum. Research has documented that CBM is a very effective tool in providing accurate and meaningful data that teachers can use to monitor and modify instruction (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2002). In this project, teachers used CBM to monitor children’s acquisition of the vo-cabulary presented in the Doors program. Each teacher administered the CBM to the same five students each week: two typically achieving students, two students with spe-cial needs, and one student considered at risk for disabilities (see the description of how these students were selected in the Subject section above). The CBM vocabulary pool consisted of 218 words, constituting about 25 percent of the target words included in the program. Each week, project staff and mentors selected six to eight words from each week’s lesson. Each CBM assessed two as-pects of word learning: receptive vocabulary (“show me”) and expressive vocabulary (“tell me”). Receptive vocabulary was assessed by showing children a panel with four il-lustrations (usually miniature versions of illustrations from the unit’s vocabulary picture cards) and asking, “Show me a _______.” The “show me” words included were low-frequency, “rare words” that were featured in the unit. Expressive vocabulary was assessed by showing children a panel with four pictures and asking them to name the object the teacher points to. The “tell me” words included were high-frequency root words. A score sheet was prepared for


54

each child that contained administration and scoring instructions, as well as space for comments and descriptions of the types of errors (e.g., OK with initial sounds, but unable to pronounce the rest of the word, mispronunciation of the whole word, certain types of mispronunciations of words or let-ters) or any other condition (e.g., displaying off-task behavior or being sick). The com-ments helped teachers to reflect on possible reasons for children’s errors. Teachers were instructed to follow standard administration procedures. At the end of each Doors unit, the score sheets were given to project staff for analysis. Scores on each CBM were placed on graphs that depicted individual children’s weekly performance. The graphs helped teachers to see the progress children were making. Teachers and mentors reviewed the data, comparing the performance of children with special needs, at-risk children, and typically achieving children. This information was used to determine whether instructional changes were needed. Description of the Vocabulary Collection. The Doors to Discovery curriculum includes a collection of 1,133 vocabulary words that are introduced and practiced across eight theme-based units, each approximately four weeks in length. Of the 1,133 words, 237, or about 21 percent, are referred to as Wonderful Words, defined as relevant words for vocabulary development. Many of these words fall into the category of rare words or specialized vocabulary associated with disciplinary domains, such as science, mathematics, and social studies. Wonder-ful Words are emphasized in small-group instruction and some are also highlighted on word cards. The three units included in this study (Vroom! Vroom!; Backyard Detec-tives; Tabby Tiger’s Diner) contained 420 words, or approximately 37 percent, of the total vocabulary collection in the DOORS program. The composition of the CBM vocabulary for these units was analyzed along four dimensions: 1) a topical analysis based on Dolch (1948); 2) a root word analysis based

on the work of Biemiller (2004) and Biemiller and Slonim (2001); 3) a rare word analysis adapted from Beals and Tabors (1995); and 4) a first thousand words for children’s reading analysis based on Dolch’s Interview Vocabulary List (1948). The topical analysis used 11 topics iden-tified in the Interview Vocabulary Study conducted by Dolch (1948) (see Appendix 1). These topics were culled from the Combined Word Study List, originally classified into 305 topical groups and considered relevant to child life. Each topic contains sub-top-ics that further define it as a category of meaning. THE CHILD’S PERSON topic, for example, includes the sub-topics of Body, Senses, Body Actions, and Clothes. Although these topic categories were determined more than half a century ago, they still funda-mentally apply as semantic neighborhoods that contain related words typically used by most young children in their daily life (Hart, 2004). Rooted in the argument that words are polysemous or clustered in groups of re-lated meanings (Anderson & Nagy, 1991), a semantic neighborhood contains words that are conceptually linked at a macro-level through shared morpho-syntactic elements, such as roots, bound morphemes (prefixes; suffixes), lexical extensions, and compounds, and/or categories of meaning. For example, words like head, face, neck, lip are linked conceptually with references to the upper body. Words like bake, baker, baking, baked, baker-man are linked morpho-syntactically and also conceptually within the category of cooking and services. These word “neighbor-hoods” allow children to fast-map words to experiences (Carey, 1978), make connections between words, and gain confidence in us-ing new words to express themselves (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2003). The root word analysis drew on the work of Biemiller and Slonim (2001), which pro-vides an estimate of the first 2,500 root words—mainly those used in Dale and Chall’s Readability Index (1948). For pur-poses of this study, the pool was reduced to 769 Easy Words as determined by Stone, who revised Dale’s original list by remov-


55

ing 173 words (e.g., blank, finger, silver) and adding 173 words (e.g., pet, puppy, rooster) (Stone, 1956). Words such as apple, ball, child, and grow are examples of root words from this list. Beals and Tabors (1995) define rare words as words that appear infrequently in the vo-cabularies of 3- and 4-year-old children. This definition leaves considerable room for inter-pretation as to whether a word is rare or not, depending on contextual factors. For this research, the definition of a rare word was narrowed to specialized vocabulary that lays the foundations for reading comprehension in school. Such words as wiper, mechanic, cricket, engine, and stethoscope are examples of rare or specialized vocabulary in the DOORS program. This type of vocabulary is linked to domain or disciplinary knowledge needed to make sense of word combinations, to choose among multiple meanings, to make sense of otherwise confusing sentences, and to make inferences in familiar and unfamil-iar texts (Chall & Jacobs, 2003). Rare word analysis followed a three-step procedure to identify specialized vocabulary in the units. Step one consisted of mark-

ing the Wonderful Words that coincided with the low-frequency words found in the home-school studies conducted by Snow and colleagues (Snow, 2004; Tabors, 2004) and adding any not included, which yielded a pool of 275 words. In step two, words in the Wonderful Word list that clearly represented disciplinary content knowledge (veterinar-ian, stethoscope, easel, walrus, scale, and the like) were flagged, increasing the total pool to 290 words. In step three, words that were listed in the First Thousand Words for Children’s Reading (Spache, 1974) and those in common usage (e.g., backpack) were removed, resulting in a rare word list of 190 vocabulary words in the Doors curriculum. The First Thousand Words analysis consisted of matching words to the alpha-betical list provided by Dolch (1948). This list includes words known in meaning to beginning 1st-graders around the mid-20th century and essential for beginning read-ing instruction at that time (the Dolch list was revised by Spache about 20 years later (1974), but included words known by 1st-graders in an enrichment program which made this list less relevant to a preschool

Table 2 Vocabulary Composition of Doors Units Used in CBMs

Unit Undupli-cated Word

Count

Dupli-cated Word

Counta

No. of Root

Wordsb

No. of Rare

Wordsc

No. of First Thousand

Words

No. of Topicsneighborhoods

Vroom 52 41 19 20 15 6

Detectives 56 46 24 11 23 5

Diner 58 48 29 14 19 2

Subtotals 135 72 45 57

% total wordsd

40%

QA1 yr 1 24 19 2 13 6

a Some words are used more than once in each week of the CBM administration.b Root words may also function as First Thousand Words and vice versa.c Rare words include specialized words central to the topic or theme.d The 3 units included 420 vocabulary words for instruction (words cards, wonderful words, inter-active books).


56

population.). This analysis, therefore, may be limited in scope, due to a wider range of life experiences for many 5- and 6-year-olds today, the increased number of English language learners, and changes in reading pedagogy and resources (e.g., computer programs). Still, it offers a well-substantiated list of words (Chall & Dale, 1995; Spache, 1974) that are time-honored in many beginning reading materials and typically used in the child’s everyday life (Hart & Risley, 1999). Such words as barn, clock, fire, pencil, and what are examples of first thousand words. Table 2 summarizes the composition of the vocabulary collection for each of the three units examined in the study. Vroom! Vroom! contained a comparable amount of root and rare words, the least number of first thousand words and more semantic neigh-borhoods than the other units. Backyard Detectives contained the least number of rare words, and slightly fewer semantic neighbor-hoods; root and first thousand words were the most prevalent. Tabby Tiger’s Diner showed a high frequency of root words, fol-lowed by first thousand and then rare words; it contained the least number of semantic neighborhoods.

Procedures Professional Development (PD) and Men-toring. A three-day orientation to the Doors to Discovery curriculum was conducted at the beginning of the project, followed by monthly, day-long workshops. PD focused on the Doors to Discovery curriculum, literacy development, curriculum-based measure-ment, children with special needs, and fam-ily literacy. Teachers also did “make and take it,” sharing activities and materials that worked in their classrooms, and they collaborated in developing new activities and materials. Each site had a mentor who established and supervised “Centers of Ex-cellence” (space set aside with materials and parent involvement), conducted classroom observations and evaluations, assisted with curriculum-based measurement, and did ongoing coaching and modeling.

ResultsThis study employed two analytic tools to observe the developing receptive and expres-sive vocabularies of children participating in three theme-based units of the Doors program: 1) a weekly CBM measure to moni-tor word learning, and 2) a compositional de-scription of the vocabulary to be learned. The results show that the 56 children gained vocabulary through their curricular experiences with the Doors theme-based units, and that CBM was sensitive in measuring their progress in receptive and expressive vocabulary; however, rate of vocabulary growth varied between groups, with typically achieving children gaining significantly over time. Composition of vocabulary appeared most influential on children’s expressive vocabulary, with less growth for all three groups in their abili-ties to recall rare words than to remember root or first thousand words. Children’s abilities to recognize (receptive) and use (expressive) root and rare words mimicked general trends in word learning overall, with the exception of the first thousand word type, where at-risk children showed a more accelerated trajectory in identifying these words than other types. Details of the results are described below.

Children’s Receptive andExpressive VocabularyGroups’ growth trajectories were created based on a composite mean of the weekly CBA measures for three Doors units. Figure 1 shows the composite mean percentage of correct responses in the receptive (Show Me) and expressive (Tell Me) categories of the CBM for each of the units—Vroom! Vroom! (Unit 1), Backyard Detectives (Unit 2), and Tabby Tiger’s Diner (Unit 3). Figure 1 highlights the steady progress of typically achieving children by Unit 3 in the Show Me condition (receptive vocabulary) and the widening gap between them and the other two groups. Special needs children performed better overall than their at-risk peers, who demonstrated an uneven perfor-mance. All three groups showed progress by


57

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

U n it 1 Un it 2 Un it 3 Un it 1 Un it 2 U n it 3

U n it

T y p ic a l (n = 2 8 )

A t - r is k ( n = 8 )

S p e c ia l N e e d s ( n = 2 0 )

unit three in the Tell Me condition (expres-sive vocabulary), with the typically achiev-ing demonstrating a steeper trajectory than the other two groups. The growth trajectory of the at-risk group is noteworthy, gaining on the special needs group by Unit 3. A series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were computed to compare groups’ performances in receptive (Show Me) and expressive (Tell Me) vocabulary across all three units. Table 3 shows the composite mean percentages of correct responses in Show Me and Tell Me for each of the units. ANOVA found statistically significant dif-ferences between groups in receptive vocabu-lary across all three units (Unit 1: F (2, 50) = 4.80, p = .012; Unit 2: F (2, 53) = 3.73, p = .031; and Unit 3: F (2, 53) = 10.61, p < .001). Typically developing children significantly outperformed at-risk children in Unit 1 and Unit 2, and made greater gains than both at-risk children and children with special needs in Unit 3. Children with special needs also obtained significantly higher scores than the group of at-risk children on Unit 3. ANOVA also found statistically significant

differences between groups in expressive vocabulary for Unit 3, Tabby Tiger’s Diner (F (2, 53) = 4.83, p = 0.12). Typically developing children outperformed children with special needs in this subtest of CBM. To determine whether groups made significant gains across units, a series of repeated-measures analysis of variance and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted. Receptive vocabulary growth of typically achieving children was observed across all units, Wilks’ Λ = .71, F (2, 23) = 4.75, p = .019, multivariate η2 = .29, while at-risk children and children with special needs did not exhibit a significant growth across units. The receptive vocabulary performance of special needs children is noteworthy, however, in that it surpassed that of at-risk children in Unit 3. Similar to the performance demonstrated in receptive vocabulary, typically developing children improved their receptive vocabulary across all units, Wilks’ Λ = .54, F (2, 23) = 9.92, p = .001, multivariateη2 = .46. In addition, although the pattern of growth in expressive vocabulary for both special needs

Figure 1 Mean Percentage of Correct Responses by Groups

Tell MeTell MeShow MeShow Me

Mea

n Pe

rcen

tage

of C

orre

ctR

espo

nse


58

Table 3 Mean Percentages and Standard Deviations of Correct Responses by Groups

Children with Special Needs

(n = 20)

Children Who Are At-Risk(n = 8)

Children With Typical

Achievement(n = 28)

Show Me

Unit 1 69.23 (24.0) 48.19 (14.3) 73.29 (14.9)

Unit 2 70.66 (25.5) 56.70 (19.4) 78.83 (13.4)

Unit 3 68.64 (21.7) 46.67 (27.1) 82.37 (13.5)

Tell Me

Unit 1 50.71 (26.0) 47.56 (17.1) 59.38 (20.3)

Unit 2 52.69 (25.7) 47.23 (15.1) 59.83 (17.6)

Unit 3 57.48 (25.0) 57.51 (14.2) 75.07 (19.0)

Figure 2 Mean Percentage of Correct Receptive Vocabulary Responses by Word Type by Groups

Show Me

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

root rare 1st 1000

Vocabulary Type

SpecialTypicalAt Risk


59

and at-risk children did improve between Units 2 and 3, the improvement was not found to be significant. These data analyses indicated significant improvement in the receptive and expressive vocabularies of typically achieving children, whereas the trajectories of special needs and at-risk children showed no significant im-provement. In brief, typically achieving chil-dren were acquiring more vocabulary faster than their peers through their participation in the instructional blocks of the three units.

Types of Words Children Are LearningAs shown in Figure 1, children’s performance aligned with the composition of vocabulary is strongest for expressive vocabulary in Unit 3 (Tabby Tiger’s Diner) for all groups, and in receptive vocabulary for typically achieving children. The unit’s vocabulary composition may partially account for the children’s higher level of performance: the proportion of root words in Unit 3 is larger than in Units 1 and 2, and the number of

semantic neighborhoods is substantially lower (see Table 1). Children, therefore, may have had the advantage of more con-ceptually connected words (root words) in a relatively limited set of topic categories (semantic neighborhoods), thus reduc-ing the cognitive demand on their word memory. The relatively strong receptive vocabulary performance of special needs children supports this possibility, in that the composition may have offered more linguistic supports, although this mix did not appear to benefit the at-risk children’s performance. However, there is evidence in Unit 2 that this particular composition may help scaffold children’s word learning, since the at-risk group performed better in receptive vocabulary here than in Unit 1, where the word composition was noticeably different (more rare than root words and more semantic neighborhoods). Figures 2 and 3, respectively, plot the percent of correct responses in weekly CBMs by word type.

Figure 3 Mean Percentage of Correct Expressive Vocabulary Responses by Word Type by Groups

Tell Me

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

root rare 1st 1000

Vocabulary Type

SpecialTypical At Risk


60

The types of words children are learning show greater variation in expressive than in receptive vocabulary. Types of words gained in receptive vocabulary mirror the pattern of word learning for all three groups. Typically developing children are acquiring more and more varied word types in their receptive vocabulary store at a faster rate than their peers, and special needs children are accumulating more and more varied words more quickly than the at-risk group. Children are mak-ing more progress in recognizing their first thousand words at a faster clip than other types. The rate of rare word correct responses is at or above 50 percent for all groups, but lagging behind those for root and first thousand word types, which fall in the 60-80 percent range. Word types garnered for expressive vocabulary are fewer in general and less consistent. All groups made fewer than 50 percent correct responses in the rare word category, with at-risk children showing the least, falling below 30 percent correct. In brief, all groups appeared to have more difficulty “calling up” rare words from their vocabulary store than recognizing them when spoken (which supplies more memory supports). A rate of less than 50 percent for word use may bear watching, as it re-lates to building background knowledge for future reading comprehension tasks. Children’s percent of correct responses for root and first thousand words also lagged behind these types in their receptive vocabularies with the exception of the at-risk group, for whom percent correct was about even in both receptive and expressive vocabulary. This, too, bears watching, because it suggests that this group may be gaining some ground with this word type, which is essential for beginning reading instruction.

DiscussionResults show that typically achieving chil-dren were acquiring Doors vocabulary at a faster rate than their special needs and at-risk peers, which was expected in light of

their PPVT-III performance at the onset of the Doors program. Vocabulary research supports that learning new words is con-tingent on words already known (Bloom, 2002; Robbins & Ehri, 1994), and the typi-cally achieving children began with more words in their vocabulary store. However, the special needs children did show a rela-tively steady pattern of growth over time, especially in expressive vocabulary. And, although less consistent in their receptive vocabulary performance, at-risk children did show gains by Unit 3 toward the end of the program year. These results suggest that the Doors curriculum, as an instruc-tional resource, offered opportunities for all children to learn new target words over time, but the curriculum may not have been powerful enough to pull at-risk children steadily forward. The flatter tra-jectory of special needs children’s receptive vocabulary also suggests that the Doors curriculum may not have been particularly supportive of differentiating vocabulary instruction for these children. To this issue, CBM may play a critical role as an integral part of vocabulary instruction, providing a systematic and sensitive measure of children’s develop-ing vocabularies and charting their rate of growth. When embedded in an early literacy curriculum, such as Doors, CBM can serve as a progress monitoring tool for instructional planning and decision making more closely attuned to children’s vocabulary development needs. Right now, many early literacy programs do not in-clude systematic vocabulary measurement tasks that assess whether children are acquiring new words or showing adequate growth trajectories in comprehension of vo-cabulary essential for reading comprehen-sion (Author, 2005). Vocabulary size and rate may need to be regularly measured given the central role of vocabulary in ef-fective reading comprehension—the very goal of reading (Biemiller, 2004; Snow, 2002; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). What also emerged in this study is the potential influence of vocabulary composi-


61

tion on vocabulary comprehension. When the target vocabulary consisted primarily of root and common words needed for reading and when these words were clustered into relatively few semantic neighborhoods (con-ceptual topics), children performed better on vocabulary tasks. Although the results do not shed light on this observation, they do open the door for speculation that might spur further research. To ensure sufficient exposure, six new words from the CBM pool were targeted each week, and two words were focused on each day in each instruc-tional block (large group; small group; play centers). The next day, teachers cycled in two new words and previously introduced words were reviewed. This vocabulary phase-in exposed children to target words in digest-ible portions and with high frequency. How new words are learned has been heavily investigated with at least two converging generalizations: words are largely learned incidentally through mul-tiple exposures (Stahl, 2003) and words are learned by associating them with words already known (Bloom, 2002; Carey, 1978; Vygotsky, 1986). Working from these gen-eralizations, one can infer that the curricu-lum design did afford sufficient exposure to new words, directly and indirectly, in dif-ferent settings, for some children, and thus its design elements warrant further study. That instruction occurred in multiple set-tings through multi-layered activities (e.g., shared reading, adult-led games, play), for example, may have a bearing on children’s individual vocabulary growth trajectories. More small-group instruction also may be necessary for some children (e.g., at risk) to ensure differentiated instruction that is sensitive to, and builds from, existing vo-cabularies (Kame’enui & Carnine, 1998). Program developers’ attention not only to what words will be learned, but also how they are organized, may be critically im-portant. Exposing children to fairly hefty topical sets of vocabulary words abundant with root words may boost the speed of word learning, especially for those at risk. Moreover, creating “conceptual networks” of

related words may contribute to children’s lexical restructuring, which draws their attention to sound sequences in words, and thus builds their phonological awareness (Goswami, 2001; Metsala, 1999). Although research provides little de-finitive information as to the best mix of vocabulary for instruction, it is increas-ingly clear that in addition to root words, children need ample specialized vocabulary for reading comprehension in the long term (Chall & Jacobs, 2003; Hirsch, 2003; Neu-man, 2001; Snow, 2002). The difficulty with specialized vocabulary is that in order to be meaningful, it must be linked to back-ground building-experiences that provide a reference base for language comprehension (Wren, Litke, Jinkins, Paynter, Watts, & Alanis, 2000), and this complicates instruc-tional design. Reviewing the research on vocabulary instruction in schools, Bau-mann, Kame’enui, and Ash (2003) recom-mended two related sets of decision-making guidelines: a global set of principles (e.g., Establish vocabulary learning goals) and a specific set of content-related instructional objectives. But few (if any) early literacy programs have attempted to offer a compre-hensive program of vocabulary instruction that is research-based. Selecting, organizing, and suggesting activities for vocabulary instruction in early literacy programs, therefore, may require more sustained design work and attention to adequately support vocabulary develop-ment for later reading achievement. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002), for example, recommend selecting what they call Tier 2 words—those that are “of high frequency for mature language users and are found across a variety of domains” (p. 8). Biemiller (2004) argues for multiple encounters in book readings with many explanations of new word meanings (at least three times) and ample review. Based on Vygotskian principles, Leong (2003) describes a word building procedure that couples learning morphological features with self-regulation practice that helps children to attend to, and isolate parts of, a word and remember


62

word parts. The vocabulary phase-in strat-egy as a latter year instructional response to CBM data used in the classroom sample for this study also warrants further test-ing. Research- and field-based elements such as these need to be acknowledged, specified, and more deliberately embedded in programs so as to maximize their effec-tiveness as instructional resources in the early learning environment.

ReferencesAnderson, R., & Nagy, W. E. (1991). Word

meanings. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Rosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Hand-book of reading research (Vol. II). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Baumann, J. F., Kame’enui, E. J., & Ash, G. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 752-785). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Beals, D. E., & Tabors, P. O. (1995). Aro-bretum, bureaucratic and carbohydrates: Preschoolers’ exposure to rare vocabulary at home. First Language, 15, 57-75.

Beck. I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2003). Taking delight in words: Using oral language to build young children’s vocabu-laries. American Educator, 27(1), 36-46.

Biemiller, A. (2003). Oral comprehension sets the ceiling on reading comprehension. American Educator, 27(1), 23-24.

Biemiller, A. (2004, February). Words and primary grade learners. Paper presented at the Ohio Faculty Learning Seminar, University of Akron, Akron, OH.

Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimat-ing root word vocabulary growth in norma-tive and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acqui-sition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498-520.

Bloom, P. (2002). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1984). Language, mind, and reading. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F

Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 193-200). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

Bus, A., van IJzendoorn, M., & Pellegrini, A. (1995). Joint book reading makes for suc-cess in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-21.

Carey, S. (1978). The child as word learner. In M. Halle, G. Miller, & J. Bresnan (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological real-ity (pp. 264-293). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall Readabil-ity Formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). Poor children’s fourth grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14-18.

Dale, E., & Chall, J. (1948). A formula for pre-dicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 11-20, 37-54.

Dickinson, D., & Tabors, P. (2001). Beginning literary with language. Baltimore: Paul E. Brookes.

Dolch, E. W. (1948). Problems in reading. Champaign, IL: The Garrard Press.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174-187.

Fowler, A. E. (1991). How early phonological development might set the stage for pho-neme awareness. In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman (pp. 97-117). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Curricu-lum-based measurement: Describing com-petence, enhancing outcomes, evaluating treatment effects, and identifying treat-ment nonresponders. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 64-84.

Goswami, U. (2001). Early phonological de-velopment and the acquisition of literacy. In S. B. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 111-125). New York: Guilford Press.

Hart, B. (2004). What toddlers talk about. First Language, 24, 91-106.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul


63

H. Brookes. Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1999). The social world

of children learning to talk. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (2003). The early catas-trophe. American Educator, 27(4), 6-9.

Hirsch, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge of words and the world. American Educator, 27(1), 10-14.

Johnson, J., Christie, J., & Wardle, F. (2005). Play, development, and early education. Boston: Pearson Education.

Kame’enui, E. J., & Carmine, D. W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accom-modate diverse learners. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Leong, D. (2003). Tools of the mind research project manual (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Center for Improving Early Learning, Met-ropolitan State College of Denver.

Metsala, J. (1999). Young children’s phonologi-cal awareness and non-word repetition as a function of vocabulary development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 3-19.

Neuman, S. B. (2001). The role of knowledge in early literacy. Reading Research Quar-terly, 36, 468-475.

Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achieve-ment and antecedents of labeling. Journal of Child Language, 5, 1-15.

Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergarteners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 54-64.

Roskos, K., Vukelich, C., & Neuman, S. B. (2005, November). Are early literacy pro-grams research-based? A critical review of the evidence. Paper presented at the Lead-ership Conference of the National Associa-tion for the Education of Young Children, San Antonio, TX.

Snow, C. (2002, May). The central place of language development in early literacy preparation. Paper presented at the an-

nual meeting of the International Reading Association, San Francisco.

Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Snow, C. E., Dickinson, D., & Tabors, P. (n.d.). The home-school study of language and literacy development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School. Retrieved August 5, 2005, from www.gse.harvard.edu/~pild/homeschoolstudy.htm

Spache, G. (1974). Good reading for poor readers. Champaign, IL: The Garrard Press.

Stahl, S. (2003). How words are learned incrementally over multiple exposures. American Educator, 27(1), 18-19, 44.

Stone, C. (1956). Measuring difficulty of primary reading materials: A constructive criticism of Spache’s measure. Elementary School Journal, 62, 36-41.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and lan-guage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R. et al. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 33, 468-479.

Walsh, K. (2003). Lost opportunity. Ameri-can Educator, 27(1), 24-29.

Whitehurst, G., & Lonigan, C. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 68, 848-872.

Wren, S., Litke, B., Jinkins, D., Paynter, S., Watts, J., & Alanis, I. (2000). The cognitive foundations of learning to read: A frame-work. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Wright Group/McGraw-Hill. (2002). Doors to discovery. Bothell, WA: Author.


64

Appendix 1 Description of Semantic Neighborhoods Topics and Sub-Categories

Topic Sub-Category ExampleTHE CHILD’S PERSON Body head

Senses see

Body Actions walk

Clothes shoe

HOME ENVIRONMENT House and Home garage

Furniture stove

People and Family girl

FOOD AND EATING Meals and Eating dinner

Cooking and Services pan

Foods apple

HEALTH AND CLEANLINESS soap

RECREATION AND SOCIAL LIFE Recreation game

Speech smile

Social Life friend

Non-City Environment ocean

Business Affairs grocery

Trains and Transportation bus

SCHOOL School, general desk

Pictures and Drawing crayon

NATURE Animals rabbit

Birds and Insects bug

Plants leaf

Weather and Sky shadow

Time night

WAR AND FIGHTING soldier

GENERAL THINGS, QUALITIES AND RELATIONSHIPS Containers and Parts bottle

Materials and Qualities hammer

Numbers two

Number and Amount much

Size, Shape, and Space big

MISCELLANEOUS PARTS OF SPEECH Miscellaneous Nouns danger

Miscellaneous Adjectives different

Pronouns her

Conjunctions and

Prepositions above

Interjections oh

Adverbs almost

VERBS Auxiliaries be

Mental Operations care

Miscellaneous Verbs break

who's learning what words and how fast? preschoolers' vocabulary growth in an early...

Documents