Vocabulary Practices in Prekindergarten and …kirstiekay76.wikispaces.com/file/view/vocabulary practices in... · few read-aloud interventions have ... Vocabulary Practices in Prekindergarten

A B S T R A C T

Reading Research Quarterly • 45(3) • pp. 318–340 • dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.3.3 • © 2010 International Reading Association 318

Vocabulary Practices in Prekindergarten and Kindergarten ClassroomsRebecca SilvermanUniversity of Maryland, College Park, USA

Jennifer DiBara CrandellHarvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Early vocabulary consistently predicts children’s later reading achievement (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Snow, Porche, Tabors, & Harris,

2007). Thus, finding ways to promote the vocabulary development of young children appears to be impor-tant (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000). Research has shown that young children learn words from interactions with adults (Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, & Lyons, 1991), direct instruction of vocabulary words can be an effective method to support children’s word learn-ing (NICHD, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), and combining vocabulary instruction practices is more effective than using one practice alone (Graves, 2006; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986).

Thus, most research on vocabulary instruction has investigated teacher-directed multidimensional ap-proaches that incorporate several different practices such as acting out and illustrating words, defining words, and using words in new contexts (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007; Silverman, 2007a). Because picture books offer rich contexts for vocabulary instruction,

much of this research has been conducted during read-aloud time. Yet, even the best read-aloud interventions have yielded only 20%–40% improvement in learning target words (i.e., words taught in the intervention) and few read-aloud interventions have shown effects on general vocabulary knowledge as measured on a norm-referenced assessment (e.g., Biemiller & Boote, 2006).

To make vocabulary instruction more effective, it may be necessary to fine-tune comprehensive ap-proaches to word learning, such as those that have been tested in the past, to include more or less emphasis on certain practices depending on the individual effective-ness of those practices. It may be important to focus more on vocabulary instruction during non–read-aloud time in addition to instruction during read-aloud time. Furthermore, it may be beneficial to direct different practices toward children with more or less vocabu-lary knowledge. Finally, it may be instructive to inves-tigate the effect of vocabulary instruction using target word assessments and norm-referenced vocabulary assessments.

This article presents findings from a correlational study of the relationship between teachers’ vocabulary instruction practices and prekindergarten and kindergarten children’s vocabulary. We observed 16 teachers during three 90-minute language arts blocks, and we assessed the performance of their 244 children on target word knowledge and general vocabulary knowledge at the beginning and end of the year. Classrooms were observed during read-aloud time and non–read-aloud time. Results suggest that there are particular practices that are generally associated with higher vocabulary performance. In addition, there are some practices that appear associated with greater growth in vocabulary for children with higher initial vocabulary knowledge than for children with lower initial vocabulary knowledge. This study also shows that the effectiveness of some practices may be related to whether teachers use the practices during read-aloud time or during the non–read-aloud time of their language arts block and whether children are assessed on general vocabulary knowledge or target word knowledge.

Vocabulary Practices in Prekindergarten and Kindergarten Classrooms 319

The observational study discussed in this article pro-vides foundation for future work in these directions by investigating the relationships between different prac-tices of vocabulary instruction and children’s vocabu-lary development in prekindergarten and kindergarten classrooms during read-aloud and non–read-aloud time, analyzing differences in these relationships depending on children’s initial level of vocabulary knowledge, and exploring these relationships using norm-referenced and target word assessments.

BackgroundVocabulary DevelopmentVocabulary acquisition is a socially mediated process (Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky, 1934/1986). The relationship between adult–child language interactions and chil-dren’s vocabulary level is well established (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995; Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, & Lyons, 1991). As Bloom (2000) discussed, children learn words when adults label objects, actions, and character-istics. As children encounter words in more and more situations, they learn to generalize words across con-texts. The more words children learn through this la-beling process, the more likely they are to encounter words that are related or sound similar. To clarify word meaning, children compare and contrast how words sound and what they mean (Metsala & Walley, 1998).

In addition to labeling, as children become more verbal, adults often define words and use words across contexts so children can construct an understand-ing of things that are not necessarily tangible or in the here and now (Kurland & Snow, 1997; Snow, 1991). Eventually, children begin to see words in print. Ideally, children understand all of the words in the texts they first attempt. In time, as children become better read-ers, they begin to acquire vocabulary from wide read-ing (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2000; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985). However, children must know the meaning of most of the words that they read to learn new words from text (Carver, 1994).

Vocabulary Instruction PracticesSome children do not have the opportunity to learn the wide variety of words that they need to understand lessons in school (Weizman & Snow, 2001). Although it is impossible to teach children all of the words they should know, it is reasonable to teach some of them in early childhood classrooms (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Biemiller & Slonim, 2001). Most observation and in-tervention studies of vocabulary instruction investigate multidimensional approaches to vocabulary instruction. A closer look at the individual practices in vocabulary

instruction is needed to understand which practices work best, when (e.g., read-aloud time, non–read-aloud time), and for whom. The following is a review of rel-evant observation studies and intervention studies of vocabulary instruction in prekindergarten and kinder-garten classrooms. Individual practices identified in each study are enumerated.

In a prekindergarten observation study of read-alouds, Dickinson and Smith (1994) found that differ-ences in the ways teachers read books to children were related to differences in children’s receptive vocabulary. In particular, they described a positive relationship between teachers’ use of analytical talk and children’s vocabulary. These authors described “analytical talk” in the following way: “Low-frequency words were used and often repeated several times, word meanings were clarified through definitions, picture clues, sentence context, and story meaning, and deep processing of word meanings was encouraged by the interactive na-ture of the discussions” (p. 118).

In a more recent observational study of prekinder-garten classrooms, Han, Roskos, Christie, Mandzuk, and Vukelich (2005) compared the language-learning environment in classrooms of teachers using two dif-ferent curricula, which they implemented during circle time. In this study, circle time included read-alouds as well as other large-group activities. Han and colleagues noted five strategies teachers used to teach vocabu-lary words: (1) saying the words to children, (2) ask-ing children to pronounce the words, (3) talking about graphophonemic or semantic properties of the words, (4) defining the words, and (5) explaining the words by adding details and children’s experiences. They found that teachers using the two programs differed in the frequency with which they used these strategies, but they did not connect the individual strategies or the overall programs with children’s vocabulary growth in this study.

Many of the practices described in the observational studies were intentionally included in an intervention study conducted by Wasik, Bond, and Hindman (2006). Based on the work of Whitehurst et al. (1994) and Wasik and Bond (2001), the intervention that Wasik and colleagues implemented trained teachers to (a) pro-vide feedback, (b) ask descriptive questions, (c) use ac-tive listening strategies, (d) demonstrate word meanings (e.g., visually, kinesthetically), (e) ask predictive, reac-tive, and recall questions outside of book reading, and (f) make connections between storybook context and classroom experiences. In this study, children in the intervention classrooms outperformed children in the control classrooms in growth in receptive and expres-sive vocabulary over the course of the school year.

Though Wasik et al.’s (2006) study was conducted in prekindergarten classrooms, it has many similarities

Reading Research Quarterly • 45(3)320

to the intervention Beck and McKeown (2007) evalu-ated in kindergarten and first-grade classrooms. The intervention, which they termed “rich instruction,” was implemented during read-aloud time. Teachers con-textualized, defined, and provided examples of target words from the read-aloud books, and had children re-peat the words, make judgments about examples of the words, and generate their own examples of the words. They found that children who received rich instruc-tion learned significantly more of the words than those without such instruction, and children who received “more rich instruction” (i.e., a greater amount of rich instruction) made doubled gains compared with those who received rich instruction.

Building on the work of Beck and McKeown (2007), Silverman (2007a) conducted a study comparing three methods of vocabulary instruction in kindergarten classrooms. The first was contextual instruction, in which teachers defined words and connected words to children’s background knowledge. The second method was analytical instruction, in which teachers imple-mented contextual instruction plus semantic analysis of words. Semantic analysis of words included comparing and contrasting words and thinking of antonyms and synonyms of words. The third method was anchored instruction, in which teachers implemented contextual and analytical instruction plus attention to the spoken and written forms of words. Attention to the spoken and written forms of words included teacher presen-tation of vocabulary words on word cards and teacher encouragement for saying words, sounding out words, and noticing letters in words. Teachers spent the same amount of time on total instruction in each method. Silverman (2007a) found that children whose teachers used analytical and anchored instruction learned more target words than children whose teachers used contex-tual instruction alone.

In a recent study, Coyne, McCoach, Loftus, Zipoli, and Kapp (2009), extending their earlier work and the work of others (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne, McCoach, & Kapp, 2007; Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005; Penno, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002), compared three methods of vocabulary instruction. In the first, children were exposed to words incidentally during book reading. In the second, children were directly taught words through embedded instruction. In this method, graduate student teachers introduced words and prompted children to say words before book read-ing and told children to raise their hands when they heard words during book reading. As children read the books, teachers reread sentences from the book con-taining target words, provided simple definitions of words, and showed supportive pictures for the target words. After book reading, teachers prompted children to say the words again. In the third, children received

embedded and extended instruction in which they were introduced to words in new contexts, shown pic-tures of target words in various contexts, and required to respond to discrimination and generalization ques-tions about target words (e.g., “Why is that picture an example of a duvet? [Coyne et al., 2009, p. 8]). Coyne and colleagues found that embedded and extended in-struction were more effective than incidental exposure. However, children in embedded instruction only par-tially learned words, whereas children in extended in-struction learned words fully.

Vocabulary Instruction During the School DayIt should be noted that all of the research discussed thus far was centered on read-aloud time. This makes sense, because read-alouds offer rich contexts for teaching new words to children, and often the words introduced through read-alouds of picture books are words that children may not hear in their everyday environments (Bus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; De Temple & Snow, 2003; Ninio, 1983). Many read-aloud inter-ventions, such as the one by Coyne and his colleagues, include extension activities for teachers to implement outside of read-aloud time. However, only a few studies have investigated the independent contribution of these extension activities (e.g., Coyne et al., 2009).

Considering that one of the tenets of vocabulary ac-quisition is that words are learned after repeated expo-sure (Graves, 2006), it makes sense that teachers should review and reinforce the meaning of words throughout the school day. Given that read-alouds are only con-ducted, in ideal situations, for 15 to 30 minutes per day and many school districts require at least 90 minutes of language arts per day in early childhood classrooms, it is important to investigate the contribution of teachers’ use of vocabulary instruction practices during the other 60–75 minutes of the language arts period and during other periods of the day.

Differential Effects of Instruction on Young ChildrenIn addition to when vocabulary instruction takes place, researchers must also consider for whom instruction is effective. Some research suggests that the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction may depend on children’s initial level of vocabulary knowledge. For example, in an experimental study with prekindergartners, Reese and Cox (1999) found that children with higher initial vocabulary skills made greater gains when instruction included extended talk before and after read-alouds. However, children with lower initial vocabulary skills made greater gains when instruction included descrip-tion of pictures throughout read-alouds.


In another example, Coyne, Simmons, and Kame’enui (2004) found that children with lower pre-test vocabulary scores gained more than children with higher pretest vocabulary scores, serving to narrow the gap between those with high and low vocabulary knowl-edge. In addition, in the observation work of Connor, Morrison, and Slominski (2006), they found that both code-focused and meaning-focused activities predicted final vocabulary scores for children with higher initial vocabulary scores, but only meaning-focused activi-ties (e.g., reading to children, sharing, discussion, dra-matic play) positively predicted final vocabulary scores for children with lower initial vocabulary levels. These studies suggest that the effect of instruction may differ depending on children’s level of vocabulary knowledge.

Vocabulary MeasurementWhile some studies explore the relationship between vocabulary instruction and children’s general vo-cabulary knowledge as measured by norm-referenced measures (e.g., Wasik et al., 2006), many other stud-ies investigate the effect of instruction on research-based measures of target word learning (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007). Few studies use both types of mea-sures (see Silverman & Hines, 2009, for an exception). It may be that some instructional practices are related to learning specific words while other instructional prac-tices develop children’s general vocabulary knowledge and word awareness. Thus, studies should comprise both research-based and norm-referenced vocabulary measures.

The Present StudyThe research questions guiding this study are as follows:

1. What are the relationships among different vo-cabulary instruction practices and children’s vo-cabulary knowledge during read-aloud time and non–read-aloud time?

2. Do these relationships depend on children’s ini-tial level of vocabulary?

3. Do these relationships depend on whether vo-cabulary is measured by a norm-referenced test of children’s general vocabulary knowledge or a curriculum-based test of children’s knowledge of particular target words?

To answer these research questions, we conducted an observational study over the course of a school year in 16 early childhood classrooms. We coded observa-tions of the 90-minute language arts block for instances in which the teachers used practices of vocabulary in-struction. We also assessed the vocabulary knowledge of the children in these classrooms at the beginning

and the end of the school year using a norm-referenced measure of vocabulary and a measure of vocabulary taught in the curriculum. We analyzed the relationship between the frequency with which teachers used dif-ferent vocabulary instruction practices and children’s vocabulary growth during the read-aloud and non–read-aloud times of the language arts period separately, and we explored whether there were differential effects of teachers’ practice use depending on children’s initial level of vocabulary knowledge. The goal of the study was to add to the research base on vocabulary instruc-tion practices.

MethodParticipantsThe sample consists of 244 four-, five-, and six-year-old children who attended one of 16 participating prekindergarten or kindergarten classrooms in an ur-ban school district in the northeastern United States. Children were recruited to take part in the study at the beginning of the school year through letters sent home to their parents. All children enrolled in the par-ticipating classrooms were invited to participate, and parents of approximately 80% of the children allowed their child to participate in the study. Fifty-five percent of children were male. The racial composition of the sample of children was 38% African American, 32% Caucasian, 17% Asian, and 14% Hispanic (numbers do not add to 100 because of rounding). Twenty-six per-cent of children spoke a language other than English at home. Forty-seven percent of children participated in the federal school lunch program, the measure of socioeconomic status (SES) used in this study. Sixty-four percent of the children were in kindergarten while 36% were in prekindergarten. Fifty-five percent of the children were enrolled in one of eight multigrade classrooms (i.e., classrooms with prekindergarten and kindergarten children), and 45% of the children were enrolled in one of the eight single-grade classrooms (i.e., classrooms with either prekindergarten or kindergarten children only).

The school district in which the study was set was focused on promoting vocabulary in all early childhood classrooms. In fact, it had received a grant to purchase books and materials and provide professional develop-ment for prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers to support this goal. The district invited us to provide professional development on vocabulary to the teach-ers, to participate in choosing books and materials for the classrooms, and to research the effects of instruc-tion on children’s vocabulary. The participating school district required all prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers to hold a 90-minute language arts block each


day that included such activities as morning meeting, read-alouds, writing, and centers time.

Teachers were invited to participate in the study. They were told that the goal of the study was to investi-gate the effect of language and literacy practices in early childhood classrooms. They were also told that they would be given books and asked to read the books in a certain order and that they would be observed teaching during their language arts period by research assistants (RAs) on three occasions over the course of the school year. Teachers were paid a small honorarium for their participation. The lead teachers in 16 classrooms at 6 of the 14 public elementary schools in the district vol-unteered to participate. Of these teachers, four taught prekindergarten children only, four taught kindergarten children only, and eight taught multigrade classrooms with both prekindergarten and kindergarten children. Fifteen teachers were female and one teacher was male. One teacher was African American; one teacher was multiracial; and the other 14 teachers were Caucasian. The teachers had a mean of 17.25 years (standard de-viation = 12.73) of teaching experience. The range was 2–41 years. All but one teacher had a masters’ degree.

ProceduresAs part of teachers’ professional development at the be-ginning of the school year, we presented for an hour on research-based practices for teaching vocabulary dur-ing read-alouds for prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers in the district. This presentation was open to all prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers in the dis-trict, but teachers who volunteered to participate in the research study were required to attend. The presenta-tion reviewed the findings from two studies (Silverman, 2007a, 2007b), which had been implemented in kinder-garten classrooms in this same school district. The first study, discussed earlier, showed that adding semantic analysis of words and word study to vocabulary instruc-tion that included defining and contextualizing words had positive effects on children’s vocabulary learning. The second study showed that instruction including the earlier characteristics and acting out and illustrat-ing words narrowed the gap between English-language learning and English-only children.

In addition to the presentation reviewing these studies, we worked with district administrators to se-lect 30 books for each of the teachers who volunteered to participate in the study to use during read-alouds throughout the school year. The books were chosen on the basis of teacher suggestion, developmental appro-priateness, and opportunity for building language and literacy. We also provided teachers with a list of three specific target words per book. Teachers were asked to read books in a specified order and to focus on the tar-get words listed for each book. See Appendix A for the

list of books in order and target words. The intention behind this request was to be able to identify whether, given the same books and words, differences in teach-ers’ use of particular instructional practices made a dif-ference in children’s word learning.

We chose the target words on the basis of the guid-ance of Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002). These au-thors suggest that words “should be selected from the portion of the word stock that comprises sophisticated words of high utility for mature language users and that are characteristic of written language” (Beck & McKeown, 2007, p. 253). They call these words “Tier 2” words as opposed to “Tier 1” words, which are basic words used in everyday language, and “Tier 3” words, which are low-frequency words specific to particular content areas. In accordance with the recommendations of Beck and her colleagues, words were selected on the basis of whether they were (a) Tier 2 words, (b) defin-able or explainable using words children already know, (c) useful for children to know in other contexts, (d) in-teresting to children, and (e) important to comprehend-ing the text in which they appear (Beck et al., 2002).

Other than the professional development teach-ers received at the beginning of the year and our re-quest to read specific books and focus on specific target words, teachers were not given any other instruction about what or how to teach when we observed. In other words, they were not part of an intervention study in-volving a highly specified intervention. In fact, teachers were asked to teach the language arts as they normally would. They were assured that we were not evaluating individual teachers and would not reveal any informa-tion about individual teachers’ practice to the school district.

Classroom ObservationsProcedures for Collecting DataThe teachers in the 16 participating classrooms were observed for an entire language arts block three times over the course of the school year. Observations were scheduled with teachers in advance. Teachers in this school district had observers in and out of their class-rooms on a regular basis, so it was unlikely that they were “performing” for the observers. The first observa-tion took place in the fall, the second observation took place in the winter, and the third observation took place in the spring. Other researchers in observational studies have analyzed data from three time points and found this number to be adequate for capturing typical class-room instruction (e.g., Connor, Morrison, & Petrella, 2004; Wasik & Bond, 2001). In fact, in a recent study of kindergarten classrooms, Al Otaiba et al. (2008) found that teacher instruction was fairly stable across the three observations they conducted in fall, winter, and spring.


Prior to conducting observations, RAs participated in a training scheduled over the course of two weeks. First, RAs were briefed on research-based practices of vocabulary instruction. I reviewed Beck and McKeown (2007), Biemiller and Boote (2006), and Silverman (2007a, 2007b) so that RAs would be familiar with the practices used in these intervention studies. RAs viewed videotapes of vocabulary instruction from my studies and discussed the vocabulary practices used by teach-ers in these videotapes. RAs also read the work of Taylor and Pearson on The CIERA School Change Classroom Observation Scheme (Taylor & Pearson, 2000; Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2005). RAs studied the models in the observation scheme, watched the vid-eotapes that accompanied the observation scheme, and practiced taking field notes using the level of detail cap-tured in the observation scheme.

Next, RAs were provided with specific instructions for data collection in this project. RAs were told to take detailed field notes describing teacher instructional practice and specific teacher language and student language as needed to understand teacher language. Observers were asked to capture the content of teachers’ instruction and note teachers’ language verbatim when they focused on vocabulary during the instructional time. RAs were told to record the start and end time of the observation as well as the time at five-minute inter-vals. They were asked to note the activity taking place (e.g., read-aloud, morning meeting), the participants, the materials being used, what the teacher was doing, and what the children were doing every five minutes or each time there was a change in activity. RAs were told to focus on teacher instruction and follow the teacher when multiple activities were taking place in the class-room. During read-aloud time, all children are typically engaged in the same activity as the teacher. However, during non–read-aloud activities, this may not be the case. During centers time, for example, the teacher may be working with a small group of children while the rest of the children are engaged in other activities. In this instance, the observer would stay with the teacher and record only what was said or done in the teacher-led activity.

To provide RAs with practice taking field notes, we audiotaped three observations. RAs compared their field notes with transcripts of the audiotapes to iden-tify important information they may have missed. As a team, we talked about how to provide adequate infor-mation on the practices the teachers employed to teach vocabulary. We did not audiotape all of the observa-tions in the study, because teachers said that they did not feel comfortable being audiotaped. They said they felt like they censored themselves when we audiotaped, because they knew every word they said would be re-corded. We felt that because we were not conducting

a discourse analysis, but rather analyzing instructional practices, we could capture the level of detail that we needed in field notes rather than in transcribed lan-guage samples. Also, we reasoned that our data would be more credible if teachers were comfortable with the data collection procedures. Therefore, we decided not to use audiotapes throughout the study.

As a final step in the training process, RAs observed in pairs on three occasions and compared their field notes to come to agreement on the level of detail that should be captured. Once we were confident that RAs were collecting data in a consistent way, RAs were sent out to observe individually. The first author monitored and provided feedback on the level of detail in the field notes as they were collected.

To evaluate the reliability of the observers, we had one RA who was not an observer code field notes from the observations in which RAs observed in pairs dur-ing the training phase of the study. This RA coded each set of field notes using the final set of codes identified in this study. Then, we compared the codes on each set of field notes using Cohen’s Kappa. The agreement across the three pairs of observations was 0.82 (95% confidence interval = 0.63 to 1.01).

Procedures for Coding DataTo code field notes, we developed a three-step approach. The first step was identifying all instances in which teachers explicitly taught the meaning of a word. The second step was coding these instances for the prac-tice or practices that teachers used to teach the word. The third step was grouping the identified practices substantively. Initially, we identified 17 practices that teachers used to teach words. Through an iterative pro-cess, we grouped theoretically and substantively similar practices and read through the field notes to establish whether these groupings fit the data. We also looked at correlations and conducted an exploratory factor analysis to determine which practices were highly re-lated statistically. Finally, we returned to the literature to ascertain how the practices we identified aligned with practices described in previous research. Based on this process, we settled on a list of the following five practices: “Act/Illustrate,” “Analyze,” “Contextualize,” “Define,” and “Word Study.” We recoded all of the field notes using these final codes. Through the process of identifying the focal codes, we combined discrete prac-tices such as acting out words and illustrating words into one practice.

RAs coded for Act/Illustrate when teachers showed pictures from a book or elsewhere related to a word they were teaching and when they acted out or had children act out words they were teaching. For example, one teacher asked children to act out what whisper and giggle


sound like and another drew a picture of a rectangle to show what edge means.

RAs applied the code Analyze when teachers pointed out relationships among words. This included comparing and contrasting words, discussing multiple meanings of words, and providing the antonym or syn-onym of words. For instance, one teacher compared the conductor on a train to the conductor in a concert hall. Another teacher asked children what another word for family could be, and the children responded with the target word relatives.

Contextualize was the code used when teachers ap-plied or prompted children to apply words in new con-texts other than the one in which the target word was introduced. For example, a teacher connected what a child had mentioned about his going on a plane to go somewhere to the vocabulary word traveling in the book they were reading. In another example, after teach-ing the word prepare in the context of Koala Lou (Fox, 1988), a teacher asked the children, “What did you do to prepare for Halloween? Did you buy a costume? Did you try it on to see if it fit?” A couple of weeks later, this teacher reminded the children that they learned about prepare when reading Koala Lou and now they were go-ing to read Sturges’s (1999) The Little Red Hen (Makes a Pizza), a book about a hen that prepares pizza.

RAs used the code Define when teachers provided a definition of a word or explained a word in the context in which it was first encountered. To illustrate, when reading Bigmama’s (Crews, 1998) one teacher defined reunion as “when your whole family gets together—like your grandparents and aunts and uncles and your cousins—you can call that a family reunion.” Another teacher, when reading Koala Lou, explained that “the Olympics are like a big, big contest with all of the best athletes, like the swimmers and runners.”

Finally, RAs used the code Word Study to denote times when teachers called attention to the sound or spelling of vocabulary words. This practice included having children repeat the word to get a clear phono-logical representation of the word as well as having chil-dren sound out or notice letters in words. For instance, after defining the word stuck when reading Lewis’s (2002) My Truck Is Stuck! one teacher asked the chil-dren to say the word stuck and then think of words that rhyme with stuck. In another example, after explaining the word darting in One Dark Night (Wheeler, 2006), a teacher asked the children to help her write that word on chart paper. She said, “Who can help me? Let’s all say that word darting. What sound does that word start with? What letter is that? Can you raise your fingers and draw the d in the air?”

Word study is usually considered a phonics in-struction practice. However, researchers have noticed that word-study activities such as saying words to get

a clear phonological representation of them, attending to letters and sounds in words, seeing words on word cards, and using words in writing can help children not only in learning about the form of the word, but also in developing their knowledge of the word (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008; Silverman 2007b). It has been suggested that word study helps anchor children’s knowledge of words in their memory (Juel & Deffes, 2004). Because word study in prekindergarten and kindergarten class-rooms is common (Morrow, 2007), and because teach-ers in this study seemed to use vocabulary words during word-study activities, we included attention to vocabu-lary through word study as a practice to explore.

Table 1 presents examples of each vocabulary prac-tice described earlier. Note that when appropriate, a sin-gle utterance could be coded as more than one practice. Once the list of codes was finalized, a group of six RAs were trained using field notes of classroom instruction to identify instances of these codes. To determine the reliability of the coders, two RAs coded half of the field notes and met to evaluate reliability and reconcile any differences. The average inter-rater reliability adjusted for chance (Cohen’s Kappa) between coders across all 24 sets of field notes was 0.97. The range was 0.79 to 1.00. When there were differences, the final codes for each observation were determined through discussion of the coding scheme. Then, RAs coded the other half of the field notes independently.

Next, we calculated the frequency of practice use during each observation and derived the average fre-quency across observations as our main instructional variables. We obtained the value for the frequency of use of each practice individually for read-aloud and non–read-aloud times separately. We defined read-aloud time as when the teachers gathered children on the floor and read a book aloud to them. We included pre-, during-, or postreading activities directly related to the read-aloud book that were conducted while chil-dren were gathered and looking at the book as part of read-aloud time. We defined non–read-aloud time as when teachers were focused on instructional activities that were not directly related to the read-aloud book. When activities were related to read-aloud time but not specifically about the book, they were classified as non–read-aloud activities.

For example, if a teacher defined words in the con-text of the book directly before or after he or she read the book, this was considered a pre- or postreading ac-tivity that was part of the read-aloud time. If teachers used vocabulary words from the read-aloud book in a word-study activity after the book-reading discussion was over, this was considered a non–read-aloud activity. Note that word study sometimes occurred during read-alouds when teachers stopped during-book reading to


point out letters in a word, and defining words some-times occurred outside of read-aloud time when teach-ers defined words that came up in some other context, such as when a child was doing oral storytelling with the teacher, and the teacher noticed that the story was an extension of a previous story the child had told and used the opportunity to define the word sequel. Two raters coded where read-alouds started and ended and where non–read-aloud time started and ended on half of the field notes. The two raters coded the exact same time point in the field notes 88% of the time. When RAs coded different time points, the time points were within five minutes of one another. RAs met to resolve differ-ences and discuss coding and then coded the other half of the field notes for read-aloud and non–read-aloud times independently. See Appendix B for excerpts from a coded set of field notes.

Because teachers spent differing amounts of time on read-aloud and non–read-aloud times, we needed to account for differences in the amount of time teachers spent on each instructional segment. It would not have been adequate to simply divide the number of times

teachers used each practice during read-aloud and non–read-aloud time by the number of minutes they spent on read-aloud or non–read-aloud times, respec-tively, because, for example, it would be hard to inter-pret whether there were differences between a teacher who used a particular practice 6 times in a 10-minute read-aloud versus a teacher who used the same practice 12 times in a 15-minute read-aloud. Thus, to ease in-terpretation, we derived the number of practices teach-ers used per 15-minute read-aloud and per 75-minute non–read-aloud segment. We chose 15 and 75 minutes respectively on the basis of the means and range of the sample within the typical 90-minute reading language arts block that we observed. In the sample, read-aloud time was, on average, 15.42 minutes long, with a stan-dard deviation of 7.43 minutes and a range of 0–30 min-utes. Non–read-aloud time was on average 72 minutes long, with a standard deviation of 13.12 minutes and a range of 45–95 minutes.

Our standardization process for each of the codes in each set of field notes consisted of the following steps: (1) We calculated the number of minutes teachers spent

Label and code Description Examples

Act/IllustrateAI

Teacher uses a visual support such as a picture or kinesthetic cues such as gestures to support learning the word.

T: Today’s the day when the groundhog comes out of his hole, and if he sees his shadow we have six more weeks of winter. See how my hand makes a shadow on the wall when the light hits it.

T: Show me peeking with your hands and your face. (Teacher models.) (Teacher demonstrates wilted by making her arms look limp.)

AnalyzeAN

Teacher prompts children to analyze how words are related by comparing and contrasting, attending to multiple meanings, and providing synonyms and antonyms.

T: Are sleeping and relaxing the same thing?T: How are peering and peeking different?T: Utensils. Some people call it silverware.T: Does a humongous building mean it’s a big building or a wobbly

building?T: You could change that word illustrator to artist and it would mean the

same thing.

ContextualizeCN

Teacher guides children to apply word knowledge by using the word productively in new contexts other than the one in which the word appears.

T: You know what I used to fear? When I am driving on the highway and the trucks were right beside me, I felt like they were too close to me.

T: Can you think of a sentence with still?T: If you watch the Olympics, what do you see athletes do? They compete

to win medals like a gold or a silver medal.

DefineDF

Teacher provides explicit definition or explanation of the word in the context in which it appears.

T: This word samovar. I am not sure what that word is, so we will look it up. Where do we look it up? In the dictionary. See? Even grown-ups don’t know words sometimes, so I am going to look it up in the dictionary. (Teacher looks in dictionary.) So it is like the teapot.

T: Bald. That means you have no hair.T: What’s the dipper? It’s like a long handle on a little cup, so you can

have a drink.

Word StudyWS

Teacher uses or prompts children to use a word that they have taught as a vocabulary word in instruction of spelling, phonics, phonemic awareness, or writing practice.

T: Let’s add our words to our vocabulary pocket chart. How about the word gather? What letter does gather go with? Yes, “g.” Let’s see you write “I gather...”

T: Can you say naughty? It starts with “nnnn.”T: Our word is creeping. What words rhyme with creep? (S: Leap, sleep)

Table 1. Vocabulary Practices

Note. T denotes when the teacher is talking, and S denotes when the student(s) is talking.


on each instructional segment (i.e., read-aloud or non–read-aloud times); (2) We calculated the number of times teachers used each instructional practice within each instructional segment; (3) We divided the number of times teachers used each strategy by the number of minutes they spent on each instructional segment; (4) We multiplied this number by 15 minutes for the av-erage read-aloud time and 75 minutes for the average non–read-aloud time.

For example, if a teacher used a certain practice 6 times during a read-aloud and spent 10 minutes total on read-aloud time, the standardized frequency of in-structional practice use per 15 minutes would be 9, and if a teacher used this same practice 12 times during a read-aloud and spent 20 minutes on read-aloud time, the standardized frequency of instructional practice use per 15 minutes would also be 9. In this way, the num-ber of practices used during read-aloud and non–read-aloud times was put on the same scale controlling for the amount of time teachers spent on each instructional segment.

AssessmentsThe children in the 16 participating classrooms were assessed by trained RAs on two vocabulary measures at the beginning and end of the year. Children were in-dividually asked to accompany the RA to a quiet area outside of the classroom to play some word games. Children were provided with breaks when needed and were given stickers after completing the assessments.

The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT) was administered to all children in both the fall and spring. The PPVT is an age-normed receptive vocabu-lary measure in which, for each item on the assessment, children are shown four pictures and asked to point to the picture that corresponds to the word spoken by the test administrator. The PPVT provides raw scores and standard scores (mean = 100; standard deviation = 15). Standard scores were used in analyses in this study. Form A was used at both pre- and posttest. The median internal consistency of the measure is 0.95. The median split-half reliability is 0.94. The median alternate-form and test–retest reliabilities are 0.94 and 0.92, respec-tively. In addition, the PPVT correlates (0.91) with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children measure of ver-bal ability, verbal IQ.

To assess children’s knowledge of the target words provided to teachers at the beginning of the study, we designed a target vocabulary assessment (TVA) mod-eled on the PPVT. We used four color clip art pictures for each item on the assessment. One of these pictures represented the target word. Three of the pictures were foils. For each item, the test administrator pronounced the target word and asked children to point to the picture that matched that word. The validity of the

measure derives from the fact that it is modeled on the PPVT, is highly correlated with the PPVT (r = 0.82), and incorporates a commonly used practice for assessing re-ceptive vocabulary. Reliability was measured through a test–retest pilot study in which 20 kindergartners who were not in the present study were administered the same assessment two times, two weeks apart, without focused instruction on the words in between testing oc-casions. Test–retest reliability was 0.90. In addition, the internal consistency of the measure (Cronbach’s Alpha) was 0.91.

Analytic ApproachIn this study, teacher practices were observed at a class-room level whereas children’s vocabulary was measured at a student level. The intraclass correlation revealed that 19.23% of the variance in posttest PPVT and 14.80% of the variance in posttest TVA could be attributed to classroom-level variance, suggesting that student-level observations were not independent of our grouping variable (i.e., teachers/classrooms). Our 16 classrooms with about 20 children per classroom fell short of the benchmark of 30 groups with 30 individuals per group suggested by Kreft’s (1996) simulation studies as neces-sary for multilevel modeling. To appropriately analyze the correlated data, we corrected the standard errors to account for the intraclass correlation using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with robust standard er-rors (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Because our intraclass correlations were near or above 15%, we also analyzed the data using hierarchical linear modeling. The results in both analyses were similar, but we report the results from the OLS with robust standard errors in this article.

To control for children’s initial level of vocabulary, covariates included in analyses of posttest PPVT and posttest TVA were their respective pretests. In addition, children’s demographics were included as covariates in analyses. All demographic variables were categori-cal. There were three categorical variables for race and ethnicity: African American, Hispanic, and Asian. For each variable, Caucasian = 0 and African American, Hispanic, and Asian, respectively, = 1. SES, student lan-guage, and grade level were all entered as dichotomous variables. For SES, subsidized lunch status = 1 and nonsubsidized lunch status = 0. For student language, non–English-only = 1 and English-only = 0. Finally, for grade level, prekindergarten = 1 and kindergarten = 0. These variables were determined to be the most impor-tant covariates to consider. Other variables explored in one-way analysis of variance included classroom con-figuration (i.e., mixed-grade classrooms versus single-grade classrooms), gender (i.e., male or female), and age (i.e., in months). These variables did not contribute significantly to explaining posttest vocabulary scores or


controlling for incoming vocabulary scores; therefore, these variables were not included in further analyses.

To account for variables predictive of the outcomes under investigation, baseline models for posttest PPVT and posttest TVA were developed by first testing an intercept-only model, then testing a model including pretest scores as a covariate, and then including demo-graphic variables one by one. Race and ethnicity were entered first, followed by SES, student language, and then grade level. For parsimony, variables that were not significant were not carried forward in subsequent models. The baseline model with all significant coef-ficients and the lowest Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) was used as the final baseline model. Once base-line models for each outcome were established, two analyses per outcome were conducted: (1) an analysis containing all practice variables observed during read-aloud time and (2) an analysis containing all prac-tice variables observed during non–read-aloud time. The practice variables under investigation were Act/Illustrate, Analyze, Contextualize, Define, and Word Study. In each analysis, practice variables were includ-ed, and then interactions between practice variables and incoming vocabulary knowledge were explored. Only significant main effects or main effects accompanied by a significant interaction with pretest were kept in final

models. The final model for each outcome during read-aloud and non–read-aloud times was chosen on the ba-sis of the best-fitting model identified by all significant coefficients and the smallest AIC. The 0.05 level of sig-nificance was used in this study.

ResultsDescriptive statistics and correlations can be found in Tables 2–4. In general, children scored higher from pre-test to posttest on the PPVT and on the TVA (Table 2).

Measure M SD

Pretest PPVT standard score 98.0 17.6

Posttest PPVT standard score 103.3 16.8

Pretest PPVT raw score 68.5 23.5

Posttest PPVT raw score 83.0 22.5

Pretest TVA 42.8 13.7

Posttest TVA 56.6 13.8

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of PPVT and TVA Scores (n = 244)

Read-aloud time Non–read-aloud time

Label M SD Skewness Kurtosis Min Max Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Min Max

Act/Illustrate 1.37 1.01 0.62 −0.21 0 3.83 1.92 3.27 2.20 3.12 0 10.93

Analyze 0.45 0.58 1.52 1.53 0 2.17 1.21 2.00 3.14 9.43 0 9.05

Contextualize 4.48 2.87 0.36 −1.38 0.75 9.67 5.94 6.80 1.39 0.52 .38 22.29

Define 3.78 1.76 0.12 −0.99 1.00 7.17 4.14 4.70 2.10 3.19 .29 17.82

Word Study 0.53 1.02 2.55 5.52 0 3.83 3.11 3.87 1.59 2.36 0 15.19

Table 3. Frequency of Vocabulary Practice Use Per 15-Minute Read-Aloud Time and 75-Minute Non–Read-Aloud Time

Note. The frequency of practice use has been standardized for analysis by dividing the number of practices teachers used per read-aloud or non–read-aloud session by the number of minutes of their read-aloud or non–read-aloud session and then multiplying the dividend by 15 minutes for a standard read-aloud time or 75 minutes for a standard non–read-aloud time.

Act/Illustrate Analyze Contextualize Define Word Study

Act/Illustrate 1.0 .56*** .31*** .44*** −.13*

Analyze .51*** 1.0 .35*** .60*** −.03

Contextualize .37*** .71*** 1.0 .82*** −.38***

Define .37*** .66*** .46*** 1.0 −.27***

Word Study .64*** .74*** .60*** .89*** 1.0

Table 4. Correlations of Observational Variables for Practices Used During Read-Aloud Time (Above the Diagonal) and Practices Used During Non–Read-Aloud Time (Below the Diagonal)

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.


The most used practice in both read-aloud and non–read-aloud times was Contextualize, followed by Define (Table 3). Meanwhile, Word Study during read-aloud time and Act/Illustrate, Analyze, Define, and Word Study during non–read-aloud time were skewed and leptokurtic. The restriction of the range of distribu-tion for these variables may constrain correlations with the outcomes under investigation. It also increases the likelihood of committing a Type II error (i.e., failing to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship when the null hypothesis is false). Considering the exploratory nature of this study, we continued our analyses despite this risk.

Initial correlations revealed that practices were mostly positively correlated with one another. This

suggests that when teachers used one practice they were likely to also use other practices (Table 4). However, Word Study used during read-aloud time was nega-tively correlated with the other practices. Results from the OLS regression with robust standard errors can be found in Tables 5–8. These tables show standardized regression coefficients for all models fit in the model-building process. Note that the baseline model for the outcome of posttest PPVT is the same for models testing read-aloud and non–read-aloud variables, and the base-line model for the outcome of posttest TVA is the same for models testing read-aloud and non–read-aloud vari-ables. Also note that for the baseline model for posttest PPVT, the race variables were significant, which was not the case in the baseline model for the posttest TVA.

Baseline models Read-aloud time observation variables

Coefficient Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10

Intercept 55.85*** 29.00*** 43.25*** 43.25*** 44.25*** 45.10*** 44.26*** 46.94*** 37.52*** 37.12***

Pretest 0.76*** 0.66*** 0.64*** 0.61*** 0.60*** 0.59*** 0.56*** 0.67*** 0.68***

Race—African American

−7.65*** −6.61** −6.60** −6.61** −6.73** −6.68** −6.82** −6.73**

Race—Hispanic −8.18*** −7.86*** −7.70*** −7.81*** −7.58*** −7.51** −7.70*** −7.76**

Race—Asian −5.43** −5.35** −4.84* −4.80* −4.74* −4.57* −4.75* −4.81*

SES 2.91* 2.96* 2.98* 2.79* 2.41~ 2.65* 2.67*

Language 2.74~ 2.77 3.06* 3.25* 3.24* 3.14*

Grade Level −0.92

Act/Illustrate 0.03 9.15* 6.11 6.97*

Analyze −1.19 −1.22

Contextualize −0.44* 0.92 −0.22

Define 1.05* −4.46 0.50

Word Study 1.41** 2.90 1.25** 1.25***

Act/Illustrate X pretest

−0.10** −0.07* −0.07*

Analyze X pretest

−0.00

Contextualize X pretest

−0.01

Define X pretest −0.06

Word Study Xpretest

−0.01

AIC 2071.1 1830.9 1814.3 1812.1 1811.3 1812.8 1814.4 1818.5 1812.5 1809

Table 5. Models for Posttest PPVT Scores (Standardized) Including Demographic Variables and Read-Aloud Observation Variables

Note. Values in the table are the standardized regression coefficients. Coefficients for the race variables are in comparison to Race—Caucasian = 0, and African American, Hispanic, and Asian = 1, respectively. SES, Language, and Grade Level are dichotomous variables with, respectively, 1 = receives free or reduced-cost meals (FARMS) and 0 = does not receive FARMS; 1 = non-English home language and 0 = English home language; and 0 = K and 1 = pre-K. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.


Grade level was not significant in either baseline model. Only coefficients in the final models are discussed here.

We explored normal probability plots of the studen-tized residuals of the final models to determine whether these models met the assumptions of OLS regression. We found the residuals of the final models for the post-test PPVT to be normally distributed and homoscedas-tic. We found two outliers in the residuals for the final models of the posttest TVA, which resulted in excessive skewness and kurtosis of the residuals. We removed the outliers and tested our final model without those data points. The results were the same, but the residuals were normally distributed and homoscedastic. Because we had no substantive reason to remove the outliers, we kept them in the final models reported in this article.

Practices Used During Read-Aloud TimeTable 5 Model 10 shows the relationship between in-structional practices and posttest PPVT during read-aloud time. In this model, there is a main effect of Word Study. There is also a main effect of Act/Illustrate and a significant interaction between Act/Illustrate and pre-test PPVT in the final model. No other practices were statistically significant.

The main effect of Word Study is positive. Every time teachers used word-study practices with vocabu-lary words during read-aloud time is associated with an additional 1.25 standard points on the posttest PPVT as indicated by the coefficient for this variable in Table 5. The effect of Act/Illustrate can only be interpreted by


Coefficient Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

Intercept 56.64*** 22.06*** 26.23*** 25.72*** 24.41*** 26.45*** 19.29*** 20.12* 21.49***

Pretest 0.81*** 0.76*** 0.74*** 0.70*** 0.67*** 0.72*** 0.69*** 0.71***


−3.90* −3.21 −2.93 −3.09

Race—Hispanic −1.77 −1.60 −1.23 −1.69

Race—Asian −2.00 −1.98 −1.19 −1.25

SES 1.92 1.90 2.08 2.77* 2.99* 3.60*

Language 3.44** 3.59** 3.41** 3.46** 2.64**

Grade Level −2.00

Act/Illustrate −0.16 −1.40

Analyze 0.41 2.18

Contextualize 0.10 0.84

Define 0.35 −0.82

Word Study 1.25* 3.17 1.03*


0.03

Analyze X pretest

−0.04


−0.02

Define X pretest 0.03

Word Study Xpretest

−0.05

AIC 1975.2 1723.2 1721 1720.4 1715.6 1714.0 1716.2 1724.3 1711.4

Table 6. Models for Posttest TVA Scores Including Demographic Variables and Read-Aloud Time Observation Variables

Note. Values in the table are the standardized regression coefficients. Coefficients for the race variables are in comparison to Race—Caucasian= 0, and African American, Hispanic, and Asian = 1, respectively. SES, Language, and Grade Level are dichotomous variables with, respectively, 1 = receives free or reduced-cost meals (FARMS) and 0 = does not receive FARMS; 1 = non-English home language and 0 = English home language; and 0 = K and 1 = pre-K. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.


considering the interaction between Act/Illustrate and pretest PPVT.

To interpret interactions among practices and pre-test scores in this study, we used prototypical examples from within the range of the data. We used maximum and minimum values for teachers’ uses of the practice, and we used pretest scores one standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the mean to calculate four regression equations. The first equation yielded the posttest score for a hypothetical child who had a pre-test score one standard deviation below the mean whose teacher used the practice a minimum number of times. The second equation provided the posttest score for a child with a pretest score one standard deviation above the mean whose teacher used the practice a minimum

number of times. In the third equation we solved for the posttest score of a hypothetical child with a pre-test score one standard deviation below the mean whose teacher used the practice a maximum number of times. In the fourth equation we solved for the posttest score of a hypothetical child with a pretest score one standard deviation above the mean whose teacher used the prac-tice a maximum number of times. We then plotted from pre- to posttest for these four prototypical examples.

Figure 1 shows the effect of Act/Illustrate for four prototypical children: (1) one with pretest PPVT one standard deviation above the mean (115) and a teach-er who uses Act/Illustrate the minimum number of times (0); (2) one with pretest PPVT one standard de-viation above the mean (115) and a teacher who uses



Intercept 55.85*** 29.00*** 43.25*** 43.25*** 44.25*** 45.10*** 43.16*** 49.53*** 48.96***

Pretest 0.76*** 0.66*** 0.64*** 0.61*** 0.60*** 0.60*** 0.54*** 0.55***


−7.65*** −6.61** −6.60** −6.61** −6.34** −6.50** −6.22**

Race—Hispanic −8.18*** −7.86*** −7.70*** −7.81*** −6.89** −7.28** −7.02**

Race—Asian −5.43** −5.35** −4.84* −4.80* −4.38 −4.54* −4.82*

SES 2.91* 2.96* 2.98* 2.95* 2.94* 2.86*

Language 2.74 2.77 3.04* 2.75* 2.87*

Grade Level −0.92

Act/Illustrate 0.30 1.10

Analyze −0.30 1.86

Contextualize 0.21 −1.23** −0.67*

Define 0.16 −1.78

Word Study −0.26 2.10


−0.01

Analyze X pretest

−0.02


0.01** 0.01**

Define X pretest 0.02

Word Study Xpretest

−0.02

AIC 2071.1 1830.9 1814.3 1812.1 1811.3 1812.8 1817.2 1820.2 1809

Table 7. Models for Posttest PPVT Scores (Standardized) Including Demographic Variables and Non–Read-Aloud Observation Variables

Note. Values in the table are the standardized regression coefficients. Coefficients for the race variables are in comparison to Race—Caucasian. SES, Language, and Grade Level are dichotomous variables with, respectively, 0 = receives free or reduced-cost meals (FARMS) and 1 = does not receive FARMS; 0 = non-English home language and 1 = English home language; and 0 = K and 1 = pre-K. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.


the practice a maximum number of times (3); (3) one with a pretest PPVT one standard deviation below the mean (85) and a teacher who uses Act/Illustrate the minimum number of times (0); and (4) one with pretest PPVT one standard deviation below the mean (85) and a teacher who uses the practice a maximum number of times (3). This figure shows that greater use of the practice Act/Illustrate by teachers was associated with higher scores on the posttest PPVT for children with low initial PPVT scores. On the other hand, for chil-dren with high initial PPVT scores, greater use of the practice Act/Illustrate by teachers was related to lower posttest scores.

Table 6 Model 9 shows that in the final model for the posttest TVA during read-aloud time, Word Study

is significant and positive such that every time teach-ers used this practice when teaching vocabulary during read-aloud time was associated with an additional 1.03 points on the posttest TVA. No other practices were sta-tistically significant.

Practices Used During Non–Read-Aloud TimeTable 7 Model 9 shows that in the final model for prac-tices used during non–read-aloud time on the posttest PPVT there is a main effect of Contextualize and a sig-nificant interaction between Contextualize and pre-test PPVT. We created Figure 2 to interpret the effect of Contextualize by calculating four equations using



Intercept 56.64*** 22.06*** 26.23*** 25.72*** 24.41*** 26.45*** 20.43*** 22.69*** 22.12***

Pretest 0.81*** 0.76*** 0.74*** 0.70*** 0.67*** 0.71*** 0.65*** 0.66***


−3.90* −3.21 −2.93 −3.09

Race—Hispanic −1.77 −1.60 −1.23 −1.69

Race—Asian −2.00 −1.98 −1.19 −1.25

SES 1.92 1.90 2.08~ 3.15* 3.22* 3.01*

Language 3.44** 3.59** 3.79** 3.76** 3.67**

Grade Level −2.00

Act/Illustrate −0.35* −0.50

Analyze −0.24 −0.87

Contextualize 0.03 −0.02

Define −0.55* −1.89* −1.04**

Word Study 1.44** 2.77* 1.10***


0.01

Analyze X pretest

0.03


0.00

Define X pretest 0.03* 0.02***

Word Study Xpretest

−0.03

AIC 1975.2 1723.2 1721 1720.4 1715.6 1714.0 1696.8 1702.7 1692.1

Table 8. Models for Posttest TVA Scores Including Demographic Variables and Non–Read-Aloud Time Observation Variables

Note. Values in the table are the standardized regression coefficients. Coefficients for the race variables are in comparison to Race—Caucasian = 0, and African American, Hispanic, and Asian = 1, respectively. SES, Language, and Grade level are dichotomous variables with, respectively, 1 = receives free or reduced-cost meals (FARMS) and 0 = does not receive FARMS; 1 = non-English home language and 0 = English home language; and 0 = K and 1 = pre-K. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.


prototypical examples. As in Figure 1, we used the val-ues for one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the mean for pretest PPVT. We also used the values for the minimum (1) and maximum (22) frequency for the use of Contextualize. Figure 2

shows that the effect of the practice Contextualize is greater for children with higher initial scores on the PPVT than for children with lower initial scores. There were no significant differences associated with the oth-er practices.

Figure 1. The Interaction Effect of Act/Illustrate and Pretest PPVT on Posttest PPVT, Controlling for Demographic Variables and Other Observational Variables in the Final Model, During Read-Aloud Time

Note. Straight lines represent children whose teachers used a maximum of the practice Act/Illustrate whereas dotted/dashed lines represent the growth of children whose teachers used a minimum of the practice Act/Illustrate. The top two lines represent children who had high incoming vocabulary knowledge. The bottom two lines represent children who had low incoming vocabulary knowledge.

Pretest Posttest

125

120

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

75

Figure 2. The Interaction Effect of Contextualize and Pretest PPVT on Posttest PPVT, Controlling for Demographic Variables and Other Observational Variables in the Final Model, During Non–Read-Aloud Time

Note. Straight lines represent children whose teachers used a maximum of the practice Contextualize whereas dotted/dashed lines represent the growth of children whose teachers used a minimum of the practice Contextualize. The top two lines represent children who had high incoming vocabulary knowledge. The bottom two lines represent children who had low incoming vocabulary knowledge.

Pretest Posttest

125

120

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

75


In Table 8 Model 9, the final model of practices used during non–read-aloud time on the posttest TVA includes a main effect of Word Study, a main effect of Define, and an interaction between Define and pre-test TVA. The effect of Word Study is positive. Every time this practice is used during non–read-aloud time is associated with 1.10 additional points on the TVA. The effect of Define cannot be interpreted without considering the interaction effect between Define and pretest TVA. Prototypical examples were used to cre-ate Figure 3 to assist interpretation of this interaction effect. For this figure, we plotted from pre- to posttest for (a) children with pretest TVA scores one standard deviation below the mean (30) whose teachers used Define the minimum number of times in the data set (1); (b) children with pretest TVA scores one standard deviation below the mean (30) whose teachers used the maximum of this practice (17); (c) children whose pre-test TVA scores were one standard deviation above the mean (60) whose teachers used the minimum of Define; and (d) children whose pretest TVA scores were one standard deviation above the mean (60) whose teach-ers used the maximum of Define. Figure 3 shows that the effect of Define was greater for children with high pretest TVA compared with children with low pretest TVA. None of the other practices were statistically significant.

DiscussionIn this study, we explored relationships between teach-ers’ vocabulary instruction practices and children’s vocabulary learning during read-aloud and during non–read-aloud times and on curriculum-based and norm-referenced measures. In our analyses, we also ex-plored the role of children’s initial vocabulary level in these relationships. Although this study is exploratory in nature, the results that follow provide a foundation for subsequent work on vocabulary instruction in early childhood classrooms.

Instructional PracticesThrough observation, we identified five practices that teachers used to teach vocabulary. These practices have been identified in previous research on multidi-mensional vocabulary instruction. Analyses showed relationships between these individual practices and children’s vocabulary knowledge that warrant investi-gation in future research.

Acting Out and Illustrating WordsSome of the teachers in this study used acting out and illustrating words to teach words to children. This prac-tice has been included in previous intervention research such as the work of Wasik and colleagues (Wasik &

Figure 3. The Interaction Effect of Define and Pretest TVA on Posttest TVA, Controlling for Demographic Variables and Other Observational Variables in the Final Model, During Non–Read-Aloud Time

Note. Straight lines represent children whose teachers used a maximum of the practice Define whereas dotted/dashed lines represent the growth of children whose teachers used a minimum of the practice Define. The top two lines represent children who had high incoming vocabulary knowledge. The bottom two lines represent children who had low incoming vocabulary knowledge.

Pretest Posttest

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


Bond, 2001; Wasik et al., 2006) and Silverman (2007a). In this study, acting out and illustrating words during read-aloud time was positively related to vocabulary growth on a standardized measure for children with low initial vocabulary knowledge, but this practice was negatively related to growth in vocabulary for children with high initial vocabulary knowledge. This practice may be effective for children with low initial knowl-edge, because acting out and illustrating word mean-ings encourages children to actively engage in word learning using multiple modalities. Furthermore, the combination of verbal and nonverbal information con-veyed through acting out and illustrating words may be especially important to support the word learning of children with low vocabulary knowledge (Paivio, 1986; Wasik et al., 2006). However, acting out and illustrat-ing words often may be unnecessary for children who already have advanced vocabulary knowledge. These children likely benefit more from discussion of words, because they have a more substantial foundation of word knowledge on which to build.

Analyzing Words SemanticallyThe practice of analyzing words semantically identi-fied in this study was also identified in the observa-tion research by Dickinson and Smith (1994) and in the intervention work of Beck and McKeown (2007), Silverman (2007b), and Coyne et al. (2009). It is likely that encouraging children to reflect on language sup-ports them in processing word meaning more deeply (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). This practice was the least used practice in this study during read-aloud and non–read-aloud times, and it showed no effects. The re-stricted range of the distribution of this practice in the data collected here may have constrained our ability to detect correlations between this practice and children’s outcomes. It is interesting that even though use of this practice has been recommended in previous research, it was not widely used by the highly educated and well-supported teachers in this study.

Applying Words in New ContextsAnother instructional practice that has been hypoth-esized to be effective because it supports children in interacting with words on a deep level is applying words in new contexts (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). As children learn to relate words not only to the context in which they first heard them but also in other contexts, they may begin to understand the meaning of words in a way that does not rely “on shared social and physical context” (Snow, Cancino, De Temple, & Schley, 1991, p. 90). Such a multicontextualized understanding of words may be useful to apply word knowledge to un-derstanding texts in school. In the work of Beck and

McKeown (2007), Coyne et al. (2007), and Silverman (2007a), children were supported in using words pro-ductively in new contexts. In each of these intervention studies, teachers provided examples of the word outside of the story context that was used to introduce the word. In this study, teachers’ greater use of this practice dur-ing non–read-aloud time was related to higher posttest scores for all children, but greater use of this practice was related to greater gains in vocabulary for children with higher vocabulary knowledge than for children with lower vocabulary knowledge. It may be that chil-dren with higher vocabulary knowledge were able to internalize new contexts for using words during non–read-aloud time better because of their already estab-lished linguistic resources for learning words. Children with lower vocabulary knowledge may need more sup-port than their more linguistically advanced peers to make full use of this practice, because they have less of a foundation for applying words in new contexts. In fact, some authors suggest that using words in multiple contexts can sometimes distract children from learning words, because their minds wander from the learning task at hand (Beck et al., 2002).

Defining Words Explicitly in Rich ContextPerhaps the most universally recommended vocabulary instruction strategy is providing children with defini-tions of new words in the context of rich conversation or storybook reading experiences (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). Although children learn many words from hear-ing them indirectly in context, it is important for chil-dren to be taught the meaning of words explicitly. To know a word, children must have a clear understand-ing of its meaning and use. Most vocabulary interven-tions that have been found to be effective have included defining words as a strategy (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2007). In this study, defining words during non–read-aloud time seemed to have a greater effect for children with higher pretest target word knowledge than for children with lower pretest scores, though the relationship was posi-tive for both groups of children. Children with lower vocabulary knowledge may need more scaffolding to make use of definitions introduced out of the context of read-alouds.

Word StudyReinforcing vocabulary learning through attention to letters and sounds has also been found to be effective in supporting early vocabulary growth (Silverman, 2007b). It is hypothesized that children are more suc-cessful at learning and remembering words when they have clear phonological representations of words and exposure to the orthographic representation of words


(e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007; Gathercole, 2006; Juel & Deffes, 2004; Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008). Hearing the words, seeing the words in print, and attending to some or all of the letters in words may, for emergent and be-ginning readers, support children in distinguishing between words and remembering words they learn as well as, perhaps, recognizing those words in print. In her book Developing Literacy in Preschool, Morrow (2007) recommended word study for prekindergartners, and Bear and Helman (2004) recommended word study for vocabulary development in the early stages of literacy learning, especially for English-language learners. In a kindergarten study, Silverman (2007b) found that an-chored instruction in which teachers showed children word cards and focused on beginning letters in words in addition to focusing on context and semantic analysis was as effective as analytic instruction and more effec-tive than contextual instruction alone. In this study, us-ing word study in combination with vocabulary words was positively related to children’s vocabulary dur-ing read-aloud time on curriculum-based and norm- referenced measures and during non–read-aloud time on the curriculum-based assessment.

Read-Aloud and Non–Read-Aloud TimesThe observations in this study focused not only on read-aloud time, which has been a long-standing fo-cus of research on vocabulary instruction, but also during non–read-aloud time during the language arts. We found that teachers taught vocabulary during read-aloud time, and they often extended vocabulary instruc-tion by incorporating it into non–read-aloud activities. As expected, teachers’ use of vocabulary instruction practices during read-aloud time was positively related to children’s vocabulary learning. We also found that teachers’ use of vocabulary instruction practices outside of read-aloud time was positively related to children’s vocabulary learning. This finding resonates with re-search by Beck and McKeown (2007) and Coyne et al. (2009) that extended instruction in vocabulary is ben-eficial for children.

Interestingly, practices showed different patterns of relationship to vocabulary learning during these two time periods. For example, using Act/Illustrate during read-aloud time but not during non–read-aloud time had a positive relationship to vocabulary for children with lower vocabulary knowledge. Contextualizing and Defining had positive associations with vocabu-lary for all children, but especially for children with higher vocabulary, during non–read-aloud time, but not during read-aloud time. In addition, Word Study was related positively to vocabulary during both read-aloud and non–read-aloud times. Research that focuses solely on read-aloud time may be missing part of the puzzle of vocabulary instruction. We did not, in this

study, analyze whether and how practices implemented during read-aloud and non–read-aloud times may have looked different during these two separate parts of the language arts block. Further research needs to focus more on vocabulary instruction during non–read-aloud time and compare non–read-aloud vocabulary instruc-tion with read-aloud vocabulary instruction.

Differences in Relationships Depending on Initial Vocabulary LevelAs noted earlier, the relationships between Act /Illustrate, Contextualize, and Define and vocabulary outcomes were dependent on children’s initial level of vocabulary knowledge. This finding aligns with much previous research (Connor et al., 2006; Coyne et al., 2004; Reese & Cox, 1999) suggesting that children with different levels of vocabulary knowledge respond differently to vocabulary instruction. This study adds to the research base by demonstrating that relationships between particular vocabulary instruction practices and children’s vocabulary may depend on children’s initial vocabulary level. More research is needed to identify which practices and combinations of practices should be targeted to children at different levels of vocabulary knowledge.

Curriculum-Based Versus Norm-Referenced Measures of VocabularyRelationships between practices and vocabulary differed depending on the outcome variable, whether it was a curriculum-based measure of target words or a norm-referenced measure of vocabulary. Often researchers use curriculum-based measures to the exclusion of norm-referenced measures in intervention research (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Coyne et al., 2009; Silverman 2007a; see Silverman, 2007b, and Silverman & Hines, 2009, for exceptions). This study suggests that both measures may be important in vocabulary research, because vocabulary-instruction practices may relate differently when outcomes are measured by curriculum-based measures and norm-referenced measures. It may be that some practices are useful for learning instructed words while others are useful for building general word aware-ness (Graves, 2006). As noted by Pearson, Hiebert, and Kamil (2007) much more research on methods of vo-cabulary assessment is needed.

LimitationsA major limitation of this study was that it is correla-tional in nature. Therefore, it does not provide evidence that certain practices cause improvement in vocabulary or why certain practices may or may not be effective. Another limitation was the relatively small number of


teachers and observations. This is problematic for a cou-ple of reasons. First, it is possible that the instruction of the teachers does not reflect teacher practice in general and that the observations we captured were not repre-sentative of the instruction of the teachers in the study. Second, possibly because of the small number of teach-ers in the study, there was a restricted range of data. In fact, the distributions of some of the practices that we identified were skewed and leptokurtic. Therefore, in some cases we may have been unable to detect rela-tionships between practices and vocabulary knowledge where they existed. With a greater number of teachers, the distribution of practices may be more normal. This would allow researchers to be more confident of their analyses.

In addition, the procedures for observing and cod-ing observations were limited. Observations were cap-tured by RAs typing what they saw and heard in real time on laptops. This may have limited the specificity of the observations, and we may have missed impor-tant practices. Also, as we whittled the number of prac-tices we initially identified from 17 to 5, we combined practices that seemed related to represent one practice. By combining practices, we may have overlooked the contribution of the components of the practice to the combined practice that we used for analysis. In fact, it is possible that practices that were combined actually behave differently in relation to vocabulary. Future re-search should deconstruct these practices even further in investigation of the relationship between individual practices and children’s vocabulary.

Furthermore, the practices used during the obser-vations were coded on the basis of what the teacher was doing at the time of observation. We did not collect data on what individual children were doing at the time of observation. This is not a major issue for the effects of practices during read-aloud-time, because read-alouds were conducted with the whole class. However, non–read-aloud time comprised whole-group, small-group, and individual activities, so children were not neces-sarily participating in the same activities as the teacher. More research investigating teacher–child interactions during non–read-aloud time on an individual child level is needed to better understand the relationship be-tween vocabulary instruction practices and children’s vocabulary growth.

Observations were conducted only during lan-guage arts time, the books we chose to distribute to the teachers in this study were primarily fiction, and the words we chose to accompany those books were all Tier 2 words. We also focused on the teaching of Tier 2 words in our observations. Teachers likely introduce vocabulary from all three tiers in content area matter and other activities throughout the day. Our selection of books and words may provide an incomplete picture

of vocabulary instruction in schools. Future research should investigate the relationships between teachers’ practices and children’s vocabulary throughout the en-tire school day with a wider range of texts and words.

Another limitation is that we investigated vocabu-lary practices across prekindergarten and kindergarten classrooms. We did not find an effect of grade level on the outcome variables, suggesting that children in both grades grew on the curriculum-based measures and norm-referenced measures at about the same rate (i.e., posttest controlling for pretest and demographic variables). However, we did not test interactions be-tween practices and grade level. Instead, we felt that it was more substantively relevant to explore interactions between incoming vocabulary and instructional prac-tices. Because grade level and initial vocabulary level are confounding variables, we needed to choose which variable was of most interest in this study. Future re-search should investigate differences across grade levels in more depth.

Finally, the magnitude of the effects on the TVA were small in this study even though children were clearly growing in their vocabulary knowledge as seen in increased standardized scores on the PPVT. The TVA was a picture task in which one close foil (a distrac-tor that is similar to the target in some way) was used and two far foils (distractors that are unlike the target in important ways) were used. It may be that the as-sessment was too difficult or did not capture adequately children’s vocabulary learning. As suggested by Pearson et al. (2007), more attention needs to be paid to design-ing vocabulary assessments that adequately assess chil-dren’s vocabulary learning.

ConclusionIn sum, this study suggests that certain vocabulary in-struction practices, when implemented by teachers in the absence of a highly specified intervention, are re-lated to improved vocabulary outcomes for children. However, the effects of some practices may differ ac-cording to the initial vocabulary knowledge of the child, when the teacher uses the practice during the language arts block, and how vocabulary is measured. As edu-cators develop innovative vocabulary curricula for the future, they need more information about which prac-tices seem most promising for supporting the vocabu-lary development of all children and especially children with limited vocabulary knowledge. Furthermore, most of the language arts block consists of activities other than read-alouds, and these activities appear to hold great potential to support children’s learning of words. Though non–read-aloud activities have been included in comprehensive vocabulary intervention in the past,


more research is needed on the added benefit of extend-ing vocabulary instruction beyond read-aloud time.

NoteThe authors would like to thank Catherine Snow and Terry Tivnan for their support of this project. We would like to thank Alexandra Borns-Weil and Laura Brooks for their help in implementing the study. Finally, we would like to thank the school district, including the administrators and teachers who worked with us on this project, for inviting us to do research in their schools.

ReferencesAl Otaiba, S., Connor, C., Lane, H., Kosanov ich, M.L .,

Schatschneider, C., Dyrlund, A.K., et al. (2008). Reading First kindergarten classroom instruction and students’ growth in pho-nological awareness and letter naming–decoding fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 281–314. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.002

Bear, D.R., & Helman, L. (2004). Word study for vocabulary devel-opment in the early stages of literacy learning: Ecological per-spectives and learning English. In J.F. Baumann & E.J. Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 139–158). New York: Guilford.

Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251–271. doi:10.1086/511706

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

Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for build-ing meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44–62. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.44

Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498–520. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.498

Blachowicz, C.L.Z., & Fisher, P. (2000). Vocabulary instruction. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 503–523). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

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

Carver, R.P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 413–437.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., & Petrella, J.N. (2004). Effective read-ing comprehension instruction: Examining child x instruction interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 682–698. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.682

Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., & Slominski, L. (2006). Preschool instruction and children’s emergent literacy growth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 665–689. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.665

Coyne, M.D., McCoach, D.B., & Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary inter-vention for kindergarten students: Comparing extended instruc-tion to embedded instruction and incidental exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 74–88.

Coyne, M.D., McCoach, D.B., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R., Jr., & Kapp, S. (2009). Direct vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Teaching for breadth versus depth. The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 1–18. doi:10.1086/598840

Coyne, M.D., Simmons, D.C., & Kame’enui, E.J. (2004). Vocabulary instruction for young children at risk of experiencing reading difficulties: Teaching word meanings through shared storybook readings. In J.F. Baumann & E.J. Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 41–58). New York: Guilford.

Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and abil-ity 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934

De Temple, J., & Snow, C.E. (2003). Learning words from books. In A. van Kleeck, S.A. Stahl, & E.B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 15–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dickinson, D.K., & Smith, M.W. (1994). Long-term effects of pre-school teachers’ book readings on low-income children’s vocabu-lary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(2), 104–122. doi:10.2307/747807

Gathercole, S.E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(4), 513–543.

Graves, M.F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning & instruction. New York: Teachers College Press; Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Han, M., Roskos, K., Christie, J., Mandzuk, S., & Vukelich, C. (2005). Learning words: Large group time as a vocabulary devel-opment opportunity. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19(4), 333–346.

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

Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language in-put and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 236–248. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.2.236

Juel, C., & Deffes, R. (2004). Making words stick. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 30–34.

Justice, L.M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words from storybooks: An efficacy study with at-risk kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(1), 17–32. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2005/003)

Kreft, I.G.G. (1996). Are multi-level techniques necessary? An over-view, including simulation studies. Los Angeles: California State University.

Kurland, B.F., & Snow, C.E. (1997). Longitudinal measurement of growth in definitional skill. Journal of Child Language, 24(3), 603–625. doi:10.1017/S0305000997003243

Metsala, J.L., & Walley, A.C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In J.L. Metsala & L.C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 83–111). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Morrow, L.M. (2007). Developing literacy in preschool. New York: Guilford.

Nagy, W.E., Herman, P.A., & Anderson, R.C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233–253. doi:10.2307/747758

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on read-ing and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ninio, A. (1983). Joint book reading as a multiple vocabulary ac-quisition device. Developmental Psychology, 19(3), 445–451. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.19.3.445


Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding appraoch. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pearson, P.D., Hiebert, E.H., & Kamil, M.L. (2007). Vocabulary as-sessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 282–296. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.2.4

Penno, J.F., Wilkinson, I.A.G., & Moore, D.W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to sto-ries: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 23–33. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.23

Reese, E., & Cox, A. (1999). Quality of adult book reading affects children’s emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 20–28. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.20

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L.C. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthog-raphy for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 175–191. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.175

Silverman, R. (2007a). Vocabulary development of English-language and English-only learners in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 107(4), 365–383. doi:10.1086/516669

Silverman, R. (2007b). A comparison of three methods of vocabulary instruction during read-alouds in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 97–113. doi:10.1086/525549

Silverman, R., & Hines, S. (2009). The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the vocabulary of English-language learners and non-English-language learners in pre-kindergarten through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 305–314. doi:10.1037/a0014217

Snow, C.E. (1991). The theoretical basis for relationships be-tween language and literary development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6(1), 5–10.

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

Snow, C.E., Cancino, H., De Temple, J., & Schley, S. (1991). Giving formal definitions: A linguistic or metalinguistic skill? In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 90–112). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Snow, C.E., Porche, M.V., Tabors, P.O., & Harris, S.R. (2007). Is liter-acy enough? Pathways to academic success for adolescents. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Stahl, S.A., & Fairbanks, M.M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72–110.

Taylor, B.M., & Pearson, P.D. (2000). The CIERA school change class-room observation scheme. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Peterson, D.S., & Rodriguez, M.C. (2005). The CIERA school change framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and school read-ing improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 40–69. doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.1.3

Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)

Wasik, B.A., & Bond, M.A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 243–250. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.243

Wasik, B.A., Bond, M.A., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a language and literacy intervention on Head Start children

and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 63–74. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.63

Weizman, Z.O., & Snow, C.E. (2001). Lexical output as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated expo-sure and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 265–279. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.265

Whitehurst, G.J., Arnold, D.S., Epstein, J.N., Angell, A.L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J.E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low- income families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679–689. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.5.679

Children’s Books CitedAardema, V. (1977). Who’s in Rabbit’s house? New York: Puffin Pied

Piper.Arnosky, J. (1997). Rabbits and raindrops. New York: Puffin.Crews, D. (1998). Bigmama’s. New York: Greenwillow.dePaola, T. (1989). The art lesson. New York: The Putnam and

Grosset Group.dePaola, T. (1993). Tom. New York: The Putnam and Grosset Group.Ehlert, L. (1990). Feathers for lunch. New York: Voyager.Fleming, D. (1992). Lunch. New York: Henry Holt.Fleming, D. (1998). Mama cat has three kittens. New York: Scholastic.Fox, M. (1988). Koala Lou. Orlando, FL: Voyager/Harcourt Brace.Greenfield, E. (1996). Grandpa’s face. New York: Putnam Juvenile.Henkes, K. (1991). Chrysanthemum. New York: Greenwillow.Ho, M. (2000). Hush! A Thai lullaby. New York: Scholastic.Jones, R.C. (1995). Matthew and Tilly. New York: Puffin.Koller, J.F. (1999). One monkey too many. Orlando, FL: Harcourt

Brace.Lewis, K. (2002). My truck is stuck! New York: Hyperion.Lin, G. (1999). The ugly vegetables. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.Lionni, L. (1967). Frederick. New York: Knopf.Pak, S. (2001). Dear Juno. New York: Puffin.Penn, A. (1993). The kissing hand. New York: Scholastic.Polacco, P. (1997). Thunder cake. New York: Putnam Juvenile.Root, P. (2003). One duck stuck. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick.Smalls, I. (1992). Jonathan and his mommy. New York: Little, Brown.Spinelli, E. (2000). Night shift daddy. New York: Hyperion.Sturges, P. (1999). The little red hen (makes a pizza). New York: Puffin.Wells, R. (1973). Noisy Nora. New York: Puffin.Wheeler, L. (2006). One dark night. New York: Voyager.Wildsmith, B. (1987). Squirrels. New York: Oxford University Press.Williams, V.B. (1982). A chair for my mother. New York: Scholastic.Woodson, J. (2001). The other side. New York: Putnam Juvenile.Yolen, J. (1987). Owl moon. New York: Philomel.

Submitted November 16, 2008 Final revision received November 4, 2009

Accepted November 13, 2009

Rebecca Silverman is an assistant professor of special education at the University of Maryland, College Park, USA; e-mail [email protected].

Jennifer DiBara Crandell is an advanced doctoral student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; e-mail [email protected] .edu.


Appendix A

Books and Words Provided to All Teachers in the Study

Title Author, publication year Words

The Kissing Hand (Penn, 1993) cozy, gently, grinned

Jonathan and His Mommy (Smalls, 1992) humongous, leap, motion

Noisy Nora (Wells, 1973) sifted, monumental, moaned

Koala Lou (Fox, 1988) preparations, compete, spectators

A Chair for My Mother (Williams, 1982) single, spoiled, deliver

The Little Red Hen (Makes A Pizza) (Sturges, 1999) fetch, drifted, rummage

The Other Side (Woodson, 2001) stare, damp, brave

Matthew and Tilly (Jones, 1995) crabby, grouchy, stomped

Chrysanthemum (Henkes, 1991) wilted, precious, dreadful

Hush! A Thai Lullaby (Ho, 2000) weeping, shrieking, creeping

Thunder Cake (Polacco, 1997) fear, horizon, gather

One Dark Night (Wheeler, 2006) darts, dashes, peering

Rabbits and Raindrops (Arnosky, 1997) shelter, soaked, pouring

One Duck Stuck (Root, 2003) stuck, deep, slither

My Truck Is Stuck! (Lewis, 2002) panic, rotten, haul

One Monkey Too Many (Koller, 1999) mischievous, naughty, obey

Frederick (Lionni, 1967) abandoned, applauded, supplies

The Art Lesson (dePaola, 1989) practice, awful, disappointed

Dear Juno (Pak, 2001) edge, peeking, smudged

Lunch (Fleming, 1992) crisp, tender, tart

Tom (dePaola, 1993) cellar, butcher, wink

Bigmama’s (Crews, 1998) visit, arrive, relatives

Grandpa’s Face (Greenfield, 1996) rehearsing, sturdy, acted

Owl Moon (Yolen, 1987) still, sighed, fade

Night Shift Daddy (Spinelli, 2000) lead, pale, awaken

Who’s in Rabbit’s House? (Aardema, 1977) performance, trample, chuckle

Mama Cat Has Three Kittens (Fleming, 1998) unique, sharpen, pounce

Squirrels (Wildsmith, 1987) delightful, destructive, observe

Feathers for Lunch (Ehlert, 1990) tame, soar, prowl

The Ugly Vegetables (Lin, 1999) aroma, plain, blooming


Appendix B

Excerpt From a Coded Transcript

9:00 a.m.: Read-aloud of My Truck Is Stuck! begins Code

T: Ready to read. Eyes and ears up here please.

T: Today we are going to reread our book My Truck Is Stuck!

T: What does reread mean? DF

S: Read again.

T: Let’s think of words that rhyme with stuck. WS

S: Truck, luck, duck

T: Now let’s review some words we talked about yesterday. Look at this word card. It says rotten. What does rotten mean? (Teacher makes a sad face to show rotten.)

WS, DF, AI

S: Apple...brown stuff.

T: It means the same thing but you use it in a different way. AN

T: You say something is rotten if it is not good. DF

T: Who knows how to spell the ‘hall’ outside our room?

S: H-a-l-l.

T: The other haul sounds the same, but it’s spelled differently. (hall and haul) WS, AN

(Teacher shows the cover of a book My Truck Is Stuck! and begins to read.)

9:15 a.m.: Read-aloud ends/non–read-aloud time begins Code

T: OK. We are going to get ready for writers’ workshop now. We’re going to think about words that rhyme with truck.

(Teacher has a big sheet of paper with the word ‘truck’ at the top.)

S: Stuck. WS

T: How am I going to spell that?

T: Sometimes ‘c’ and ‘k’ go together.

S: Muck.

T: Where did we see that word muck? CN

S: One Duck Stuck.

T: How do we spell muck? WS

T: Let’s think of other words with –uck.

9:25 a.m.: Students begin writers’ workshop at their desks Code

T: Now for writers’ workshop you can pick an ‘uck’ word, write it, and then draw a picture of the word. You can write more ‘uck’ words or write a sentence with your ‘uck’ word if you finish early.

Note. AI = Act/Illustrate; AN = Analyze; CN = Contextualize; DF = Define; WS = Word Study. T denotes when the teacher is talking, and S denotes when the student(s) is talking.

Copyright of Reading Research Quarterly is the property of International Reading Association and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Vocabulary Practices in Prekindergarten and …kirstiekay76.wikispaces.com/file/view/vocabulary practices in... · few read-aloud interventions have ... Vocabulary Practices in Prekindergarten