Presentation on theme: "Lisa H. Stewart Minnesota State University Moorhead Ruth Kaminski"— Presentation transcript:
1Explicit and Intentional Vocabulary and Early Literacy Interventions in Preschool NASP, 2011 Lisa H. StewartMinnesota State University MoorheadRuth KaminskiDynamic Measurement Group, Center for RTI in Early ChildhoodKate HorstPreK Minnesota Reading Corps Coordinator and TrainerScott McConnellUniv. of Minnesota, Center for RTI in Early Childhood
2Minnesota State University Moorhead Increasing Vocabulary Knowledge in Preschoolers through Repeated Read AloudsDr. Lisa H. Stewart, Sara Heimdahl, Tara Hanson, Jessica Remhoff, & Lyndsey RoyMinnesota State University MoorheadNASP, February 2011
3Why study repeated read alouds? Vocabulary is important! Even before Kindergarten children’s vocabulary growth varies greatly by SES and exposure (Hart & Risely, 1995).Repeated Reading of the same book across multiple days using dialogic reading techniques may be an effective way of teaching new vocabulary to preschoolers (McGee & Schickedanz, 2007)Existing research on repeated read-alouds and vocabulary has been done primarily with school-aged children and the type and amount of vocabulary enrichment has not been systematically examined, especially in preschool.
4HypothesesRepeated read-alouds will lead to gains in story-specific vocabulary in at-risk preschoolers, including ESL children.Children will benefit more from repeated read-alouds with added vocabulary enrichment compared to typical repeated read alouds.Vocabulary gains made will be retained over time
5Setting & Participants ½ day Head Start ClassroomsAlready used repeated read alouds in small groups in Tier 1 four days a week (M-H)69 preschoolers ages ages 3-5 (40 boys, 29 girls, n=18 ESL), low SES families5 classrooms, 10 Read Aloud Groups, 9 teachers5 lead teachers , 3 asst teachers, 1 Minn. Reading Corps community membersAll had SEEDS training and used a (modified 4-day) MRC repeated read aloud checklistResponse rate was 74/85 (89%) and 72/85 (85%) gave permission
6Repeated Read Aloud “lesson plan” Note: Minnesota Reading Corpsversion, modified to 4 day lesson plan for setting in this study
7Materials3 Children’s picture books chosen with the help of the Head Start teachers:Sheep in a Shop, We’re Going on a Bear Hunt, Dragon DanceOne per week, read Monday-ThursdayALL teachers were told which 8 words to targetExaminer-made vocabulary testsClip art pictures of 15 words per book (n=45 total words)Words typically unknown by preschoolers, but not too difficultStandardized directions, prompting and scoringSimilar to the IGDIs Picture Naming Fluency task but with some prompts and no time cut off
8Procedure Two repeated read aloud (RRA) groups 5 Typical (Moderately Enriched) RRA groups5 Highly Enriched RRA groups with training and focus on extra vocabulary enrichmentTraining= One minute session with examples, role playing, discussionEnrichment= Increased intentionality and emphasis on the 8 target words across all 4 days of read aloudGoal = 4 “enrichment” activities per word per day
9Vocabulary Enrichment Training Teacher-Led ModelingPoint to it in Illustrations/Picture/ObjectsUse a SynonymElaborate on Meaning: Explanations/Definitions- can “embed” these just like they are part of the storyUse it in a Sentence; Connect to everyday life with examplesTalk about things that are similar but aren’t the target word and how they are the same and differentGestures/ “acting” it outPausing/emphasizing/repeatingPreview before starting storyReview after story is over
10Vocabulary Enrichment Training, Cont’d More Interactive with Kids…Discussions, Questions, ThinkPairShareIllustration challenge/ Use of PropsInteractive Word play/comparing word meanings, sounds, etcChime in/choral story telling/pronunciation practiceKids act out words/Draw/Write the pictures and/or wordsPreview (What is it? bag, how many words can you remember, show picture/act out, write/say)Review (Tell me about, story vocab retell, etc)
11Procedure, Cont’d Vocabulary pre-test (approx 45 terms) 8 target vocabulary terms from each of the three books (lowest number of correct responses on pre-test)Three weeks of repeated read-aloudSmall groups (approx 6-9 kids)Typical or with extra vocabulary enrichmentALL teachers given the 8 target words each week, difference was training and intentional emphasis on increasing vocab enrichmentEach teacher was videotaped once per weekVocabulary post-test (same as pre-test)Delayed test at end of the year (4 weeks later)
13Results: All RRA Combined Overall M=49.6 target word enrichment activities per book, range = Good level of enrichment even in the “typical” groups.Significant pre-post gains in target vocabulary, t (68)=9.924, p<.001). Average gain was 3.61 target words.Book by book analysis indicated statistically significant gains in target vocabulary for each of the three books, showing the results were more likely due to the technique used and were not book or vocabulary specific.Gains were maintained on delayed post-test.Overall these results indicate repeated read alouds can have a positive impact on children’s vocabulary.Limited, pre-post, no-control group design
14Nontarget words average gain =1.3 words (but ceiling effect too)
15Example Classroom Pre Post by Kid (Note: 1 Typical and 1 Enriched in this Room) Arrow is a somewhat “typical” scenario…went from 7 to 11.
16ESL ResultsESL students made significant gains on target vocabulary from pre (M=4.89, range 0-13) to post (M=7.78, range=0-17) testing, t (17)=4.312, p < Average gain =2.89 words.Although the ESL children did have lower pre and post test scores compared to non-ESL peers, they benefited from the repeated read alouds.Reinforces earlier research indicating even children with limited English skills can benefit from a high quality read aloud and there does not appear to be a certain level of English needed before the children can pick up information about the words in the books.
18Did extra vocabulary enrichment make a difference? Originally 5 groups in each condition (typical, enriched)Video data indicated 1 teacher in the enriched condition was substantially lower on enrichment activities than the others and 1 teacher in the typical condition was substantially higher than the others in that conditionRemoved these 2 from the analysis for a more clear test of the hypothesis, leaving 4 groups in each condition
20Results by GroupGains range from -3 to 10* Total represents all 10 Repeated Read Aloud Groups and 69 participants. Group results represent the 4 Highest Enriched Groups compared to the lowest 4 Typical (Moderately Enriched) Groups
21Typical vs. Enriched Group Results Using an ANCOVA with pre-test scores as the covariate, the main effect for extra vocabulary enrichment was significant F(1,54)=4.522, p=.038Typical=3.1 words gainedEnriched= 4.8 words gainedPartial eta squared = .080
23Bottom Line 1We don’t know if repeated read alouds are better or worse than other ways to teach vocabularyBUTGood repeated read alouds meant good things for at-risk preschool kid vocabulary growth in Tier 1!
24Bottom Line 2Providing a small amount of additional training and emphasis on vocabulary enrichment increased vocabulary gains even moreNote: 1 Teacher out of 5 did not show as high of a level of Enrichment after Training
25Some thoughts…RRA could also be used in Tier 2 to teach and reinforce early literacy skills including vocabdoing this in PreK and K right now in PreK Minn Rdg CorpsHow typical was the typical repeated read aloud?All teachers were provided the target words and knew this was a vocabulary studyAll teachers had had SEEDS early literacy trainingDid not script or manipulate specific types of vocab enrichment (e.g., embedded vs. extended, Text Talk)- Pro and con?Did not use RRA as part of a classroom themeDid the extra vocab enrichment come at the expense of other early literacy activities?