Running Head: EXPLICIT VOCABULRY INSTRUCTION 1

A Synthesis: Explicit Vocabulary Instruction to Enhance Word Learning

Stacie P. Brady

George Mason University

EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 2

Abstract

This article synthesized the selected explicit vocabulary instruction studies conducted with

students in preschool through third grade between 2006 and 2018. Ten studies were synthesized

that focused primarily on explicit vocabulary instruction or intervention, including defining and

discussing, target words, as well as, using multi-media to expand word knowledge. There was a

total of 1,649 participants. Of the studies meeting the criteria, three studies focused on the use of

vocabulary and concept development with the use World of Words (WOW) supplemental multi-

media explicit vocabulary intervention. Four of the selected studies focused on increasing

dosage or supplemental instruction along with the use of storybook read-alouds. Two of the

studies addressed educator support. Three of the studies addressed long term vocabulary effects.

Additionally, the lasting effects of explicit vocabulary instruction was investigated by three of

the studies. Although there was a range in effect sizes computed for the various outcome

measures (0.42 to 1.73), findings indicate stronger effects were associated with explicit

vocabulary instruction. However, the studies used a variety of types and factors to address

explicit vocabulary techniques as the independent variable, including Text Talk, extended

instruction, Bringing Words to Life, and WOW. Overall, the studies reviewed showed positive

effects on increasing word knowledge.

EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 3

Explicit Vocabulary Instruction to Enhance Word Knowledge

Learning to read is a complex task that involves decoding, fluency, vocabulary, relating

content to prior knowledge, applying comprehension strategies, and monitoring understanding

(Edmonds et al., 2009). Competently using these intertwined tasks allows a reader to develop

efficient reading skills. One critical skill that children begin to develop in their early years is

vocabulary. Students depend on their vocabulary knowledge for oral language and reading

comprehension (Biemiller, 2001). As children learn to read, they begin to match their oral

language word knowledge with the printed words they encounter while reading, building their

vocabulary (Kamil, 2004). Vocabulary is critical for comprehension of oral language and

development of reading comprehension, which both contribute to their overall academic success

(Marulis and Neuman, 2010).

Students begin school in preschool or kindergarten with varying oral language skills,

including receptive and expressive vocabulary (Cuticelli, Coyne, Ware, Oldham, & Rattan,

2015). Oral language skills are a good predictor of future literacy skills. For example, a

student’s vocabulary level at the beginning of first grade can help predict the student’s reading

level in 11th grade (Biemiller, 2001). Children who begin school with a high vocabulary level

can easily extract meaning from listening to stories using a low cognitive load (Perfetti & Hart,

2002; Verhoeven, van Leeuwe, & Vermeer, 2011; Damhuis, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2014). Some

students struggle to acquire new vocabulary. Early language skills affect the development of

literacy skills; therefore, it is critical that vocabulary is addressed to assist those acquiring

vocabulary at a slower rate (Biemiller, 2001).

One factor that affects students’ literacy success is socioeconomic status (SES). Children

typically enter school with a vocabulary of approximately 20,000 words (Neuman & Dwyer,
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 4

2011). Students from a low SES enter school knowing approximately 5,000 words. A limited

vocabulary impedes success in reading (Marulis & Neuman, 2010). Research has shown that

word learning instruction is needed to close that vocabulary gap (Marulis & Neuman, 2013).

Vocabulary Instruction Research

Stahl and Fairbanks (1986) conducted a meta-analysis focused on the effects of

vocabulary instruction. They analyzed 52 studies and categorized vocabulary instruction into

three method-specific factors: definitional or contextual, depth of processing, and number or

types of repetition. Findings revealed that combining definitional and contextual information

while addressing vocabulary appears to be more effective than using either strategy

independently. Vocabulary instruction stimulated new interest in learning words and allowed

students to generalize and continue learning new words (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). Their

research suggested that vocabulary instruction is a useful addition to naturally learning from

context.

Marulis and Neuman completed a meta-analysis in 2010 focused on the relationship

between vocabulary interventions and children’s oral language development. They analyzed 67

studies that targeted vocabulary instruction in an educational setting with preschool and

kindergarten children. The most prevalent interventions used in the studies were storybook

reading and dialogic reading, but also included computer-based interventions. Correlational,

experimental, and intervention studies provide evidence that storybook reading promotes

different aspects of language development including vocabulary (Hargrave & Sénéchal, 2000).

Another research-based vocabulary intervention is dialogic reading, which actively involves

students by asking them inferential questions and discussing new vocabulary during a shared

reading. Dialogic reading is a form of explicit instruction which provides a pathway to grow
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 5

vocabulary skills (Hargrave & Sénéchal, 2000). Marulis and Neuman’s (2010) meta-analysis

revealed that students benefited from the vocabulary instruction. Another explicit intervention

that was included in this meta-analysis was the use of computer-based interventions. Through

examination of the variety of these instructional techniques, the researchers were unable to

identify a specific intervention as being the single most effective (Marulis & Neuman, 2010).

Examining the instructional features of these vocabulary interventions, the analysis revealed that

the type of pedagogical approach made a significant difference in effect size. Programs that used

explicit instruction were associated with larger effect sizes (Marulis & Neuman, 2010).

A more recent meta-analysis by Marulis and Neuman (2013) analyzed research studies

that targeted students at-risk for reading difficulties. Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) defined

students at-risk for reading difficulties as having characteristics that can be measured by the

community, home, or school that have been associated with poor progress in learning to read.

The meta-analysis synthesized 51 studies in educational or home-based settings using both

published and unpublished research studies. The analysis revealed strong support for the

efficacy of vocabulary intervention for at-risk learners prior to learning to read. Students at-risk

for experiencing reading problems may struggle to become efficient readers. Minority students,

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and English language learners are often

considered at-risk students (Logan & Petscher, 2010). One of the most significant findings from

Marulis and Neuman’s (2013) meta-analysis is that the younger the age of the child, the stronger

the positive effect of the intervention.

Vocabulary Instruction

There are various types of vocabulary instruction and few studies have compared their

different instructional methods (Alamri & Rogers, 2018). Two approaches of vocabulary
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 6

instruction are implicit and explicit word learning. Implicit, or incidental, acquired vocabulary

knowledge refers to teaching words through context. Implicit learning occurs during activities

such as conversation or book reading. During implicit learning, a student does not memorize

words but should be given multiple exposures to absorb new words into their vocabulary

(Mirzaii, 2012). Explicit vocabulary learning occurs through direct instruction focused on word

learning by engaging students in visualization activities that provide multiple encounters with

specific words, as well as, promoting a deep level of cognitive processing (Mirzaii, 2012). Due

to the differences in students’ oral language skills, including receptive and expressive

vocabulary, there is a growing need for the inclusion of direct, explicit vocabulary instruction in

the early grades (Cuticelli et al., 2015). As Ellman, Lindo, Morphy, and Compton (2009) stated,

“If we are to impact students’ ability to independently gain knowledge from text, we must better

understand what types of interventions are most effective at increasing students’ ability to

comprehend what they are reading. One promising area of intervention research is vocabulary

instruction” (p. 2). The purpose of this paper is to explore types of explicit vocabulary

instruction and determine if explicit vocabulary instruction achieves long term effects. The

following research question will be addressed: What are efficacious explicit vocabulary

instruction models?

Methods

Data Collection

The current literature review synthesized morphological awareness interventions that

enhanced word learning. A search was conducted on the following three databases: Academic

Search Complete, Education Research Complete, and ERIC from the year, 2007 to the present.

To perform this search, the following key terms were used in various combinations: vocabulary,
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 7

intervention, explicit, implicit, instruction, word learning, preschool, early, and elementary

years. In addition, ancestry and descendent searches were also completed to find additional

relevant research. Ancestry searches were conducted using Biemiller (2001), Ellman et al.

(2009), and Marulis and Nueman (2013). To complete a descendant search, the database

Education Research Complete was used for the article Spencer, Goldstein, and Kaminski (2012),

as well as, Kelley (2017). During the process of identifying research focused on morphological

intervention, several articles that conducted meta-analyses were identified: Stahl and Fairbanks

(1986), Marulis and Neuman (2010), and Marulis and Neuman (2013).

Criteria for Inclusion

Studies were included in the literature review if they met these specific criteria: (a) the

use of explicit vocabulary intervention or instruction, (b) students were attending public school

or a preschool, such as Head Start, (c) participants were in preschool through third grade, and (d)

studies were from a peer reviewed journal.

Criteria for Exclusion

Studies were excluded from the literature review if: (a) they were not empirical

intervention research, (b) they focused on aspects of reading other than vocabulary (spelling,

sight words, fluency), (c) the participants were adults, or (d) late elementary to post-secondary

students.

Coding

Ten experimental studies were coded on a code sheet borrowed from a previous synthesis

(Reed, 2008). Data were collected on participants (e.g. grade, exceptionality) and research

design characters (e.g. intervention and outcomes). The features from the intervention studies,
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 8

including participants’ characteristics and design characteristics, were included in Table 1.

Intervention information, findings, and outcomes were included in Table 2.

Analysis

supplemental instruction. Four of the ten articles selected for the literature review Commented [AWP1]: APA format requires text between
each level of heading/subheading, and Supplemental should
be capped in this level of subheading. I printed the
studied the use of explicit vocabulary through extending the instruction time or adding PurdueOWL headings page to keep handy when I write- it’s
not exactly intuitive!!
supplemental instruction within a broad literacy program. One study (Coyne, McCoach, &

Kapp, 2007) researched the use of extended, embedded instruction. Their research consisted of

two studies within one journal article. Coyne et al. (2007) used an experimental design with two Commented [AWP2]: Try rephrasing and condensing this
section- maybe- “Coyne and colleagues (Coyne, McCoach,
& Kapp, 2007) investigated the use of extended, embedded
independent variables: extended instruction and incidental exposure. Graduate students provided vocabulary instruction through two related studies. They
found…”
the intervention to the 31 participants who were randomly selected to be in group A or B. The

extended-time group received the intervention with target vocabulary words in context of story

reading. The group was also provided interaction opportunities to expand their understanding of

the target words, as well as, provide multiple exposures. The control group was read the same

story but not explicitly taught the target words. Results indicated that the intervention group

scored significantly higher than the control group.

Coyne’s et al. (2017) second study explored the differences between extended vocabulary

instruction and embedded instruction added to small group read-aloud time. The study included

32 at-risk students between the ages of five and seven years. The intervention group followed

the same within-subjects design procedures as study one. The comparison group was provided

simple definitions during read aloud. Results indicated that students who received extended

instruction scored significantly higher on word knowledge. Overall, Coyne et al. (2007)

determined that the use of extended instruction resulted in improved word learning. The

researchers recommended a tri-level approach: extended and direct vocabulary instruction,

EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 9

multiple exposure to storybooks that use a variety of complex words, also further instruction on

selected targeted words.

Arthur and Davis (2016) applied a “double-dose” (p. 173) of intervention by extending

vocabulary instruction. The study included 278 participants in preschool through grade 3. The

participants were randomly assigned to three groups (basic and double-dose intervention groups

and a control group). The vocabulary interventions were embedded in a broad-based language

curriculum, Let’s Know! The double-dose condition differed from the basic condition by

including an extra support lesson following each basic vocabulary lesson. The results indicated

that both the Basic and Double-Dose group had significant effects greater than the control group.

Researchers found that vocabulary instruction improved the vocabulary scores with either a

single or extended dosage.

Puhalla (2011) examined the effects of explicit instruction on vocabulary knowledge of

first graders at-risk for future reading difficulties. The 66 participants in this study were selected

from a larger study that used the Read Aloud curriculum. The participants in Puhalla’s (2011)

study were divided into three groups: intervention, no intervention, and peer comparison. The

Read Aloud curriculum used thematic units which included the use of read-alouds with dialogic

talk. The intervention group was given an additional twenty-minute scripted lessons per

thematic unit based on the Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction. Results

indicated that all three groups increased their vocabulary knowledge, but the intervention group

with the supplemental instruction, scored higher than the other two groups, indicating that

students who are at-risk for reading difficulties can develop a deeper understanding of complex

vocabulary words.
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 10

Another study that examined thematic-based, supplemental vocabulary instruction was

Roskos et al. in 2009. Their study examined three groups of preschool students: typical

developing, at-risk for experiencing reading difficulties, and students diagnosed with a disability.

Teachers measured gains using curriculum-based measures. All three groups gained vocabulary

knowledge while using the Doors to Discovery literacy program that is a broad-based literacy

curriculum which includes early literacy skills: phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge,

print knowledge, and vocabulary. Roskos et al. (2009) noted that students increased retention of

the new vocabulary when the words were grouped semantically. Explicit instruction using

semantic grouping and conceptualization was examined in three articles included in the review.

vocabulary and conceptual development. Three of the articles reviewed (Neuman,

Newman, and Dwyer (2011), Neuman, and Dwyer (2011) and Neuman and Kaefer (2013))

focused on building and retaining vocabulary through the use of categorization and multimedia.

All of the studies focused on the same population: at risk preschoolers that attend Head Start.

Additionally, all of the three studies used the multimedia supplemental program, World of

Words (WOW) to expand vocabulary and concept development, although each approached the

research with a different purpose. Neuman and Dwyer (2011) hypothesized that categorical

development would influence the acquisition and retention of word knowledge. Results

indicated that students were able to semantically categorize new, explicitly taught vocabulary

and provide a rationale for their actions. Neuman et al. (2011) studied the use of the WOW as an

instructional tool for teaching word learning and categorization. Evidence is growing that

indicates there are benefits to implementing word learning through semantic categorization

(Nueman et al, 2011; Booth, 2009; Chi &. Koeske,1983; Glaser, 1984).
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 11

The third study that used the concept of categorization and multimedia, but also focused

on group configuration is Neuman and Kaefer (2013). Their results indicated that for word

learning and categorical and concept development, the treatment group significantly out-

performed the control group and group size did not influence learning.

educator support. Two of the 10 articles approached the examination of explicit

vocabulary by supporting teachers’ communication while providing intervention: Neuman,

Pinkham, and Kaefer (2015) and Beck and McKeown (2007). Both groups selected at-risk

preschoolers for the participants in their studies. Neuman et al. (2015) measured teacher’s

communication with a researcher-developed measure that focused on the linguistic properties of

teacher’s child-directed language. Results of the study showed strong support for improvements

in the quality of teacher’s language. Beck and McKeown’s (2007) research used Rich

Instruction to support student’s vocabulary growth and Text Talk for read-alouds. Overall, the

results from both studies revealed increases in the student’s vocabulary when rich, well-planned

teacher talk is used.

long term effects. Three of the 10 articles examined lasting effects by using a delayed

post-test. Coyne et al. (2007), Neuman et al. (2011), and Damhuis et al. (2014) all addressed the

long-term effects of explicit vocabulary instruction. Coyne et al. (2007) studied the difference

between extended versus embedded instruction. They concluded that with direct, explicit

instruction, students are able to maintain their learned vocabulary. Neuman et al. (2011)

followed their participants with a six-month delayed post-test to identify differences. Students in

the control group maintained their word knowledge and the ability to identify categories, but

these students were not able to retain their conceptual development advantage. Damhuis et al.

(2014) investigated the difference between long term effects on implicit versus explicit word
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 12

learning. No significant differences in lasting effect were noted between the two intervention

groups. Interventions or instructions strive to maintain and sustain growth. Sustainability is

required to generalize and work toward closing the achievement gap. These three vocabulary

studies determined that lasting effects are possible but may be more difficult for more complex

words. Both implicit and explicit word-learning provided access to new vocabulary words, as

well as, providing long-term effects.

Results and Discussion

Ten articles met the criteria for inclusion in this literature review. The articles were

published between 2007 and 2016 in the following journals: Learning Disability Quarterly,

Early Education and Development, Journal of Literacy Research, International Journal of

Disability, Reading Research Quarterly, The Elementary School Journal, Journal on

Educational Effectiveness, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, and Remedial and

Special Education. Across the studies, there were 1,406 students ranging from preschool to third

grade that had been identified by their schools as at-risk for experiencing reading difficulties or

having a language impairment. All of the studies involved the participants receiving explicit

vocabulary instruction to increase word knowledge. However, the studies used a variety of

explicit instructional techniques as the independent variable, including the use of categorization,

extended intervention, educator support, and defining words. Overall, the studies suggest that a

variety of approaches using explicit vocabulary instruction should benefit students, especially,

students at-risk for reading difficulties.

Validity

Internal and external validity were calculated by using a system interpreted by Troia

(1999). The appendix displays the validity criteria divided into four sections: Internal validity
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 13

including general design characteristics and measurement; external validity, which included a

research hypothesis, participant description, and transfer/maintenance; measurement used within

the study, such as operationalized measures and treatment fidelity, and effect sizes.

Of the ten studies, 5 used random selection experimental design (Coyne et al., 2007;

Damhuis et al., 2016; Neuman & Kaefer, 2013; Neuman et al., 2015; Puhalla, 2011.) Arthur and

Davis (2016) and Beck and McKeown (2007) both used a quasi-experimental design. Finally,

Neuman et al. (2011) used a cluster randomization design. Three of the 10 designs used multiple

experimental groups without a control group (Beck & McKeown ,2007; Roskos et al., 2009;

Neuman & Kaefer, 2013.) Coyne et al., (2007) and Arthur and Davis (2016) both used an

experimental and control group. All studies explicitly described their treatment conditions.

Statistical Efficacy Claims

Each of the ten selected studies were examined to identify statistical differences and

effect sizes. Six of the 10 studies reported effect sizes using Cohen’s d (Beck & McKeown,

2007; Damhuis, et al., 2014; Neuman et al., 2011; Neuman and Kaefer, 2013; Neuman et al.,

2015)). Beck and McKeown (2007) reported for the pre and post-test, verbal task (d=2.09), and

the picture task (d = 2.71). Damhuis et al. (2014) examined the differences between explicit and

implicit instruction (d = 0.42) Additionally, Neuman et al. (2015) analyzed differences between

a treatment and control group (d =.69). Coyne et al. (2007) reported effect sizes for expressive

definitions (d = .32), receptive definitions (d = .11), and context (d = .12). Effect sizes were

reported for three other studies (Roskos et al., 2009; Puhalla, 2011; Neuman and Dwyer, 2011).

Overall, the effect sizes reported were between 0.11 through 2.71.

Results

The following research question guided the literature review: What are efficacious
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 14

explicit vocabulary instruction models? To address the research question, the results of each

study must be considered. Neuman et al. (2011), Neuman and Dwyer (2011), and Neuman and

Kaefer (2013) addressed word learning through the use of conceptual development. Neuman et

al. (2011) identified that preschool students at-risk for reading difficulties were able to learn

curriculum-related vocabulary, but also were able to identify concepts and categories. Using

categorical concepts may be an effective way to learn and retain new words. Coyne et al. (2007)

focused on extended instruction with a tri-level approach found that using this vocabulary

approach is a “promising” (p. 87) way to increase vocabulary knowledge. Roskos et al (2009)

and Arthur and Davis (2016) studied supplemental and additional vocabulary instruction and

found that vocabulary scores increased with post-testing. Beck and McKeown (2007) and

Neuman et al (2015) focused on complex word learning through teacher support addressing

teacher-student oral communication and focused instruction. They found that learning the

meaning of words is time consuming and not efficient, therefore, not all words need extensive

and elaborate instruction. Puhalla (2011) and Neuman and Kaefer (2013) conducted their

research using whole class vocabulary instruction embedded into a literacy curriculum and

determined that the students in the whole class intervention setting are able to increase

vocabulary knowledge. Neuman and Kaefer (2013) stated, “the configuration of the group did

not affect word learning” (p.600). Overall, this research question identified that the use of

categories, teacher support, extended time, and tri-level approach are effective explicit word

learning strategies and can be completed with whole class instruction with lasting effects

Limitations

This synthesis was designed to expand the research of explicit vocabulary instruction

conducted by Marulis and Neuman (2010). They completed a meta-analysis studying the effects
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 15

of vocabulary interventions on preschool and kindergarten students. This research synthesis

focused on a variety of explicit vocabulary interventions including the use of various programs,

group configuration, and teacher-child language with students in preschool through third grade.

Although many types of explicit vocabulary were examined, one limitation of this research study

is the few articles examined. Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 10 articles were

identified that specifically addressed explicit vocabulary instruction this could suggest a

foundation for a broader study.

Additionally, even though the focus of this article is explicit instruction, it would be

advantageous to have several comparison articles between implicit and explicit vocabulary or the

use of a combination of both implicit and explicit. Implicit instruction is well researched, and it

is well known that reading books to students improves vocabulary knowledge (Damhuis et al.,

2014). Several of the articles reviewed in this study suggested the advantage of both implicit and

explicit vocabulary instruction, as recommended by Marulis and Neuman (2010).

Marulis and Neuman (2010) recommend explicit instruction or a combination of explicit

and implicit to be more effective than implicit instruction alone. It is of interest to me to explore

in the future the effects of the combination of the two types of intervention.

Future Research

Of the 10 articles examined, several noted the need for further research to explore

generalization of explicit vocabulary instruction to a student’s global vocabulary. The studies

reviewed also had time constraints and therefore a longitudinal study would be beneficial to

determine the long-term, broad effects of vocabulary instruction. Future research could also

include qualitative or mixed methods approach. Qualitative research provides the information

from the teachers regarding how the intervention worked. Through this literature review an
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 16

interest of mine was piqued to complete a synthesis that focuses on a combination of explicit and

implicit vocabulary instruction.

EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 17

Table 1

Features of Intervention Studies

Study Study Designs N Grade Duration Person Intended outcome

Level(s) Implementing type
1. Arthur & Davis Treatment/pre- 278 Preschool, 21 weeks (4 teachers word learning
(2016) posttest comparison 8% at-risk 1,2,3 X week 30
quasi-experimental design (multiple treatments) 15% min)
pilot study disabilities

2. Beck & McKeown treatment/ pre- S1-98 at-risk K,1 9 weeks teachers word learning
(2007) posttest comparison (5 x week)
S1 between-subject design (multiple treatments) S2-76 at-risk
quasi-experimental
S2 within-subject
comparison
quasi-experimental
3. Coyne, McCoach, & treatment/ pre- S1-32 at-risk Preschool (3 x week, graduate students word learning
Kapp (2007) posttest comparison S2-32 at-risk 30 min) generalization
experimental within (multiple treatments)
subject
4. Damhuis, Segers & treatment/ pre- 48 K 2 weeks researcher word learning
Verhoeven (2014) posttest comparison
(multiple treatments)
experimental multiple groups
5. Neuman & Dwyer treatment/ pre- 178 at-risk preschool 16 weeks teachers, expressive
(2011) posttest comparison (5x week12 researcher, language,
(multiple treatments) min) graduate word labels,
experimental multiple groups assistants word properties
sorting
6. Neuman, Newman, treatment/ pre- 604 at-risk preschool one school teachers word knowledge
& Dwyer (2011) posttest comparison year conceptual/
(multiple treatments) categorical
cluster randomization inferences/
generalizations
7. Neuman & Kaefer treatment/ pre- 108 at-risk preschool 2 weeks teachers word learning
(2013 posttest comparison (4x week,
10-12 min) concept
experimental, within development
subject design

8. Neuman, Pinkham treatment/ pre- 143 at-risk preschool 31 sessions teachers word learning
& Kaefer (2015) posttest comparison (2x 45 min.)
multiple groups concept
experimental development

9. Puhalla (2011) treatment/ pre- 44 at-risk 1 25 sessions teachers word learning

posttest comparison (20 minutes
experimental multiple groups each)
10. Roskos, Ergul, treatment/ pre- 56 LI and at- preschool 9 days teachers word learning
Bryan, Burstein, posttest comparison risk (90 min)
Christie & Han (multiple treatments)
(2009) multiple groups

experimental

Note. LI=language impairment, K=kindergarten

EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 18

Table 2

Outcomes by Intervention Type and Design

Intervention Measure Findings/Results

Arthur & Davis (2016) CBM (curriculum-based measures) within Pre-K ES= 0.69, K ES= 1.73, 1st grade ES=
the Let’s Know! Curriculum 0.75, 2nd grade ES= 1.44, 3rd grade ES=1.17
Beck & McKeown (2007) researcher designed vocabulary test, PPVT Effect size (d=1.71), no significant gains
S1 Experimental group
 Text Talk
 Rich Instruction
S2
 Text Talk
 Rich Instruction
 More Rich Text

Coyne, McCoach, and Kapp (2007) Researcher designed measures: story word No significant difference between post-test
S1 Experimental group definitions (receptive, expressive, context), and delayed posttest.
 Extended instruction PPVT ES=NR
S2
 Extended instruction
 Embedded instruction

Damhuis, Segers, and Verhoeven (2014) PPVT Explicit vs. Implicit (d = 0.42)
 definitions

Neuman and Dwyer (2011) WOW expressive vocabulary test, PPVT, Expressive language WOW ES= 0.64
 World of Words (WOW) Early Language and Literacy Observation Word Labels ES= 0.16
(ELLCO) Word Properties ES= 0.84
Sorting taught ES=1.19, not taught ES=.99
Neuman and Kaefer (2013) PPVT-III, 2 researcher created measures for Significant gains in word knowledge (d=
 WOW following directions and identify categories 1.23), concepts (d= 1.08), categories
and properties of target words (d=1.05)
Neuman , Newman, and Dwyer (2011) Woodcock-Johnson Picture Vocabulary Word Knowledge (d=0.44)
 WOW Subtest (Form A and B) Conceptual and Categorical (d=0.63)
Inferences and Generalizations (d=0.46)
Neuman, Pinkham, and Kaefer (2015) PPVT Treatment and Control Group (d=.69)
 WOW Researcher designed Teacher Talk measure
 teacher talk support
Puhalla (2011) DIBELS subtests: PSF (Phonemic Post-test ES= .28
 Bringing Words to Life Segmentation Fluency), NWF (Nonsense
word fluency
Roskos, Ergul, Bryan, Burstein, Christie, and PPVT-III Receptive vocabulary growth ES= 0.46
Han Significant improvements in receptive and
 Doors to Discovery expressive growth

Note. ES=effect size, K=kindergarten, PPVT= Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 19

References

Alamri, K. & Rogers, V. (2018). The effectiveness of different explicit vocabulary teaching

strategies on learners’ retention of technical and academic words. The Language

Learning Journal, (46)5, 622-633. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2018.1503139

*Arthur, A. M. & Davis, D. L. (2016). A pilot study of the impact of double-dose robust

vocabulary instruction on children’s vocabulary growth. Journal of Research on

Educational Effectiveness, 9(2), 173-200. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2015.1126875

*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: 10.1086/5117606

Biemiller, A. (2001) Teaching vocabulary, early, direct, and sequential. American Educator, 1-

14. Retrieved from: https://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/spring-

2001/teaching-vocabulary

Booth, A. E. (2009). Causal supports for early word learning. Child Development, 80(4), 1243-

1250. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01328.x

Chi, M. T. & Koeske, R. D. (1983). Network representation of a child’s dinosaur knowledge.

Developmental Psychology, 19(1) 29-39. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.19.1.29

*Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., & Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary intervention for kindergarten

students: Comparing extended instruction to embedded instruction and incidental

exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly (30). 74-88. doi: 10.2307/30035543

Cuticelli, M., Coyne, M. D., Ware, S. M., Oldham, A., & Rattan, S. L. (2015) Improving

vocabulary skills of kindergarten students through a multi-tier instructional approach.

Intervention in School and Clinic 50(3), 150-156. doi: 10.1177/1053451214542041

EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 20

*Damhuis, C. M., Segers, E. and Verhoeven, L. (2014). Sustainability of breadth and depth of

vocabulary after implicit versus explicit instruction in kindergarten. International

Journal of Disability, Development and Education (61)3, 194-211. doi:

10.10880/1034912X.2014.932562

Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J. Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., &

Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading

comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research,

79, 262-300. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325998

Elleman, A. M., Lindo, E. J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary

instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 1-44. doi:

10.1080/19345740802539200

Hargrave, A. C., Sénéchal, M. (2000) A book reading intervention with preschool children who

have limited vocabularies: The benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(1), 75-90. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(99)00038-1

Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist,

39(2), 93-104. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.392.93

Izura, C., & Ellis, A. W. (2002). Age of acquisition effects in word recognition and production

in first and second languages. Pscicológica, 23, 245-281. Retrieved from:

https://www.uv.es/psicologica/paraARCHIVES/2002.html

Kamil, M. (2004). Vocabulary and comprehension instructions: Summary and implications from

the National Reading Panel findings. In p. McCardle & Chhabra, V. (Eds.), The Voice of

Evidence in Reading Research. 213-235. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 21

*Kelley, E. S. (2017). Measuring explicit word learning of preschool children: A developmental

study. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26, 961-971. doi:

10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0074

Logan, J. A. & Petscher, Y. (2010). School profiles of at-risk student concentration: Differential

growth in oral reading fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 163-186. doi:

10.1016/j.jsp.2009.12.002

Marulis, L., M., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young

children’s word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 300-

335. doi:10.3102/0034654310377087

Marulis, L. M. & Neuman, S. B. (2013) How vocabulary interventions affect young children at

risk: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6, 223-

262. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2012.755591

Mirzaii, M. (2012). Implicit vs. explicit vocabulary learning: Which approach serves long-term

recall better? Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(2), 1-12.

Retrieved from

http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url+http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=

ehh&AN=94988611&site=ehost-live

Neuman, S. B., (2011). Teaching Vocabulary in Early Education. In Neuman, S. B. & Dickinson,

D.K(Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp. 358-372) New York: The Guilford

Press.

*Neuman, S. B., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Developing vocabulary and conceptual knowledge for

low-income preschoolers: A design experiment. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(2),

103-129. doi: 10.1177/1086296X11403089

EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 22

Neuman, S. B., Dwyer, J., Koh, S., &Wright, T. (2007). The World of Words: A vocabulary

intervention for preschoolers. Ann Arbor, MI: Read to Learn Research Program.

*Neuman, S. B., & Kaefer, T. (2013) Enhancing the intensity of vocabulary instruction for

preschoolers at risk. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 589-608. doi:

10.1086/669937

*Neuman, S. B., Newman, E. H., Dwyer, J. (2011). Educational effects of a vocabulary

intervention on preschoolers’ word knowledge and conceptual development: A cluster-

randomized trial. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 249-272. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.46.3.3

*Neuman, S. B., Pinkham, A., & Kaefer, T., (2015). Supporting vocabulary teaching and

learning in prekindergarten: The role of educative curriculum materials. Early Education

and Development,26, 988-1011. doi: 10.1080/10409289

Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P.

Reitsma, (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189-213). Amsterdam, The

Netherlands: John Benjamins.

*Puhalla, E. M. (2011). Enhancing the vocabulary knowledge of first-grade children with

supplemental booster instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 32(6), 471-481. doi:

10.1177/0741932510362495

Reed, D. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology intervention and effects on reading outcomes for

students in grades K-12. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(1), 36-49. doi:

10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00261

*Roskos, K., Ergul, C., Bryan, T., Burstein, K., Christie, J., Han, M. (2009). Who’s learning

what words and how fast? Preschoolers’ vocabulary growth in an early literacy program.

Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(3), 275-290.

EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 23

Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. doi: 10.17226/6023

Spencer, E. J., Goldstein, H., & Kaminski, R. (2012). Teaching vocabulary in storybooks:

Embedding explicit vocabulary instruction for young children. Young Exceptional

Children 15(1) 18-32. doi: 10.1177/1096250611435367

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. doi: 10.3102/00346543-

56001072

Troia, G.A. (1999). Phonological awareness intervention research: A critical review of the

experimental methodology. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 28–53. doi:

10.1598/RRQ.34.1.3

Verhoeven, L. & van Leeuwe, J. & Vermeer A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading

development across the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 8-25. doi:

10.1080/10888438.2011.536125
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 24

Appendix
Internal and External Validity/Evaluating the Evidence/synthesis project
ARTICLE:

YEAR:

SOURCE/FUNDING:

INTERNAL VALIDITY Control Exp Other

General design characteristics Random assignment
Control group intervention
Control group exposed to materials
Counterbalancing of instructors
Treatment conditions explicitly described
Equivalent instructional time
Equivalent mortality rates
Measurement Operationalized measures
Reliability of measures
Treatment fidelity
Absence of ceiling and floor effects
EXTERNAL VALIDITY
Research hypotheses Rationale for study
Participant description Participation selection
Age
Grade
Gender
Race
SES
Locale
Disability criteria
Transfer/Maintenance Task transfer
Maintenance of effects
EFFECT SIZES Described? Method calculated how?

Summary:

Questions:
EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION 25

Stacie, you’ve researched and developed a strong synthesis on vocabulary instruction with young
children. The synthesis discussion clearly denotes the effect sizes, designs, and features of the
compiled group of studies. I’d like to see more thematic discussion in the early part of your paper
rather than individual study summaries. As you gain more practice, I think that will become
easier. Overall, your writing is very clear and easy to follow. You have a good sense of academic
style and explain your points succinctly. There are minor APA issues to attend to before your
next paper submission- particularly headings- but they don’t interfere with readability. Your
paper and class presentation reflect your deep understanding of your topic and your ability to
read and understand research. It’s not easy, and you’ve mastered it!
I do think that you can develop this into a publishable article, particularly by taking a more
teacher-friendly approach to “here’s what we know about vocab instruction and how you can
effectively use it in your classroom”. I’d be happy to help if you want to tackle it.
Grade: A