Developing Social-Emotional Vocabulary through Storybook Reading

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Developing Social-Emotional Vocabulary through Storybook Reading
Physical Description:
1 online resource (196 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Santiago Poventud, Lourdes
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Special Education, Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies
Committee Chair:
LANE,HOLLY BARNES
Committee Co-Chair:
MCCRAY,ERICA DJUAN
Committee Members:
JONES,HAZEL
OLIVER,EILEEN
CORBETT,NANCY LONG

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
emotional -- intervention -- social -- storybook -- vocabulary
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
To help all students succeed, researchers have suggested that the social and emotional development of students should be viewed as an essential aspect of learning,rather than an additional duty for which schools are responsible.  Language skills support social-emotional adjustment and promote children’s abilities to comprehend and comply with the behavioral demands of school.  Prior research provides evidence of the synergistic relationship between social and emotional development and academic standards. Thus, it is the integration of developing social competence with academic learning that leads to the education of the whole child. The conversations that occur during repeated storybook readings support vocabulary development in children.  Books with social-emotional content present models of characters solving problems and interacting with others, and have the potential of helping students emotionally connect with the experiences of the characters.  This study was designed to determine whether emotion vocabulary could be effectively developed through interactive storybook readings.  More specifically,the purpose of this pretest-posttest control group design study was to examine the social-emotional vocabulary growth of students who received the SELF:Social-Emotional Learning Foundations intervention, which is intended to promote social-emotional development for children who may be at risk for social and behavioral disorders.  Twenty-four kindergarten and first-grade teachers from two elementary schools participated in the study (15 teachers implemented the intervention during the 2012-2013school year).  A total of 91 students who participated in the study were assessed at the completion of the study.  Statistically significant differences were found between students in the treatment and control conditions on social-emotional vocabulary outcomes of the SELF Vocabulary Measure.  Further analyses indicated that the students who received the SELF intervention were better able to provide both definitions of the target vocabulary and to use the word in context by providing examples of when they might experience certain feelings.  There was no statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups in students’ receptive vocabulary scores.  A discussion of these findings is presented, along with implications for practice and directions for future research
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Lourdes Santiago Poventud.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: LANE,HOLLY BARNES.
Local:
Co-adviser: MCCRAY,ERICA DJUAN.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0046196:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 DEVELOPING SOCIAL EMOTIONAL VOCABULARY THROUGH STORYBOOK READING By LOURDES SANTIAGO POVENTUD A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Lourdes Santiago Poventud

PAGE 3

3 To Mami, Papi, and Raymond who have supported me and believe in me. To Anais, Lily, and Tito who bring me so much joy. To all the children in my family, big and small, I hope I have passed on my love of reading. M ost importantly to God and to all His angels and saints; without divine intervention I could not have done this.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Holly Lane, for her incredible support and patience. Thank you for not giving up on me. Thank you for p ushing me to do things I did not think I was capable of doing, but that you knew otherwise. You have helped me grow as a person and as a scholar. Thank you to Drs. Ann Daunic Nancy Corbett, and Stephen Smith, who allowed me to expand my work with Project SELF to include my passion for vocabulary development and be able to conduct my dissertation work. I could have never done a disserta tion study reaching this scope of teachers and students on my own. Thank you for not only allowing me to conduct my dissertation study along with our development of the SELF curriculum, but for being so incredibly supportive along the way. I would like to thank Dr. Erica McCray for her encouragement throughout my doctoral studies and for her careful review and editing suggestions of my proposal, which helped strengthen my dissertation. Thank you for being a great mentor and friend. Thank you to Dr. Haz el Jones for so graciously joining my committee and to Dr. Eileen Oliver for her enthusiasm, you made me excited about sharing my findings. I am grateful to Dr. Tyran Wright Butler who first told me about this amazing opportunity and who gave me the mo st helpful advice. Tyran you are wise beyond your years. As I finish my doctoral studies, I will always remember your great insight. Thank you to Page, Darbi, Jeisha, and Burak I cannot thank you enough for all your work Without your help, I would n ot have been able to finish my dissertation in such a timely manner. Page and Darbi, thank you for your willingness to view videos and code. Jeisha, thank you not only for coding videos, but also for all the data input work that you did so quickly and car efully You have been so willing to help and so

PAGE 5

5 wonderful abov e all Burak, thank you for working with me and with my data; y ou made it all come to life! I must also thank my friends, Sylvia an d Naomi, who without hesitation stepped in and helped me alon g the way with all the detail work that goes along with conducting a study. Thank you Sylvia for scoring vocabulary assessments Naomi, thank you for helping me with materials, organization, and anything else that I needed. Most importantly, thank you for your encouragement every step of the way and for all that you have done throughout my long journey to support me through my studies. I cannot tell you how grateful I am Thank you t o Evy, Sindy, and Millie who have joined me in prayer and have helpe d me seek the peace I needed to complete my dissertation. Thank you all for believing in me and reminding me to believe in myself. I am also grateful to my UF family. Michell Shaira, Vicki, Elizabeth, Lynette, Carrie, and Tia, thank you for caring for m e, for your words of encouragement, your hugs, and for your prayers. Michell, Shaira, and Vicki, I also have to thank you for your patience with me, especially when I needed to have things just so You know exactly what I mean. Lastly, t hank you to my loving cohort, Pam, Keri, Mary Anne, and Candy. Thank you for opening your hearts and allowing me to be part of your families. I never felt alone during this long and somet imes lonely journey. No one else understands the pains and joys of this journey li ke you do. Thank you for checking on me, for pushing me, and for helping me in all ways big and small Tha nk you for your love and support. A nd as seekers.

PAGE 6

6 This research was condu cted as part of Project SELF: Social Emotional Learning Foundations, a three year study funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of R324A100020 ) submitted to CFDA 84.324, National Center for Speci al Education Research The opinions and represent the opinions and positions of the IES or the U.S. Department of Education. Any references within this dissertation to speci fic education products are illustrative and do not imply endorsement of these products to the exclusion of other products that are not referenced.

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 Research Problem and Professional Significance ................................ .................. 23 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 24 Executive Function, Cognition and Comprehension ................................ ........ 25 Instructional Strategies that Promote Executive Function ................................ 25 Deep Processing for Vocabulary Development ................................ ................ 26 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 28 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ... 29 Literature Revi ew Methods ................................ ................................ ..................... 3 5 Read Aloud Approaches for Developing Vocabulary in Young Children ................ 36 Repeated Readings ................................ ................................ .......................... 37 Interactive Questioning Techniques ................................ ................................ 44 Vocabulary Interventions ................................ ................................ .................. 59 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 85 Social Emotional Vocabulary ................................ ................................ .................. 89 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 90 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 92 Social Emotional Learning Foundations ................................ ................................ 93 Current Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 96 Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 98 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 98 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 101 Screening Measure ................................ ................................ ........................ 101 Pretest/Posttest Measures ................................ ................................ ............. 101 SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol ................................ ......................... 107 Intervention ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 109

PAGE 8

8 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 110 Student Assessment Data ................................ ................................ .............. 111 Videotaped Lesson Data ................................ ................................ ................ 112 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 114 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 116 Statistical Analyses of the Data ................................ ................................ ............ 117 Effects of the SELF Intervention on Social Emotional Vocabulary ................. 118 Student Factors Related to Social Emotional Vocabulary Outcomes ............. 126 .... 127 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 130 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 133 Discussion of Findings ................................ ................................ .......................... 134 Effects of the SELF Intervention on S ocial Emotional Vocabulary ................. 134 Student Factors Related to Social Emotional Vocabulary Outcomes ............. 139 Teacher Instructional Factors .... 141 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ..................... 145 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 146 Implications for Practice ................................ ................................ ........................ 147 Implications for Future Research ................................ ................................ .......... 151 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 155 APPENDIX A SELF VOCABULARY OBSERVATION PROTOCOL ................................ ........... 157 B RUBRIC GUIDE FOR SCORING SELF VOCABULARY MEASURE ................... 160 Kindergarten ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 160 First Grade ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 161 C SELF SCOPE AND SEQUENCE ................................ ................................ .......... 162 D SELF VOCABULARY MEASURE ................................ ................................ ......... 167 SELF Vocabulary Assessment Kindergarten ................................ ..................... 167 SELF Vocabulary Assessment Firs t Grade ................................ ........................ 175 E SELF VIDEOTAPED LESSONS ................................ ................................ ........... 183 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 184 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 195

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Behavior Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 94 3 2 Acade mic Measures ................................ ................................ ........................... 95 3 3 Demographic Information for Schools ................................ ................................ 98 3 4 Teacher Descriptive Information ................................ ................................ ......... 99 3 5 Student Demographic Information ................................ ................................ .... 100 3 6 Vocabulary included in the SELF Vocabulary Measure ................................ .... 104 3 7 Inter Observer Agreement for SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol ............ 114 4 1 Pretest and Posttest SELF Vocabulary Measure for Treatment and Control Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 119 4 2 Summary of Analysis of Covariance for SELF Vocabulary Measure ................ 120 4 3 Correlations for Scores on Subscales of the SELF Vocabulary Measure ......... 121 4 4 Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Expressive Definition Subscale .......... 122 4 5 Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Expressive Use Sub scale .................. 123 4 6 Means and Standard Deviations for Treatment and Control Conditions ........... 126 4 7 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Student Factors Related to Social Emotional Vocabulary Outcomes ................................ .......................... 127 4 8 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Teacher Instructional Factors and Student Outcomes of Social Emotional Vocabulary ................................ .. 129 4 9 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Teacher Demographic and Student Outcomes of Social Emotional Vocabulary ................................ ......... 129

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Fi gure page 1 1 SELF Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ............. 27 1 2 Instructional Methods Implemented by SELF Teachers ................................ ..... 27 4 1 Homogeneity of Regression Slopes for Receptive Understanding Subscale ... 124 4 2 Subscale Scores by Condition ................................ ................................ .......... 125 4 3 Subscale Scores for Control and Treatment Conditions ................................ ... 125

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillmen t of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DEVELOPING SOCIAL EMOTIONAL VOCABULARY THROUGH STORYBOOK READING By Lourdes Santiago Poventud December 2013 Chair: Holly B. Lane Major: Special Education To help all students succeed, resea rchers have suggested that the social and emotional development of students should be viewed as an essential aspect of learning, rather than an additional duty for which schools are responsible. Language skills support social emotional adjustment and prom comply with the behavioral demands of school. Prior research provides evidence of the synergistic relationship between social and emotional development and academic standards. Thus, it is the integration of deve loping social competence with academic learning that leads to th e education of the whole child. The conversations that occur during repeated storybook readings support vocabulary development in children. Books with social emotional content present models of characters solving problems and interacting with others, and have the potential of helping students emotionally connect with the experiences of the characters. This study was designed to determine whether e motion vocabulary could be effectively develo ped through interactive storybook readings. More specifically, t he purpose of this pretest posttest control group design study was to examine the social emotional vocabulary growth of students who received the

PAGE 12

12 SELF : Social Emotional Learning Foundations intervention which is intended to promote social emotional development for children who may be at risk for social and behavioral disorders Twenty four kindergarten and first grade teachers from two elementary schools participated in the study (15 teach ers implemented the intervention during the 2012 2013 school year ). A total of 91 stude nts who participated in the study were assessed at the completion of the study. Statistically significant differences were found between students in the treatment and control conditions on social emotional vocabulary outcomes of the SELF Vocabulary Measure. Further analyses indicated that the students who received the SELF intervention were better able to provide both definitions of the target vocabulary and to use th e word in context by providing examples of when they might experience certain feelings. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups vocabulary scores A discussion of these findings is pre sented, along with implications for practice and directions for future research.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Active and full participation in American society requires that its citizens have the fundamental ability to read and write. The United States has sh ifted from a nation of farmers and mechanics to that of a much more technologically advanced country where economic, civic, and social success depend in large part on the educational achievement of its citizens, and most importantly their literacy attainm ent (National Early Literacy Panel [NELP], 2008). In the United States today, having a high school diploma and the literacy skills needed to succeed in college and the workplace are critical because nearly 90% of the fast est growing and highest paying job s in the country require some postsecondary education (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009). However, it is important to keep in mind that literacy goes beyond educational activities in formal school settings. The ability to read is an integral part o f almost every aspect of our daily lives, from following a prescription to filling a job application, from writing an email to making an online purchase, from reading a traffic sign to reading a book. Americans who cannot read adequately are (a) more ofte n out of work, (b) paid less, (c) less able to meet the health care needs of their families, (d) less knowledgeable about civic affairs, (e) less likely to vote, and (f) more likely to face trouble with the law (NELP 2008 ). Unfortunately, while the curr ent workforce in this country is expected to have greater literacy skills, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reports that more than one unable to successfully complete their schoolwork or to reach basic levels of reading achievement (Lee, Grigg & Donahue, 2007; NELP, 2008). The problem is particularly

PAGE 14

14 pressing for children from racial and ethnic minority groups. According to the most recent NAEP (National Center for E ducation Statistics [NCES], 2011), 44% of White students performed at or above the proficient level; in contrast, only 16% of Black students, 19% of Hispanic students, and 18% of American Indian/Alaskan Native students reached the proficient level or above Considering that beginning literacy is highly predictive of later literacy attainment, it is not surprising to find results of the NAEP assessments show levels of literacy achievement are not m uch better for eighth graders 43% White students performed at or above the proficient level; in contrast only 15% Black, 19% Hispanic, and 22% American Indian/Alaska Native students reached the proficient level or above Such weak performance on measures of proficiency with reading comprehension indicates a need to focus on the factors that influence comprehension growth. them, and communication with others depends largely on the words they know and are able to use. Children enter scho ol with significant differences in the depth and breadth of their vocabulary knowledge (Pollard Durodola et al., 2011). Previous research has found that children most at risk for early oral language and vocabulary delay come from lower income homes. Hart and Risley (1995) conducted a seminal study in the area of language development that demonstrated the impact of social interaction. Hart and Risley studied families from th ree socioeconomic backgrounds: professional families, working class families, and families on welfare. They found stark differences among these groups. From t heir extensive observations they projected that by age 3, an average child in a professional family would have accumulated experience with almost

PAGE 15

15 45 million words, an average ch ild in a working class family would have accumulated experience with 26 million words, and an average child from a family on welfare would have accumulated experience with only 13 million words. This 30 million word gap is what Hart and Risley (2003) desc ribe a For many children, these disparities have a long lasting effect on their academic achievement. Research conducted by Scarborough (1998) found a close association between patterns of preschool learning and reading achievem ent in the primary grades. Scarborough also linked the oral language proficiency of young children and their early abilities to process print as predictors in learning to read in first through third grades (2001). In a study by Cunningham and Stanovich ( 1997), over 30% of reading comprehension variance in eleventh grade could be predicted by the vocabulary assessed in first grade. Thus, there is a presumed and important relationship between vocabulary and comprehension. Stanovich refers to this relati onship as the Matthew effect (i.e., the rich get richer the poor get poorer ). In other words, students with larger vocabularies understand text better and so they read more, learning even more words; students with smaller vocabularies do not understand t ext as well and as a consequence are likely to read less so their vocabulary growth is limited. Numerous research studies have evaluated over time the connection between early vocabulary/oral language and reading comprehension These studies have prov ided converging evidence that vocabulary discrepancies emerge early, relate to future problems in reading comprehension, and remain stable without intervention ( e.g., Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006). For younger children and for students who are less able readers, experiences with oral language are critical for vocabulary development

PAGE 16

16 (Beck & McKeown, 1991; Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). Therefore, primary educators must make effective use of reading aloud, storytelling, and even routine classroom conversat ion to promote vocabulary growth ( Lane & Arriaza Allen, 2010; Nagy, 2005). Vocabulary instruction needs to be infused throughout the day through instruction and discussion and should not be constrained to a particular subject area or instructional time of day (Pollard Durodola et al., 2011). As there is research that provides evidence of the connection between vocabulary and reading comprehension, there is also a significant amount of research that has documented the relationship between social and emoti onal development and academic performance (Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2001) and how social emotional learning can help students achieve greater academic success (Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, & Walberg, 2004). To help all students succeed, Zins a nd his colleagues suggest that the social and emotional development of students should be viewed as an essential aspect of learning, rather than an additional responsibility of schools. Because social emotional competence and academic achievement are high ly interwoven, concerted efforts should be made in schools to integrate development in both aspects (Walberg, Zins, & Weissberg, 2004). Such an effort could maximize student potential to succeed socially an d academically throughout their lives. As Kress and his colleagues describe, social Schoenholz, Elias, & Seigle, 2004, p. 85). When children enter school they are faced with increased demands for well regulated and goal directed activities, including sustained behavioral inhibition,

PAGE 17

17 compliance with rules, and positive interpersonal relationships with teachers and peers (Campbell & von Stauffenberg, 2008). Language skills sup port social emotional behavioral demands of school (Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999). Language and social emotional skills provide essential foundational support for effectiv e school to follow classroom rules, cope actively with learning challenges, and relate to teachers and peers (McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006). Language skills ability to regulate emotions and promote effective social interaction (Greenberg, Kusche, & Speltz, 1991), while social emotional competencies foster positive relationships with adults and peers, motivating and providing greater opportun ities for language learning and cognitive development (Bierman, Greenberg, & the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1996). For typically developing children in literacy rich environments, cognition, language, metacognition, and self regulation dev elop together (Westby, 2004). Self regulation refers to several processes related to emotion, focus, and behavioral regulation (Blair & Diamond, 2008). Children must be able to use language effectively and in a variety of functions in order to self regul ate (Westby 2004 ). Children with disabi lities and children living in poverty who have had reduced language experiences are likely to have smaller vocabularies (Hart & Risley, 1995) and to use language less frequently to direct their behavior and talk abo ut what others may be thinking and feeling (Westby 2004 ). Children growing up in poverty are likely to enter school with significant delays in social emotional readiness, with over 40% being delayed in social

PAGE 18

18 competencies and communication abilities at e ntry to school and 20% demonstrating high rates of disruptive behavior that affect school adjustment (Kaiser, Hancock, Cai, Foster, & Hester, 2000). Having a vocabulary of words to express their feeling s cy, which enables them to be socially competent (Joseph & Strain, 2003). Knowledge of the meaning of words in conjunction with world knowledge leads to improved comprehension. Therefore, for instruction to affect comprehension, vocabulary instruction need s to be taught in conjunction with concepts and content (Nagy, 2005). Teaching words as related concepts seems to be beneficial in vocabulary instruction. Conceptually core words in content areas are likely to be thematically related, providing an oppor tunity for rich contextualized word learning experience (Bravo & Cervetti, 2009). Approach es that make explicit the relationships among sets of words (e.g., semantic mapping) ha ve been shown to have positive effects beyond definitional and conceptual voca bulary alone (Bravo & Cervetti 2009 ). Presenting academic vocabulary by using sets of words that are lexically related may be an essential instructional scaffold in helping children from low socioeconomic backgrounds with limited vocabulary and previous knowledge learn and use words across multiple contexts in both contextualized and decontextualized applications (Pollard Durodola et al., 201 1). Thus, when teaching social emotional vocabulary to children it should be taught as related concepts, as would vocabulary in any content area. Effective vocabulary instruction is a long term process that has to start early and must continue throughout the school years (Nagy, 2005). It has been well established

PAGE 19

19 that students who are actively engaged during vocabul ary development by hearing, using, semantically manipulating, and playing with words are more likely to acquire and retain new vocabulary (Beck et al., 2002). Reviews of best practices of vocabulary instruction suggests that effective teaching should (a) be systematic and explicit (Pressley, 2001); (b) involve extensive and guided practice (Beck et al. 2002 ); (c) incorporate periodic revi ew (Brophy & Good, 1986) ; and (d) include observation and progress monitoring assessments to inform further instruction ( National Institute of Child and Human Development [ NICHD ] 2000). With so many words to teach, determining which words to teach directly is a decision that requires much consideration. Beck and her colleagues (2002) suggest that there are three tiers of word utility. Tier 1 words are common words that most children probably already know (e.g., happy, sad). Tier 2 words are high frequency words for mature language users and are words that can be found across a variety of domains (e.g., elated, depressed ). Tier 3 words are typically associated with a specific content area and are not frequently used outside content specific contexts (e.g., schizophrenic). Because Tier 2 words are both useful across multiple domains and are not typically known by most ch ildren, Beck and her colleagues suggest Tier 2 words be targeted for instruction. However, Biemiller (2006) has suggested that vocabulary instruction should focus on providing students with greater breadth of word knowledge. When working with children in the primary grades (K 2), he suggests instruction on words typically known by children with average to advanced vocabularies by the end of second grade. As Biemiller describes, these are words that are known by 40 to 75% of second grade students at the e nd of the year. He believes that teaching such words

PAGE 20

20 would facilitate children learning more readily because the greatest learning gains can be made on these words. While identification of Tier 2 words is useful in the selection of social emotional voca bulary, another important consideration when selecting con tent area vocabulary is student s background knowledge of such vocabulary. Beck and McKeown (1991) knowledge, to complete knowledge where students know a word deeply and are able to take ownership of that word in their reading, writing, listening, and speaking Depth of word knowledge is necessary for students to be able to understand various shades of meanings, am ong semantically similar words (Stahl & Bravo, 2010). Being able to distinguish among words such as bothered, upset, mad, angry, furious, exacerbated, enraged, and livid can provide children with the knowledge to select the appropriate use of words and th e ability to precisely apply a term. Relating back to suggestion, selection for vocabulary instruction should be chosen from the portion of word sto ck that was partially familiar Relating unfamiliar terms to previously known vocabular In all content areas, students will face new words for concepts they may or may not be familiar with. It is important to remember, though, that teaching students new labels for familiar concepts is quite different than teaching new labels for new concept s (Graves, 1987). To illustrate teaching students a new label for a concept or feeling

PAGE 21

21 they are familiar frightened) does not require the same kind of explicit instruction that would be necessary when teaching a label for a concept/feeling which may be unfamiliar such as embarrassed or jealous. Generally in vocabulary instruction som e words may be easily explained; however when vocabulary instruction is related to unfamiliar concepts, it then requires more time a nd effort to explain. As mentioned before, effective practices for promoting vocabulary learning focuses on the importance of influencing comprehension and not on word knowledge in isolation (Harmon, Hedrick, & Wood, 2005). According to Kress and his co lleagues (2004) there is a synergistic relationship between social and emotional development and academic standards. It is the integration of developing social competence with academic learning that leads to the education of the whole child. This integr ation fosters the skills students need to become better learners and for life long success (Kress et al. 2004 ). The opportunities for mutual growth of social emotional skills and early literacy skills, specifically vocabulary, can be found when teachers read aloud and discuss books with social emotional content (Doyle & Bramwell, 2006). Books with social emotional content present models of characters solving problems and interacting with others, and they have the potential to help students connect emotio nally with the experiences of the characters. Th ese connections promote social emotional learning in that students capabilities to focus, learn, memorize, and make decisions are connected with their emotions. I nteractive storybook reading provides a ven ue in which emotion vocabulary can be developed The conversations that occur during repeated storybook readings support vocabulary development in children. Vocabulary development occurs both through direct

PAGE 22

22 instruction of word meanings (Stahl, 1997) and through incidental learning from verbal has the potential to build emotion vocabulary but it is also critical for comprehension of narrative texts and supports metacognitive thinking (Wes tby, 2004). In addition, discussion of text can assist in the development of emotional literacy or the ability to recognize, label, and those of o thers (Joseph & Strain, 2003). As mentioned previously, to have emotional lit eracy stud ents must first have words t o understand feel ings (Joseph & Strain, 2003). A larger and more complex vocabulary of emotion vocabulary allows children to (a) better discriminate between feelings, (b) more effectively communicate with others abou t their feelings, and (c) engage in discussion about their personal experiences in and out of school (Joseph & Strain 2003). Having label s for their feelings (i.e., emotion vocabulary) is an important step in learning how to self regulate emotions. Firs t, children need to identify their feeling (e.g., angry) before they can take proactive steps to regulate their feelings or calm down. Educators can teach emotion vocabulary by providing direct explanations of definitions and examples, incidentally throug h conversation, play or discussion of text, and through special activities. Ridgeway, Waters, and Kuczaj (1985) conducted a study ability to understand emotion descriptive adjectives when used by adults and when they were able to produce such words on their own in their speech. Parents were asked to indicate which words their child (a) would understand when used by someon e to describe a feeling or mood and (b) used to refer to h is/her own feeling or to other d. Based on the data collected, norms for recepti ve and

PAGE 23

23 productive vocabulary were reported. Ridgeway and her colleagues compiled a list of these emotion descriptive adjectives that can be an extremely useful resource to researchers in the field of early emotional development as well as to educators who recognize the importance of teaching emotion vocabulary and need guidance in selecting vocabulary. Research Problem and Professional Significance The development of social competence and the establishmen t of successful Juvonen, 2011). Literature related to emotion vocabulary provides corroborating evidence of the academic and social benefits that such vocabulary can pro vide. However, there have not been any published studies that have examined the systematic instruction of social emotional vocabulary via storybook reading. To address this problem, researchers at the University of Florida designed SELF: Social Emotional Learning Foundations (Daunic, Corbett, & Smith, 2010). The current study was part of Project SELF, a larger externally funded development study that employed a pretest posttest control group design. The SELF study was primarily focused o n the developmen t and evaluation of social emotional curriculum to promote emotional and behavioral self regulation for children in the primary grades. However, the purpose of th e current study was to examine the social emotional vocabulary growth of students who receive d the SELF intervention. Specifically, the following three research questions were addressed: 1. What are the effects of the SELF intervention on student learning of social emotional vocabulary? 2. What student factors are related to social emotional vocabula ry outcomes ?

PAGE 24

24 3. What teacher instructional factors are related to ? To investigate the first research question, a researcher created measure of the social emotional vocabulary targeted for instruction in the intervention was creat ed and administered to students in the treatment and control conditions The second research question was the subtest of expressive vocabulary and understanding spoken paragraphs from the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4 (CELF 4; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003) and the passage comprehension subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT R; Woodcock, 1987). These score s were analyzed to determine whether they were performance on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. The third research question was addre ssed with the evaluation of videotaped SELF lessons in treatment classrooms. An observation tool, consisting of a viewing record and a scoring rubric was developed to inve stigate what teacher instructional factors are related to emotional vocabulary outcomes. Theoretical Framework The SELF curriculum is grounded in the work of cognitive behavioral interventions. This approach, based on cognitive behavi oral therapy, intends to prevent behavioral difficulties by providing students with the language needed for self talk. Cognitive behavioral interventions rest on the assumption that the development of self control is fundamentally developed through self t alk (Smith, Graber, & Daunic, 2009). For example, children with aggression often are unable to understand the intentions of others and tend to generate and select socially inappropriate responses in anger provoking situations (see Dodge, Laird, Lochman, Z elli, & the Conduct Problems

PAGE 25

25 Prevention Research Group, 2002) but through self talk, they can learn to control these responses ( Smith et al., 2009 ) Emerging evidence suggests that social/cognitive deficits in the areas of limited problem solving abilit y, impulsivity, and poor social reasoning may be linked to executive function (EF). Ex ecutive function comprises a set of interrelated cognitive processes includ ing inhibition of impulses, cognitive flexibility, and working memory. Other processes relat ed to EF include emotion control, planning, initiating, and monitoring (Blair, Zelazo, & Greenberg, 2005). Thus, EF significantly contributes to social cognitive and behavioral functioning (Riggs, Gree nberg, Kusche, & Pentz, 2006). Executive Function, C ognition, and Comprehension The skills associated with EF and the self regulation of emotions and behavior are required for the understanding of oral and written language (McClelland, Cameron, Connor, Farris, Jewkes, & Morrison, 2007). Four critical cogni tive processes of EF that influence reading comprehension are emotional control, working memory, problem solving and internalization of self directed speech (Westby, 2004). Self directed speech, or self talk, can be facilitated through activities designe d to develop receptive and expressive vocabulary. As children learn to use self talk, they are both strengthening and using language to regulate their emotional and behavioral responses (Greenberg, 2006). Instructional Strategies that Promote Executive Function Each lesson in the SELF curriculum incorporates instructional strategies (Lochman, Nelson, & Sims 1981; Meichenbaum & Goodman 1971) that are closely aligned with best practices in teaching reading comprehension: (a) teacher modeling (b) guided pra ctice (c) independent practice, (d) feedback, and (e) application (Duffy et al.,

PAGE 26

26 1986; Duffy, 2002). Because successful social emotional and behavioral development is promoted specifically through the modification and internalization of self talk (see Sin ger & Bashir, 1999; Smith & Daunic, 2004), SELF lessons also focus on maximizing teacher student dialog and developing concepts and vocabulary associated with emotions and behavior. Teachers promote emotional and behavioral self regulation while simultane ously promoting language development. It is the combination of language and executive function development that links SELF lessons to positive social emotional outcomes in support of learning. In the larger study of the SELF intervention (Daunic et al. 2010) it was hypothesized that the designed curriculum would e ffect positive changes in EF skills associated with emotional and behavioral self regulation, literacy, and outcomes related to social emotional learning, as illustrated in Figure 1 1 Deep Proc essing for Vocabulary Development Having vocabulary knowledge provides the means by which to understand and convey messages, including social emotional concepts. The SELF curriculum targets f regulation and executiv e function. The current study examined (a) whether the SELF curriculum was effective in helping students learn social emotional vocabulary; (b) whether student characteristics influenced the development of social emotional vocabul ary; and (c) the extent to which the instructional methods implemented by teache rs during the SELF lessons (Figure 1 2 ) were related to how successful they were in developing social emotional vocabulary. In other words, the focus of the current study wa s to examine more closely the development of social emotional vocabulary that is fundamental to self talk and social emotional concepts. In order for students to develop

PAGE 27

27 a firm understanding of vocabulary, they need to be provided with opportuniti es for deeper processing (McKeown, Beck, & Sandora, 2012). (Daunic et al. 2010) Figure 1 1. SELF Conceptual Framework Figure 1 2 Instructional Methods Implemented by SELF Teachers Targeted Vocabulary Instruction During effective vocabulary instruction, the teacher: Says the target word aloud Prompts students to repeat the target word Provides a stude nt friendly explanation Incorporates and reviews previously taught words Provides examples of the target word in multiple contexts Provides multiple exposures of the target word Engages students in discussions about the target word

PAGE 28

28 This would include providing students with many op portunities to think about and discuss words in a challenging manner where they are given opportunities to examine helping them form connections to new words and providing generalizations across contexts ( Beck & McKeown, 2007 ) This kind of instruction can be done when teachers use comments and questions to help students build a wider representation of a word. In other words, through skillful discussion, teachers can help students form generalizable and flexible representations of a word that supports their understanding of novel contexts in which they encounter the word. Conclusion This chapter provided an overview of the importance of social emotional vocabulary in helpi ng students gain greater academic and interpersonal success. Further it highlighted the lack of investigational studies to examine the effects of a storybook reading intervention on social emotional vocabulary growth. The subsequent chapters will provide details that support the current study. Chapter 2 present s a review of as a vehicle to develop vocabulary. Chapter 3 present s the methods that were used to conduct this study. Results of the statistica l analyses of data from the current study are presented in Chapter 4. The final chapter will present an interpretation of the findings from the current study, limitations of this study, and implications for practice and for future research

PAGE 29

29 CHAPTER 2 RE VIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Many children enter school with significant weaknesses in the depth and breadth of their vocabulary knowledge (Pollard Durodola et al., 2011) ; these weaknesses contribute to poor academic achievement. The National Reading Panel (2000) cites support for the importance of vocabulary instruction that dates as far back as 1942, when Davis presented evidence that reading comprehension is affecte d by vocabulary and reasoning. Years of accumulated data provide evidence for the need to exert greater efforts to foster vocabulary acquisition in the primary years. It is well established that older students who are more proficient readers acquire much of their new vocabulary through wide, independent reading (Anderson & Nagy, 1992). The pr imar y way in which younger students who are nonreaders are exposed to new vocabulary is through oral language experiences such as shared storybook readings (Coyne, Capozzoli Oldham, & Simmons, 2012; Powell & Diamond, 2012). Although reading aloud is a com mon practice in early childhood classrooms, much of the research that has found support for th e use of storybook reading as an effective series of studies by Whitehurst and his colleagues (Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst, & Epstein, 1994; Whitehurst et al., 19 88; Whitehurst et al., 1994). Whitehurst et al. (1988) investigated a one month, home based intervention, designed to optimize parental reading of picture books to youn g children. Twenty nine children, between 21 and 35 months of age, participated with their families in this investigation. The children were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. The control group families were instructed to continue to read to their children in

PAGE 30

30 their customary fashion. The experimental group was involved in a 4 week intervention called dialogic reading. Dialogic reading involves an adult reading aloud to one or more children while encouraging dialogic interactions. T his is accomplished by asking open ended questions, explaining and discussing targeted vocabulary, providing feedback, and eliciting thoughtful responses to the story that gradually lead the child to become adept at retelling the story. Results of posttes t measures of expressive vocabulary found the children in the experimental group outperformed children in the control group. Furthermore, the follow up conducted nine months after the completion of the treatment found there was still a six month advantage on the two expressive tests for the experimental group. Because the costs of one on one training limited the widespread use of dialogic reading techniques, Arnold et al. (1994) replicated and extended the results of their original study (Whitehurst et al. 1988) by developing and evaluating an inexpensive videotape training package for teaching dialogic reading techniques. Sixty four children, ranging in age from 24 to 34 months, and their mothers participated in this study. A modified random assignment was used to divide the mother child pairs into one of the following conditions: (a) no training, (b ) tr aditional direct training, or (c ) videotape training. All mother child pairs were seen four times over the course of five weeks in a university laborato ry setting. An analysis of covariance was conducted to compare the three groups. Children in the videotape training group outperformed those in the direct training and control groups. Further analysis demonstrated that advantages over the direct trainin g could be largely attributed to trainer differences. The results from this study supported the conclusions from the previous study (Whitehurst et al. 1988 ) that

PAGE 31

31 found dialogic reading video tape training was found to provide a cost effective, standardized means of implementing the dialogic reading program. mixed results. An early meta analysis conducted by Scarb orough and Dobrich (1994) reviewed more than 30 years of empirical research on the effects of parental reading on the development of language and literacy skills of preschoolers. Although the findings in the 31 studies reviewed were not consistent or as s trong as had been presumed, overall they did provide evidence that there is a relation between parent child book reading and growth in language and literacy abilities. As a result of the early studies demonstrating the benefits of storybook reading in the home on the vocabulary development of children, additional research and meta analysis have been conducted in classroom settings in which classroom teachers or vocabulary k nowledge. A meta analysis conducted by Karweit and Wasik (1996) focused on the effects of storybook reading on 4 and 5 year olds in school settings. Results from this meta analysis found there were few empirical studies that documented the relationship between different story reading practices and the development of language and early literacy. Based on the eight studies included in their meta analysis, Karweit and Wasik highlighted certain practices for reading stories to students in classrooms. First reading in small groups (3:1) provides students with greater accessibility to comprehension and understanding of a story. Second, repeated readings were beneficial in classroom serving students with limited experience with

PAGE 32

32 stories prior to entering scho ol. Third, storybook reading provides a venue to build vocabulary of young children; even when explanations are not provided, incidental word storybook reading impact bot Mol, Bus, and de Jong (2009) conducted a meta analysis to determine the effects of storybook reading on vocabulary and print knowledge. It included 31 studies in which teachers and/or research assistants impleme nted an interactive reading intervention in preschool or kindergarten classrooms. Results from this meta analysis interventions. Mol and her colleagues determined that print knowledge benefited from interactions before, during, and after storybook readings. Approximately 6% of the gains in oral language skills could be explained by an interactive reading intervention. A moderate effect siz e of 8% was found for expressive vocabulary. These results showed that the quality and frequency of book reading are important. Overall, the oral language of students who participated in interactive reading programs was 28% greater than their peers in co ntrol groups. In a more recent meta analysis, Marulis and Neuman (2010) examined 67 studies to determine the effe cts of vocabulary interventions on the receptive and expressive language of pre kindergarten and kindergarten students. Marulis and vocabulary interventions, with an overall ef fect size of .88. This demonstrates a gain of

PAGE 33

33 approximately one standard deviation on vocabulary measures. Based on the moderator analyses of interventions that appeared to work best, the authors suggest the bulary growth: (a) intervention provided by a well trained person (larger effect sizes were produced when the experimenter conducted the treatment), (b) whole group vocabulary instruction, (c) explicit instruction that includes explanation of words or key examples, and (d) a combination of explicit and implicit instruction with meaningful practice and review. Marulis and Neuman confirm there is a need for the integration of both explicit and implicit vocabulary instruction, and caution that implicit instru ction alone has been found to be less effective. They also concluded that longer, more intensive, and more frequent interventions did not appear to promote larger effect sizes. Also, in contrast to Karweit and Wasik (1996), this meta analysis did not fin d support for small group instruction, but group instruction. The findings of Marulis and Neuman indicate that vocabulary interventions are potentially effective for all children; however, sig nificant differences were found in the effect sizes between groups, with children at risk for language delays from middle and upper income homes benefitting more from the vocabulary interventions than the students who are also at risk but from lower income homes. Therefore, it appears that while vocabulary interventions have the potential to improve oral language skills, they unfortunately do not have the power to close the vocabulary gap between students from different socio economic backgrounds. Undou btedly vocabulary knowledge is essential for academic success (Wasik & Iannone Campbell, 2012). However, vocabulary development has not received the

PAGE 34

34 attention or amount of research that has been conducted on identifying printed words or spelling (Biemill er & Slonim, 2001). If reading is defined as more than word recognition, but as skillful comprehension, then code related skills alone will be sufficient for an effective reader ( Neuman, 2010 ; Nielsen & Friesen, 2012 ). Skillful readers must have oral lan guage competencies, especially with decontextualized language. Decontextualized language expands conversations beyond the text. Researchers suggest that the most valuable aspect of read aloud experiences is that it gives children opportunities to engage with decontextualized language, requiring them to make sense of ideas that are about something beyond the here and now (Beck & McKeown, 2001). Given this, storybook reading activities are a promising venue for language and vocabulary development. Findin gs from a number of meta analyse s have established evidence of the various benefits of reading aloud to childre n and warrant further review in a more detailed manner. The purpose of this literature review is to describe what research and extant literature, published within the past 25 years, recommends as effective instructional strategies to develop vocabulary in young children (i.e., preschool and primary specifically, effective rea d aloud strategies. According to Biemiller (2012) chances of successfully addressing the vocabulary differences in school are greatest in the preschool p. 36). This review is organized first by the type of read aloud used (i.e., repeated readings, interactive questioning techniques, and vocabulary interventions) and by the age of participants (i.e., preschool, kindergarten, grade 1). Studies included in the repeated readings section investigated how the

PAGE 35

35 number of times a b ook was read impacted the vocabulary growth in children. The interactive questioning techniques section includes studies that were interested in (i.e., responding to q uestions and/or prompts). Studies that implemented whole and/or small are included in the last section. T his literature review is limited to studies with children in presch ool through first grade because this is the age range in which it is common practice for classroom teachers to read aloud to childre n as part of daily instruction, rather than having the expectation for children to read indepe ndently in the learning proces s Finally, major conclusions are drawn from the studies presented and implications for future research are discussed. Literature Review Methods A literature search of Google Scholar and of three databases in EBSCOhost (Academic Search Premier, Professio nal Development Collection, and PsycINFO) (1988 2013) was conducted for studies with all combinations of the following descriptors: oral language development, oral vocabulary, vocabulary acquisition, vocabulary development, vocabulary intervention, voca bul ary development through read alouds, storybook readings, preschool children, and elementary aged children. Studies in refereed journals were identified and citations from ancestral searches were also obtained. Every effort w as made to find all relevant s tudies cited in extant literature. The selected studi es met the following criteria: (a) studies were conducted in North America; (b) subjects were preschool and/or elementary aged students in the primary grades (i.e., kindergarten and first grade); (c) st udies targeted subjects who were proficient English speakers; (d) studies included reading aloud as an intervention

PAGE 36

36 for vocabulary deve lopment; (e) studies included vocabulary measures; (f) instruction and interventions occurred in a preschool or schoo l se tting; and (g) read alouds were conducted by either a classroom teacher or researcher. Although many of the studies focused on children considered at risk for language and literacy difficulties, studies that targeted English language learners or students with a diagnosed language impairment were excluded from this literature review. Using these inclusion and exclusion criteria, 25 relevant studies were selected. Read Aloud Approaches for Developing Vocabulary in Young Children Fostering vocabulary knowled ge in young children is a critical part of their literacy development. This is most likely to be fostered in environments that support word learning. Supportive word learning environments encourage conversations with children and adults, and provide chil dren opportunities to use the words they are in the process of learning (DeTemple & Snow, 2003). One of the reasons why reading aloud to young children promotes vocabulary learning is because it exposes children to relatively rare and sophisticated langua ge they may not otherwise have the opportunity to interact with (DeTemple & Snow 2003 ). Hayes and Ahrens (1988) determined that conversation, with the exception of c ourtroom testimony. When a teacher reads a storybook aloud, she provides an opportunity for students to participate in increasingly sophisticated conceptual conversations (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). Engaging children in conversations about stories and vo cabulary that has been targeted for instruction, the teacher facilitates early literacy skill acquisition, such as vocabulary knowledge and comprehension of spoken and written language (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Teale, 2003).

PAGE 37

37 Storybook reading activi ties can be an excellent means for language and vocabulary development because they provide opportunities for using decontextualized 2004). The following sections provide d etails about three read aloud approaches that have been researched to determine how their implementation affects children vocabulary acquisition. Most of the studies reviewed incorporate various conditions into their design and integrate components of r epeated readings, interactive questioning strategies, and vocabulary interventions. However, the studies are categorized according to the conditions primarily being investigated by the researchers. Repeated Readings This section includes the few studies t hat have examined the effects of repeated readings on the vocabulary development of preschool and kindergarten children. The body of work in this section includes studies that have specifically investigated the number of storybook readings as a condition of the research. As mentioned previously, the number of storybook readings may not have been the only condition being investigated in the studies included here; however, repeated readings was one of the primary conditions being examined. Only four studie s have directly investigated how conducted with 3 and 4 year old preschool children and compared the following experim ental conditions: (a) single reading, (b) repeated reading, and (c) questioning. Two studies were conducted with kindergartners. One of which compared the effects between two or four readings, and the other study investigated the difference in having students participate in four or six readings. The las t study in this section analyzed how

PAGE 38

38 pretesting, number of readings, and word explanations affected the word acquisition of students in kindergarten, first and second grade. Preschool studies. Snchal (1997) conducted a study with 60 preschool childr en (30 in each group of 3 and 4 year olds) who attended daycare centers in middle class neighborhoods. In this study, Snchal targeted ten words from a single storybook that was read aloud to the children, and each targeted vocabulary word appeared only once in the story. Three experimental conditions we re investigated in this study: (a) single reading, (b) repeated reading, and (c) questioning. The children in all three of the conditions were pretested for receptive knowledge of the target words, were read the book, and lastly were posttested immediately for expressive and receptive language. In each condition the experimenter pointed to the illustrations that exemplified each target word during all readings. In the single reading condition, during o ne session the experimenter individually pretested the children, read the book, and posttested for expressive and receptive knowledge of the target vocabulary. The repeated reading and questioning conditions were conducted over two sessions. In the first session, the experimenter individually pretested the children and read the book twice. In the second session, the experimenter read the book one more time and administered the receptive and expressive vocabulary posttest. However, in the repeated readin g condition the book was read as appeared; while in the questioning condition the children were asked a what or where question after the reading of each target word as it appeared in the text. The results of a two planned orthogonal comparison on the me ans of posttest showed that children in the repeated reading condition performed better than the children in the single reading condition. In addition,

PAGE 39

39 both repeated readings and questioning conditions lead to greater performance of the children for both receptive and expressive vocabulary. Lastly, Snchal found the questioning condition was the most effective for expressive vocabulary acquisition. Kindergarten studies. Robbins and Ehri (1994) conducted a study with 33 kindergartners, all of whom were n onreaders. They were interested in determining if the frequency with which the students heard a story had an effect on their vocabulary acquisition. Based on PPVT R scores, students were placed into three separate ability groups (i.e., low, medium, high) Participants in each group were randomly assigned to hear different storybooks. Storybooks were read twice to students individually. Each reading was presented two to four days apart. Students were then tested on 22 unfamiliar words, 11 of which were target vocabulary words (similar words not appearing in the text were included as control words in the multiple choice assessment). Some of the target vocabulary occurred twice within a storybook, while others only appeared once; therefore, the participa nts heard some words four times while others were heard twice. Results from this study showed that participants with higher PPVT R standard scores recognized more correct definitions of words than did participants with lower PPVT R standard scores. Overa ll, the results of within subject analyses provided knowledge. In addition, after calculating the probability of learning a word from context, the authors determined th at hearing a word four times in a story may be necessary for students to have an increase in vocabulary knowledge; however, hearing a word four times may not be sufficient for establishing higher rates of acquisition. This study provides additional suppor

PAGE 40

40 be expanded by having them listen to stories at least twice and hearing unfamiliar words repeated in stories. Justice, Meier, and Walpole (2005) conducted a pretest posttest comparison group design study to examine the following research goals: of novel words from storybook texts read repeatedly, (b) characterize the varying effect of elaborated versus non elaborated vocabulary instruction, and (c) examine the infl uence of prior vocabulary knowledge to the learning of new vocabulary. To study these research questions, 57 kindergarten children who attended predominantly low SES schools and were having difficulty in early literacy and vocabulary development were rand omly assigned to either a treatment (n=29) or a comparison (n=28) group. During the 10 week study, those students who were randomly assigned to the treatment condition participated in 20 small group storybook reading sessions. Children in both the treatm ent and control condition were read ten storybooks. Each of the ten books was read four times over the course of the study. Sixty words were selected from these books (i.e., six words from each book). For the students in the treatment condition, instruc tion of the novel vocabulary was randomly assigned to either an elaborated or non elaborated condition (i.e., three words per category). In the elaborated condition, the adult reader provided the meaning of the word and included an example of its use in a sentence. In the non elaborated condition, the children were incidentally exposed to the words as they occurred in the text. Results from this study found non elaborated or incidental exposure to novel words over four repeated readings in a 10 week peri od lead to nonsignificant word learning gains for at risk kindergartners. However, children in the treatment condition made significantly better gains from pretest to posttest for

PAGE 41

41 elaborated words versus the participants in the comparison group. The find ing for the use of word elaboration for vocabulary instruction was further supported by posttest results of the students with initial low vocabulary knowledge. Children in the treatment group with low vocabulary scores made significantly greater gain s fro m pre to posttests on words in the elaborated condition than their comparison group peers, who did not receive treatment. Thus, Justice and her colleagues interpret the findings to suggest that elaboration leads to greater vocabulary learning than does m ere exposure to words through storybook readings. Grade 1 studies. Biemiller and Boote (2006) conducted two studies in which they worked with regular classroom teachers who implemente d their vocabulary instruction in whole group sessions to students in kindergarten, first and second grade. In the first study, 43 kindergarteners, 37 first graders, and 32 second grade students participated in a pretest posttest design study intended to investigate three factors that might affect word acquisition: (a) pr etesting, (b) number of readings (i.e., two or four times), and (c) word expl anations. Word explanations were included to determine whether pretesting and number of readings interacted significantly with or without the use of direct word explanation. At each grade level three narrative books were used. Forty eight word meanings were targeted in each grade (12 from each book read twice and 24 from the book read four times). An ANOVA was conducted with three between group factors (grade, gender, and cohor t) and one within group factor (pre vs. posttest). In this study, overall there was no significant difference in gains when reading text two versus four times; however, this was not consistent between all grade levels. Students in kindergarten and first grade profited from four readings versus two reading s

PAGE 42

42 but students in grade 2 had no apparent benefit from the additional readings. Repeated readings accounted for average gains of 12% of word meanings. Across grade levels, there were greater gains for instructed words than for non instructed words. An additional 10% was gained from adding word expla nations, for a total gain of 22 %. While instruction did impact gains, pretesting itself had no measurable effect on the acquisition of word meanings in an y grade. In the second study, Biemiller and Boote (2006) researched the effectiveness of modifications to instructional procedures to increase the amount of learning of word meanings as well as the retention of learned word meanings over time. Modificatio ns to increase word learning acquisition included: (a) increasing the number of word meaning s taught each day from four six to seven nine, (b) incorporating vocabulary reviews during each reading of a story, (c) adding a final review using new context sent ences, and (d) solely using teacher explanations of word meanings. Biemiller and Boote implemented a pretest posttest delayed posttes t design with 28 kindergarten 37 first grade, and 42 second grade students. Results from Study 2 demonstrated the benefi ts of both increasing the number of word meanings taught per week as well as of the added reviews during instruction. This study also showed students could understand word meanings when assessed using context sentences different from the story used for in struction and that gains in word meanings were maintained over the four week period. Generally these studies find that repeated readings or greater exposure to target vocabulary leads to an increase in vocabulary learning (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Justic e et al., 2005; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Snchal, 1997). However, the research directly

PAGE 43

43 investigating the use of repeated readings, as a read aloud strategy, is very limited. Aside from the small number of studies included, there are limitations in the stu dies that should be considered. One, students were read to individually in half of the studies, a practice not often found in preschool and early primary classrooms (Robins & Ehri 1994 ; Snchal 1997 ). On the other hand, Justice et al. did find positiv e outcomes for vocabulary instructed in small groups through repeated readings and elaboration. Similarly, Biemiller and Boote reported vocabulary gains made by students who participated in whole class read alouds where there were repeated readings and wo rds were directly instructed. Another limitation of many of these studies is that delayed posttest s were not administered, therefore it is unknown whether students maintained the vocabulary gained (Justice et al. 2005 ; Robins & Ehri 1994 ; Snchal 1997 ). Only one study provides promising evidence that students can maintain the gains in word meanings over a four week period (Biemiller & Boote 2006 ). Based on the results of their study, Robbins and Ehri (1994) suggested the following procedures in ord er to support children in having gre ater vocabulary learning gains: increasing the number of times target words are included in stories, discussing targeted vocabulary, and integrating new vocabulary in interesting, meaningful stories. The instructional v alue of engaging students in conversations about targeted vocabulary as an effective strategy to improve their word learning was also found in the work of Snchal (1997), Justice et al. (2005), and Biemiller and Boote (2006). To conclude, thoughtfully pl anned repeated readings of storybooks that include elaborations or cost, and

PAGE 44

44 authentic activity within which to target vocabulary development, including verbs, for at risk children Justice et al., 2005, p. 28 ). Interactive Questioning Techniques Research conducted in the area of repeated readings was insightful, though limited. As mentioned above, much of the research investigating the effects of repeated readings also integrate d elaboration or discussion of targeted vocabulary. Most of the studies involving varied questioning techniques considered the differential effects of passive and active student participation during read aloud sessions. Active student engagement included discussion or questioning during the read aloud sessions. These studies include varied interactive questioning techniques as one of the conditions directly investigated. Of the nine studies in this section, the vast majority of the research using differ ent questioning strategies was conducted with preschool children. Only one study was conducted with kindergarten children. Further, no studies in this section were extended to include children in first grade. Preschool studies Dickinson and Smith (19 94) gathered data from a longitudinal study This study investigated the so cial and linguistic skills that are essential to the language and literacy development of children from English speaking, low income homes. Primary data were collected from transc riptions of videotaped book reading sessions in 25 classrooms serving 4 year olds; all classrooms were either part of a Head Start program or a similar subsidized program. Additional data were collected from general classroom observations, teacher intervi ews, individual target five. After conducting a cluster analysis, the authors found three unique patterns of book read ing: (a) co constructive, (b) didactic instructional, an d (c) performance

PAGE 45

45 oriented. Co constructive book reading is characterized by high amounts of talk by both teacher and children during the book reading, rather than before and/or after the reading. Also, the talk is of an analytic nature, prompted by the teacher, and responded to by the teacher and children. During didactic instructional book readings, the teacher encourages children to contribute to the reading of books by chiming portions of the text. Also, the teacher asks simple recall and comprehens ion questions after reading a section of the text. In the performance oriented book reading, most of the talk occurs before and after reading, with little talk during the book reading. Discussions were likely to include talk of the characters. Teachers also encouraged predictions and personal connections, or analyzed vocabulary. One year after the book readings a follow up occurred, during which the children who were then 5 years old were given tests of vocabulary (i.e., PPVT R) and story understanding. Based on the results of a regression analysi s using w holistic descriptions of book readings, it was determined that children in the performance oriented classrooms made larger gains than those in the didactic interactional. Because of the greater gains made in performance oriented classrooms, the authors state teachers should not feel it is necessary to constantly s top and discuss books at length Regression analyses conducted at the utterance level revealed strong effects of child involved analytic tal k on vocabulary (adjusted R 2 =.51) and modest effects on story understanding (adjusted R 2 =.25). Thus, Dickinson and Smith suggest teachers working in standard classrooms can enhance the effectiv eness of their book reading by: (a) including at least some child involved analytic talk, and (b) engaging students in talk before and after reading; follow up discussion being the most likely to be beneficial.

PAGE 46

46 reading of a book was that of Snchal and Cornell (1993). They used a 2 (age) x 4 (reading condition) factorial design to investigate four joint book reading condition s with 160 children (80 4 year olds and 80 5 year ol ds). The four conditions were: (a) verbatim reading (i.e ., reading the book as presented), (b) word repetition (i.e., reading the book as presented and emphasizing the target words by repeating them), (c) recasting (i.e., reading the sentence introducing the target word, then repeating the sentence replacing th e target word with a synonym), and (d) questioning (i.e., use of what and where questions). There were 10 target words that were embedded in the narrative storybook read to the participants. Students were pretested to determine their existing knowledge of the synonyms of target words and of the target words themselves. After pretesting, students were individually read the book and immediately posttested on the target words using an experimenter designed test of receptive and expressive vocabulary. Stu dents were given the delayed posttest one week later. Results of the posttest revealed that 5 year olds made greater vocabulary gains than 4 year olds, but no significant differences were reported between conditions. Also, 4 and 5 year old children made gains in receptive vocabulary in all four of the reading conditions being studied. As mentioned earlier, a single reading of a book did lead to this study is that all four reading conditions were found to be effective; surprisingly student s active participation did not lead to greater vocabulary learning. Justice (2002) also investigated the effects of labeling on the vocabulary development of preschool children betwee n the ages of 37 to 59 months. The two

PAGE 47

47 experimenta l conditions in her study were: (a) labeling versus questioning of novel words, and (b) conceptual versus perceptual questions about novel words. In the labeling condition, target words were pointed to an d labeled by the adult reader. When presented with conceptual questions, children were required to make judgments or predictions about the target items. In contrast, perceptual questions asked the children about concrete, salient features of the target i tems (i.e., size, shape, color). The ten target words were selected based on anticipated unfamiliarity by the participants. Also, all target words were shown only one time in the illustrations, the word itself did not eaning could not be inferred from contextual cues. Children participated in two individual shared book reading sessions over a 1 week period. This resulted in two exposures to each novel word during the time of the study. During each reading, the partic ipants were exposed to five of the target words through labeling and to the remaining five words through questioning. Results from a MANOVA indicated that exposure through labeling resulted in significantly greater gains in receptive word learning rather than through the questioning technique; however, neither labeling nor questioning had an advantage with expressive word learning. With regards to conceptual versus perceptual questions, results from a MANOVA revealed there was no difference in expressive or receptive word learning across the two groups. In other word learning more so than questioning and both conceptual and perceptual questioning lead to similar res ults on receptive and expressive word learning. Snchal, Thomas, and Monker (1995) conducted two studies. In Study 1, Snchal and her colleagues examined whether 32 preschool children with different

PAGE 48

48 level s of vocabulary knowledge also differed in their ability to learn new vocabulary from listening to stories. Participants were classified as having either high or low word knowledge based on a median split on their PPVT R standard scores. A total of 13 target words were selected from two commercially a vailable storybooks and only appeared once in the story. Children with differing word knowledge were randomly assigned to one of two reading conditions: (a) listening, or (b) labeling. While conducting the read aloud, the experimenter pointed to the illu stration representing each target word. However, in the listening condition, children listened passively to a story while in the labeling condition, children were asked questions in which they were required to label the illustrations representing the tar get words. Children individually participated in three sessions. During the first session, children were administered a pretest and were read the book once. The following day, during the second session, children were read a book for the second time and were posttested. One week later, students were administered a delayed posttest during the third session. Results from a 2 (reading condition) X 2 (prior vocabulary) X 2 (book) X 2 (posttest testing time) mixed factorial ANOVA provided evidence that stude nts who participated in the labeling condition performed better on the comprehension vocabulary posttests, and produced more words during both the immediate and the delayed posttests. Additionally, results from the same mixed factorial ANOVA showed that c hildren with larger vocabularies produced more words in the immediate and delayed posttests. In the second study, Snchal et al. (1995) investigated the following book reading procedures with 4 8 preschool children: (a) listening, (b) pointing, and (c) l abeling. Stu dy 2 used the same storybooks that were used in Study 1; however, only

PAGE 49

49 10 words were targeted, not 13 as in first study. In the listening condition, the experimenter read the storybook and repeated the sentence that introduced each target wor d. In the pointing condition, the experimenter asked questions requiring the children to point to the target words. Lastly, children in the labeling condition were asked questions in which they were required to label the illustrations representing the ta rget words, as was done in Study 1. Children in all three of the reading conditions were exposed to each target word twice during each reading. Results from a 3 (reading condition) X 2 (prior vocabulary) X 2 (book) X 2 (testing time) mixed factorial ANOV A provid ed evidence for the following: (1) For comprehension vocabulary tests, children who actively responded during the reading performed better than did children in the listening condition; and, children with larger vocabularies scored higher than did c hildren with smaller vocabularies, (2) For production of new words, children in the active responding conditions produced more words on the immediate and delayed posttests than the children in the listening condition; yet, during the immediate posttest, ch ildren in the labeling condition did produce more words than did children in the pointing condition. Findings from Study 1 and 2 reveal that all children, regardless of their prior vocabulary knowledge, benefit from opportunities to practice retrieval (i. e., pointing and labeling) of novel words. Furthermore, findings obtained from these studies provide support for parents and educators to actively engage children during read alouds by asking simple questions, such as labeling or pointing. Ard and Bever ly (2004) worked with 40 typically developing preschoolers between the ages of 36 to 59 months old and from monolingual English speaking

PAGE 50

50 and comments during joint book rea mapped to unnamed referents. The authors considered the use of nonsense words would ensure that the participants would not have had prior exposure to the target words and that word learning would not be con or strategy for synonym acquisition. To compare effects of adult questions and comments participants were pla ced in one of four conditions: joint book reading only (JBRO), repeated joint book reading with questions (JBRQ), repeated joint book reading with comments (JBRC), or repeated joint book reading with both questions and comments (JBRQC). Comments were considered those typical of adult interactions during joint book reading (i.e., simple restatements of the tar get word in context). Questions were asked using the interrogative the target word. The first author saw each participant at his/her preschool for four sessions. Receptive posttest results from a univariate AN OVA found there were group conducted. Results of the post hoc tests found JBRQ, JBRC, and JBRQC groups each identified a significantly greater number of target words t han the control group, but no significant differences were found among the groups with interactive strategies (i.e., JBRQ, JBRC, and JBRQC). Expressive posttest results from a univariate ANOVA and post hoc comparisons found participants produced significa ntly more words in the JBRC and JBRQC conditions (means of 3.7 and 4 .4 words, respectively) than the participants in the JBRO or JBRQ conditions (means of 1.3 and 1.9 words, respectively). Also, comments appeared more effective than questions. Participan ts in the two conditions that included comments, JBRC and JBRQC, performed significantly better than the

PAGE 51

51 participants in the other groups. According to the authors, comments may have advanced word learning by having contained terms that directed the child to perspective, and by presenting the target words in a more simplistic syntactic construction. Other studies have found adult questioning as a strategy that provided more of a benefit for expressive word learnin g. This study may have produced different results because the participants were asked to use nonsense words to label unnamed referents, which is more similar to initial word learning, versus other studies which present novel words with familiar referents, therefore, the task being more like synonym learning. novel word acquisition during storybook reading with 35 3 year olds enrolled in childcare centers or nursery schools. Pa rticipants were randomly assigned to one of three stor ybook reading conditions (a ) vo cabulary eliciting questions, (b) noneliciting questions, or (c ) no questions (i.e., control). Vocabulary eliciting questions were asked of the children during reading se ssions, requiring them to respond with novel target words from the text. Noneliciting questions containing the novel target words were the novel target word. No ques tions were asked during the story reading for the control group. Participants met with the experimenter in the preschool. Three original storybooks were used in this study; each contained six novel target words in the text, with a color illustration acco mpanying each target word. Nine target words that were unfamiliar to 3 year olds were selected for the study, each appearing once in two of the books. Participants were repeatedly read three storybooks during four reading sessions

PAGE 52

52 and were tested for pro duction and comprehension of novel words in the final session. Findings from a 3 (vocabulary eliciting, noneliciting, and no question) X 2 (pre vs. post novel word com prehension increased in both question conditions as compared to the control group. Walsh and Blewitt concluded that the type of question is not as critical to general. Furth ermore, although novel word production was not strongly affected by any of the reading conditions, asking children noneliciting questions did appear to foster production of new words more than not asking questions at all. Blewitt, Rump, Shealy, and Cook (2009) were interested in determining how scaffolding might affect word learning during shared book reading. Scaffolding was defined by low demand and high demand questions. Low demand questions focused on description of pictures or simple recall questio ns of story elements. High demand questions, on the other hand, required a child to infer and predict. Blewitt and her colleagues based the scaffolding hypothesis on the assumption that there would be a difference in the effectiveness of low or high dema nd reading styles depending on a knowledge. They tested this hypothesis in a two step process. Study 1 assessed which demand question was more effective for learning new words from stories (i.e., low or high demand questions). Study 2 focused on determining the value of a scaffolding approach to asking questions. The first study was conducted with 58 preschool children ranging in age from 34 to 49 months. In this study there were four intervention conditions. Demand levels (low

PAGE 53

53 vs. high) were crossed with placement of extratextual questions (interrupting vs. noninterrupting). In the interrupting condition, comments were made during the reading and questions were asked immed iately following each target word. In the noninterrupting condition, comments were made before the readings and questions were asked following the reading. These four conditions were compared with a control group whose comments and questions did not rela te in any way to the target vocabulary. The children met individually with the experimenter during all sessions of the 6 week study In the pretest session children were administered the Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test III (EOWPVT III) and PP VT III. There were a total of four reading sessions. In the first three sessions, the experimenter read two of the three illustrated storybooks that were created specifically for the study. In the fourth session, the experimenter read all three books. After the reading in the fourth session, children were posttested on researcher created vocabulary assessments, New Word Production Test (NWPT) and the New Word Comprehension Test (NWCT). Delayed posttest of the NWPT, NWCT, and an alternate form on the PP VT III w ere administered approximately one week after session 4. Results of a hierarchical regression analysis found none of the interactions were significant. However, results of a weighted contrast in an ANOVA found children in the intervention conditi ons scored significantly better in both comprehension and production than the children in the control condition. Thus, the researchers determined that while children in the control condition were able to learn to relate target words with their referents f r om textual exposure to words, children in intervention conditions learned substantially more target words when the words were repeated in extratextual questions. Results of the immediate and delayed posttest

PAGE 54

54 the assessments either remained stable or improved. The second study conducted by Blewitt et al. (2009) was conduct ed with 50 preschool children ranging in age from 36 to 47 months. The authors assessed the rd learning. The three question conditions included: (a) low demand only, (b) high demand only, and (c) scaffolding. The scaffolding condition began with low demand questions and later included high demand questions. All questions were asked in an inter rupting manner given that Study 1 showed there were no placement effects. Differences in the demand level or Study 2 used all the same books and materials as in Study 1. However, there were some changes in the assessments. The NWCT was added to the pretest, the New Word Definition Test (NWDT) was added to the posttest, and EOWPVT was eliminated. During the pretest children were administered the PPTVT III and the NWCT There were four reading sessions. The low and high demand question conditions followed procedures similar to the interrupting conditions in Study 1. The scaffolding like condition consisted of largely low demand questions in the early reading sessions and the final reading session included mostly high demand questions. Posttest ing of the NWDT, NWCT, and PPVT III was conducted a week after the final reading. Children in all three reading conditions learned about the target words. Results of a hierarc hical regression analysis revealed that on comprehension scores, all three approaches were children in this condition had significantly higher definition scores than the children in

PAGE 55

55 the low and high demand conditions combined. Based on the results of both studies, Blewitt and her colleagues concluded that regardless of the placement of questions, both low and high demand questions benefit the initial process of word learning. Moreover, scaffolding student learning beginning with low demand questions and adding high demand questions provides children with a deeper understanding of a Most recently, Walsh and Rose (2013) conducted a 6 week blocked random ized design study to investigate the impact of two adult questioning styles on the receptive vocabulary of preschoolers. Participants were 45 preschool children, enrolled in Head Start classrooms, ranging in age from 31 to 64 months, with a mean age of 51 months. Children were administered the PPVT III at pretest and were randomly assigned, via rank order, to one of the three intervention conditions (i.e., eliciting questions, noneliciting questions, and control) based on general vocabulary knowledge. Th ree storybooks were created for this study, from which nine novel words were selected. Each target word was included once in two of the books. The experimenters, in one on one settings, provided the intervention. In both the vocabulary eliciting and non eliciting conditions, children were asked six questions that focused on the target words for each storybook. The vocabulary eliciting questions condition required the students to respond with a novel word from the story. The vocabulary noneliciting quest ions include the target words. During the storybook reading sessions, only questions about the target words were asked. The interventionist did not provide corrective feedback if

PAGE 56

56 the students answered incorrectly. The control condition included a noninteractive storybook reading of the text with no extratextual comments. Walsh and Rose (2013) administered the PPVT III at pretest to obtain a baseline of the novel word receptive knowledge was assessed with the Seasonal Word Comprehension Game (SWCG), an experimenter created measure. The SWCG was given at pretest, immediate posttest (after the th ird storybook reading), and delayed posttest (approximately 1 week after the conclusion of the study). No nparametric Mann Whitney U tests were conducted to test for group differences on the SWCG scores at posttest and delayed posttest. Results revealed s tudents in the vocabulary noneliciting group had significantly higher overall intervention scores than those in the vocabulary eliciting condition. However, at posttest there were no significant differences between the control group and the vocabulary non eliciting and eliciting groups. Finally, there were no significant dif ferences between any of the three intervention conditions at delayed posttest on the SWCG. The finding that vocabulary noneliciting questions were more effective in producing students with higher posttest novel word receptive scores is in contrast with findings from previous studies that have found vocabulary learning has noninteractive readings (E wers & Brownson, 1999; Walsh & Blewitt, 2006; Whitehurst et al., 1988). Walsh and Rose concluded that the use of vocabulary noneliciting questions with children who may have differing prior experiences might help children form initial associations with no vel words. In other words, noneliciting vocabulary questions serve an important developmental role. Thus, the authors believe the finding of this study

PAGE 57

57 may prompt Head Start teachers to implement storybook reading strategies that promote vocabulary devel opment. Although this study shows the variability in adult vocabulary growth, it is not without limitations. Besides the small sample size, the more significant limitat ions are that the intervention was conducted by the experimenters rather than by classroom teachers, and that the intervention was conducted during one on one reading sessions rather than in whole or small group settings that are more typical to the daily routine in preschool classrooms. In order to determine the effectiveness and feasibility of incorporating varied vocabulary questioning styles in preschool classrooms, future studies should have the classroom teacher provide the intervention. Kindergarte n studies. Ewers and Brownson (1999) used an experimental design to study the vocabulary acquisition of 66 kindergarteners during a single joint book reading. Similar to the findings of Snchal and Cornell (1993), this study also found an overall positi reading. Ewers and Brownson compared the effect of the following two conditions: (a) active participation and (b) passive participation. In the active participation condition students were pre sented with what and where questions In the passive participation condition students were provided with recast comments (i.e., comments restating the target phrase that substituted the target phrase with a familiar synonym). Factorial analyses of S nchal Vocabulary Test Adapted (SVT A) posttest target word acquisition revealed that children in the questioning condition acquired more words than those in the recasting condition, regardless of prior vocabulary knowledge and working

PAGE 58

58 memory ability. Bas ed on their findings, Ewers and Brownson concluded that active participation strategies (i.e., use of what and where questions) helped focus the retrieving target word s, leading to greater vocabulary acquisition. Studies in this section vary greatly in length from a single reading session (Ewers & Brownson, 1999; Snchal & Cornell, 1993) to a range of up to four sessions (Ard & Beverly, 2004; Blewitt et al., 2009; Just ice, 2002; Snchal et al., 1995; Walsh & Blewitt, 2006); from six weeks of instruction (Walsh & Rose, 2013) to data collected from a longitudinal study with the follow up occurring the following year (Dickinson & Smith, 1994). In spite of such difference s in the length of implementation, these studies overall found that actively engaging children during the read aloud process by asking them questions and prompts did lead to greater gains. As with some of the repeated readings studies, a limitation that w as common across many studies of interactive questioning techniques was that they conducted individual storybook readings (Blewitt et al. 2009 ; Justice 2002 ; Snchal & Cornell 1993 ; Snchal et al. 1995 ; Walsh & Blewitt 2006 ; Walsh & Rose 2013). Ag ain, this is not a common practice in preschool, kindergarten, or first grade. Additional research needs to be conducted to determine if the effectiveness of the questioning strategies is comparable in small group or whole group settings. Another limitat ion that puts into question how effectively classroom teachers can integrate this read knowledge is that many of the interventions in this section were provided by the experimenter and not the classroom teacher (Ard & Beverly 2004 ; Blewitt et al. 2009 ; Snchal et al. 1995 ; Walsh & Blewitt 2006 ; Walsh & Rose 2013 ).

PAGE 59

59 Something worth noting is that some of the studies used original storybooks that were created specifically for the investigation being conducted (Blewitt et al. 2009 ; Walsh & Blewitt 2006 ; Walsh & Rose 2013 ). It is also worth mentioning there were a what and/or where (Ard & Beverly 2004 ; Ewers & Bronso n 1999 ; Snchal & Cornell 1993 ). While these types of questions provide the opportunity for student engagement, they do limit how students may respond. However, in spite of the variability in the studies investigating interactive questioning strategie s and their limitations, the general consensus is that, novel vocabulary during storybook sharing sessi Vocabulary Interventions Educators need to incorporate shared book readings that provide students with opportunities to actively engage in word learning. Storybook readings can be an instructional practice intended to addition to repeated readings and interactive questioning, there are strategies that have been incorporated into vocabulary interventions that can have a positive impact on h. Researchers interested in vocabulary interventions have created instructional routines to provide additional activities to scaffold explicit vocabulary instruction. Most vocabulary intervention research has been conducted with children in kindergarten Only two of the 12 studies in this section were conducted with preschool children, and three included students in first grade. Some interventions conducted in kindergarten included as little as three readings, most interventions however included 36 ses sions, and one intervention was the most extensive including

PAGE 60

60 108 sess ions. First grade intervention studies varied in length from one to ten weeks. The interventions reviewed in this section have investigated the difference between what was considered ba sic, explicit vocabulary instruction and additional, active vocabulary instruction. Preschool studies. Pollard Durodola et al. (2011) investigated the effects of World of Oral Reading and Language Development (WORLD), a shared book reading intervention. Preschool and Head Start teachers were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: WORLD shared book reading or typical shared book reading. One hundred twenty five preschool students ranging in age from 4.0 to 5.3 years participated in the study. Of th e 125 students, 69 were in the WORLD condition and 56 wer e in the comparison condition. Students were selected to participate in the study if they scored at or below the 30th percentile on the PPVT III and were proficient in English, as reported by the cl assroom teacher. Trained graduate and undergraduate student assistants individually assessed students. Assessments included standardized, norm referenced, and experimenter developed measures of receptive (i.e., PPVT III and RDRPVT Researcher Developed Receptive Picture Vocabulary Test) and expressive vocabulary (i.e., EOWPVT and RDEPVT Researcher Developed Expressive Picture Vocabulary Test). The WORLD intervention consisted of 24 books (both storybooks and informational text) that focused on two th emes nature and living things (Pollard Durodola et al., 2011). The teachers taught each theme for six weeks, during which 68 vocabulary words were instructed explicitly. All new words were taught in lexical sets before reading a story or informational

PAGE 61

61 Critical WORLD intervention features included (a) a 5 day instructional cycle, (b) before, during, and after reading activities, and (c) varied instructional tasks ranging from low to high cognitive skills. Teachers in the WORLD condition implemented the shared book reading intervention to groups of nine to ten children for 20 minutes a day, for 12 weeks. Researcher observations of teachers in the comparison group revealed that the comparison teachers typic ally (a) selected books from their own classroom or school libraries, (b) did not use both storybooks and informational texts, (c) conducted book reading sessions for approximately 11.68 minutes, with most of the instructional time spent on reading the boo k, and (d) read books to the entire class. Students were posttested two weeks following the completion of the intervention. Because children were nested within classrooms, the researchers used multilevel modeling to analyze the data. Level 1 was the stu dent level, and Level 2 was the classroom level. Results of posttest measures on the PPVT III and EOWPVT using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) found no statistically significant main effects of condition. Students in both the WORLD condition and the c omparison condition improved from pretest to posttest on these measures. However, statistically significant main effects were found on the researcher developed proximal measures of WORLD targeted vocabulary (RDRPVT and RDEPVT). The researcher concluded t hat results from the PPVT III and the EOWPVT are not surprising given the possibility of standardized measures being insensitive to vocabulary growth. With regards to the more sensitive researcher developed proximal vocabulary measures, the authors conclu de that the explicit, illustrations with science vocabulary and to define targeted vocabulary.

PAGE 62

62 Silverman, Crandell, and Carlis (2013) conducted a 12 week intervention that compared the effects of three experimental conditions on the vocabulary of 4 year old preschool children with differing levels of initial vocabulary. The study was conducted in 26 Head Start classrooms. Classes were randomly assigned to o ne of the follow ing conditions: (a) read aloud (9 classes n=91 children), (b) read aloud plus extension activities (8 classes n=84), and (c) control (9 classes n=88). Teachers in the control condition followed their typical classroom routine of instruction. Teachers in the intervention conditions (i.e., read aloud and read aloud plus) implemented the intervention during 30 minute read alouds, which were conducted four days a week over the course of the 12 week study. Both intervention conditions included 24 books (12 narrative and 12 informational text) and 48 target words. While participating in the study, teachers in the intervention conditions followed the lesson plans provided and read each book twice per week, targeting two words per book. The teachers supporte d vocabulary development by providing child friendly definitions, repeating the target words, reviewing target words, and asking analytic questions to actively engage students in discussions of the target words. In addition, teachers in the read aloud plus condition incorporated extension activities during their regularly scheduled morning meeting, small group, and centers time (e.g., 5 minutes during each of these activities). These extension activities included additional review of the target vocabulary, drawing/writing activities, and hand s on activities related to target words. Silverman et al. (2013) assessed children both on their general vocabulary knowledge and on their understanding of target vocabulary. General vocabulary knowledge was assessed with the PPVT 4 and vocabulary knowledge of half of the

PAGE 63

63 target words (i.e., 24 words) was measured with a receptive target vocabulary assessment (TVA). Students were individually assessed during two separate testing sessions to avoid testing fat igue. Results of data analyses conducted on the pretest scores of the students showed there was no difference across conditions. On posttest TVA, there was a significant effect of the read aloud and read aloud plus conditions over the control. More spec ifically, the read aloud plus extension condition produced greater effects than of the read aloud only condition over the control condition. These findings are in line with previous research that suggests more intensive, direct vocabulary instruction lead s to greater w ord learning (Coyne et al., 2010 ). Additionally, data analyses revealed that the effect of the read aloud plus condition was most beneficial for students with higher rather than lower initial vocabulary knowledge. This too is consistent wit h research that has demonstrated differential effects for interventions on children with varied word knowledge levels (Marulis & Neuman, 2010). Silverman and her colleagues concluded that this study provides evidence for implementing vocabulary instructio n beyond read alouds, through extension activities, to other parts of the Head Start day may lead to greater effects for vocabulary intervention. Kindergarten studies. Coyne, McCoach, and Kapp (2007) conducted two experimental studies with kindergarten ch ildren experiencing reading difficulties, based on demographic data. The first study compared extended instruction of target vocabulary to incidental word learning through exposure during storybook reading. Thirty one students listened to three readings of a storybook. The story was modified so that each of the six target vocabulary words appeared only once. Extended instruction included (a) explicit instruction of three target words, (b) interactive

PAGE 64

64 opportunities to engage with word meanings, and (c) i ncreased exposure of target vocabulary by providing opportunities to interact with and discuss target words in varied contexts. In contrast, the incidental exposure condition meant the three target words appeared once in the story but were not directly ta ught or discussed. The authors created two versions (A and B) of the intervention. Each version included three target words that were counterbalanced across conditions (extended instruction and incidental exposure) to control for word effects. Each part icipant was randomly assigned to either Version A or B of the intervention, which was delivered by trained interventionist s to small groups of three to four children. The instruction occurred over the course of one week, in three 20 to 30 minute sessions Data collection occurred at pretest (one week prior to intervention), posttest (one to five days after the third reading of invention), and delayed posttest (eight weeks after the posttest). Results of a repeated measures ANOVA reveal ed that extended i nstruction le d to significantly higher scores on assessments of expressive definition s receptive definitions, and context, compared to incidental word exposure. The second study conducted by Coyne et al. (2007) compared extended instruction to embedded in struction. Extended instruction included the same characteristics as in Study 1. Embedded instruction included (a) providing students with simple definition s within the context of a story and (b) rereading the sentence and replacing the target word with its definition. Results of a repeated measures ANOVA revealed that extended instruction also lead to significantly higher scores on measures of expressive definition s receptive definitions, and context measure when compared to embedded instruction. Whil e a major limitation of these studies is that the intervention

PAGE 65

65 was conducted in only one week, based on the findings from both studies, the authors concluded that extended instruction lead to greater word learning than either incidental exposure or embedde d instruction on all measures. Coyne and his colleagues suggest provide students with a more complete knowledge of word meaning that will support comprehension of text, then extended instruction may be necessary. Loftus, Coyne, McCoach, Zipoli, and Pullen (2010) conducted an experimental, within subject design st udy to determine if s tudents at risk for language and learning difficulties who enter school with the lowest levels of vocabulary knowledge learn more target vocabulary when instructed through both classroom instruction and supplemental intervention. The two factors were co ndition (words receiving only classroom based instruction and words receiving classroom based instruction plus supplemental intervention) and time (posttest and delayed posttest). Two graduate stud ents served as classroom based as well as small group inte rventionist s The classroom based instruction in the study was implemented with 43 kindergarten students and was delivered in 30 minute whole class lessons. A total of four whole class lessons were conducted during the study. During whole class instructi on, students listened to two storybooks that were read twice over a two week period. From each storybook four target words were selected for instruction. Of the group of 43 students, 20 students were identified as being at risk for language and literacy difficulties based on low level s of receptive vocabulary knowledge. These students received an additional supplemental intervention in small groups of thre e to four students. Students who

PAGE 66

66 received the supplemental intervention were provided with an addit ional 30 minutes of instructional time, beyond the classroom based vocabulary lesson. During the supplemental intervention, students received more explicit instruction and were provided with numerous opportunities to respond individually and to receive co rrective feedback. Overall, students at risk for language and literacy difficulties received four hours of instruction versus two hours of instruction that the not at risk students received during the two weeks of study implementation. Loftus and her co lleagues (2010) created four experimenter developed measures to assess target word knowledge: Word Recognition Measure, Target Word Picture Vocabulary Measure, Context Questions Measure, and Expressive Definition Measure. Students were posttested on these four measures 1 week after the completion of the study. Additionally, all four measures were administered as delayed posttest s seven weeks after posttesting. Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted on the four measures with the tw o within subject factors (condition and time). S tudents at risk for language and literacy difficulties scored significantly higher on words receiving classroom instruction plus additional supplemental intervention compared to words receiving only classroo m instruction on three of the four measures: Word Recognition Measure, Context Questions Measures, and Expressive Definitions Measure. There was no significant effect on condition or time on the Target Word Picture Vocabulary Measure. Scores of posttest measures revealed that when at risk and not at risk students received the same type and amount of instruction there were large effect size differences. However, when students at risk received the supplemental intervention their scores were more similar t o the not at

PAGE 67

67 results were found from the delayed posttest. Intervention effects were maintained from posttest to delayed posttest on all measures of target word learning. However, while these results seem promising, the fe asibility and effectiveness of the intervention delivered by typical classroom teachers is not known because in the study the classroom vocabulary instruction as well as the supplemental intervention lessons were delivered by trained graduate students. Coy ne et al. (2010) conducted a quasi experimental study, with 124 kindergarten students, in which they investigated the efficacy of an 18 week program of direct and extended vocabulary instruction with kindergartners on both proximal measures of target word learning as well as transfer measures of generalized language and literacy. Students in the treatment and control group s were assessed individually at pretest and posttest. the PPVT III was included in posttest measures of receptive vocabulary knowledge as well as an adapted version of Strong Narrative Assessment Procedure (SNAP). Listening comprehension was assessed with an adapted version of SNAP. An experimenter developed assessment was also use words within the context of supportive sentences. Coyne and his colleagues (2010) conducted the efficacy study in three schools. In two of the schools the classroom teacher provided the inte rvention during whole group instruction. In the third school, two graduate students provided the intervention outside of the classroom, in a small group of three to four students. The intervention consisted of 36 half hour lessons that were delivered twi ce per week over the course of 18 weeks. Eighteen storybooks were read aloud to students, each from which three

PAGE 68

68 target vocabulary words were selected for dire ct instruction. After the read aloud sessions, students were engaged in interactive post reading activities. Results of a regression analysis for the target word measure found large differences between the students who received vocabulary instruction and the students in the control group. Students in the treatment group also scored higher than the control group on measures of generalized receptive vocabulary and listening comprehension. While students in the treatment group overall scored higher than the students in the control group, Coyne and his colleagues (2010) did find that the initial recep t ive vocabulary of the students was strongly related to the posttest scores on all measures. Zipoli, Coyne, and McCoach (2011) conducted an 18 week program of extended vocabulary instruction with 80 kindergarten students. The students in this study were re ceiving a vocabulary intervention as part of a larger efficacy study (Coyne et al., 2007). The purpose of the current study was to investigate how the use of systematic review might improve the effectiveness and efficiency of extended vocabulary instructi on. A within subject experimental design was implemented to study three review conditions: (a) no review, (b) embedded review, and (c) semantically related review. Eighteen target words were randomly assigned to each review condition. In one of the scho ols, a graduate student served as an interventionist and conducted the storybook readings and extended vocabulary instruction to students in a small group setting (three to five students). In the other two schools, kindergarten classroom teachers provided the storybook readings and extension activities to students in whole class settings. In each of the schools, 18 storybooks were read over the course of the 18 weeks, with books read twice per week In each storybook reading, students were

PAGE 69

69 introduced to three target words and three previously taught vocabulary words were presented as part of the embedded review. Before reading the book, the adult identified the six target words and asked the students to pronounce each word. Students were also asked to raise their hands when they heard the words during the storybook reading. When a target word was encountered, the adult provided a clear, concise definition and reread the sentence from the storybook including the simple definition of the target word. St udents were then provided with multiple opportunities to engage in discussions of the words. In the no review condition, words were not embedded or defined in subsequent readings. In the embedded condition, target words were typically reviewed in five st orybook readings. However, the target words were not explained or discussed during the extension activities. In contrast, in the semantically related review condition, target words were reintroduced, explained, and discussed during two readings as well a s during the extension activities. Semantically related target words were reviewed during extension activities for the first nine books an average of five times and for the last set of nine books an average of three times. Zipoli et al. (2011) administer ed posttest measures during a 2 week period after the completion of the final storybook reading and extension activities. Results of a repeated measures ANOVA conducted on the composite mean posttest scores of the researcher created Target Word Knowledge (TWK) Measure found the greatest word learning occurred in the semantically related review condition, while the least word learning occurred in the no review condition. A paired samples t test found a statistically significant increase from pretest to pos ttest on PPVT scores for children receiving extended vocabulary instruction with a component of systematic review.

PAGE 70

70 However, findings for the EWOPVT did not find statistical significance between pre and posttest. Interestingly, an instructional efficienc y index was calculated by dividing mean performance on the TWK by the estimates of total minutes of explicit instruction per word. Instruction was found to be most efficient in the embedded review. Thus, the authors suggest that the efficiency of embedde d review might be appealing as a practical form of instruction when time for extended vocabulary instruction is limited by competing curricular demands. Nielsen and Friesen (2012) implemented a 12 week, quasi experimental, study to investigate the effect of a small group storybook reading intervention on the vocabulary and narrative development of kindergarten students who were all significantly behind their peers on standardized measures of language development (i.e., one standard deviation below the mea n). A total of 28 students participated in the study (n=14 treatment; n=14 control). The 14 students receiving the intervention were divided into three groups. A graduate student provided all the small group 30 minute intervention lessons, three times a week. During the intervention, 12 different narrative books were read (one per week) and six or seven vocabulary words were targeted for instruction for each book. Each week of the intervention followed a three day teaching cycle. On Day 1 of instructi on, the book was first read without showing the pictures to the students. After this initial reading, the interventionist taught the students three vocabulary words. Then, the book was reread, this time sh owing the pictures, and prompting the students to listen for the new words. On Day 2, rather than rereading the book, the interventionist guided the students through a group retelling and then assigned roles and prompted students to act out the story. Also on day two, three new

PAGE 71

71 words were taught and the words introduced during day one were reviewed. On Day 3, the students retold the story and at the end of the session all vocabulary was reviewed. As part of the review, the students shared a word they learned during the week and provided a sentence or d efinition for the word. Pretest measures were administered prior to the intervention and included the following assessments: Test of Oral Language Development (TOLD), Test of Narrative Language (TNL), and a researcher created vocabulary measure of target words (Nielsen & Friesen, 2012). Students were posttested on their knowledge of the vocabulary taught in books 1 6 during week 7 of the intervention. After the completion of the study, the students were posttested on the TOLD, the TNL and the vocabulary in books 7 12. Additionally, once the intervention ended students were also administered a delayed posttest of the vocabulary taught in books 1 6. Narrative directly related to books was assessed with student retellings on books 1, 4, 8, and 11. All ret elling s were collected the week following the book that was targeted for instruction. A repeated measures analysis compared pre to post gain scores for the vocabulary related measures. This analysis revealed significant differences between groups with th e intervention students making greater gains from pre to post as well as delayed posttest. One limitation of the Nielsen and Friesen (2012) study is that there was not a delayed posttest for the words taught in books 7 12. Another, more concerning limi tation is that a graduate student provided the intervention. For this reason the feasibility of the intervention being implemented effectively by a classroom teacher needs to be investigated. However, the findings of Nielsen and Friesen are consistent w ith previous research that has demonstrated that students learn more words when

PAGE 72

72 they are explicitly taught through explanations and elaborations (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Justice et al., 2005). Additionally, students in the intervention group made greater gains on the TOLD semantic composite than students in the control group. The authors believe the gain made on this standardized language assessment might be attributed to the active discussions that occurred over the course of the 12 week intervention th at comfortable with word related tasks. Along with the greater vocabulary knowledge gained by the students in the intervention group, these students also improved in their narrative d evelopment and were able to produce more complete retellings. Recently, Loftus and Coyne (2013) conducted two studies that exp anded the work of Coyne et al. ( 2007 ) A major limitation of the earlier intervention was that it was conducted in only one week. Specifically, the interventions in the current study differ from their previous work in the following ways: (a) longer in duration, (b) conducted during whole group lessons versus small group instruction, and (c) classroom teachers provided intervention instead of graduate students. The first was a quasi experimental study to examine the effectiveness of an 18 week intervention. Teachers in the control classrooms provided typical classroom instruction. Teachers in the treatment classrooms provided the intervention to their students during whole group lessons. The intervention included 36 half hour lessons that included storybook reading and post reading activities (implemented two lessons per week). Each storybook was read twice in a week and had thre e words targeted for direct instruction (i.e., 54 total words). The storybook reading sessions incorporated before during and after reading activities. Before reading, the teacher introduced the target words and directed the students to

PAGE 73

73 listen for th e word and raise their hands when they heard it during the reading. During reading, the teacher provided a student friendly explanation of the word when it was encountered in text and reread the sentence replacing the target word with the synonym provided in the explanation. Also during reading, the teacher referred to the illustration in the book depicting the target word and prompted the students to pronounce the target word. After reading, the target words were reintroduced with a review of the during reading activities (i.e., student friendly explanation, use of word in context, and picture to support w ord meaning). Additional after reading activities included the use of the target word in other contexts (e.g., outside of the book) and interactive ac tivities. knowledge using the PPVT III. Students were also assessed on target word knowledge, listening comprehension, and metalinguistic awareness. Target word knowledge and met alinguistic awareness were assessed with experimenter developed measures. Listening comprehension was assessed with an adapted version of SNAP (Strong, Narrative Assessment Procedure). All assessments were individually administered, with pretesting occur ring 1 week before the start of the intervention and posttesting being done within 1 week of the end of the intervention. Loftus and Coyne found a large effect size on the measure of target word knowledge and a moderate effect size for listening comprehen sion. A moderate effect, although not statistically significant, was also found for the PPVT III. The student data provided evidence that overall students in the treatment classrooms who participated in the intervention, and received direct vocabulary instruction, performed better than their peers in the control groups who received typical classroom instruction. However, as in other studies (Coyne

PAGE 74

74 et al., 2004; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Snchal et al., 1995) Loftus and Coyne also found that the initial re ceptive vocabulary knowledge influenced how well they benefitted from the intervention. Students with higher levels of receptive vocabulary made greater gains than the students who started the intervention with low levels of receptive vocabulary knowledge In sum, while effective, the intervention was not strong enough to lessen the vocabulary gap between these groups of students. The second was a two week study in which Loftus and Coyne (2013) compared the instructional impact of two levels of vocabula ry instruction: Tier 1 classroom based instruction alone; Tier 2 classroom based instruction plus additional small group intervention (e.g., groups of three to four students). Before the start of the intervention, student s were administered the PPVT I II to determine their risk status. Students who scored above the 30th percentile were considered not to be at risk and received classroom based vocabulary instruction through storybook readings. In contrast, students who scored below the 30th percentile were considered at risk and received the same classroom based vocabulary instruction as the not at risk students for two of the target words and received additional small group vocabulary intervention on the other two target words. Two graduate students p rovided classroom based and small group intervention. During the classroom based vocabulary instruction, students listened to two storybooks that were each read twice. Four target words were directly instructed during the storybook readings following the extended instructional approach developed in a previous study (see Coyne et al., 2010). The Tier 2, small group vocabulary intervention, was provided the day following the implementation of a classroom based instructional session, and lasted approximatel y 30 minutes. This Tier 2 vocabulary

PAGE 75

75 classroom based activity, and two new oral language activities. The oral language activities encouraged students to look at pictures an d create sentences describing the picture using target words and to distinguish between positive picture examples of two different target words. In Study 2, to distinguish between varying levels of word knowledge, students were assessed with four experimen ter developed measures: Word Recognition, Target Word Picture Vocabulary, Context Questions, and Expressive Definitions (Loftus & Coyne, 2013). All assessments were administered posttest at the end of the intervention and 7 weeks later as a delayed postt est. On the Word Recognition and Context Questions measures, results of repeated measures analyses of variance revealed statistically significant differences favoring words receiving Tier 2 intervention. Moderate effect sizes were found for Expressive De finitions. Results between posttest and delayed posttest showed there were no significant differences between scores. In other words, students maintained their word knowledge. The findings in this study are especially significant because t hey provide ev idence for Tier 2, small group, vocabulary intervention to narrow the gap between at risk and not at risk students. While this is quite promising, the feasibility of this practice in a typical classroom is yet to be determined, considering the Tier 2 inte rvention was p rovided by graduate students. The additional instructional personnel would be available in a classroom to assist a teacher with providing students with the ad ditional support they may need.

PAGE 76

76 extensive intervention with kindergarten students. This was an experimental study with 96 kindergarten children who were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: (a) storybook intervention, (b) code based intervention focused on phonological awareness and alphabetic skills, or (c) control group who received instruction from he intervention group to which they were assigned, received 30 minutes of small group intervention daily for 108 instructional days. While the study was conducted, students in the storybook intervention condition were read a total of 40 storybooks and thr ee target words were explicitly taught from each book, following a six day teaching cycle. Primary analyses from the study found participants in the storybook intervention group scored significantly higher than the children in the code based and control g roups on an experimenter developed, expressive measure of explicitly taught vocabulary. A secondary analysi s on data was conducted to examine whether there were differential effects of the storybook intervention for students with low receptive vocabulary. Resu lts of the secondary analysi s provided evidence that students in the storybook intervention group learned and demonstrated greater knowledge of target vocabulary than students in the control condition, but there were no between group differences on u ntaught words. When within group results were compared, higher initial receptive vocabulary scores predicted gains for the control group, but not for the storybook reading group. Based on the results of the analyses conducted, the researchers concluded t hat explicitly teaching word meanings within the context of shared storybook reading is an effective teaching method for increasing the vocabulary of young children at risk for

PAGE 77

77 experiencing reading difficulties, and they suggest that early literacy interve ntions should place an important focus on vocabulary development. Grade 1 studies. A program of research evaluated the effectiveness of explicit vocabulary instruction. By providing kindergarten and first grade children with opportunities to develop ri ch language through discussion of stories, Beck and McKeown (2007) conducted two quasi experimental studies comparing the targeted vocabulary taught explicitly using Text Talk and those words that did not receive any instruction. The first study included 98 kindergarten and first grade students. Text Talk treatment provided children with opportunities to develop rich language through the discussion of stories that are more complex than those they would be able to read on their own. Text Talk vocabulary i nstruction was provided to the students by including the following steps: target vocabulary was contextualized for its role in the story the meaning of the word was provided chi ldren created phonological representations of the word by repeating it example of word use was provided in contexts other than the story children made judgments about examples provided children were asked to create original examples the meaning of target vocabulary and its phonological representation were reinforced by the teacher Over a 10 week period, the classroom teacher provided the Text Talk intervention. While the control did not receive Text Talk materials or vocabulary instruction, they did participate in daily read alouds. Data were collected using experiment er developed pretests and posttests (22 words in kindergarten; 22 words in

PAGE 78

78 grade 1). Mean gains from pretest to posttest were analyzed in separate ANOVA s for kindergarten and grade 1. Results of the ANOVAs revealed children in the treatment group learned more of the words at both grade levels. The second study conducted by Beck and McKeown (2007) included 76 vocabulary between two different amounts of learning, either t hree or six days, during nine weeks of instruction. At each grade level, Text Talk read alouds were again used for treatment. There were two treatment co nditions: (a) Rich Instruction (i.e., same tre atment condition as in Study 1) and (b) More Rich Inst ruction (i.e., same as Rich Instruction but also included additional instruction to be presented to students over several days). For each of the storybooks read aloud in the study, six of the selected vocabulary was instructed using Rich Instruction, and three of those words were presented to the students also using More Rich Instruction. Teachers presented Text Talk lessons over a 5 day period. The intervention also included two review cycles that occurred after the fourth and seventh weeks of instructi on. Following this instructional routine, students were exposed to five encounters per word for words in the Rich Instruction conditions, versus 20 encounters per word for those in the More Rich Instruction condition. Data collection was done us ing resea rcher developed pre and post tests using a picture task format as well as an all verbal format. Results from a repeated measures ANOVA provided evidence of vocabulary gains twice as large in kindergarten and first grade students who received more instruc tion (i.e. six days as opposed to three) Beck and McKeown concluded that not all vocabulary requires the same amount of attention or instruction. Furthermore, not all vocabulary instruction has

PAGE 79

79 to involve teaching sophisticated words. There are times when it is appropriate to teach less sophisticated words, keeping in mind that different kinds of words require different levels of instruction. However, in support for teaching more sophisticated lang uage, nowing some of the har der words they will begin to encounter in texts may allow children to learn more of the unfamiliar words in those Maynard, Pullen, and Coyne (2010) conducted a 1 week s tudy to compare the effect of rich and basic vocabulary instruction of target words to incidental exposure during storybook readings. Twelve first grade classes were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: (a) rich instruction (n=97 stu dents; 5 teachers), (b) basic instruction (n=55 students; 3 teachers), and (c) incidental/no instruction (n=72 students; 4 teachers). Classroom teachers in the two treatment conditions (rich and basic) delivered the intervention in a whole class setting d uring three 20 30 minute storybook reading sessions, following the plans provided. All students in the study listened to three readings of Goldilocks and the Three Bears by James Marshall. A total of 12 target words were selected from the story. Six of the target words were taught and the other half were not taught. In the rich and basic conditions, three different words were taught during the first two readings and all six words were reviewed on the third reading. In the rich instruction condition, st udents were prompted to pronounce the target words prior to the reading of the story. During the reading, students were to raise their hands when they heard the word. When the teacher encountered the target word while reading the story, students were ask ed to identify the word and the teacher reread the word in context. Students were then provided with a simple definition and were

PAGE 80

80 prompted to say the word once again. After the reading, students were engaged in interactive activities designed to provide them with opportunities to discuss the target words in rich and varied contexts, during which the teacher provided corrective feedback when necessary. The basic condition followed the same instructional routine, with the exception that the students did no t receive the post reading vocabulary activities. The incidental instruction comparison group heard the words three times within the context of the story, but the teachers engaged students in story discussions using a dialogic reading format. One week pri or to the start of the intervention, students were assessed at baseline with the PPVT III and Expressive Vocabulary Test 2 (EVT 2) to determine group differences on general vocabulary knowledge (Maynard et al., 2010). Results of these assessments revealed no significant differences existed between the groups. Students were administered a researcher developed measure of target word knowledge (Coyne et al., 2007) at posttest and delayed posttest. This target word assessment included three components for ea ch of the 12 target words: (a) expressive measure of story word definitions, (b) receptive measure of story word definitions, and (c) measure of story words in context. Posttesting occurred between one and five days after the last reading, and delayed pos ttesting was conducted three weeks after the intervention ended. Results of several nested ANOVAs of the taught words revealed instruction in the rich and basic gro ups was more effective than instruction in the incidental group. However, students in the rich instruction group attained a more complete level of word knowledge of the targeted words. Interestingly, delayed posttest results revealed students who received basic instruction maintained word knowledge at a rate similar to

PAGE 81

81 those in the rich instru ction condition. Results of the same measures administered to statistically significant group differences. In sum, the findings from this study provide additional support fo r the use of direct and explicit vocabulary instruction as a foundational strategy Pullen, Tuckwiller, Konold, Maynard, and Coyne (2010) conducted a quasi experimental posttest only study that investigated the efficacy of a tiered vocabulary intervention b ased on storybook reading for first grade students who were identified as at risk for reading difficulties based on low levels of vocabulary. The study investigated the response of the at risk students to a Tier 1 plus Tier 2 vocabulary intervention that included rich, explicit vocabulary instruction. Two hundred twenty four first graders participated in the study. Prior to the intervention, the PPVT 4 was administered as a screening measure to identify students who might be at risk for later reading fai lure. Ninety eight of these students were identified as at risk for reading difficulties based on low levels of vocabulary; the remaining 126 students were designated as not at risk. Participants were partially randomized into three groups: at risk treat ment, at risk control, and not at risk. The 2 week intervention was provided to the children in the at risk intervention group. Students in the at risk treatment group received Tier 1 vocabulary instruction from classroom teacher and additional Tier 2 in struction provided by a graduate student. Tier 1 instruction consisted of 30 minute vocabulary lessons in which the classroom teacher read a story aloud and conducted postreading vocabulary activities in a large group setting. Tier 2 lessons were conduct ed in small group s (three to five students) and lasted approximately 20 minutes. The Tier 2 intervention lessons

PAGE 82

82 provided students wi th additional opportunities for (a) exposure to target words, (b) engagement in activities that support deep processing of words, and (c) active interaction with target words. Students in the at risk control group only received Tier 1 instructio n from the classroom teacher. Tier 1 and Tier 2 lessons were written using two storybooks, each from which four target vocabulary w ords were selected acquisition of target words taught in the intervention. This measure was administered as an immediate posttest following the completion of the intervention and as a delayed posttest, four weeks later to determine maintenance. The posttest assessed student s word knowledge at the receptive, contextual, and expressive levels. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated significant differences on students level vocabulary knowledge of target words. Immediate posttest results revealed that the not at risk group of students performed better than the at risk treatment group on both receptive and contextual level of word knowle dge. However, the at risk treatment group performed better than the at risk control group on both receptive level and contextual level of word knowledge. Such results provide evidence that students at risk for reading difficulties can significantly benef it from a second tier of vocabulary instruction. However, results from the delayed posttest did not find significant differences from students in the at risk treatment and the at risk control groups. The authors of this study concluded this suggests that the effects of this brief intervention are not robust enough to benefit the students over time. While the initial vocabulary instruction provided at Tier 1 was provided from the general education teacher, a graduate student provided the Tier 2 supplement al intervention. As in the

PAGE 83

83 Coyne et al. (2010) study, the effectiveness and feasibility of the classroom teacher providing the intervention is unknown and requires further investigation. Also, Pullen re the frequency, intensity, and duration of vocabulary instruction necessary for at risk students to maintain vocabulary learning at a rate similar to their not at The 12 studies in this section provide cumulative evidence that while further research is need ed to provide guidance as to which words should be taught as part of critical v ocabulary instruction (Coyne et al 2004), there is great promise shown in the use of storybook reading to explicitly teach vocabulary to young childre n. A few studies have gone beyond the use of traditional narrative text often used for read alouds to include the use of informational text on varied topics (Pollard Durodola et al., 2011; Silverman et al., 2013). Many studies specifically investigating vocabulary interventions have intentionally targeted students who the researchers considered to be at risk for early reading difficulties based on low levels of vocabulary (Loftus et al., 2010; Nielsen & Friesen, 2012; Pollard Durodola et al. 2011 ; Pulle n et al. 2010; Silverman et al. 2013). Not surprisingly, results of these interventions have provided evidence that students significantly behind their peers in their initial vocabulary knowledge can improve their word learning and have demonstrated gro wth on vocabulary measures; however, students with higher initial vocabularies tend to benefit most from vocabulary instruction ( Coyne et al., 2010; Loftus & Coyne, 2013; Pullen et al. 2010 ; Silverman et al. 2013 ). Evidence of narrowing of the vocabular y gap between students with higher and lower initial vocabularies was fou nd in the work of Loftus et al. (2010). Students

PAGE 84

84 who received the supplemental intervention in small group scored comparable to not at risk students. Providing additional, intensive vocabulary instruction in a small group setting that provides extensions of basic explicit instruction presented in whole group class lessons One of the greatest areas of concern in terms of the limitati ons of studies investigating vocabulary interventions is that a number of them had trained interventionist s or graduate students provide whole group and/or small group instruction (Coyne et al., 2007; Coyne et al., 2010; Loftus et al., 2010; Loftus & Coyne 2013; Nielsen & Friesen 2012 ; Pullen et al., 201 0 ; Zipoli et al., 2011). The findings of the intervention studies provide strong evidence for the implementation of thoughtfully planned vocabulary lessons that explicitly teach word meanings, provide stu dents with opportunities to actively participate in the learning and discussions of words, and include review so that students have multiple opportunities to classrooms leads one to question how these practices can reasonably and effectively become part of common practice. Future research should investigate what support systems teachers may need in order to best implement such vocabulary instruction. Coyne et al. (2007) and Pullen et al. (2010) suggest teachers implement a multi tiered approach to vocabulary instruction. Teachers should begin by reading storybooks to students that contain varied and complex vocabulary, provide embedded instruction on a subset of targeted wo rds, and extended instruction of a second set of al. 2007 ). Students who are identified as being at risk for language and literacy

PAGE 85

85 difficulties can benefit from addition al vocabulary instruction when it is provided as supplemental, small group, intensive intervention. Discussion The ability to read and comprehend is critical for school aged students and members of society at large. Becoming a proficient reader provides individuals with opportunities for improved access to higher education and greater economic success once they enter the workforce. The National Reading Panel (2000) cites early research, which dates as far back as 1924, that long recognized the importance of vocabulary knowledge in the development of reading skill s During the last 85 years, researchers Institute of Child Health and Human Development, n.d., p. 5). Both ora l and written vocabularies are critically important in reading instruction in as much as the extent of a as more than word recognition, but as skillful comprehension not make an effective reader (Nielsen & Friesen, 2012). Skillful readers must have oral language competencies, especially with decontextualized language. In the primary ilities are in part dependent on 2000, p. 4 3). In the intermediate grades, a student needs to know a t least 90 95% of the words in text to have acceptable levels of comprehension (Hirsch, 2003). As such, Pullen et al. (2010) suggest third grade to establish a solid foundation for fluency, so too should vocabulary

PAGE 86

86 development be an area of focused instruction to ensure that all children have at least average vocabularies by p. 111). This literature review includes the work of researchers within the past 25 years book reading. Whether the studies focused on the use of repeated readings (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Justice et al., 2005; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Snchal, 1997; Walsh & Rose, 2013), interactive questioning strategies as the instructional strategy (Ard & Beverly, 2004; Blewitt et al., 2009; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Ewers & Brownson, 1999; Justice, 2002; Snchal & Cornell, 1993; Snchal et al., 1995; Walsh & Blewi tt, 2006), or researcher developed interventions (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Coyne et al., 2004; Coyne et al., 2007; Coyne et al., 2010; Loftus & Coyne, 2013; Loftus et al., 2010; Maynard et al., 2010; Nielsen & Friesen, 2010; Pollard Durodola et al., 2011; Pul len et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2013; Zipoli et al., 2011), findings from these studies provide overwhelming evidence that storybook reading is an effective means through which to uded in this review can directly impact classroom vocabulary instruction. There are instructional strategies that teachers can implement t o increase the benefits of read aloud experiences for the students in their classrooms. Teachers thoughtfully plann ed and knowledge. Vocabulary develop ment is a lifelong endeavor that can never be fully mastered (Kamil & Hiebert, 2005). Based on the research reviewed there are implicat ions for classroom practice to support vocabulary development in young children. Researchers

PAGE 87

87 suggest classroom teachers implement the following instructional strategies in order to vocabulary in young child ren: (a) incorporate a tri level approach to vocabulary instruction that includes book readings with varied and complex vocabulary, embedded instruction of selected vocabulary, and extended instruction of targeted words (Coyne et al., 2007); (b) provide ch ildren with explicit vocabulary instruction that includes the discussion of word meanings and where they can become involved in the story being read (Marulis & Neuman, 2010; Robbins & Ehri, 1994); (c) provide student friendly definitions or synonyms during storybook readings (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Justice et al., 2005); (d) conduct repeated readings of stories (two to four times) in order to increase student exposure and engagement to targeted vocabulary (Karweit & Wasik, 1996; Rob bins & Ehri 1994 ); (e) engage students in active participation during book readings by including the use of simple questions, such as labeling or pointing (Snchal et al., and where que stions during book discussions (Ewers & Bro wnson, 1999); and (f) engage students in talk before and after reading (Dickinson & Smith, 1994). By incorporating the strategies recommended above, teachers can have The use of childr shown to be promising. However, it has not been without limitations. Many researchers have found that students with higher initial vocabulary knowledge benefit greater than their peers with lowe r vocabulary knowledge (Coyne et al., 2010; Loftus & Coyne, 2013; Marulis & Neuman, 2010; Pullen et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2013). I nterventions that increase the effectiveness of storybook readings, explicit instruction of word meanings,

PAGE 88

88 and extensi on activities hold promise for narrowing the vocabulary gap among students in the primary grades (Coyne et al., 2012). However, further research is needed in this field in order to further refine strategies that would guide educators of young children to be able to do this most effectively with their students. Research is needed to provide guidance as to which words to teach as part of critical vocabulary instruction. More research is also needed as to which types of questions lead to greater student gai ns in both expressive and receptive vocabulary. The use of repeated storybook readings has been found to be effective; however, additional research is needed to determine if there is a minimum or maximum number of times teachers should engage in this act ivity. Whether repeated readings are more beneficial for certain story structures than others could also be investigated. Results from studies investigating vocabulary instruction have shown that the intent of vocabulary instruction, whether it is to pro vide students with initial or deeper understanding of a word, requires different levels of instruction. Therefore, additional research is needed to investigate which instructional strategies might have differential depending on the intent of instruction (i.e., initial or deep understanding of a word). Teachers would then be better informed of as to which practices could be considered for different levels of vocabulary development. Pollard Durodola et al (2011) and Silverman et al. (2013) have conducted research focused on teaching vocabulary by themes. Silverman and her colleagues targeted vocabulary related to food, animals, and transportation. While investigating the effectiveness of WORLD, Pollard Durodola et al. created their lessons based on

PAGE 89

89 vocabula ry related to nature and living things. They hypothesized that by organizing vocabulary instruction by big themes that include smaller topics, children more easily understand new information by relati ng it to what they already know. through storybook reading is that of social emotional learning. Although there is a large body of literature on bibliotherapy, or the use of books t o promote social emotional growth and well being (see for example, Womack, Marchant, & Borders, 2011), no studies have specifically examined the development of social emotional vocabulary through storybook reading. Hiebert and Cervetti (2012) reported tha t narrative texts often have themes associated with emotions and attitudes, character traits, and social relationships. As a result, narrative texts can be a promising venue by which to teach social emotional vocabulary. Social Emotional Vocabulary Sel ection of which social emotional vocabulary to teach through storybook readings can be guided by the work of Ridgeway, Waters, and Kuczaj (1985). understand emotion descriptive adjectives when used by adults and when they were able to produce such words on their own in their speech. Parents of children from 18 to 71 months participated in the study. They were presented with a checklist of 125 adjectives (from a complete list o f 518) that described emotions in the English language. The parents were asked to indicate which words their child (a) would understand when used by someone to describe a feeling or mood, and (b) used to refer to his/her own feelings/mood. Based on the data collected, norms for recepti ve and productive vocabulary were reported. As the authors of this study state,

PAGE 90

90 the catalog of these emotion descriptive adjectives along with the age norms for each word can be of practical u se. While the families that participated in the study were white, English speaking, middle class, and high school or college educated, the authors believe the generalizability of the data is not limited to the particular social class sampled. Ridgeway an d her colleagues report that the order of acquisition of these adjectives to be similar among all children, although the age of acquisition may vary by social class, ethnic background, socio economic level, etc. Therefore, this compiled list of words can be an extremely useful resource to researchers in the field of early emotional development (Ridgeway et al.) as well as to educators who recognize the importance of teaching emotion vocabulary and need guidance in selecting vocabulary. Conclusion Researc h has provided much evidence that supports the use of storybook readings to teach vocabulary. Greater vocabulary knowledge has been achieved in children who have participated in purposeful storybook experiences that include explicit vocabulary instruction It is important to keep in mind that planning is not only necessary but also critical to conducting read aloud sessions that can effectively storybook read alouds have a gre knowledge and academic achievement. Project SELF : Social Emotional Learning Foundations is a curriculum designed existing language and promote vocabulary related to the key concepts of social emotional development. This can benefit students by enriching early literacy skills that include vocabulary development and comprehension of narrative text. Although the

PAGE 91

91 SELF curriculu m included instruction in social emotional vocabulary as a part of the storybook reading activities, vocabulary instruction was not a focus of the curriculum. Because storybook reading has already been shown to be an excellent venue for (a) teaching vocabu lary and (b) promoting social emotional growth, additional research is needed to examine the effects of storybook reading on social emotional vocab ulary development. This study wa s designed to examine just that. Using data from Project SELF and examinin g vocabulary instructio n more closely, this study examine d the effects of the SELF curriculum on the social emotional vocabulary development of kindergarten and first grade children, particularly those who are at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). Chapter 3 presents the methods employed to accomplish this goal.

PAGE 92

92 CHAPTER 3 METHODS The current study was part of a larger externally funded grant. Social Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) was a development grant funded by the Institute o f Education Sciences. Because early school success depends on successful social emotional development (Graziano, Reavis, Keane, & Calkins, 2007) the purpose of Project SELF was to develop an intervention for kindergarten and first grade students with soci al behavioral problems who may be at greater risk for developing long term emotional development is vital, the increasing demands on educators to demonstrate accountability for academic achievement o ften leads them to maximize academic instruction at the expense of social emotional learning. With this in mind, the SELF social emotional learning curriculum was developed to be implemented during reading instruction primarily during supplementary, smal l group reading instruction. The current study was designed to investigate the effects of the SELF storybook reading intervention curriculum on vocabulary growth. More specifically, because SELF was intended ocial emotional development, the focus of emotional vocabulary growth. A pretest posttest control group design was used to compare treatment to control conditions at each grade level. This design permitted the comparison between the m ean posttest scores, after controlling for initial differences between groups based on pretest scores (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). The following section will supply more detail about SELF to provide a context for understanding the current study. The subse quent sections include a detailed description of the methods used in the current study, including the following: (a)

PAGE 93

93 research questions, (b) setting, (c) participants, (d) measures, (e) intervention, (f) design, (g) data analysis, (h) inter scorer agreemen t, and (i) inter observer agreement. Social Emotional Learning Foundations SELF was a three year federally funded project designed to fully develop a social emotional curriculum that integrates social emotional learning and early literacy instruction in t he primary grades. This section will provide information regarding the curriculum development, professional development, and fidelity of implementation of Project SELF, along with the hypotheses that guided the project. During year one, kindergarten lesso ns were developed. In year two, firs t grade lessons were created. The SELF curriculum was created and refined incorporating a continuous iterative process of observations and feedback from the teachers instructing SELF. Year three activities focused on the full implementation and pilot testing of the K 1 SELF Curriculum. Professional development was provided to the 15 kindergarten and first grade teachers in the treatment condition who implemented the SELF intervention in their classrooms. The professi knowledge of social emotional learning and demonstrate how to integrate strategies that promote self regulation of behavior and reading. Additionally, during the last year the research team developed a prof essional training intended for future train the trainer materials that included examples of effective instruction and specific teaching strategies that support social emotional development. In order to address the issue that educators have limited instru ctional time within the school day, the research team conducted ongoing observations and teachers were videotaped teaching SELF lessons. Classroom observations and videos were analyzed using fidelity of implementation measures created specifically for SEL F. These data

PAGE 94

94 provided evidence for the feasibility of the intervention in K 1 classrooms. In sum, the intention of the SELF research team was to establish initial implementation protocols and use feedback from teachers to develop the curriculum more ful ly. This would provide the necessary background to later study the effects of SELF in a rigorous randomized controlled efficacy trial. The purpose of the SELF curriculum wa s to foster the development of language and self regulatory skills in students wh o were screened to be at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. The researchers hypothesized that SELF would improve comprehension outcomes compa red to a control condition Table 3 1 and Table 3 2 provide a description of the behavior and academic measures used in the study Table 3 1 Behavior Measures Category Measure Description Executive Function Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function Teacher Form (BRIEF ; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000) Evaluates emotional and behavioral self regulation and comprises 8 clinical scales that measure different aspects of executive function within the context of school. Behavior Systematic Screening of Behavior Dis orders Second Edition (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992), Gates 1 and 2 Identifies students at risk for developing ongoing internalizing and externalizing behavior concerns. Gate 1 of the SSBD involves teacher nomination. In Gate 2, teachers complete a Cri tical Events Inventory and a short adaptive and maladaptive behavior checklist for each of the nominated students. Clinical Assessment of Behavior Teacher Rating Form (CAB T; Bracken & Keith, 2004) Comprises 3 clinical scales (internalizing, critical, and externalizing behavior), 3 adaptive scales (social skills, competence, and adaptive behavior), and 4 educationally related clinical clusters from 4 subscales: internalizing, externalizing, social skills, and competence Social Problem Solving Measur e (SPSM; CPPRG, 1991) Students are presented with eight scenarios, which are visually represented, involving either peer entry or resolution to a social problem. For each

PAGE 95

95 Table 3 2 Academic Measures Category Measure Description Language Development Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT R; Woodcock, 1987), synonyms, antonyms, and analogies subtests All three subtests require the student to independently read the stimulus. In the Synonyms subtest, students are asked to read a word and provide another word with a similar meaning to the stimulus word. In the Antonyms subtest, the student provides a word that means the opposite of the word read. In the Analogies su btest, the student reads a pair of words and determines the relationship between the two words. Then, he reads a third word and provides a word that has the same relationship to the third word as exists between the initial set of words read. Vocabulary Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4 ( CELF 4 ; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003), expressive vocabulary subscale people, objects, and actions Listening Comprehension CELF 4 (Semel et al.), spoken pa ragraphs subscale narrative text Reading Comprehension WRMT R (Woodcock) passage comprehension subtest Uses a modified cloze procedure and requires test takers to fill in a series of blanks according to the meaning of the surrounding sentences or phrases During the professional development teachers were presented with strategies that would encourage and support their students engagement in discussions about social emotional concepts. The SELF lesso ns were created with this active engagement in mind as it was considered a critical component to the successful emotional learning. However, from the observations conducted and the videotaped lessons that were reviewed, th e researchers found initial differe nces in teacher s fidelity of implementation. These differences in fidelity seemed to be related to variations in the quality of vocabulary instruction. Although the K 1 SELF curriculum provided teachers with scripted l essons, they were encouraged during the professional development sessions to personalize the lessons in order to better

PAGE 96

96 engage their students in discussi ons on the topics. The teacher training sessions emphasized that the teachers were the key ingredient in scaffolding students understanding and maintaining student engagement, as that was not something that could be scripted in the lessons. Observational data demonstrated a wide range of fidelity of implementation ; some teachers implement ed the lessons a s designed and engag ed their students in discussions, other s followed the SELF lessons closely but did not provide their students with opportunity to engage in dialog, and yet others did not adhere to the components of SELF lessons. The fidelity data d emonstrate d a wide range of lesson quality. It is these variations in the quality of instruction that could explain differences in student vocabulary growth. The current study expa nded the work originally being researched in SELF by investigating the pot ential of the SELF curriculum as having a positive effect on specific social emotional vocabulary. Increased student knowledge of this con tent specific vocabulary could lead to greater overall student vocabulary development as well as improved behavioral outcomes. Ultimately, children need to have social emotional vocabulary as part of their repertoire if they are to better understand their emotions and regulate and manage their behavior in a socially acceptable manner. The following section s will provid e the details of the current study. Current Study and pilot study. The purpose of this study wa s to examine the effects of the SELF curriculum on the social emotional vocabulary de velopment of kindergarten and first grade children, particularly those who are at risk for emotional an d behavioral disorders (EBD), and to determine whether specific student and teacher instructional factors had

PAGE 97

97 any effect student vocabulary outcomes. Sp ecifically, the following three research questions were investigated: 1. What are the effects of the Social Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) intervention on student learning of social emotional vocabulary? 2. What student factors are related to social emoti onal vocabulary outcomes ? 3. What teacher instructional factors are related to vocabu lary outcomes ? To examine the first research question, a proximal measure of the social emotional vocabulary targeted for instruction in the intervention was create d and administered. The SELF Vocabular y Measure assessed a select group of 20 target words in kindergarten and in first grade. Each word on the SELF Vocabulary Measure is assessed on the following: (a) expressive definition of target word, (b) expressive use of target word in context, and (c) receptive understanding of target word. The second research question was on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4 (CELF 4; Semel, Wiig & Secord, 2003) subtes t s of expressive vocabulary and understanding spoken paragraphs and the passage comprehension subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (Form s G and H; WRMT R ; Woodcock, 1987). These score s were analyzed to determine whether they were predictor Vocabulary Measure. In addition, results from the treatment and control conditions were compared. The third research question was addressed with the evaluation of the videotaped SELF lessons. A total of 25% of SELF lessons were observed, either in person or via videotape, to measure fidelity of implementation and to examine instructional practices to guide curriculum development. Therefore, between four and eight videotaped

PAGE 98

98 lessons per teacher were available for thi s study. The SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol consists of a viewing record and a scoring rubric. These were developed to review videotapes of intervention lessons to identify teacher instructional factors that are r elated to vocabulary growth ( A ppend ix A). Setting This study was conducted in north central Florida in two Title 1 elementary schools with a racially diverse student population. A pproximately 80% of the students in these schools receive d free or reduced price lunch Table 3 3 provides th e demographic information for the participating elementary school s (Florida Department of Education, 2012). Table 3 3. Demographic Information for Schools School Total Enrollment K 5 % of Students on Free or Reduced priced Lunch % of White Students % of B lack Students % of Hispanic Students % of Asian Students % of Multi racial Students A 885 78 42 24 23 2 8 B 737 81 56 4 34 N/A 5 Participants Participants in this study were part of a larger study investigating the effects of the SELF intervention. Pa rticipants included 24 teachers and 108 students. S ix kindergarten treatment teachers and nine first grade teachers were in the treatment group The control group consisted of four kindergarten and five first grade teachers. Based on principal recommend ation, teachers were invited to participate in the study as either treatment or control teachers. As mentioned previously, Project SELF was a

PAGE 99

99 development grant designed to create and pilot an intervention. T herefore random assignment of teachers and st udents was not part of the original design. Each teacher selected four students to participate in the study. This section will include information about the teachers and the students who participated in this study and the selection criteria. Table 3 4 p rovides teacher s self reported background information. Because demographic information on the teachers was obtained at the end of the study, one kindergarten control teacher is not represented in the table showing te acher demographic information. She wa s unable to complete participation in the study due to a medical leave. Table 3 4. Teacher Descriptive Information Treatment Control Grade level Assignment Kindergarten 6 3 First Grade 9 5 Sex Male 0 1 Female 15 7 Race White 13 6 Black 2 2 Asian 0 0 Multi racial 0 0 Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 1 0 Not Hispanic or Latino 14 8 Highest Degree Earned Bachelors 10 6 Masters 4 2 Educational Specialist 1 0 Areas of Teacher Certification or Endorsement Early Childhood Education 4 1 Educational Leadership 0 1 Elementary Education 12 7 English for Speakers of Other Languages 9 5 Exceptional Student Education 2 1 Reading 1 0 Number of Year(s) Teaching Experience (mean) 19 15 Number of Year(s) Teaching Current Grade Level (mea n) Kindergarten 9 12 First Grade 10 7

PAGE 100

100 Student participants were selected based on the teacher s identification of the student as being at risk for EBD as compared to other students in the class. Selection criteria for student participants also stipul ated that students did not have developmental delay s. P arental consent was requested for each student that met all of the selection criteria Table 3 5 includes the classroom teachers for the 108 students who were selected at the beginning of the study This information includes (a) grade level, (b) gender, (c) race and ethnicity, (d) status as an English Language Lea r ner, (e ) status as a student receiving special education services, and (f) lunch status. Table 3 5. Student Demographic Information Treatment Control Grade level Kindergarten 28 18 First Grade 39 23 Sex Male 35 22 Female 32 19 Race White 48 31 Black 13 10 Asian 1 0 Multi racial 5 0 Ethnicity Hispanic or Lati no 13 10 Not Hispanic or Latino 54 31 English Language Learner Yes 12 7 No 56 34 Receive Special Education Services Yes 4 2 No 64 39 Free or Reduced priced Lunch Yes 54 35 No 14 6

PAGE 101

101 Measures This section provides detailed information about the various assessments used during this study. Two types of student assessment instruments were administered during this study. Initially, the classroom teachers completed a screening measure to d etermine which students were at risk for behavior difficu lties. In addition, pretest posttest measures we re used to assess student gains in language, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. The last measure described in this section is the observation protocol created to identify the instructional strategies th at teachers implemented to develop social emotional vocabulary while teaching the SELF curriculum. Screening Measure The Systematic Screening of Behavior Disorders Second Edition (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992) wa s used a s a screening measure for t eachers to identify students at risk for developing ongoing internalizing (e.g., introverted) and externalizing (e.g., acting out) behavior concerns. In Gate 1, teachers reviewed their class lists and ranked the top ten students within the externalizing or intern alizing categories. The two highest ranked students from each category were designated for additional screening in Gate 2. In the second gate of this screening teachers completed a 33 item Critical Events Inventory and a short checklist of adaptive and maladaptive behavior for each of the nominated students. For the four students identified by the teacher as being at risk for behavioral problems, their parents received a letter requesting consent to participate in the study. Pretest/Posttest Measures Su btests from two standardized assessments, the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4 (expressive vocabulary and understanding spoken

PAGE 102

102 paragraphs subtests) and the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests R evised (passage comprehension subtest) were adminis and literacy skills as compared with national norms. The National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) strongly recommended using assessments specifically created for a given intervention, as it would be more sensitiv e to gains in vocabulary growth than standardized vocabulary measures. Therefore, a researcher created proximal measure of social emotional vocabulary was developed and administered as well. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 4th edition. Two subtests of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 4th edition (CELF 4; Semel et al., 2003) were administered : Expressive Vocabulary and Understanding Spoken Paragraphs pi ctures of people, objects, and actions. Students are asked to identify 27 pictures from a stimulus b ook. The pictures include a variety of semantic categories, including: verbs, animals, occupations, shapes, part/whole, sports, instruments, science, math social studies, health care, and communication. Student responses are scored based on a two point rubric. If a student response to the pictured item is the targeted response, a score of 2 is earned. If a student response to the pictured item is so mewhat related to the targeted response, but is not the same, a score response is semantically incorrect, a score of 0 is given. The Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest of the CELF 4 evaluates a understand oral narrative text. Students are presented three test paragraph is followed by five questions. Test questions may be repeated a second time

PAGE 103

103 if necessary. Th ese questions evaluate student the main idea of a paragraph, (b) recall details, (c) sequence events, (d) make inferences, and (e) make predictions. Student responses are either scored correct or incorrect. A score of 1 is aw arded for each cor rect response and a score of 0 for incorrect or no responses. As reported by the publisher (Semel et al., 2003) the test retest reliability of CELF 4 established with stability coefficients ranging from .71 to .86 for subtests and from .88 to .92 for composite scores based on the standardization population The range from .69 to .91 for subtests and from .87 to .95 for composite scores. Woodcock Rea ding Mastery Tests Revised Form G. The Passage Comprehension subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests Revised (WRMT R; Woodcock, 1987) was administered. Forms G and H were used to assure test/retest reliability. This subtest uses a modified clo reading comprehension. Picture clues are initially included, but as the reading becomes progressively more difficult, the picture clues are not provided. The split half of the WRMT R was reported as having an i nternal reliability for subtests with a range from .68 to .98 and from .87 to .98 for subtest clusters. SELF Vocabulary Measure. A proximal measure of the social emotional vocabulary targeted for instruction in the SELF interven tion was created S tandar dized vocabulary measures do not specifically target social emotional vocabulary and may not ulary development (NRP, 2000). For these reasons, a researcher developed measure of social emotional

PAGE 104

104 vocab ulary was necessary. The SELF Vocabulary Measure assessed a select group of 20 t arget words from the kindergarten and first grade SELF curriculum ( Table 3 6). Each word on the SELF Vocabulary Measur e wa s assessed on the following: (a) expressive definiti on, (b) expressive use of the target word in context, and (c) receptive understanding of the target word. Expressive definition was assessed to determine scale that ranged from 0 to 2 (e.g., full knowledge = 2 points; partial knowledge = 1 point; no response/incorrect or unrelated response = 0 points). In this section students were asked the meaning of the target word (e.g., What does grumpy mean? ). Students with an und erstanding of th e shades of meaning of words were able to say for kindergarten and first grade. Table 3 6 Vocabulary included in the SELF Vocabulary Measure Kindergarten Vocabulary First Grade Vocabulary angry frustrated ability emotions body language grumpy angry excited choice jealous body language frustrated consequences kind bully ing grumpy cooperated nervous challenge jealous delighted pleased choice nervous difference react consequence pleased emotions responsible cooperate react excited shy delighted responsible expectations similar embarrassed unhappy Because providing the definition of a word is a difficult task that requires depth of knowledge, students were given the opportunity to share their experiences with the

PAGE 105

105 social emotional vocabulary in the expressive use of the target word in context. Here students were aske d to provide examples of when they may have experienced the targeted social emotional vocabulary (e.g., ). Student s responses in this section were also scored on a scale from 0 to 2 (e.g., correct response = 2; partia lly correct/related response = 1 point; no response/incorrect or unrelated response = 0). A student who is able to clearly state the options he had and the choice made would receive 2 points (e.g., I could go to the store with my mom or I could stay home with my sister. I went to the store.). A student who provides only the choice made but does not state what the choices were received a score of 1 point (e.g., I went to the store.). may not know a word well enough to provide a definition or an example, the SELF Vocabular y Measure also included student s receptive knowledge of target words. In this section, students were read a prompt and were provided with a multiple choice scenario For the target words that could be explained with a synonym, the multiple choice question provided the synonym as one of the distractors ( e.g., Someone who is nervous is (a) jealous, (b) pleased, (c) worried.). For the target words for which there is n ot necessarily a synonym examples of the target word were provided as distractors (e.g., An example of body language is (a) dropping your head, (b) putting together a puzzle, 1) or incorrect (0). The SELF Vocabulary Measure was based on other researcher created vocabulary assessments (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2010). Experts in the

PAGE 106

106 field reviewed this proximal vocabulary measure It was also field tested with a s ample of six kindergarten and first grade students to determine which revisions, if any, were necessary. For example, the original first grade vocabulary measure included 25 target vocabulary words. Based on student feedback and to avoid student fatigue during testing, the number of tar get words included in the first grade assessment was reduced to 20. The 20 targ et words were approximately one third of the target vocabulary as a representative sample of the words taught in the SELF intervention (e. g., 4 7 words in kindergarten, 52 words in first grade). Lists of all the words directly instructed in the SELF curriculum are provided in the Scope and Sequence (Appendix C). Additional revisions included rewording of some prompts to provide a clearer meanin by shorten ed so t hat students would not have to attend to extraneous information that could lengthen the amount of testing time, provide context that could be leading, and/or include additional information that would be difficult for children in the primary grades to retai n. For example, the receptive understanding item for racecar. Andrew might feel angry if his (a) little brother broke his favorite car (b) s revised to Andrew might feel angry if (a) his little brother broke his favorite car, (b) his mother bought him a new car, or (c) his friend shared a toy wi Vocabulary Measure Kindergarten and the SELF Vocabulary Measure First Grade

PAGE 107

107 are included in Appendix D, including the directions for administration and the scripted oral directions. All measures were administered to participants i ndividually by the researcher or other members of the research team that included graduate faculty as well as graduate students who were properly trained in each assessment procedure. Because the SELF Vocabulary Measure was a lengthy test and testing fati gue might affect student responses, it was not administered at the same time as the other battery of assessment s administered as part of the larger study. Therefore, multiple assessment sessions were necessary. The SELF Vocabulary Measure was administere d during one assessment session and all other measures were administered in a subsequent assessment session, which were typically conducted on separate days to provide students a break from the battery of tests. SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol An o bservation protocol was developed to review the videotapes of the vocabular y development and outcomes The SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol (Appendix A) cons ists of a viewing record and a scoring rubric. The viewing record includes instructional strategies that previous research has demonstrated to be effective (a) says the target word aloud, (b) prompts students to repeat the target word, (c) provides a student friendly explanation, (d) incorporates and reviews previously taught words, (e) provides examples of the target word in multiple contexts, (f) provides multiple exposures of the target word, and (g) engages students in discussions about the target word.

PAGE 108

108 T he original viewing record specifically included the se seven categories However, after piloting the original version of the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protoc ol with three videotaped lessons from Year 2 of the SELF study, revisions were found to be necessary in order to capture the vocabulary instruction observed. For example, t be furth er defined. While piloting the instrument, the researcher found a number of instances where teachers were saying many previously taught social emotional vocabula ry H owever, the teachers were neither reviewing the meaning of these words nor were they exp licitly incorporating the previously taught vocabulary to connect to new vocabulary. Based on this observation, the viewing record was revised to distinguish also lead to when she all the revisions were made the researcher viewed an additional three videos using the revised SELF Vocabulary Observation Protoco l and foun d that the instructional strategies being demonstrated by the teachers could be properly reflect ed in the revised form The scoring rubric of the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol was also revised based on this piloting. The bulleted notes that are included in the scoring rubric were all part of the original design; however, the researcher found it necessary to clarify the number of strategies that should be evidenced for each sco re. T eachers were not required to demonstrate all of the ins tructional strategies listed for each rubric score; however, as would be expected, the greater the number of instructional strategies demonstrated by a teacher, the higher their rubric score

PAGE 109

109 All videotaped lessons that were available for each teacher we re reviewed for instructional purposes using the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol Because there were not the same quantity or types of SELF lessons (i.e., whole group, small group dialogic reading, small group application) videotaped, mean scores for each category were calculated Appendix E provides a categorized list of the videotaped lessons available for each teacher. Intervention The SELF curriculum was created to provide interactive storybook readings that included targeted social emotional voc abulary instruction and engaging readin g strategies to promote both social emotional learning and reading comprehension. SELF lessons focused on five essential social emotional learning competencies: self awareness, self management, social awareness, rela tionship management, and responsible decision making (Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, & Walberg, 2004). Each of these competencies was taught through related topics (Appendix C). Further, each topic was introduced using a storybook selected specifically for its social em otional concepts and vocabulary and was usually developed over three lessons. The SELF curriculum included 17 topics in kindergarten and first grade, with a total of 51 lessons in kindergarten and 53 lessons in first grade. Typically, three to six social emotional vocabulary words were targeted for instruction within each topic. SELF lessons were designed to be taught 2 to 3 times a week for approximately 20 minutes per lesson In the typical sequence for each topic, t he first lesson was p resented in a whole group setting and included an adapted version of dialogic reading in which the teacher read the designated storybook, introduced key concepts and vocabulary, and prompted discussion with specific questions. The second and third lessons were conducted in

PAGE 110

110 small group settings (3 4 students). In the second lesson of each topic, the teacher re read the storybook using dialogic reading prompts to promote more in depth discussion and provided additional opportunities for the students to enga ge with the targeted vocabulary. The third lesson emphasized the application of social emotional concepts. Students were engaged in a variety of application activities such as role plays and scenarios that require social decision making and help them tra nsfer what they have learned to other contexts. The books chosen as part of the SELF intervention in this study were high quality were developmentally appropriate a nd of high interest, (b) were of appropriate length, (c) included a clear story structure with topics students can relate to; (d) represented culturally and ethnically diverse groups, (e) provided a rich context for vocabulary and comprehension instruction (f) included colorful illustrations that support vocabulary and help narrate the story, and (g) facilitated discussions where students could compare and contra st topics across books. The Scope and Sequence in Appendix C lists each of the topics and the books chosen to address the topics The control condition was not provided with any of the books or materials used in the SELF intervention. Teachers in this condition conducted business as usual by implementing the typical curriculum instructed at the sc hools with children in kindergarten and first grade. Data Collection For this study, a portion of the student assessment data collected for Project SELF was used. In addition, lessons videotaped for SELF fidelity of implementation

PAGE 111

111 purposes were reviewed to evaluate teacher instructional strategies that influenced emotional vocabulary outcomes. Student Assessment Data Before teachers began instruction of the SELF curriculum, all students in both the treatment and control conditions were individually assessed by members of the research team on the following measures: the E xpressive V ocabulary and U nderstanding S poken P aragraphs subtest s of the CELF 4, the P assage C omprehension subtest of the WRMT R, and the S ELF Vocabulary Measure. After all teachers completed teaching the SELF intervention, members of the research team individually assessed students in both the treatment and control conditions during posttest. To establish inter scorer reliability, approximately 30% of all the SELF Vocabu lary Measure data in kindergarten and first grade were randomly selected and separately scored by two members of the research team. Inter scorer reliability was established at 96% for kindergarten and 94% for first grade. Differences in scores were discu ssed between the two scorers and scores were reconciled. This procedure helped cl arify scoring criteria that was later used to train another scorer. In order to prevent scoring bias, a scorer who was blind to the study was trained in scoring procedures a nd scored the same randomly selected pretests. Inter scorer reliability between the scorer blind to the study and this researcher was 95% at kindergarten and 94 % at first grade. Inter scorer reliab ility was evaluated at posttest on another 30% of the ass essments that were randomly selected. Inter scorer reliability at posttest was 96% for kindergarten and 95% at first grade

PAGE 112

112 Videotaped Lesson Data After the completion of all pretesting and initial professional development kindergarten and first grade teachers in the treatment condition were advised as to when to begin the intervention. SELF lessons were implemented 2 to 3 times a week for approximately 20 minutes per lesson Support personnel at the schools videotaped teachers during SELF instructio n. Teachers were to be videotaped once a month. Although the lessons included in the SELF curriculum were intended to be taught in appr oximately 20 minute sessions, teachers ranged in the delivery time of lessons. Of the videotaped lessons observed, th e shortest lesson was conducted in approximately 8 minutes. This is in stark contrast to the longest lesson presented, which took a little over 34 minutes. The average lesson length was approximately 18 minutes with nearly 60% of the videotaped lessons b eing taught between 15 and 22 minutes. This marked variation in the time teachers dedicated to present the topics and social emotional vocabulary targeted in the SELF curriculum may have influenced After Year 3 of the SELF study, videotaped intervention lessons were reviewed to emotional vocabulary. Observers reviewed and coded videotapes using the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protoc ol and scored instruction using the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol Instruction Rubric ( Appendix A). Coders participated in a two hour training session where they were instructed on the use of the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol. The training b egan with providing coders with background about the SELF curriculum including the different types of lessons within each topic and the social emotional vocabulary targeted in kindergarten and first grade. Coders were presented

PAGE 113

113 with the viewing record an d scoring rubric for the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol The researcher defined and provided examples of each of the instructional strategies included in the viewing record The training session also included the researcher modeling how to complete a viewing record After the researcher modeled with a sample video the researcher and coders then watched two additional videos and compared their observations the strategies observed and how many instances of each strategy had been tallied on the vie wing record. At the end of the training session, coders were found to be reliable with the researcher at 95%. During the 2012 2013 school year, a total of 95 SELF lessons were videotaped in kindergarten and first grade treatment classrooms (Appendix E) Inter observer agreement was calculated by determining the extent to which two trained observers agreed on the data collected from the videotaped observations of for ea ch of the videotaped sessions. The researcher served as the primary coder on 45 sessions that included at least one videotaped lesson available for each type of lesson that each teacher implemented in the study. The remaining 50 lessons were randomly ass igned to three additional coders who were trained in the scoring procedure as primary observers. A second observer scored a randomly selected 3 0 % of videotaped lessons to estab lish inter observer agreement. Inter observer agreement was calculated for ea ch of the eight instructional categories. Overall inter observer agreement between primary and secondary coders ranged from 88% 100% with a mean of 97%. Table 3 7 reports the inter observer

PAGE 114

114 agreement for the individual instructional strategies included i n the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol. Table 3 7. Inter Observer Agreement for SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol Instructional Strategy Range Mean Says the target word aloud 94% 100% 98% Prompts students to repeat the word 94% 100% 99% Provi des a student friendly explanation 88% 100% 95% Connects to previously taught vocabulary 91% 100% 96% Provides examples in multiple contexts 90% 100% 95% Provides multiple exposures 100% 100% Engages students in discussions 95% 100% 99% Engages studen ts in gestures/actions 88% 100% 95% Analysis To determine the effects of the SELF intervention on student learning of social emotional vocabulary, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted on the posttest scores for the SELF Vocabulary Measure, w ith pretest scores as a covariate to control for initial differences between the treatment and the control conditions at each grade level (Gall et al., 2007). T o investigate what student factors are related to emotional vocabulary outcome s, a multiple regression analysis was the CELF 4 and WRMT R are predictors to student gains on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. Lastly, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the relationsh ip between

PAGE 115

115 mean rubric scores on the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol and vocabulary outcomes. The chapters that follow will present the results of the data analyses in the present study and a discussion of the findings. Ch apter 4 includes the results of the statistical analyses of data from the present study. Chapter 5 provides a summary of the findings from the current study, limitations of this study, as well as implications for practice and future research

PAGE 116

116 CHAPTER 4 RE SULTS The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the SELF: Social Emotional Learning Foundations curriculum on the social emotional vocabulary development of kindergarten and first grade children, particularly those who are at risk for emotion al and behavioral disorders (EBD). Specifically, the followi ng three research questions were investigated: 1. What are the effects of the Social Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) intervention on student learning of social emotional vocabulary? 2. What stude nt factors are related to social emotional vocabulary outcomes? 3. To examine the first research question, a proximal measure of the social emotional vocabulary targeted for inst ruction in the intervention was created and administered. The SELF Vocabulary Measure assessed a select group of 20 target words in kindergarten and in first grade. This assessment was administered pre and posttest to participating students in treatment and control conditions. Student pretest scores served as a covariate to eliminate initial differences between the two conditions. The second research question was on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Funda mental 4 ( CELF 4 ; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003) subtest s of expressive vocabulary and understanding spoken paragraphs and the passage comprehension subtest of the Woodcock Reading Master Revised (Forms G and H) ( WRMT R ; Woodcock, 1987) T hese score s were a nalyzed to determine whether they were Measure. In addition, results from the treatment and control conditions were compared.

PAGE 117

117 The third research question was addressed with the evaluation o f the v ideotaped SELF lessons. The SELF Vocabula ry Observation Protocol (Appendix A) consists of a viewing record and a scoring rubric. These were developed to review videotapes of intervention lessons to identify teacher instructional factors that are related to social s on the observation outcomes on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. Results of the statistical analyses of d ata from the present study are discussed in the subsequent four sections. The first section presents group descriptive data for the SELF Vocabulary Measure and the results of the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) conducted to examine the first research ques tion. The second section discusses the results of the multiple regression analysis conducted to study student factors, such as their initial literacy skills, as predictors of their performance on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. The third section addresses t he results of the multiple regression analysis conducted to investigate the instructional strategies teachers implement that may be a factor in their students social emotional vocabulary development. In this section, teacher demographic information is al so presented and analyzed as a potential factor in student outcome. The last section summarizes the overall results of the overall study. Statistical Analyses of the Data Initially, 108 kindergarten and first grade students, from treatment and control c lassrooms, were selected for their participation in the study. Due to school withdrawal, one child was removed from the study before pretesting began. Additionally, 16

PAGE 118

118 students moved during the school year and were withdrawn from the study. Therefore, 9 1 children completed the study and were administered posttests. Effects of the SELF Intervention on Social Emotional Vocabulary The SELF Vocabulary Measure was administered prior to the start of the SELF intervention to document any prior knowledge of the target social emotional vocabulary and to examine comparability across treatment and control conditions. Because students were not randomly assigned to the intervention or control condition as part the larger Project SELF study, independence of studen pretest scores on the SELF Vocabulary Measure to condition was examined using a Welch two sample t test. Results of the Welch two sample t test found a p value larger than .05 ( p = 0.42), which indicated that the groups did not differ significantly on pretest scores. Because there was no significant difference on pretest scores of the SELF Vocabulary Measure, the use of pretest scores as a covariate was appropriate (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). The SELF Vocabulary Measure was scored on a continuous sca le, therefore, an ANCOVA was conducted to determine the effects of the SELF intervention on student learning of social emotional vocabulary Pretest scores on the SELF Vocabulary Measure served as the covariate and posttest scores on the same measure serv ed as the dependent variable. The assumption for homogeneity of variances was tested before the ANCOVA p value larger than .05 ( p = .16) indicating equal variances among groups. Also, no violations were found for the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes, indicating there were no significant interactions between pretest scores and condition.

PAGE 119

119 As assumptions for A NCOVA were met, an analysis of covariance was used to analyze the mean posttest scores among students in treatment and control conditions on the SELF Vocabulary Measure, with pretest as the covariate. Table 4 1 reports pretest and posttest mean scores and standard deviations on the SELF Vocabulary Measure Table 4 1. Pretest and Posttest SELF Vocabulary Measure for Treatment and Control Groups Condition Pretest Posttest N M SD M SD Treatment 55 30.95 14.04 56.33 14.73 Control 36 33.78 17.56 43.39 1 7.97 The ANCOVA computed adjusted mean scores for the SELF Vocabulary Measure posttest. Adjusted scores are considered more dependable for reporting because they reduce error variance and thus increase the precision of the estimates (Glass & Hopkins, 19 96). Adjusted mean scores eliminate the individual differences among participants at the beginning of the study. The intervention effects were evaluated using a one way ANCOVA, in which pretest scores were used as the covariate (Table 4 2). Results of th e ANCOVA revealed significant differences between groups, F(1,88) = 58.97, p < .01. T he adjusted mean score (M = 5 7 .28, SE = 1.25) was significantly higher adjusted mean (M = 41.94, SE = 1.55) at posttest. Also, f urther analysis found a large effect size d

PAGE 120

120 Table 4 2. Summary of Analysis of Covariance for SELF Vocabulary Measure df SS MS F Pr (>F) Pretest scores 1 14000.6 14000.6 162.524 < .01 Condition 1 5079.6 50 79.6 58.966 < .01 Residuals 88 7580.8 86.1 Each word on the SELF Vocabulary Measure (Appendix D) wa s assessed on the following: (a) expressive definition, (b) expressive use of the target word in context, and (c) receptive understanding of tar get word E xpressive definition wa s assessed to determine student s depth of knowledge of the target vocabulary S tudents were also given the opportunity to share their experiences with the social emotional vocabulary in the expressive use of the target word in context Lastly, t o gain an understanding of word knowledge for those who may not know a word well enough to provide a definition or an example, the SELF V receptive knowledge of target words. In this section, students were read a prompt and were provided with a multiple choice scenario. d epth of knowledge of social emotional vocabulary, multiple ANCOVAs were conducted to compare pre to posttest scores on each of the subscales of the SELF Vocabulary Measure (i.e., expressive definition, expressive use of the target word, and receptive unde rstanding of the target word). Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were computed between each subscale of the dependent measure for all students at pretest and posttest. These correlations are displayed in Table 4 3.

PAGE 121

121 Table 4 3. Correlations for Scores on Subscales of the SELF Vocabulary Measure Measure Subscale 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Expressive definition (pre) -2. Expressive use (pre) .636 -3. Receptive understanding (pre) .653 .711 -4. Expressive definition (post) .595 .56 6 .523 -5. Expressive use (post) .502 .651 .530 .764 -6. Receptive understanding (post) .584 .641 .666 .695 .699 -Results of a Welch two sample t test found a p value larger than .05 ( p = 0.83), indicating groups did not differ significantl y on pretest scores of the expressive definition subscale. Since there was no significant difference on pretest scores of this subscale, it was appropriate to use the pretest score of the subscale as a covariate. Homogeneity of variances was assessed wit of variances found a p value larger than .05 ( p = .76) indicating equal variances among groups. The a ssumption of homogeneity of regression slopes was also tested and results indicated there were n o significant interactions between pretest scores on the expressive definition subscale and condition. Results of a one way ANCOVA, in which pretest scores on the expressive definition subscale of the SELF Vocabulary Measure were used as the covariate (Tab le 4 4), revealed significant differences between groups F(1,88) = 27.23, p < .01. The treatment group s adjusted mean score (M = 14.75, SE = .58) was significantl y higher than the control group s adjusted mean (M = 9.94, SE = .72) at posttest. The calcu lated d

PAGE 122

122 Table 4 4. Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Expressive Definition Subscale df SS MS F Pr (>F) Pretest scores on expressive definition subscale 1 1171.42 1171.42 63.302 < .001 Condi tion 1 503.97 503.97 27.234 < .001 Residuals 88 628.46 18.51 examples of the target word in context, a Welch two sample t test found a p value larger than .05 ( p = 0.29), indicating groups did not differ significantly on pretest scores of this subscale. Since there was no significant difference on pretest scores of expressive use of the target word, it was appropriate to use the pretest score of the subscale as a covariat p value larger than .05 ( p = .14) indicating equal variances among groups. The a ssumption of homogeneity of regression slopes was a lso tested and results indicated there were no significant interactions between pretest scores on the expressive use of the target word and condition. Results of a one way ANCOVA, in which pretest scores on the expressive use of the target word subscale of the SELF Vocabulary Measure were used as the covariate (Table 4 5), revealed significant differences between groups F(1,88) = 47.79, p < .01. The adjusted mean score (M = 28.16, SE = .73) was significantly s adjusted mean (M = 20.06, SE = .91) at posttest. A

PAGE 123

123 large effect size was also found for the expressive use subscale d = 1.12, Table 4 5. Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Expressive Use Subscale df SS MS F Pr (>F) P retest scores on expressive use subscale 1 2944.20 2944.20 99.859 < .001 Condition 1 1409.10 1409.08 47.792 < .001 Residuals 88 2594.50 29.48 target word, a Welch two sample t test found a p value larger than .05 ( p = 0.30), indicating groups did not differ significantly on pretest scores of this subscale. Also, the homogeneity of variances a t of homogeneity of variances indicated eq ual variances with a p value greater than .05 ( p = .06). However, for the receptive understanding of the target vocabulary, the homogeneity of regression pretest scores on this subsca le and the condition (Figure 4 1 ). Due to the violation of the homogeneity of regression slopes as sumption for this subscale, it wa s not recommended to analyze the main effect of the treatment on receptive understanding of the target vocabulary via an ANCOVA (Field, 2005). However, visual interpretation of the interaction in Figure 4 6 seems to indicate that students with low pretest scores benefitted the most, while students with relatively high pretest scores performed well regardless of whet her they were in the treatment or control condition.

PAGE 124

124 Figure 4 1 Homogeneity of Regression Slopes for Receptive Understanding Subscale Based on the results of the multiple one w ay ANCOVA conducted to determine the effect of the SELF intervention on stu emotional vocabulary development of each of the subscales of the SELF Vocabulary Measure, stud ents in the treatment condition made the greatest gains in their ability to use the target word and also made significantly greater gains than the s tudents in the control condition in their ability to provide a definition for the target word. The intervention seemed less effective for the receptive understanding of the target word. For this subscale, it appears as if students with relatively high pr etest scores performed well regardless of whether they received the SELF intervention or not. Figure 4 2 shows the gains on each subscale from pre to posttest scores for treatment an d control condition. It is important to recall that subscales A and B ( expressive definition and expressive use of the target word, respectively) were scored on a 2 point rubric, while subscale C (receptive

PAGE 125

125 understanding of the target word) received a maximum score of 1 point for a correct response. The g raphs shown are base d on raw scores Figure 4 3 shows the gains for each subscale on the SELF Vocabulary Measure from pre to posttest for the control and treatment conditions separately. Figure 4 2 Subscale Scores by Condition Figure 4 3 Subscale Scores for Cont rol and Treatment Conditions

PAGE 126

126 Student Factors Related t o Social Emotional Vocabulary Outcomes To examine what student factors are related to social emotional vocabulary outcomes, a multiple regression analysis was run to predict posttest scores of the SELF Vocabulary Measure from the pretest scores on CELF 4 expressive vocabulary and understanding spoken paragraphs subtests (CELFEV and CELFSP, respectively) and the WRMT R p assage comprehension subtest (W PC). The assumptions of linearity, multicollinearity, unusual points, and normality of residuals were met. The mean scores and standard deviation for students in the treatment and control conditions are listed for each of these assessments in Table 4 6. Table 4 6 Means and Standard Deviations for Treatme nt and Control Conditions Measure Treatment Control M SD M SD Posttest SELF Vocabulary Measure 56.33 14.73 43.39 17.97 CELFEV 20.31 7.64 20.94 11.71 CELFSP 6.78 2.97 7.53 3.84 W PC 7.64 7.88 8.08 8.31 A multiple regression model with all four pre dictors produced R = .60, F(4, 86) = 32.73, p < .001. As can be seen in the results table (Table 4 7 ) CELF scales and group had significant positive regression coefficients, indicating students with higher scores on these scales were expected to have higher posttest scores on the SELF Vocabulary Measure after controlling for the other variables in the model. WPC wa s not found to be a significant predictor. When controlling for CELFEV, CELFSP and WPC par ticipating in the treatment group wa s associated wi th 14.79 point increase in post test

PAGE 127

127 scores. When controlling for other variables, a 1 po int increase in CELFEV pretest wa s associated with a .59 point increase in SELF Vocabulary Measure posttest scores and a 1 point increase in CELFSP wa s associated with a 1.88 point increase in SELF Vocabulary Measure post test scores. Lastly, in this multiple regression model, the regression on standardized scores found that when controlling for other variables, participation in the SELF intervention was associated with .88 standard deviation increase in posttest on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. Table 4 7 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Student Factors Related to Social Emotional Vocabulary Outcomes Variable B SE B Intercept 42.27 1.86 0. 52* Condition 14.79 2.40 0.86* CELFEV 0.59 0.19 0.32* CELFSP 1.88 0.54 0.36* WPC 0.17 0.17 0.08 Note. p .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficients; SE B = Standard error of the coefficient; = standardized coefficient Teacher Instruction al Factor To examine what teacher instructional factors are related to social emotional vocabulary outcomes, a multiple regression analysis was run to predict posttest scores of the SELF Vocabulary Measur e from the rubric scores the teachers earned on each of the SELF intervention lessons that were videotaped. A total of 95 videos viewed and coded. However, due to technical issues with two of the videos they were not included in the analysis. One video did not have the audio turn ed on for the first nine minutes of the lesson. A second video was stopped before the teacher

PAGE 128

128 completed the lesson with the students. Because the entire lessons could not be coded for these two videos, they we re excluded from t he dat a set. The lessons that were excluded are noted in Appendix E. A total of 93 were included in the final analysis. The assumptions of linearity, m ulticollinearity and normality of residuals were met. The data set was also checked for outliers and any influential data points. Due to the limited number of videos available (Appendix E), the frequency of the different types of lessons (i.e., whole group, small group dialogic reading, small group application) did n ot support having them run separately. When analyzing the lessons overall per teacher (in other words all the videos available per teacher regardless of type of lesson), the multiple regression model with all three predictors produced R 2 = .56, F (3,51) = 24.05, p .001. As can be seen in the results table (Table 4 8 ), pretest scores on the SELF Vocabulary Measure had a significant positive regression coefficient, indicating students with higher pretest scores were expected to have higher postt est scores, after controlling for the other variables in the model. Therefore, the results of the multiple regression analysis found that the emotional vocabulary outcomes. However, the results presented show that students with teachers who had a mean rubric score of 2, could be expected to score 4.89 points higher than students with teachers who had a mean rubric score of 1 Similarly, students with teachers with a mean sco re of 3 could be expected to score 4.33 points higher than students whose teacher had a mean rubric score of 1. T hat is a teacher with an average score of 2 or 3 on the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol wa s associated with an increase in

PAGE 129

129 student outco me scores on the SELF Vocabulary Measure, but the difference was not significant Table 4 8 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Teacher Instructional Factors and Student Outcomes of Social Emotional Vocabulary Variable B SE B p Intercept 51.90 4. 96 .001 SELF Vocabulary Measure Pretest Scores 0.78 0.10 .001 Teachers with rubric mean score of 2 4.89 5.25 0. 36 Teachers with rubric mean score of 3 4.33 5.71 0.45 Note. p .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficients; SE B = Standard err or of the coefficient Table 4 9. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Teacher Demographic and Student Outcomes of Social Emotional Vocabulary Variable B SE B p Intercept 63.92 5.81 .001* Centered mean 0.76 0.11 .001 Years of experience cente red around mean 0.19 0.25 0. 45 Years of experience at current grade level centered at mean 0.06 0.41 0.89 Early Childhood certification 2.50 5.50 0.65 Elementary Education certification 6.35 6.41 0.33 English for Speakers of Other Languages certif ication 1.26 3.39 0.75 Exceptional Student Education certification 4.73 4.25 0.27 Reading certification 1.32 5.51 0.81 Note. p .05; B = unstandardized regression coefficients; SE B = Standard error of the coefficient To examine what teacher demog raphic factors are related to social emotional vocabulary outcomes, a multiple regression analysis was run to predict posttest scores of the SELF Vocabulary Measure from of experience at their current grade level,

PAGE 130

130 unusual points, and normality of residuals were met. When analyzing teacher demographic information, the multiple regressio n model with all eight predictors produced R 2 = .57, F(8,46) = 9.82, p .001. As can be seen in the results table (Table 4 9 ), the results of the multiple regression analysis found that teacher demogra phic data were not a significant predictor of their s emotional vocabulary outcomes. Summary The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the SELF intervention emotional vocabulary growth. A pretest posttest control group design was used to compare student s who received the SELF intervention in the treatment condition to those who did not in the control condition. To determine the emotional vocabulary, students were assessed on a researc her created measure of targeted social emotional vocabulary (i.e., SELF Vocabulary Measure), the expressive vocabulary and spoken paragraphs subtests of the CELF 4 and the passage comprehension subtest of the WRMT R. In addition, videotaped SELF lessons w ere observed, coded, and scored to determine if instructional strategies known to support emotional vocabulary outcomes. Findings of an ANCOVA indicate that kindergarten and first grade children who were in the treatment condition and received the SELF intervention demonstrated significant ly greater knowledge of targeted social emotional vocabulary words compared with students in the control condition who did not participate in the SELF

PAGE 131

131 interventi on. Differences in target social emotional vocabulary between treatment and d = 1.14). Pursuing this further to study the effects of the SELF intervention on the depth of knowledge gained by the students in both conditions, multiple ANCOVAs were conducted to compare pre to posttest scores on the subscales of the SELF Vocabulary Measure (i.e., expressive definition, expressive use of the target word, and receptive understan ding of the target word). The t adjusted mean score was significantly higher than the cont social d = .90) and their ability to use the target word ( d = 1.12). For these two subscales, large effect sizes were found. Due to an intera receptive understanding of the targeted social emotional vocabulary could not be interpreted statistically. Nevertheless, interpr etation of the interaction seems to indicate that students with low pretest scores benefitted the most, while students with relatively high scores performed well regardless of whether they received the SELF intervention or not. A multiple regression anal ysis was run to examine what student factors related to their initial literacy skills (pretest scores on subtests of the CELF 4 and the WRMT R) could be predictors to their social passage comprehension WRMT R scores were not found to be a significant predictor of the students posttest score on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. pretest scores on the CELF 4 subtests (expressive vocabulary and spoken paragraphs) were found to be significant predi ctors for the students who received the SELF intervention. Students with higher scores on the CELF 4 subtests and who received the

PAGE 132

132 SELF intervention were expected to have higher posttest scores on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. Overall, students who partic ipated in the treatment condition had greater gains on their posttest score s of the SELF Vocabulary Measure, with a 14.79 point increase in posttest scores. Multiple regressions analyses were conducted to examine what teacher instructional factors and demo social emotional vocabulary outcomes on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. No statistically significant relationship s were instructional strategies while implementing th demographic variables for their years of teaching experience or areas of certification. It is interesting to note however that teachers who received a mean score of 2 or 3 on the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol did have students with higher mean gains on the SELF Vocabulary Measure compared to teachers with a mean score of 1 on the protocol rubric.

PAGE 133

133 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION When children enter school they are faced with increased demands for well regulated and goal d irected activities, including sustained behavioral inhibition, compliance with rules, and positive interpersonal relationships with teachers and peers (Campbell & von Stauffenberg, 2008). Language skills support social emotional adjustment and promote chi behavioral demands of school (Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999). Language and social emotional skills provide essential foundational support for effective school engagement. Literature related to emot ion vocabulary provides corroborating evidence of the academic and social benefits that social emotional vocabulary can provide. While there is a large body of literature on bibliotherapy, or the use of books to promote social emotional growth and well bei ng (see for example, Womack, Marchant, & Borders, 2011), no studies have specifically examined the development of social emotional vocabulary through storybook reading. The practice of storybook reading, commonly used by teachers in the primary grades, is a potential vehicle for increasing National Early Literacy Panel [ NELP ], 2008 ). Project SELF: Social Emotional Learning Foundations was designed to investigate how storybook read ng language and promote vocabulary related to the key concepts of social emotional development. Because storybook reading has already been shown to be an excellent venue for teaching vocabulary and promoting social emotional growth, additional research is needed to examine the effects of storybook reading on social emotional vocabulary development. This study was designed to begin to address this gap in the research

PAGE 134

134 Using data from Project SELF and examining vocabulary instruction more closely, this stud y examined the effects of the SELF curriculum on the social emotional vocabulary development of children in kindergarten and first grade particularly those who are at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). In this chapter, a discussion of th e research findings is presented. This chapter includes a discussion of (a) the effectiveness of the SELF curriculum in developing emotional vocabulary, (b) student factors of initial literacy skills that may contribute to their social e motional vocabulary learning outcomes, and (c) teacher factors of instructional strategies and demographic data related to number of years of teaching experience as well as areas of certification that can serve as predictors of student outcomes of social e motional vocabulary development. These findings are presented and discussed for each research question. After the findings, the limitations of the current study, implications for practice, implications for future research, and conclusion s are also provid ed. Discussion of Findings The current study was designed to investigate the effects of the SELF emotional vocabulary growth. A pretest posttest control group design was used to compare treat ment to control conditions at each grade level. The following section will provide the findings for the research questions being examined in this study. Effects of the SELF Intervention on Social Emotional Vocabulary Previous research has provided evi dence of the effectiveness of direct vocabulary instruction within the context of storybook read alouds. The current study examined the effects of the SELF curriculum on the social emotional vocabulary

PAGE 135

135 development of kindergarten and first grade children, particularly those who are at risk for emotiona l and behavioral disorders The first research question was as follows : What are the effects of the Social Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) intervention on student learning of social emotional vocabular y? This question was addressed by examining the social emotional vocabulary word learning in each condition (treatment and control) as measured by the researcher created SELF Vocabulary Measure. Findings of a one way ANCOVA indic ate that kindergarten and first grade children who were in the treatment condition and received the SELF intervention demonstrated significant ly greater knowledge of targeted social emotional vocabulary words compared with students in the control condition who did not partici pate i n the SELF intervention, F(1,88) = d = 1.14. To determine what aspect nfluenced most by the intervention, multiple ANCOVAs we re conducted to compare posttest scores on the subscales of the SELF Vocabulary Measure (i.e., expressive definition, expressive use of the target word, and receptive understanding of the target word) with pretests as the covariates The students who participated in the treatment group and received instruction in the SELF curriculum had significantly higher adjusted mean scores than the students in the control group for their ability to define the targeted social emotional vocabulary word d d = 1.12). As is noted, large effect sizes were found for these subscales. Although it is considered that less depth of knowledge is needed when identifying receptive knowledge of a vocabulary word than when expressive knowledge must be produced, an interaction effect di

PAGE 136

136 receptive understanding of the targeted social emotional vocabulary. However, interpretation of the interaction appears to indicate that students with low pretest scores ben efitted the most, while students with relatively high scores performed well regardless of whether they received the SELF intervention or not. gains to be mediated based on th eir initial vocabulary knowledge. Many researchers have found that students with higher initial vocabulary knowledge benefit more than their peers with lower vocabulary knowledge (Coyne et al., 2010; Loftus & Coyne, 2013; Maru lis & Neuman, 2010; Pullen, T uckwiller, Konold, Maynard, & Coyne, 2010; Silverman, Crandell, & Carlis 2013) This is in contrast to the findings in the current study. Results of the SELF intervention show that it had a positive effect on all students in the treatment condition, re g ardless of their initial knowledge of social emotional vocabulary In other words, the designed SELF curriculum is effective for students with both lower and higher levels of initial vocabulary. Theoretically, receptive measures of word knowledge require fewer cognitive demands of students and are able to detect a lower level of word knowledge; thus, receptive measures are often considered easier than expressive measure s of word knowledge (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan 2002; Coyne McCoach, & Kapp, 2007). Ther efore, it is surprising that the results of this study found that the SELF intervention emotional vocabulary. A reason for this finding may be that the SELF curriculum is desi gned to engage students in discussions where they are to make personal

PAGE 137

137 definition f or the targeted vocabulary. This gain in student knowledge demonstrates emotional vocabulary targeted for instruction in the intervention. SELF lessons provided student friendly explanations of each target vocab ulary word, and the target words were used repeatedly, providing students with multiple opportunities to hear and engage with the social emotional vocabulary. Teachers provided multiple exposures of the words in varying contexts. Student friendly explana engagement in discussion about social emotional vocabulary may all be contributing definition. Research ers have recommended ( Beck et al., experiences to help them create connections to new word meanings. Social emotional vocabulary lends itself well to providing a springboard for conversations that students can connect to their e xperiences in their lives that have produced different feelings. The mean gains demonstrated by students in the treatment group on the SELF Vocabulary Measure suggests that students should have had a deeper level of word knowledge. This deeper understandi ng of a word should have facilitated their ability to receptively identity the meaning of the target vocabulary. However, results of the current study found that students in the treatment and the control conditions did not have a statistically significant difference on their performance of the receptive understanding of social emotional vocabulary. One explanation for this finding may be that the multiple choice format of the exam gave students in both the treatment and control conditions equal opportunit ies to randomly select a response and therefore was

PAGE 138

138 less likely to be sensitive enough to find a significant difference between the conditions. This unexpected finding may be a problem with the multiple choice format of the researcher created vocabulary m eas ure. A second explanation may be that t he multiple choice format may have been too difficult or novel for young children. Also, some of the distractors on the exam may have been rather lengthy for young children and it may have been difficult for them to retain all the information in order to carefully consider each choice before making a decision on which one would best complete the question stem provided. In the future, the multiple choice questions on the SELF Vocabulary Measure could be revised so that only synonyms are presented as distractors in order to make it easier for students to retain the information provided before they make a choice. Another revision that may be considered is to ensure that the distractors contain synonyms that would be considered Tier 1 vocabulary words, as described by Beck and her colleagues (2002), and not other SELF targeted vocabulary words that represent more mature language use. A third explanation for this finding may be the unintended result of a pretest effec t. That is, students in control condition were exposed to the target words during pretesting, which may have made them more sensitive to learning the word meanings if they encountered the words between pre and posttest. The positive effects on of the S ELF intervention on the word learning of social emotional vocabulary in this study are consistent with previous research that has found that explicit vocabulary instruction through storybook readings ( Marulis & Neu man, 2010; Robbins & Ehri, 1994 ) and stude nt engagement in discussions on targeted vocabulary ( Ewers & Brownson, 1999; Dickinson & Smith, 1994 ) can lead to greater

PAGE 139

139 gains in vocabulary knowledge. Participation in the SELF intervention provided students with student friendly explanations of the tar geted social emotional vocabulary and opportunities to engage in discussions. Results of the SELF intervention found that although the treatment and control conditions had no appreciable difference on their pretest scores at posttest the students in the intervention condition demonstrated a statistically significant difference in their ability to define and provide examples of the targeted social emotional vocabulary. In sum, these findings can be a significant and unique contribution to the field of so cial emotional vocabulary learning in that it combines a social emotional intervention with vocabulary research. There has not been any previous research of vocabulary has spec ifically focused on social emotional vocabulary. The results of this study suggest that children in kindergarten and first grade who are identified as at risk for emotional and behavior disorders can benefit in multiple ways from a social emotional interv ention that include s direct vocabulary instruction within the context of storybook read alouds. Student Factors Related to Social Emotional Vocabulary Outcomes The second research question was as follows: What student factors are related to social emotiona l vocabulary outcomes? This question was addressed by examining the predictive value of on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4 (CELF 4; Semel, Wiig & Secord, 2003) subtests of expressive vocabulary and understanding spoken paragraphs and the passage comprehension subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT R; Woodcock, 1987). These score s performance on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. Previous research has demonstrated

PAGE 140

140 learn new vocabulary and benefit from interventions that include direct vocabulary instruction (Coyne et al., 2010; Loftus & C oyne, 2013; Marulis & Neuman, 2010; Pullen et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2013) A m CELF subtests of expressive vocabulary and understanding spoken paragraphs were significant pre dictors to their posttest scores on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. Students with higher scores on the CELF 4 subtests and who received the SELF intervention were expected to also have higher posttest scores on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. S tudents who part icipated in the treatment condition had greater gains on their posttest score s of the SELF Vocabulary Measure, with a 14.79 point increase in posttest scores overall This finding is similar to the results of the ANCOVA run to address the first research q uestion thus, i t provides additional evidence confirming the emotional vocabulary knowledge. It is interesting to note that the results of the ANCOVA analysis revealed the interventio n effectively le d to increase d scores on all students receiving the intervention, regardless of their initial literacy skills This is in contrast with the majority of research that has found that initial literacy levels of students is a significant predi ctor of their ability to benefit from vocabulary interventions (Coyne et al., 2010; Loftus & Coyne, 2013; Marulis & Neuman, 2010; Pullen et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2013) but it is consistent with the studies conducted by Justice, Meier, and Walpole ( 2005) who have found that students with lower levels of initial literacy skills can benefit as well as their peer s with higher initial levels of literacy. One likely reason that students in the

PAGE 141

141 intervention condition with lower initial knowledge of socia l emotion al vocabulary were able to make gains comparable to their peer s with higher initial vocabulary knowledge is that social emotional vocabulary is vocabulary that students can more easily relate to They are, therefore able to make stronger and mor e personal connections to these words compared to other vocabulary that may only provide a more sophisticated label for more familiar concepts or obje cts Students who are at risk for emotional and behavioral diso rders might have a greater need to develo p social emotional vocabulary because it may help them make the connections with how they feel and how their feelings and actions affect others. Such students might also have more experiences with talking about their feelings because they may have been re ferred to other school personnel because of their behavior al issue s This would provide the students with greater opportunities to use this vocabulary in context. the CEL F subtests of expressive vocabulary and understanding spoken paragraphs and their participation in the intervention were significant predictors to their posttest scores on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. These results are promising because they suggest that a soci al emotional intervention that provides direct, targeted social emotional vocabulary instruc tion through storybook readings may contribute to the increased knowledge. Teacher Instructi onal Factors Related to Student s Vocabulary Outcomes The third research question wa s as follows: What teacher instructional factors addressed by examining instructional strategies that resea rchers in the field of vocabulary

PAGE 142

142 interventions have found to be essential in supporting students understanding of new vocabulary. Previous research has found that effective v ocabulary instruction includes (a) explicit teaching of words with instruction that includes the discussion of word meanings (Marulis & Neuman, 20 10; Robbins & Ehri, 1994); (b) student friendly definitions or synonyms during storybook readings (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Biemiller & Boot e, 2006; Justice et al., 2005); (c) multiple exposur e and engagement to targeted vocabulary (Ewers & Brownson, 1999; Karweit & Wasik, 1996; Robbins & Ehri 1994 ; Snchal Thomas, & Monker, 1995 ) ; and (d) asking what and where qu estions during book discussions (Ewers & Bronson, 1999) By incorporating the se recommended strategies vocabulary learning and growth. Using the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol teachers videotaped implementation of SELF lessons was observed and coded to determine what vocabulary instructional strategies were integrated during the SELF intervention. Coders identified each tea cher s use of instructional strategies that support vocabulary learning and scored teachers based on the rubric (Appendix A). Specifically, t he lessons were observed to determine if teachers provided evidence of incorporating the following vocabulary instruction strategies : (a) saying the target word, (b) prompting students to repeat the word, (c) providing a student friendly explanation, (c) c onnecting new vocabulary to previously taught vocabulary, (d) providing examples of the target word in mu ltiple contexts, (e) providing multiple exposures of the target word, (f) engaging students in discussions about the target vocabulary, and (g) engagin g students in gestures and/or actions reflective of the target word.

PAGE 143

143 Based on e xtant research it was hypothesized that teachers with higher mean scores on the rubric (i.e., t eachers who incorporated more instructional strategies) would have students wit h better vocabulary gains from pre to posttest on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. Surprisingly, results of a multiple regression analysis found that a rubric score was not a significant predictor of emotional vocabulary outc omes. The four most commonly used instructional strategies by the teachers in the intervention condition were (a) saying the target word, (b) providing a student friendly explanation, (c) providing examples of the target word in multiple contexts, and (d ) providing multiple exposures of the target word. This was likely due to support for the u se of these strategies explicitly provided in the SELF curriculum. Although the intervention also provides explicit instruction s for teachers to engage students in discussion about the targeted social emotional vocabulary this strategy was not used as frequently as the four strategies listed above. The instructional strategy that the teachers were least likely to use when teaching social emotional vocabulary was t o have the students repeat the word to create their own phonological representation of the word This finding classroom observations show that more often than not, the teacher is the only per son in the class to pronounce and use academic language. Although this strategy was presented to the teachers when they participated in professional development for the intervention, explicit directions or reminders to have students repeat the target voca bulary were not provided in the curriculum which the teachers may have interpreted as the strategy being less important The teachers may also have lacked

PAGE 144

144 understanding about the importance of phonological representations of words in working memory ( Gath ercol, Willis, Baddeley, & Emslie, 1994). Although the vocabulary instructional strategies incorporated by teacher s were not found to be significant predictors of their students social emotional vocabulary outcomes, further analysis did find that teacher s with an average score of 2 or 3 on the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol did have students with higher mean gains. These t eachers had students with posttest gains greater than teachers with a n average score of 1. However, the mean gain of the studen ts was almost the same between the teachers that had a rubric score of 2 or 3. Several factors could have contributed to these results. Perhaps the limited number of video taped lessons did not provide enough of a lary instruction, which may have weakened the analysis. More observations of each lesson type may be needed to detect stable created protocol could have been another contributing factor. The SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol may be sensitive enough to distinguish between weak instruction and adequate instruction, but it may not be sensitive enough to distinguish exemplary instruction from adequate instruction. F urther refining of the p rotocol, as part of larger scale studies should be considered. Additionally, demographic teacher factors were analyzed to determine whether teaching experience, and t he number of years teaching in the grade level they were currently assigned and their students vocabulary gains on the SELF Vocabulary Measure from pre to posttest. The results of the multiple regression analysis found that

PAGE 145

145 teacher demographic data w ere not significant predictor s emotional vocabulary outcomes One possible explanation may be that having a structured social emotional curriculum that provides teachers with scripted su pports to implement the lessons may reduce the effects of teacher characteristics that may otherwise influence student outcomes. Another possible explanation for this finding is that although the data revealed that teachers varied greatly in the number of years of teaching experience, there was not mu ch difference in the other variables. Perhaps the data set did not include enough variance to detect which teacher demographic factors emotional vocabulary outcomes. Summary of Findings This study examined the effe cts of a storybook reading intervention on the social emotional vocabulary development of kindergarten and first grade children who were identified as at risk for emotional and behavioral disorder s. Statistically significant differences were found between the treatment and control groups on social emotional vocabulary outcomes of the SELF Vocabulary Measure. Further analyses indicated that the students who received the SELF intervention were better able to provide both definitions of the target vocabulary and to use the word in context by providing examples of when they might experience certain feelings. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups vocabulary scores In addition, statistical ly significant difference s were found between students with differing initial literacy skills That is, based on the results from the multiple regression analysis, students who had higher pretest scores on the CELF 4 expressive vocabulary and spoken parag raphs subtests and who were in the treatment condition are expected

PAGE 146

146 to have higher posttest scores on the SELF Vocabulary Measure. No statistically significant differences were detected between other student factors and their social emotional vocabulary o utcomes nor for teacher instructional strategies that could serve as predictors of their students vocabulary gains. Limitations There are a number of limitations to this study and the findings, while promising, should be interpreted with consideration of these limitations. In this section, limitations to the design of the study and to the analysis strategies that were employed are discussed in detail. First, because the current study was part of a larger externally funded development grant, random assi gnment to condition was not possible. The treatment and control conditions in this study were not significantly different at pretest; however, an experimental design study with random assignment would ensure any differences between groups were random ly di stributed and w ould strengthen the results of a study. The small sample size is another limitation to this study The small sample limits the generalizability of the results to populations that differ from the sample population. Also, t he small sample siz e limits the power of statistical analyses. Specifically, a lthough the larger SELF study had a nested design, with the intervention being conducted in certain schools and in specific classrooms within those schools, the sample size in the current study di d not allow for analysis with multilevel models that would account for the nested data. T he limited number of videos available for observation and coding of teachers vocabulary instruction restricted the amount of data that could be gathered to evaluate t emotional vocabulary

PAGE 147

147 outcomes. This is further compounded by the fact that there were not the same number of videos per teacher and that there were varying number s of videos available f or each type of lesson. This affected what could be observed, and the unequal cell size restricted the analyses that could be conducted. Students who were selected to participate in the study were chosen because the teachers screened and identified the st udents as being at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. criteria may have differed. The findings of the current study may not generalize to other student populations. Also, clas sroom teachers conducted the SELF intervention. The effectiveness and feasibility of the intervention when implemented by other school personnel, such as paraprofessional s or school counselors, are unknown. T he researcher developed tools pose additional l imitations. The protocol used for lesson observation was based on literature about what constitutes effective vocabulary instruction, but the various categories do not necessarily carry equal weight or importance to student learning. Further research to refine this protocol is warranted. The measure of social emotional vocabulary has not been validated on a large sample of students. Therefore, accurate reliability and validity data were not available prior to the use of the measure in the current study. Finally, a delayed posttest was not administered to the students who participated in the study. Therefore, using the data from the current study it is impossible to determine if students maintained their vocabulary gains beyond the study period Implica tions for Practice Findings of the current study have considerable implications for social emotional vocabulary instruction in the primary grades. First, the results show the potential of

PAGE 148

148 teaching social emotional vocabulary during shared storybook readin gs for students who are at risk for emotional/behavior disorders. Second, the positive results of the SELF intervention for students regardless of their initial levels of vocabulary knowledge demonstrates how all students can benefit from this type of d irect instruction of social emotional vocabulary. Lastly, there are implications on how to support teachers in their understanding of effective methods to develop vocabulary during storybook readings that can lead to students developing a deeper understan ding of the vocabulary being directly instructed. Findings from the current study suggest that integration of this specialized social emotional vocabulary can be readily incorporated during shared storybook reading sessions that include direct instructio n of social emotional vocabulary. The characters and events in storybooks provide a springboard for discussion that can support emotional vocabulary. During read aloud sessions teachers can provide student friendly explanations of social emotional vocabulary as it occurs within a story. The teacher can also model language use of social emotional vocabulary and can provide students with additional exposures of the social emotional vocabulary by using this targeted vocabulary in multiple c understanding of social emotional vocabulary. Moreover, greater social emotional vocabulary can facilitate class discussions related to how characters feel and can lead to students better being able to connect their pe rsonal experiences with those of others. Data from the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol highlighted that the majority of teachers implementing the SELF intervention did not demonstrate many of the instructional strategies that could help their students develop a greater

PAGE 149

149 understanding of social emotional vocabulary. This is likely indicative of a general lack of understanding among teachers in the primary grades about how valuable storybook ey are aware of the potential of storybook reading, many teachers need additional professional development to build their knowledge and skills for implementing high quality, evidence based vocabulary instruction. During professional development sessions t he SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol could be introduced and explained in order to scaffold Teachers could view video segments of model lessons which has been demonstrated to improve implementation of effective practices (Dieker et al., 2009) This could also provide teachers with opportunities to analyze vocabulary instruction by using the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol, so they can identify examples of the instructiona l strategies demonstrated by the teachers in the videos. In turn, t his could then lead to a discussion with the teachers on how to purposefully plan for instruction of social emotional vocabulary during the implementation of the SELF intervention. Data f rom the current study could be shared with teachers on how to develop social emotional vocabulary whether it is integrated with the SELF curriculum or introduced as an extension to interactive storybook reading. Teachers could be provided with demonstrat ion s and could plan to systematically enco urage their students to say target words aloud prov iding their students with the phonological representation needed when learning novel vocabulary. There could be time allocated during professional development se ssions where teacher s collaborate and brainstorm different ways they could have their students engage in saying the words. Teachers could

PAGE 150

150 generate Discu ssion could be focused on how to provide students with binary questions or using a cloze procedure or sentence stem, where students complete a sentence by fill ing in the targeted vocabulary Examples could be provided to the teachers on how to respond to students when a student responds to questions with more basic emotion words (i .e., happy, mad, sad). Teachers could model by restating what the student said and adding more sophisticated social emotional vocabulary. Then the teacher can ask the student t o repeat what they said using targeted vocabulary. Lastly, the teacher could provide understanding of the subtle differences there are in the meanings of certain words and they can distinguish shades of meaning. Another use for the observation protocol and scoring rubric is for it to be incorporated as a tool for coaching sessions with the teachers. The SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol ca f direct vocabulary instruction. This hold s true for vocabulary instruction provided by teachers throughout the school day and across academic areas. Teachers could easily monitor their progre ss and see which strategies they are effectively demonstra ting during vocabulary lessons. This would allow teachers and coaches to discuss areas of strengths and areas for improvement. S imilarly, the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol could be part of peer coaching model that could be of great benefit to the teacher being observed and the observer. It would allow the observer to focus on the examples of instructional strategies being demonstrated and can make the observer

PAGE 151

151 more conscientious of their ow n instruction. T he discussion between peer coaches could lead to greater collaboration in thoughtful planning of how to integrate vocabulary instructional strategies throughout the school day. This study provides further evidence that many teachers do n ot naturally engage their students in purposeful read aloud sessions but with structured guidance, they are able to implement effective lessons with measureable student gains This is an important implication for preservice and inservice teacher educatio n practice. Despite the amount of attention and empirical support for storybook reading in the research literature (e.g., Swanson et al., 2011; Teale, 2003) the findings from this study reveal that there remains a need to guide teachers in learning effec tive and systematic methods for read aloud sessions that can lead to greater student vocabulary development (Lane & Wright, 2007) There is clearly a need to develop and support interactive storybo ok readings, when the read aloud sessions are well planned and engaging . Implications for Future Research This study has the potential to add to the current knowledge base in the areas of vocabulary development and social emotional development. Specif ically, this study can provide direction for future research in the field of social emotional vocabulary development. The results of this study provide information about the use of social emotional curriculum, centered in the use of storybook readings, to develop social emotional vocabulary. However, because this study was part of a larger Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Goal 2 development grant, rather than an efficacy study, the participants in this study were not randomly assigned to conditions and the sample size was small One natural direction for future research would be to conduct a similar study

PAGE 152

152 using an experimental design with a larger number of participants randomly assigned to condition. This would allow for more robust conclusions ab out the efficacy of the intervention. Future studies with larger numbers of teachers and students could provide multiple benefits. It could provide the data needed to determine the reliability and validity of the SELF Vocabulary Measure and the SELF Voc abulary Observation Protocol. Conducting future studies with a larger sample size would increase the power of statistical analyses and reduce the probability of Type I and II errors. It would also allow for more sophisticated statistical analyses. As par t of the larger SELF curriculum development study, the research team created two teacher observation instruments to measure treatment fidelity : the low inference Direct Observation of Practice Protoco l (DOPP lo) and high inference Dire ct Observation of Pra ctice Protocol (DOPP hi) Fidelity of implementation for the teachers in the treatmen t condition was recorded on the DOPP lo This measure was customized for each SELF lesson and included all the essential components for SELF instruction included in the lessons (i.e., lesson focus, targeted vocabulary, building background, dialogic reading prompts, application activities, and wrap up). To group instruction, teachers in the treatment and control con ditions were observed using the DOPP hi which addressed five domains : (a) preparing the classroom for SELF, (b) social emotional language development through dialogue, (c) self regulation skill development that supports listening comprehension and social problem solving (d) quality of instructional delivery, and (e) sensitivity and respect. Perhaps in the future, the DOPP hi protocol

PAGE 153

153 could be used to further refine the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol to include general indicators of effective teachi ng Also, further analysis could be conducted with the SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol and various combinations of the DOPP lo and DOPP hi data to determine if these variables might serve as more robust predictors Fin dings from this research further substantiates the overall effec tiveness of the SELF curriculum; however, future research should be conducted to determine which components of the SELF curriculum or types of lessons (i.e., whole group, small group dia logic reading, small group application) may have a greater effect on student s social emotional vocabulary gains. It is important to know which intervention components and which teacher instructional factors are essential for effective instruction of soci al emotional vocabulary. This information could guide how the intervention could be effectively implemented in the future. For example, if future studies found that a comparison group that received only whole group SELF lessons performed as well as anoth er group who received all of the SELF lessons, then the likelihood that the SELF intervention could more easily be integrated and implemented during the school day would increase. Another study design could have comparison group s that receive some of the S ELF intervention materials, but not all For example, the teachers in these comparison groups would only receive the storybooks included in the SELF intervention These teachers would not receiv e information about the specific social emotional vocabulary targeted in the SELF lessons nor would they receive any additional materials or training that are part of the SELF intervention Observations conducted in the comparison

PAGE 154

154 classrooms could illustrate which vocabulary teachers cho o se to clarify or discuss. Would teachers select social emotional vocabulary and concepts to discuss when provided with the same books? If so, would teachers target only the social emotional vocabulary that is included within the text of the storybooks? Might they discuss concep tual social emotional vocabulary that is not found within the text, but could be addressed in discussions about the book? Would the teachers provide implicit or explicit instruction of the social emotional vocabulary and concepts that are presented within the storybooks sel ected for the SELF intervention? Answers to these questions could inform researchers how to guide and work with teachers who do not have a structure d social emotional intervention, but who could be instructed on how to support their stu emotional development through planned storybook readings that target social emotional vocabulary. Further research could be conducted in which the students receive instruction with the SELF intervention from other school personnel rather than the classroom teacher. This investigation could provide school districts with viable options of effective methods to implement and integrate the SELF intervention in elementary classrooms. Given that teacher demographic variables were not significantly related to student learning outcomes, this possibility holds much promise and is worth additional exploration. The current study was conducted with students in kindergarten and first grade. Further research could be conducted with modified SELF lessons in other grade levels in elementary schools as well as in prekindergarten classrooms. Such r esearch could investigate if teaching students in the intermediate grade s specific social emotional

PAGE 155

155 vocabulary could affect their ability to better respond to comp rehension questions that address the tone of a passage narrative passage This could provide evidence as to the generalizability of the effectiveness of the SELF curriculum at other grade levels. Final ly, t he original design of the SELF intervention study included pre and posttesting of the students on select measures. Additional research could include a delayed posttest to determine if students maintain knowledge of the newly acquired social emotiona l vocabulary. This would allow researchers to study the maintenance of the effects of the intervention. Conclusion Findings from this research can serve as preliminary evidence of the potential for using planned, purposeful, read aloud sessions focused on social emotional concepts to foster social emotional vocabulary growth Comparison of the pretest and posttest scores on the researcher created SELF Vocabulary Measure of the intervention and control groups revealed a significant difference between the g roups, with the students receiving the SELF intervention having significantly better social emotional vocabulary outcomes The students in the treatment group also developed deeper knowledge of the targeted social emotional vocabulary. It is important to note that the students in the treatment group developed sufficient depth of knowledge to be able to provide a more complete definition of the targeted social emotional vocabulary as well as t he ability to use the vocabulary in a meaningful context. Child ren enter school with a limited number of emotion words that they understand and are able to express. Findings from this experiences. These connections can scaffold stude

PAGE 156

156 develop a corpus of social emotional vocabulary. This would allow students to have the power to be able to make a more precise word choice for emotion words and to understand in what situations or contexts these word ch oices would be appropriate. Empowering students with appropriate words to express their emotions can improve both their social and academic outcomes and should be integral to providing a well rounded school experience for all students.

PAGE 157

157 APPENDIX A SELF VOCABULARY OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

PAGE 158

158 SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol Teacher: School: Grade level: Lesson #: Type of Lesson: Length: Targeted Vocabulary: Vocabulary Word Says the target word aloud Prompts stude nts to repeat the word Provides a student friendly explanation Connects to previously taught vocabulary Provides examples of the target word in multiple contexts Provide multiple exposures of the target vocabulary Engages students in discussion Engages stu dents in gestures/ actions Score Average Uses previously taught vocabulary Notes:

PAGE 159

159 SELF Vocabulary Observation Protocol Instruction Rubric 0 1 2 3 4 Target vocabulary is not pres ented. May mention target vocabulary but does not support student understanding. In other words, does not provide any explanation of the target vocabulary. Vocabulary instruction includes: saying the target word aloud ; and Incorporates one of the followin g strategies: providing a student friendly explanation incorporating review of previously taught vocabulary providing examples of the target word in multiple contexts providing multiple exposures of the target vocabulary Vocabulary instruction includes: sa ying the target word aloud ; and Incorporates more than one of the following strategies, but does not include discussion of the target vocabulary prompting the students to repeat the word to provide phonological representation providing a student friendly e xplanation incorporating review of previously taught vocabulary providing examples of the target word in multiple contexts providing multiple exposures of the target vocabulary Vocabulary instruction includes: saying the target word aloud ; and Incorporates more than one of the following strategies, including discussio n of the target vocabulary word as presented in the lesson design: prompting the students to repeat the word to provide phonological representation providing a student friendly explanation inco rporating review of previously taught vocabulary providing examples of the target word in multiple contexts providing multiple exposures of the target vocabulary Vocabulary instruction includes: saying the target word aloud ; and Incorporates more than one of the following strategies including discussion of the target v ocabulary that goes beyond the lesson design : prompting the students to repeat the word to provide phonological representation providing a student friendly explanation incorporating review of previously taught vocabulary providing examples of the target word in multiple contexts providing multiple exposures of the target vocabulary

PAGE 160

160 APPENDIX B RUBRIC GUIDE FOR SCORING SELF VOCABULARY MEASURE Kindergarten angry (2 pts. very mad, mad; 1 pt. frustrated, grumpy, mean, upset) body language (2 pts. the way our body looks) choice (2 pts. when you decide to say or do something; when you pick something ; choosing something ; 1 pt. pic k a choice; when want something ) consequence (2 pts. what happens because of what you say or do; 1 pt. getting a reward for good behavior; getting in trouble or getting hurt because of something you say or do) cooperate (2 pts. t o work with someone or do what someone asks you to do; 1 pt. be nice, share, pay attention) delighted (2 pts. great happiness and extremely pleased or excited; 1 pt. glad, happy) difference (2 pts. different from, or not like, each other; not the same; 1 pt. opposites ) emotions (2 pts. feelings; 1 pt. student names specific emotions such as happy, sad, mad, etc.) excited (2 pts. very happy; 1 pt. happy, surprised) expectations (2 pts. think or believe that something will happen; 1 pt. what you think) frustr ated (2 pts. upset or angry because you want to do something and are not able to do it; 1 pt. angry, grumpy, mad) grumpy (2 pts. a little bit mad; 1 pt. angry, frustrated, mad) jealous (2 pts. wants something someone else has or can do; 1 pt. a ngry, mad, sad, upset) kind (2 pts. care for others by being nice and helpful; 1 pt. good, happy; doing good things; be polite) nervous (2 pts. very worried or frightened about something; 1 pt. angry, mad, sad, scared, shy, upset) pleased (2 pts. happy, excited) react (2 pts. you feel, say, or act in a certain way because of something that has happened to you; 1 pt. how you feel or what you do ) responsible (2 pts. admit to what you said or did; 1 pt. pay attention, cooperate, be nice or respectful) shy (2 pts. a little afraid or scared of being around someone or something new; 1 pt. afraid, scared, nervous ) similar (2 pts. ) Note: If a student provides an example when prompted for a definition, score the response as a 0.

PAGE 161

161 First Grade ability (2 pts. something you can do well; 1 pt. something you do) angry (2 pts. very mad, mad; 1 pt. afraid, mean, sad, upset) body language (2 pts. the way our body looks) bullying (2 pts. when someone keeps hurting, scaring, or treating another person badly; 1 pt. bad, mean, picking on someone) challenge (2 pts. somet hing you find difficult or hard to do; 1 pt. engage in a contest, fight, race, etc.) choice (2 pts. when you decide to say or do something; when you pick something ; choosing something ; 1 pt. pick a choice; something you want ) consequence (2 pts. wha t happens because of what you say or do; 1 pt. getting in trouble or getting hurt because of something you say or do) cooperate (2 pts. t o work with someone or do what someone asks you to do; 1 pt. be nice, share, pay attention) delighted (2 pts. gr eat happiness and is extremely pleased or excited; 1 pt. glad, happy) embarrassed (2 pts. feel shy or worried about something; that someone will see you and make fun of you; worried about what someone might think about you; 1 pt. angry, afraid, mad, n ervous, sad, upset) emotions (2 pts. feelings; 1 pt. student names specific emotions; student names specific emotions such as happy, sad, mad, etc.) excited (2 pts. very happy; 1 pt. happy, surprised) frustrated (2 pts. upset or angry because you want to do something very badly and are not able to do it; 1 pt. angry, mad, sad) grumpy (2 pts. a little bit mad; 1 pt. angry, mad) jealous (2 pts. wants something someone else has or can do; 1 pt. angry, mad, sad, upset ) nervous (2 pts. very worried or frightened about something; 1 pt. angry, mad, sad, scared, shy, upset) pleased (2 pts. happy, excited) react (2 pts. you feel, say, or act in a certain way because of something that has happened to you; 1 pt. ) responsible (2 pts. admit to what you said or did; 1 pt. pay attention, cooperate, be nice or respectful) unhappy (2 pts. not happy, sad; 1 pt. angry, mad, nervous) Note: If a student provides an example when prompted for a definition, score the response as a 0.

PAGE 162

162 APPENDIX C SELF SCOPE AND SEQUENCE

PAGE 163

163 SELF Kindergarten Scope & Sequence Topic/Title/Author Vocabulary Concept Setting the Stage for SELF 1. Introductory Lessons David Goes To School by David Shannon cooperate expectation pay attention rules Listening and taking turns helps us work and learn together. Self Awareness 2. I am Special by Liza Baker difference dislike similar special Each of us is special because we each have indivi dual likes, dislikes, thoughts, and feelings. 3. Recognizing My Feelings Lots of Feelings by Shelley Rotner body language expression feelings grumpy proud shy Recognizing our many feelings and how we show them, using facial expressions and body language helps us learn about ourselves. 4. Expressing My Feelings Knuffle Bunny: A Cautionary Tale by Mo Willems express frustrated realize Using words to express emotions helps others understand our feelings. 5. Feelings Change Sometimes I Feel Like A Sto rm Cloud by Lezlie Evans delighted excited emotions pleased Self Management 6. Controlling Myself David Gets in Trouble by David Shannon choices consequences responsible We have a choice in what we say and do, and these choices influence the consequences we face. 7. Feeling Angry by Rachel Vail anger/angry express fierce Anger is a strong but natural feeling, and we can learn ways to calm ourselves when w e feel angry. 8. Feeling Afraid by Jane Bingham afraid comfort kind Being afraid is a natural feeling, and there are things we can do to feel better.

PAGE 164

164 SELF Kindergarten Scope & Sequence (Continued) Topic/Title/Author Vocabulary C oncept Social Awareness 9. Recognizing the Feelings of Others How Are You Peeling? by Saxton Freymann & Joost Elffers jealous mood react Paying attention to facial expressions and body language helps us better recognize the feelings of others 10. Emp athy Bear Feels Sick by Karma Wilson care soothe worried Recognizing how we have been cared for helps us comfort others in need 11. Actions Have Consequences by Mem Fox react sorry upset What we say or do can affect the f eelings of others. 12. Respecting Others My Mouth is A Volcano by Julia Cook interrupt respect rude While our thoughts and feelings are important, we need to learn how to share them in appropriate ways and at appropriate times. Building Relationships 13. Friendship Help! A Story of Friendship by Holly Keller calm nervous trust Being a friend means learning to care for and help others. 14. Understanding the Feelings of Others Being Friends by Karen Beaumont compromise similarities differences When friends have differences, they sometimes have to compromise to get along and remain friends. Responsible Decision Making 15. Expressing My Angry Feelings When I Feel Angry by Cornelia Maude Spelman avoid decide upset We all have strong emotions, but we can express them without hurting ourselves or others. 16. Coping with My Jealous Feelings by Ezra Jack Keats jealous share We all feel jealous sometimes, but there are ways to cope with this feeling. 17. Bringing it all Together Review p revious vocabulary We have lots of different emotions, and have learned ways to express them, and how to make choices that lead to consequences we like.

PAGE 165

165 SELF First Grade Scope & Sequence Topic/Title/Author Vocabulary Concept Setting the Stage for SELF 1. Introductory Lesson My Mouth is a Volcano by Julia Cook cooperate interrupt respect Listening and taking turns helps us work and learn together. Self Awareness 2. Accepting Myself I Like Myself by Karen Beaumont ability bother challenge unique Our i ndividual strengths and weaknesses are part of what makes us unique. Understanding that everyone has abilities and challenges helps us accept ourselves as we are. 3. Understanding How I Feel The Way I Feel by Janan Cain body language disappointed emotio ns frustrated proud thankful Recognizing our different emotions and how we feel inside helps us express our feelings to others. 4. Expressing Uncomfortable Feelings Ira Sleeps Over by Bernard Waber decide embarrassed express worry We often feel better w hen we express our feelings, even uncomfortable feelings like embarrassment or worry. 5. Understanding My Different Moods Today I Feel Silly: And Other Moods by Jamie Lee Curtis confused discouraged excited grumpy mood We all have different feelings thr oughout the day, and our feelings affect our moods. Self Management 6. Taking Responsibility for Our Choices by Kevin Henkes choices consequences furious responsibility When we take responsibility for our actions, we stop a nd think about our choices and the consequences. 7. Expressing Anger Mouse was Mad by Linda Urban anger/angry control express ourselves or others. 8. Recognizing B ullying Behavior Chrysanthemum by Kevin Henkes bullying dreadful miserable it from happening again.

PAGE 166

166 SELF First Grade Scope & Sequence Topic/Title/Author Vocabulary C oncept Social Awareness 9. Noticing How Others Feel by Leo Lionni fear joyful quarrel share Thinking not only about our own feelings, but also the feelings of others, helps us get along better. 10. Showing Empathy Knuffle Bunny Free: An Une xpected Diversion by Mo Willems brave care comfort unhappy When we care about the feelings of others, we try to do things to comfort them and help them feel better. 11. How My Actions Affect Others When the Rain Came Down by David Shannon argue choice co nsequence react What we choose to do affects how others react. 12. Noticing when Others Feel Different A Weekend With Wendell by Kevin Henkes cooperate disappointed eager Understanding that others may feel different than we do helps us develop respect fo thoughts and feelings. Building Relationships 13. Respecting the Feelings of Others Olivia Acts Out by Laurie Keller disappointed nervous respect disappointed. 14. Making Friends Rainbow Fish by Marcus Pfister considerate delighted lonely selfish Being considerate of the needs and feelings of others helps us make friends. Responsible Decision Making 15. When I Feel Upset Alexander and the Terr ible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day by Judith Viorst decide horrible mood upset 16. When I Feel Jealous Three Hens and a Peacock by Lester Laminack appreciate complain jealous W 17. Bringing it all Together Review previous vocabulary Being aware of our different emotions and learning how to express them responsibly, helps us make choices that show we understand and care about the thoughts and feelings of others.

PAGE 167

167 APPENDIX D SELF VOCABULARY MEASURE SELF Vocabulary Assessment Kindergarten Student Name:_______________________________ Date:___________________ School:____________________________ _________ Teacher:_________________ Directions for administration: 1. Read the directions to student before beginning the assessment. 2. If the student does not respond within 5 seconds, repeat the item once. 3. If a student does not respond after an item has be en repeated, mark as incorrect and proceed to the next part. 4. 5. For Part A, if the student provides an example rather than a definition, prompt the student with, 6. For Parts A and B, if the student provides an incomplete or inaccurate response, restate the item or ask a clarification question. (If a clarification question is asked, note the question alon response.) 7. For Part C, be prepared to read each item twice. Scoring: Part A (definition) 0 = no response/incorrect or unrelated response 1 = partial knowledge 2 = full knowledge Part B (student example) 0 = no response/incorrect or unre lated response 1 = partially correct/related 2 = correct response Part C (application) 0 = incorrect response 1 = correct response Total number of points possible: Per section Part A (definition) 2 x 20 = 40 Part B (student example) 2 x 20 = 40 Part C (application) 1 x 20 = 20 Overall total 100 points Total student score: Per section Part A (definition) ______/40 = _____% Part B (student example) _____/40 = _____% Part C (application) _____/20 = _____% Overall total _____/100 = _____

PAGE 168

168 SELF Vocabulary Assessment Kindergarten Directions: know. Tell me what you know about these words. 1. angry (2 pts. very mad, mad; 1 pt. frustrated, grumpy, mean, upset) A. What does angry me an? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me when you might feel angry. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Andrew might feel angry if: a) his brother broke his favorite toy. b) his mother bought him a new toy. c) his friend shared a toy with h im. C. ___ /1 2. body language (2 pts. they way our body looks) A. What does body language mean? A. ___ /2 B. happy. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. An example of body language is: a) dropping your head b) putting together a puzzle c) scratching your back C. ___ /1 3. choice (2 pts. when you decide to say or do something, when you pick som ething; 1 pt. pick a choice, when you want something) A. What does choice mean? A. ___ /2 B. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Someone who makes a choice: a) plays with something b) picks something. c) puts something together C. ___ /1

PAGE 169

169 4. consequence (2 pts. what happens because of what you say or do; 1 pt. getting a reward for good behavior; getting in trouble or getting hurt because of something you say or do) A. What does co nsequence mean? A. ___ /2 B. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. A consequence is when: a) a group of people work together. b) someone says something nice to somebody else. c) so mething happens because of something else. C. ___ /1 5. cooperate (2 pts. t o work with someone or do what someone asks you to do; 1 pt. be nice, share, pay attention) A. What does cooperate mean? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me about a time when you cooperated. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Which one of these shows that Angel cooperates? a) Angel works nicely with the group. b) c) Angel keeps interrupting the group. C. ___ /1 6. delighte d (2 pts. great happiness and is extremely pleased or excited; 1 pt. glad, happy) A. What does delighted mean? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me when you might feel delighted. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Someone who is delighted is: a) unhappy. b) special. c) pleased. C. ___ /1

PAGE 170

170 7. difference (2 pts. different from, or not like each other; 1 pt. opposites) A. What does difference mean? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me about a difference between you and me. B. ___ /2 C. Listen caref ully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Which of these shows a difference between Joe and Kenny? a) Joe is a boy and Kenny is a boy. b) Joe has short hair and Kenny has long hair. c) Joe has curly hair and Kenny has curly hair. C. ___ /1 8. emotions (2 pts. feelings; 1 pt. student names specific emotions such as happy, sad, mad, etc.) A. What are emotions? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me about some emotions you might have. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Emotions are: a) feelings. b) differences. c) expectations. C. ___ /1 9. excited (2 pts. very happy; 1 pt. happy, surprised) A. What does excited mean? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me when you might feel excited. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the b est answer. Caleb might be excited if: a) he drinks water during his soccer game. b) he forgets about his soccer game. c) he scores a goal during his soccer game. C. ___ /1

PAGE 171

171 10. expectations (2 pts. think or believe that something will happen; 1 pt. what you think) A. What do expectations mean? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me about some expectations in your classroom. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. An expectation is: a) what you wonder about. b) what you think will happen. c) what you have finished. C. ___ /1 11. kind (2 pts. care for others by being nice and helpful; 1 pt. good, happy; doing good things; be polite) A. What does it mean to be kind? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me how you might be kind to someone. B. ___ /2 C. Listen care fully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Keisha shows she is kind to the new student in her class when: a) she helps the new student. b) she interrupts the new student. c) she avoids the new student. C. ___ /1 12. grumpy (2 pts. a little bit mad; 1 pt. angry, frustrated, mad) A. What does grumpy mean? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me when you might feel grumpy. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Natalie might feel grumpy when: a) b) she gets a new toy. c) she finishes her homework. C. ___ /1

PAGE 172

172 13. jealous (2 pts. wants something someone else has or can do; 1 pt. angry, mad, sad, upset) A. What does jealous mean? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me when you might feel jealous. B. ___ /2 C. Listen car efully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Someone who is jealous: a) is very kind to other people. b) wants what someone else has. c) works nicely with other people. C. ___ /1 14. frustrated (2 pts. upset or angry because you want to do something very badly and are not able to do it; 1 pt. angry, grumpy, mad) A. What does frustrated mean? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me how you might feel frustrated. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Anthony might feel frustrated duri ng math if: a) he gets to sit with his friends. b) he gets all the problems right. c) C. ___ /1 15. similar (2 pts. A. What does similar mean? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me about something that is similar between you and me. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Which of these tells something similar between Mikayla and Sophia? a) Mikayla has brown hair and Sophia has blond hair. b) Mikayla has long hair and Sophia has long hair. c) Mikayla has curly hair and Sophia has straight hair. C. ___ /1

PAGE 173

173 16. pleased (2 pts. happy, excited) A. What does it mean to be pleased? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me when you might be pleased. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Someone who is pleased is: a) shy. b) happy. c) friendly. C. ___ /1 17. react (2 pts. you feel, say, or act in a certain way because of something that has hap pened to you; 1 pt. how you feel or what you do) A. What does react mean? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me how you might react to something that scares you. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. When someone reacts: a) he believes s omething good will happen. b) he does something because of something else that happened. c) he thinks about something that might happen. C. ___ /1 18. responsible (2 pts. admit to what you said or did; 1 pt. pay attention, cooperate, be nice or respectfu l) A. What does responsible mean? A. ___ /2 B. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Ally was walking backwards in line and bumped into her friend Lisa. Ally might show she a) b) c) C. ___ /1

PAGE 174

174 19. shy (2 pts. a little afraid or scared of being around someone or something new; 1 pt. afraid, scared, nervous) A. What does shy mean? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me when you might feel shy. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Mario is very shy. Mario might feel shy when: a) he plays with his brother. b) he plays with his friends. c) he meets someone new. C ___ /1 20. nervous (2 pts. very worried or frightened about something; 1 pt. angry, mad, sad, shy, upset) A. What does nervous mean? A. ___ /2 B. Tell me when you might be nervous. B. ___ /2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best a nswer. Someone who is nervous is: a) jealous. b) pleased. c) worried. C. ___ /1

PAGE 175

175 SELF Vocabulary Assessment First Grade Student Name:_ _____________________________ Date:___________________ Teacher:______ _____________________________ School:_______________ __ Directions for administration: 1. Read the directions to student before beginning the assessment. 2. If the student does not respond within 5 seconds, repeat the item once. 3. If a student does not respond after an item has been repeated, mark as incorrect and proceed to the next part. 4. 5. For Part A, if the student provides an example rather than a definition, prompt the student 6. For Parts A and B, if the student provides an incomplete or inaccurate response, restate the item or ask a clarification question. (If a clarification question is asked, note the question 7. For Par t C, be prepared to read each item twice. Scoring: Part A (definition) 0 = no response/incorrect or unrelated response 1 = partial knowledge 2 = full knowledge Part B (student example) 0 = no response/incorrect or unrelated response 1 = partially correc t/related 2 = correct response Part C (application) 0 = incorrect response 1 = correct response Total number of points possible: Per section Part A (definition) 2 x 20 = 40 Part B (student example) 2 x 20 = 40 Part C (application) 1 x 20 = 20 Overa ll total 100 points Total student score: Per section Part A (definition) ______/40 = _____% Part B (student example) _____/40 = _____% Part C (application) _____/20 = _____% Overall total _____/100 = _____

PAGE 176

176 SELF Vocabulary Assessment First Gra de Directions: ou might know. Tell me what you know a bout these words. 1. ability (2 pts. something you can do well; 1 pt. something you do) A. What is an ability? A. ___/2 B. Tell me about an abili ty of yours. B. ___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. An ability is something that: a) someone can do well. b) someone has questions about. c) someone finds hard to do. C. ___/1 2. nervous (2 pts. very worried or frightened about something; 1 pt. angry, mad, sad, shy, upset) A. What does nervous mean? A. ___/2 B. Tell me when you might be nervous. B. ___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Someone who is nervous is: a) jealous. b) pleased. c) worried C. ___/1 3. bullying (2 pts. when someone keeps hurting, scaring, or treating another person badly; 1 pt. mean, bad; picking on someone) A. What does bullying mean? A. ___/2 B. Tell me how you know someone is bullying another person. B. ___ 2 C. Li sten carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. William has seen his friend being bullied. An example of bullying that William has seen is when: a) others play baseball with his friend. b) others make fun of his friend. c) others play with his friend C. ___/1

PAGE 177

177 4. embarrassed (2 pts. feel shy or worried about something; 1 pt. angry, afraid, mad, nervous, sad, upset) A. What does embarrassed mean? A. ___/2 B. Tell me when you might feel embarrassed. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. T hen choose the best answer. Daniel eats lunch in the cafeteria. Daniel might feel embarrassed if: a) he eats his lunch. b) he drops his lunch tray. c) he sits with his friends. C. ___/1 5. unhappy (2 pts. not happy, sad; 1 pt. angry, mad, nervous) A. What do es unhappy mean? A. ___/2 B. Tell me when you might feel unhappy. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Joshua might be unhappy if: a) he lost his teddy bear. b) he played with his teddy bear. c) he slept with his teddy bear. C ___/1 6. angry (2 pts. very mad, mad; 1 pt. afraid, mean, sad, upset) A. What does angry mean? A. ___/2 B. Tell me when you might feel angry. B. ___ 2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Andrew might feel angry if: a) his brother broke his favorite toy. b) his mother bought him a new toy. c) his friend shared a toy with him. C. ___/1

PAGE 178

178 7. body language (2 pts. the way our body looks) A. What does body language mean? A. ___/2 B. happy. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. An example of body language is: a) dropping your head b) putting together a puzzle c) scratching your back C. ___/1 8. choice (2 pts. when you decide to say or do something; when you pick something; choosing something; 1 pt. pick a choice; something you want) A. What does choice mean? A. ___/2 B. B.___/2 C. Listen care fully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Someone who makes a choice: a) plays with something. b) picks something. c) puts something together. C. ___/1 9. consequence (2 pts. what happens because of what you say or do; 1 pt. getting a reward fo r good behavior; getting in trouble or getting hurt because of something you say or do) A. What does consequence mean? A. ___/2 B. B. ___ 2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. A conse quence is when: a) a group of people work together. b) someone says something nice to somebody else. c) something happens because of something else. C. ___/1

PAGE 179

179 1 0. cooperate (2 pts. t o work with someone or do what someone asks you to do; 1 pt. be nice, sha re, pay attention) A. What does cooperate mean? A. ___/2 B. Tell me about a time when you cooperated. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Which one of these shows that Angel cooperates? a) Angel works nicely with the grou p. b) c) Angel keeps interrupting the group. C. ___/1 11. delighted (2 pts. great happiness and is extremely pleased or excited; 1 pt. glad, happy) A. What does delighted mean? A. ___/2 B. Tell me when you might feel delight ed. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Someone who is delighted is: a) unhappy. b) special. c) pleased. C. ___/1 12. emotions (2 pts. feelings; 1 pt. student names specific emotions such as happy, sad, mad, etc.) A. What are emotions? A. ___/2 B. Tell me about some emotions you might have. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Emotions are: a) feelings. b) differences. c) expectations. C. ___/1

PAGE 180

180 1 3. excited (2 pts. very happy; 1 p t. happy, surprised) A. What does excited mean? A. ___/2 B. Tell me when you might feel excited. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Caleb might be excited if: a) he drinks water during his soccer game. b) he forgets about his soccer game. c) he scores a goal during his soccer game. C. ___/1 14. frustrated (2 pts. upset or angry because you want to do something very badly and are not able to do it; 1 pt. angry, mad, sad) A. What does frustrated mean? A. ___/2 B. Tell me when you might feel frustrated. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Anthony might feel frustrated during math if: a) he gets to sit with his friends. b) he gets all the problems right. c) C. ___/1 15. grumpy (2 pts. a little bit mad; 1 pt. angry, mad) A. What does grumpy mean? A. ___/2 B. Tell me when you might feel grumpy. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Natalie might feel grumpy when: a) she b) she gets a new toy. c) she finishes her homework. C. ___/1

PAGE 181

181 16. jealous (2 pts. wants something someone else has or can do; 1 pt. angry, mad, sad, upset) A. What does jealous mean? A. ___/2 B. Tell me when you might f eel jealous. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Someone who is jealous: a) is very kind to other people. b) wants what someone else has. c) works nicely with other people. C. ___/1 17. challenge (2 pts. something you f ind difficult or hard to do; 1 pt. engage in a contest, fight, race, etc.) A. What is a challenge? A. ___/2 B. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Which one of these might be a cha llenge for a two year old? a) eating a cookie b) crying for attention c) tying her shoes C. ___/1 18. pleased (2 pts. happy, excited) A. What does it mean to be pleased? A. ___/2 B. Tell me when you m ight be pleased. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Someone who is pleased is: a) shy. b) happy. c) friendly. C. ___/1

PAGE 182

182 19. react (2 pts. you feel, say, or act in a certain way because of something that has happened to you; 1 pt. how you feel or what you do)) A. What does react mean? A. ___/2 B. Tell me how you might react to something that scares you B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. When someone reacts: a) he believes something go od will happen. b) he does something because of something else that happened. c) he thinks about something that might happen. C. ___/1 20. responsible (2 pts. admit to what you said or did; 1 pt. pay attention, cooperate, be nice or respectful) A. What doe s responsible mean? A. ___/2 B. B.___/2 C. Listen carefully to what I read. Then choose the best answer. Ally was walking backwards in line and bumped into her friend Lisa. for her actions when she says: a) b) c) C. ___/1

PAGE 183

183 APPENDIX E SELF VIDEOTAPED LESSONS SELF Videotaped Lessons 2012 2013 Teacher Whole group Lessons Small group Lessons Dialogic Reading Small group Lessons Application Total K.G.1 1.1 (excluded audio) 7.1 14.2 8.3 11.3 12.3 6 K.G.2 1.2 3.1 7.2 13.1 11.2 5 K.G.3 5.1 2.2 3.2 8.2 9.2 12.2 13.2 6.3 8 K.R.1 1.1 6.1 11.1 9.1 13.2 3.3 9.2 17.4 8 K.R.2 6.1 8.1 17.3 3.2 4.2 5 K.R.3 1.2 7.2 5.2 10. 2 2.3 7.3 16.3 7 1.G.1 7.1 17.1 2.2 9.2 12.2 4.3 14.3 7 1.G.2 1.1 11.1 3.2 6.3 16.2 8.3 13.3 7 1.G.3 5.1 15.1 17.2 7.2 10.2 2.3 12.3 7 1.G.4 1.2 9.1 4.2 14.2 6.4 5 1.G.5 3.1 13.1 5.2 8.2 15.2 2.3 10.3 7 1.R.1 5.1 6.2 2.2 8.3 10.3 13.3 15.3 7 1.R.2 1.1 6.2 3.1 8.2 10.2 12.3 6 1.R.3 3.1 9.1 5.2 16.2 4 1.R.4 1.2 4.1 16.1 9.2 7.2 11.2 (excluded incomplete) 6

PAGE 184

184 LIST OF REFERENCES All iance for Exce llent Education. Understanding high school graduation rates in the United States by the Alliance for Exce llent Education (2009, July). Retrieved August 10, 2009 from http://www.all4ed.org/files/National _wc.pdf Anderson R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1992). The vocabulary conundrum. American Educator, 16 (4), 14 18, 44 47. Ard, L. M., & Beverly, B. L. (2004). Pres chool word learn ing during joint book reading: Effect o f adult questions and comments. Communication Disorders Quarterly 1 (26), 17 28. Arnold, D. H., Lonigan, C. J., Whitehurst, G J., & Epstein, J. N. (1994). Accelerating language development through pic ture book reading: Replication and extension t o a videotape training format. Journal of Educational Psychology 86 (2), 235 243. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Condit ions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson ( Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 789 814). New York: Longman. Beck, I L. & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Text Talk: Capturing the benefits of read aloud e xperiences for young children. The Reading Teacher 55 (1), 10 20. Beck, I L. & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction The Elementary School of Journal 107 (3) 251 271. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G. & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabula ry instruction New York: Guilford. Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequisite for scho ol learning. In D. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 41 51). New York, NY: Guilford. Bi emiller, A. (2012). Teaching vocabulary in the primary grades: Vocabulary instruction needed. Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 34 50). New York: Guilford. Biem iller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An ef fective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology 98 (1), 44 62. Biemi ller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normati ve and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common seq uence of vocabulary acquisition Journal of Educational Psychology 93 (3), 498 520. Bierman, K. L., Greenberg, M. T., & the Conduct Problems Prevention Resear ch Group. (1996). Social skill train ing in the FAST track program. In R. D. Peters & R. J.

PAGE 185

185 McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency (pp. 65 89). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bla ir, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and intervention: The promotion of self regulation as a means of preventing s chool failure. Developmental Psychopathology 20 (3), 899 911. Blair, C., Zelazo, P. D ., & Greenberg, M. T. (2005). The measurement of executiv e function in early childhood. Developmental Neuropsychology 28 (2) 561 571. Blewitt, P., Rump, K. M., Shealy S. E., & Cook, S. A. (2009). Shared book reading: When and how questions affect you Journal of Educational Psychology 101 (2), 294 304. Bracken, B. A., & Keith, L. K. (2004). Clinical Assessment of Behavior Lutz, FL: Psychologica l Assessment Resources. Bravo, M. A., & Cervetti, G. N. (2009). Teaching vocabulary through text an d experience in content areas. In M. F. Graves (Ed.), Essential Readings on Vocabulary Instruction (pp. 141 152). International Reading Association, Inc. B rophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching ( 3 rd ed., pp. 328 375). New York: Macmillan Campbell, S. B., & von Stauffenberg, C. (2008). Child characteristics and family p rocesses that predict be havioral readiness for school. In A. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds .), Early disparities in school readiness: How families contribute to transitions into school (pp. 225 258). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Catts, H. W., Adlof, S M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language d eficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the si mple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 49 (2) 278 293. Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and readin g disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading 3 (4) 331 361. Conduct Problems Prevention Resear ch Group (CPPRG). (1991). Social Problem Solving Scale Duke University Fast Track Project. Coyne, M. D., Capozzol i Oldham, A., & Simmons, D. C. (2012). Vocabulary instruction for young children at risk of reading difficulties: Teaching word meanings dur ing shared storybook readings. Vocabulary instruction: Research to pract ice (pp. 51 71). New York: Guilford.

PAGE 186

186 Coyne, M. D., Mc Coach, B., & Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary interventio n for kindergarten students: Comparing extended instruction to embedded instru ction and incidental exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly 30 (2) 74 8 8. Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli Jr., R., Ruby, M., Crevecoe ur, Y. C., & Kapp, S. (201 0). Direct and extended vocabular y instruction in kindergarten: I nvestigating transfer effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 3 (2), 93 120. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Teaching vocabulary du ring shared storybook readings: An examin ation of differential effects. Exceptionality 12 (3), 145 162. Cunningham, A. E ., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). E arly reading acquisition and its relation to reading to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology 33 (6) 934 945. Dauni c, A. P., PI; Corbett, N. L., & Smith, S. W., Co PIs (2010). Development of a social emotional learning c urriculum for children at risk for emotional or behavioral disorders ( Award Number: R324A100020). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. De Temp le, 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. 16 36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long reading on low Reading Research Quarterly 29 (2), 105 122. Dickinson, D K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning literacy with language Baltimore MD : Brookes. Dieker, L. A., Lane, H. B., Allsopp, D. H., O'Brien, C., Butler, T. W., Kyger, M., ... & Fenty, N. S. (2009). Evaluatin g video models of evidence based instructional practices to enhance teacher learning. The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children 32 (2), 180 196. Dodge, K. A., Laird, R., Lochman, J. E., Zelli, A., & the Conduct P roblems Preve ntion Research Group. (2002). Multi social information processing patterns: Correlations with aggressive behavior problems. Psychological Assessment 14 (1) 60 73. Doyle, B. G., & Bramwell, W. (2006). Promoting emergent literacy and social emotional lear ning through dialogic reading. The Reading Teacher 59 (6), 554 564.

PAGE 187

187 Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for di rect explanation of strategies. In C. Collins Block & M. Pressley (Eds .), Comprehension instruction: Research based best practices (pp. 28 41). New York: Guilford. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam J., & Wesselman, R. (1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading sk ill instruction and student awareness and achievement: A stu dy of reading teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly 21 (3), 237 252. Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisit ion from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly 24 (2) 174 87. Ewers, C. A., & Brownson, S. M. (1999). function of active vs. passive storybook reading, prior vocabulary, and working memory. Journal of Reading Psychology 20 (1), 11 20. Feldman, K., & Kinsella, K. (2005). Narrowing the language gap: The case for explicit vocabulary instruction. Scholastic: Read About. Retrieved September 17, 2013, from teacher.scholastic.com/products/authors/pdfs/Narrowing_the_Gap.pdf Fenning, R. M., Baker, B. L., & Juvonen, J. (2011). Emotion disco urse, social cognition, and social skills in children with and without developmental delays. Child Development 82 (2), 717 731. Field, A. (2005). Di scovering statistics using SPSS ( 2 nd ed ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. F lorida Department of E ducation. (2012). Education informa tion & accountability services. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/eias/dataweb/student_1213.asp Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C. S., Baddeley, A. D., & Emslie, H. (1994). The children's test of nonword repetition: A test o f phonological working memory. Memory 2 (2), 103 127. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8 th ed ). New York: Pearson. Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). Behavior Rating In ventory of Executive Function Professional Manual Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology, ( 3 rd ed ). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Graves, M. F. (1987). Th e roles of instruction in fostering vocabulary development. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 165 184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

PAGE 188

188 Graziano, P. A., Reavis, R. D., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2007). The role of emotion regulation in ch Journal of School Psychology 45 (1) 3 19. Greenberg, M. T. (2006). Promoting resilience in children and youth: Preventive interventions and thei r interface with neuroscience. Annals of the New Y ork Academy of Science 1094 (1) 139 150. Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich C., & Bumbarger, B. (2001). The prevention of mental disorders in school age childre n: Current state of the field. Prevention and Treatment 4( 1), N.P. Greenberg, M. T., Kusche C. A. & Speltz, M. (1991). Emotional regulation, self control, and psychopathology: T he role of relationships in early childhood. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Internalizing and externalizing expressions of dysfunction: Rochester symposium on developme ntal psychopathology (Vol. 2, pp. 21 66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Harmon, J. M., Hedrick W. B., & Wood, K. D. (2005). Research on vocabulary instruction in the content areas: Implic ations for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly 21 (3) 261 280 Hart B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experienc es of young American children Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003, Spring). The early catastrophe: Th e 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2003/index.cfm Hayes D. P., & Ahrens, M. (1988). Vocabular y simplification for children: A special case Journal of Child Language 15 (2), 395 410. Hiebert, E. H., & Cervetti, G. N. (2012). What differences in narrative and informational texts mean for the learning and instruction of vocabulary. F. Baumann ( Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 322 344). New York: Guilford. Hirsch, E. D. (2003, Spring). Reading comprehension requires knowledge of words and the world: Scientific insights into the fourth stagnant comprehension scores. American Educator 27 (1), 10 29, 44. Joseph, G. E., & Strain, P. S. (2003) Enhancing emotional vocabulary in young children. Young Exceptional Children 6 (4), 18 26. Justice, L. M. (2002). du ring shared storybook reading. Reading Psychology 23 (2) 87 106.

PAGE 189

189 Justice, L. M., Mei er, J., & Walpole, S. ( 2005). Learn ing new words from storybooks: An efficacy stud y with at risk kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 36 (1) 17 32. Kaiser, A. P., Hancock, T. B ., Cai, X. Foster, E. M., & Hester, P. P. (2000). Parent reported behavioral problems and language delays in boys and girls enrolled in Head Start classrooms. Behavioral Disorders 26 (1) 26 41. Kamil, M., & Hiebert, E. H. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary [Electronic version]. In E. H Hiebert, & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 1 23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kar weit, N., & Wasik, B. (1996). The effects of story reading programs on literacy and language development of disadvantaged preschoolers. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk 1 (4), 319 348. Kress, J. S., Norris, J. A., Schoenholz, D. A., Elias M. J., & Seigle, P. (2004). Bringing together educational standards and social and emotional learning: Making the case fo r educators. American Journal of Education 111 (1), 68 89. Lane, H. B., & Arriaza Allen, S. A. (2010). The v ocabulary rich classroom: Modeling sophisticated word u se t o promote word consciousness and vocabulary g rowth. The Reading Teacher 63 (5), 362 370. Lane, H. B., & Wright, T. L. (2007). Maximizing the effectiveness of reading aloud. The Reading Teacher 60 (7), 668 675. Lee J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007) (NCES 2007 496). National Center for Education Statist ics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. Lochman, J. E., Nelson III, W. M., & Sims, J. P. (1981). A cognitive behavioral program for use with aggressive children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 10 (3), 146 148. Loftu s, S., & Coyne, M. D. (2013). Vocabulary instruction within a multi tier approach. Reading & Writing Quarterly 29 (1), 4 19. Loftus, S. M., Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Zipoli R., & Pullen, P. C. (2010). Effects of supplemental vo cabulary intervention on the work knowledge and kindergarten students at risk for language a nd literacy difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 25 (3), 124 136. Marulis, L M., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young analysis. Review of Educational Research 80 (3), 300 335.

PAGE 190

190 Maynard, K. L. Pullen, P. C., & Coyne, M. D. (2 010). Teaching vocabulary to first grade students through repeated shared storybook reading: A comparison of rich and basic inst ruction to incidental exposure. Literacy Research and Instruction 49 (3), 209 242. McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elem entary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (4) 471 490. McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2007). literacy, vocabulary, and mat h skills. Developmental Psychology 43 (4) 947 959. McKeown, M. G., Beck I. L., & Sand ora, C. (2012). Direct and rich vocabulary ins truction needs to start early. Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (2 nd ed., pp. 17 33). New York: Guilford. Meichenbaum, D. H., & Goodman, J. (1971). Training impulsive ch ildren to talk to themselves: A mea ns of developing self control. Journal of Abnormal P sychology 77 (2), 115. Mol, S. E., Bus, A G., & de Jong, M. T. (2009). Interactive book reading in early education: A tool to stimulate print knowledge as well as oral language. Review of Educational Research 79 (2), 979 1007. Nagy, W. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long term and comprehensive. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary : Bringing research to practice (pp. 27 44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. National Ce nter for Education Statistics. (2011). (NCES 2012 457) Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. National Insti tute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (n.d ). What works in comprehension instruction. Retrieved August 28, 2009 from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/105/ National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00 4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Off ice.

PAGE 191

191 National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neuman, S. B. (2010). Lessons from my mother: Reflections on the Nation al Early Literacy Panel report. Educational Researcher 39 (4), 301 304. Ni elsen, D. C., & Friesen, L. D. (2012). A study of the effectiveness of small grou p intervention on the vocabulary and narrative development of at risk kindergarten children. Reading Psychology 33 (3), 269 299. Pollard Durodola, S. D., Gonzalez, J. E., Simmons, D. C., Kwok, O., Taylor, A. B., (2011). The ef fects of an intensive shared book reading intervention for preschool children at risk for vocabulary delay. Exceptional Children 77 (2), 161 183. P owell, D. R., & Diamond, K. E. (2012). Promoting early literacy and language development. In R. C. Pianta, W. S. Barnett, L. M. Justice, & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of Early Childhood Education (pp. 194 216). New York: Guilford. Pressley, M. (2001). The nature of first grade instruction that promotes literacy achievement. In M. Pressley, R.L. Allington, R Wharton McDonald, C. Block, & L. Morrow (Eds.), Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first grade classrooms (pp. 48 69). New York: Guilford. Pullen, P. C., Tuckwiller, E. D., Konold, T. R., Maynard, K. L., & Coyne, M. D. (2010). A tiered intervention model for early vocabulary instruction: The effects of tiered instruction for young students a t risk for reading disability. Learning Disability Research 25 (3), 110 123. Ridgeway, D., Waters, E., & Kuczaj, S. A. ( 1985). Acquisition of emotion descriptive language: Receptive and productive norms for ages 18 months to 6 years. Developmental Psychology 21 (5), 901 908. Riggs, N. R., Greenberg, M. T. Kusche, C. A., & Pentz, M. A. (2006). The meditational role of neurocognition in the behavioral outcomes of a social emotional prevention program in elementary school students: Ef fects of the PATHS curriculum. Prevention Science 7 (1), 91 102. Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners he lps them learn new vocabulary. Journal of Educ ational Psychology 86 (1), 54 64. Scarborough, H.S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & A. J. Capute (Eds.), Specific rea ding disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75 119). Timonium, MD: York.

PAGE 192

192 Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: E vidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of E arly Literacy Research (pp. 97 110). New York: Guilford. Sca rborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review 14 (3) 245 302. Semel, E ., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of L an guage Fundamentals (4 th ed.; CELF 4). San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp. Snchal, M. (1997). acquisition of expres sive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language 24 (1) 123 138. S nchal M., & Cornell, E. H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition thro ugh shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly 28 (4), 361 374. Snchal M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. (1995). Individual differences in 4 year old lary d uring storybook reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 87 (2), 218 229. Silverman, R., Crandell, J. D., & Carlis, L. (2013). Read alouds and beyond: The effects of read aloud extension activities on vocabu lary in Head Start classrooms. Early Education & Development 24 (2), 98 122. Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A S. (1999). What are executive functions and SELF regulation and what do they have to do wit h language learning disorders? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 30 ( 3 ) 265 273. Smith, S. W., & Da unic, A. P. (2004). Research on preventing behavior problems using a cognitive behavioral intervention: Preliminary findings, chal lenges, and future directions. Behavioral Disorders 30 (1), 72 76. Smith, S. W ., Graber, J., & Daunic, A. P. (2009). Review of research/critical research to practice issues. In M. Mayer, R. Van Acker, J. Lochman, & F. Gresham (Eds.). Cognitive behavioral interventions for emotional and behavioral disorders: School based practice (pp. 111 142). New York: Guilford. Snow, C ., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading d ifficulties in young children Washington, DC: National Academy Press. S tahl, K. A. D., & Bravo, M. A. (2010, April). Contemporary classroom vocabular y assessment for content areas. The Reading Teache r 63 (7), 566 578. Stahl, S. A. (1997). Instructional model s in reading: An introduction. In S. A. Stahl & D. A. Hayes (Eds.), Instructional models in reading (pp. 1 30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

PAGE 193

193 Swanson, E. A., Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., Vaughn, S., Heckert, J ., Cavanaugh, C., Kraft, G., & Tackett, K. (2011). A synthesis of read aloud interventions on early reading outcomes among preschool through third graders at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44 (3), 258 275. Teale, W. H. (200 3). Reading aloud to young children as a classroom instructional activity: Insig ht from research and practice. In A. van Kleeck, S.A. Stahl, & E.B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 114 139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Walberg H. J., Zins, J. E., & Weissberg, R. P. (2004). Recommendations and conclusions: Implications for practice, tr aining, research, and policy. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weisberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotiona l learning: What does the research say? (pp. 209 217). New York: Teachers College Press. Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. (1992). Systematic screening for behavioral disor ders ( SSBD): Technical manual Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Walsh, B. A., & Blewitt, P. (2 006). The effect of questioning style during storybook reading on novel vocabular y acquisition of preschoolers. Early Childhood Education Journal 33 (4), 273 278. Walsh, B. A., & Rose, K. K. (2013). Impact of adult vocabulary noneliciting and eliciting que stions on the novel vocabulary acquisition of presc hoolers enrolled in Head Start. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 27 (1), 31 45. Wa sik, B., & Iannone Campbell, C. (2012). Developing vocabulary through purpos eful, strategic conversations. The Re ading Teacher 66 (2), 321 332. Westby, C. (2004). A language perspective on executive functioning, metacognition, and self regulation in reading. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 398 427). New York: Guilford. 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 chil dren from low income families. Development al Psychology 30 (5), 679 689. Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez Ma nchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language developmen t through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology 24 (4 ), 552 559. Womack, S. A ., Marchant, M., & Borders, D. (2011). Literature based social skills instruction: A strategy for studen ts with learning disabilities Intervention in School and Clinic 46 (3), 157 164.

PAGE 194

194 Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Maste ry Tests Revised/Normative Update (WRMT R/NU) Bloomington, MN: Pearson. Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weisberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 3 22). New York: Teachers College Press. Zipoli, R. P., Coyne, M. D., & McCoach, D. B. (2011). Enhancing vocabulary intervent i on for kindergarten students: Strategic integration of semantically rel ated and embedded word review. Remedial and Special Education 32 (2), 131 143.

PAGE 195

195 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lourdes Santiago Poventud received a Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education in 1 991 from Florida International University (FIU). After earning her BS, she began teaching in Miami Dade County as an hourly Chapter 1 teacher, providing additional reinforcement to 3 rd 5 th grade students in reading and mathematics. She worked as a Chapte degree in early childhood education. She continued to work part time in the schoo l system until she completed her Master of Science in Early Childhood Education in 1994. Upon completion of her m full time. After 6 years of teaching, Lourdes returned to FIU to work on a master degree in reading because of her strong belief that the power to combat illiteracy and provide students with a future where they can serve as successful literate citizens is in the hands of classroom teachers. It is the effectiveness of the classroom teacher that is paramount to student literacy achievement. In 1997, she earned a Master of Science in Reading Education and continued h er work in Miami Dade County Public schools, After 15 years with Miami Dade County Public Schools, Lourdes joined Pearson Scott Foresman as an educational consultant. As an educational consultant she provided professional development for school districts that had purchased the She worked with Scott Foresman for 2 years before returning to Miami Dad e County Public School to work as a Reading First Curriculum Support Specialist. In this position, she was able to utilize her 15 years of teaching experience to ensure the implementation of the Reading First grant requirements by providing literacy profe ssional development,

PAGE 196

196 modeling and support to reading coaches and instructional staff at assigned Reading First elementary schools. While completing her doctoral studies in Special Education at the University of Florida, Lourdes served as a graduate teach ing assistant and has worked in various roles in Project SELF: Social Emotional Learning Foundations a development grant funded by the Institute of Education Sciences. While working on Project SELF she was part of the team that created the social emotion al curriculum for kindergarten and first grade children, provided the professional development for the teachers who implemented the intervention, and was part of the research team that assessed the students who participated in the study. Lourdes has prese nted her work in the areas of social emotional development, literacy instruction, and teacher knowledge about reading at numerous state and national conferences. It is because of the profound influence a teacher has on student achievement that Lourdes beca me dedicated to teacher education. In the future, she intends to become a university faculty member. Such a position will allow her to share her knowledge with pre service teachers and guide them to the understanding that it is the effectiveness of the c lassroom teacher that can either drive student success or impede student learning Lourdes plans to pursue teaching and research in the areas of vocabulary, literacy development and instruction, and teache r preparation