A bivalent counterbalanced within-subjects research design was used to determine the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction across two instructional conditions with 30 3 to 4-year-old at-risk preschool children. Instruction presented vocabulary words via static pictures with one subgroup and via projection and animation with the other. Conditions then were reversed. Dependent variables were children's serial free recall ability in specified categories and ability to name aloud selected pictures. There was a pretest, instructional, and posttest phase for each condition. Maintenance data were collected 12 weeks after the last posttest session. Results indicated no difference between conditions. Posttest and maintenance data indicated an increase in serial free recall and picture naming of targeted vocabulary that was maintained above the pretest level for all dependent variables.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeauchatK. A.BlameyK. L.WalpoleS. (2009). Building preschool children's language and literacy one storybook at a time. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 26–39.
ClarkR. E.FeldonD. F. (2005). Some common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In MeyerR. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 97–115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
ClayM. M. (1975). What did I write?Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
6.
ConnorC. M.CraigH. K. (2006). African American preschoolers' language, emergent literacy skills, and use of African American English: A complex relation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 771–792.
7.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–45.
8.
FazioB. B.NaremoreR. C.ConnellJ. (1996). Tracking students from poverty at risk for specific language impairment: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 624–661.
9.
GillenJ.LittletonK.TwinerA.StaarmanJ. K.MercerN. (2008). Using the interactive whiteboard to reduce continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 348–358.
10.
Grisham-BrownJ.HemmeterM. L.Pretti-FrontczakK. (2005). Blended practices for teaching young children in inclusive settings. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
11.
HartB.RisleyT. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
12.
HelmJ. H.BenekeS.SteinheimerK. (2007). Windows on learning: Documenting young children's work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
International Reading Association & National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. A joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Young Children, 53, 30–46. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSREAD98.PDF.
16.
JusticeL. M.MashburnA.PenceK. L.WigginsA. (2008). Experimental evaluation of a preschool language curriculum: Influence on students's expressive language skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 983–1001.
17.
KatimsD. S. (1991). Emergent literacy in early childhood special education: Curriculum and education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(1), 69–84.
18.
LankshearC.KnobelM. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning. Columbus, OH: Open University Press.
19.
Market Data Retrieval. (2005). The K–12 technology review. Shelton, CT: Author.
20.
MarshJ. (2004). The techno-literacy practices of young students. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(1), 51–66.
21.
MarshJ. (2006). Emergent media literacy: Digital animation in early childhood. Language and Education, 20, 493–506.
22.
MarshJ.BrooksG.HughesJ.RitchieL.RobertaS. (2005). Digital beginnings: Young students' use of popular culture, media and new technologies. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield.
McGeeL. M.RichgelsD. J. (2006). Can technology support emergent reading and writing? Directions for the future. In McKennaM. C.LabboL. D.KiefferR. D.ReinkingD. (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. 2, pp. 369–377). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
25.
MesserD.DockrellJ. E. (2006). Children's naming and word-finding difficulties: Descriptions and explanations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 309–324.
26.
MineoB. A.PeischlD.PenningtonC. (2008). Moving targets: The effect of animation on identification of action word representations. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 162–173.
27.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. A position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSDAP.pdf.
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. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/upload/smallbook_pdf.pdf.
30.
NelsonJ. R.BennerG. J.GonzalezJ. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 255–267.
31.
NeumanS. B.DwyerJ. (2009). Missing in action: Vocabulary instruction in Pre-K. The Reading Teacher, 62, 384–392.
32.
NeumanS. B.DickinsonD. K. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of early literacy research. New York, NY: Guilford.
33.
ParetteH. P.BlumC.BoeckmannN. M.WattsE. H. (2009). Teaching word recognition to young children using Microsoft* PowerPoint™ coupled with direct instruction. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 393–401.
ParetteH. P.HourcadeJ. J.BoeckmannN. M.BlumC. (2008). Using Microsoft* PowerPoint™ to support emergent literacy skill development for young children at-risk or who have disabilities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 233–239.
36.
ParetteH. P.Peterson-KarlanG. R.WojcikB. W.WattsE. H.StonerJ. B. (2007). Developing competence in assistive technology implementation through user groups. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(2), 28–34.
37.
ParetteH. P.QuesenberryA. C.BlumC. (2010). Missing the boat with technology usage in early childhood settings: A 21st century view of developmentally appropriate practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 335–343.
38.
ParetteH. P.StonerJ. B.WattsE. H. (2009). Assistive technology user group perspectives of early childhood professionals. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 257–270.
39.
ParetteH. P.WattsE. H.StonerJ. B. (2005). Making a difference using assistive technology. Grant funded by the Illinois Students' Healthcare Foundation.
40.
Peterson-KarlanG. R.ParetteH. P. (2008). Integrating assistive technology into the curriculum. In ParetteH. P.Peterson-KarlanG. R. (Eds.), Research-based practices in developmental disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 183–214). Austin, TX Pro-Ed.
41.
ScarboroughH. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In ShapiroB.AccerdoP.CaputeA. (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium, MD: York Press.
42.
SchiavettiN.MetzD. (2006). Evaluating research in communicative disorders. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
43.
SchlosserR. (2003). The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: Toward evidence-based practice. Amsterdam, NL: Academic Press.
44.
SénéchalM. (2006). Testing the home literacy model: Parent involvement in kindergarten is differentially related to grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency, spelling, and reading for pleasure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 59–87.
45.
SénéchalM.OuelletteG.RodneyD. (2006). The misunderstood giant: On the predictive role of early vocabulary to future reading. In DickinsonD.NeumanS. B. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 173–182). New York, NY: Guilford.
46.
Silver-PacuillaH. (2006). Moving toward solutions: Assistive and learning technology for all students. Washington, DC: National Center for Technology Innovation.
47.
Siraj-BlatchfordJ.WhitebreadD. (2003). Supporting ICT in the early years. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
48.
SmithM. W.DickinsonD. K.SangeorgeA.AnastasopoulosL. (2002). Early language and literacy classroom observation (ELL-CO) toolkit, research edition. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
49.
SnowC. E. (2007). Is literacy enough? Pathways to academic success for adolescents. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
50.
StrasserJ.SeplochaH. (2007). Using picture books to support young children's literacy. Childhood Education, 84, 219–225.
51.
TealeW. H.SulzbyE. (1987). Literacy acquisition in early childhood: The roles of access and mediation in storybook reading. In WagnerD. A. (Ed.), The future of literacy in a changing world (pp. 111–130). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
52.
ThalheimerW.CookS. (2002, August). How to calculate effect sizes from published research articles: A simplified methodology. Retrieved from http://work-learning.com/effect_sizes.htm.
53.
VerhallenM. J.BusA. G.de JongM. T. (2006). The promise of multimedia stories for kindergarten students at risk. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 410–419.
54.
WasikB. A.BondM. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 243–250.
55.
WasikB. A.BondM. A.HindmanA. (2006). Effective early childhood curriculum for students at risk. In SarachoO.SpodekB. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in early childhood curriculum (pp. 63–89). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
