A whole class teaching approach to improve the vocabulary skills of adolescents attending mainstream secondary school,in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage

Abstract

Young people from areas of socioeconomic disadvantage (SED) are more likely to present with language difficulties, particularly vocabulary difficulties. Studies have shown the effectiveness of vocabulary interventions for children with language impairment but not for adolescents from areas of SED. This article aims to establish the effectiveness of a whole class vocabulary intervention provided by teachers, with speech and language therapy support for adolescents in secondary schools in areas of SED. Two hundred and three adolescents (aged 11;11–13;11) from four secondary schools were assessed at pre-intervention and post-intervention on measures of receptive and expressive language; word definitions; receptive vocabulary (standardized assessments/subtests) and word associations (criterion referenced subtest). The intervention group (n = 128) received the intervention delivered by their English teacher twice a week for 12 weeks in the first school term and were compared with a group of waiting controls (n = 75). Waiting controls were given the intervention in the second school term and were assessed a third time in a repeated measures design. At pre-intervention stage 37%–60% of all students scored in the vocabulary difficulties range on all assessments. Following intervention, the treated group showed significant, but small, time by group interactions for raw score measures of expressive language and receptive vocabulary. The intervention group improved significantly on all four standardized measures; waiting controls improved on two: receptive language and word definitions. There were no significant time by group interactions. Following receiving intervention waiting controls showed significant interactions for all raw score and expressive language, word definitions and receptive vocabulary standard/scaled score measures. The findings suggest that adolescents in schools in areas of SED present with significant vocabulary difficulties, but whole class teacher-directed intervention supported by speech and language therapists has the potential to improve receptive and expressive oral vocabulary skills.

Keywords

adolescence behavior school based intervention socioeconomic disadvantage teacher vocabulary

I Introduction

Speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) is an umbrella term, increasingly used in the literature to refer to young people with any kind of speech, language and/or communication difficulty (Bercow, 2008). SLCN includes those with a primary speech and language impairment, those who have SLCN secondary to other diagnoses, and those with impoverished speech, language and communication linked to socio-economic disadvantage (SED). As many as 10% of all children and young people present with persistent SLCN (Law et al., 2000).

1 Language and social disadvantage

Children and young people from areas of SED are more likely to have SLCN (Locke et al., 2002; Spencer et al., 2012) and it is more likely to go undetected (Bercow, 2008; Spencer et al., 2012). Difficulties with SLCN in early years can continue into adolescence and adulthood. Spencer et al. (2012) assessed 103 adolescents (13–14 years) from a school in an area of SED and 43 adolescents (13–14 years) from a school in an area of relative socioeconomic advantage on measures of receptive and expressive language. Students from the area of SED performed worse than the control group on measures of receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, understanding spoken paragraphs and overall verbal ability as measured on an education based assessment.

2 SLCN in adolescence

Language continues to be acquired throughout adolescence and into adulthood. Many adolescents struggle with aspects of more advanced language, such as difficult vocabulary, increased demands on cognitive function, metacognitive skills, and metalinguistic skills (Nippold, 2004). The more intense curricular demands of secondary school can reveal students with SLCN not previously identified (Larson and McKinley, 2003; Nippold, 2004), but if students’ conversational language skills appear to be adequate then this may go undetected (Nippold, 2007). In a study of 11-year-old children, those who had difficulty with reading comprehension also scored poorly on spoken language assessments (Myers and Botting, 2008). Weak oral language and literacy skills can lead to difficulties accessing the educational curriculum (Nippold, 2004), which in turn can lead to poor academic achievement (Joffe and Nippold, 2012). Currently there is limited speech and language therapy support for adolescents in both the UK and Ireland (Bercow, 2008; IASLT, 2007; Joffe and Black, 2012).

3 Vocabulary development in adolescence

Adolescence is a time of advanced language learning where adolescents begin to acquire more abstract and low frequency vocabulary (Nagy et al., 1993). As vocabulary is sensitive to social and cultural experiences, both the lexicon size and the development of word learning skills in adolescence depends on current and past exposure to word learning opportunities (Dockrell and Messer, 2004). In secondary school, academic achievement is strongly linked to vocabulary knowledge (Cunningham and Stanovich, 1997). Adolescence is a time where young people not only expand their vocabulary but also develop their understanding of connected words (derivation, meaning and sound) and multiple meanings (Nippold, 2007). It is also a time of development of advanced definitions (Nippold et al., 1999).

4 School-based service provision

Although there is research to support collaborative, classroom based interventions for improving language abilities in younger children (McIntosh et al., 2007; Throneburg et al., 2000), there is limited evidence for this type of intervention for adolescents (Lesaux et al., 2010). A randomized control trial (RCT) of secondary school students with identified or suspected language impairment (LI), examined whether training secondary school teachers to modify their oral and written language would improve language ability (Starling et al., 2012). Students were tested on measures of listening and reading comprehension, as well as oral and written expression. Results showed a significant increase in use of modified teaching techniques in the treatment group compared to the control group. Students who received the modified instruction showed significant improvements on measures of listening comprehension and written expression. Lesaux et al. (2010) looked at whether a collaborative whole school vocabulary intervention programme improved vocabulary and reading comprehension in students from low performing, urban middle schools, with high numbers of language minority students. Students were tested on measures of reading and vocabulary comprehension, and morphological awareness. The intervention focused on reading vocabulary and reading comprehension. The students in the treatment group made significant improvements on researcher-developed measures of vocabulary, and marginally significant improvements on a standardized measure of reading comprehension, but no significant improvements on standardized measures of vocabulary.

5 Oral vocabulary interventions

Although oral vocabulary difficulties are prevalent in adolescents (Myers and Botting, 2008; Spencer et al., 2012) from areas of SED, there are few studies that investigate the effectiveness of intervention to support this population. Spencer et al. (2012) identified that up to 80% of adolescents in an area of SED presented with lower vocabulary scores and highlighted the need for whole school approaches to vocabulary learning in conjunction with more integrated intensive individual supports for students who need it.

Vocabulary instruction has been the subject of many studies for children and young people with and without LI, but these mainly focus on vocabulary related to reading comprehension. Fukkink and de Glopper’s (1998) meta-analysis of vocabulary instruction, which included 18 studies completed with adolescents without identified LI, showed that adolescents benefited from instruction on how to derive word meaning from context. Stahl and Fairbanks’ (1986) meta-analysis on vocabulary instruction included 14 studies of adolescents without identified LI. This analysis showed that the most effective instructional methods for teaching vocabulary involved both definitional and contextual information. The Beck and McKeown rich vocabulary instruction method recommends teaching adolescents with language impairment to use context and practice new words in oral language activities with peers in order to improve vocabulary knowledge, but do not state their efficacy (Beck et al., 2002).

Joffe (2006) described an intervention study treating 54 secondary school students identified with LI, who were grouped to receive either narrative or vocabulary intervention. These groups acted as controls for each other. The adolescents were assessed both pre- and post-intervention, and were given the intervention in small groups at school. The vocabulary intervention programme included teaching strategies for word finding, mind mapping, word categorizations, and use of synonyms, antonyms, and definitions. On a researcher-developed questionnaire, participants reported improvement in many language modalities. However, standardized measures did not improve significantly.

6 The current study

Despite the need for evidenced based oral language interventions for adolescents in disadvantaged areas, there are significant gaps in the research (Cirrin and Gillam, 2008; Joffe and Nippold, 2012). Although studies suggest that vocabulary interventions may prove beneficial (Joffe, 2006; Lesaux et al., 2010; Throneburg et al., 2000), most focus on vocabulary related to reading comprehension and others studies fail to compare the treatment group with a control group, in order to account for the effects of maturation (Cirrin and Gillam, 2008).

The current study was developed by the National Behaviour Support Service (NBSS) and University of Limerick speech and language therapy service. This service works supporting students with and at risk of behaviour difficulties in NBSS partner mainstream post-primary schools in the Republic of Ireland. The study involved analysis of a whole-class vocabulary intervention with all first-year students attending two schools over the period of one school term. The results were compared to two schools from the same area that did not complete the intervention. Further analysis on improvements made by these two schools when they completed the intervention, in a later term, is included.

The study aims were:

to investigate the need for targeting vocabulary development in post-primary school in areas of SED;

to evaluate the effectiveness of a vocabulary intervention programme which focuses on multiple vocabulary learning strategies through whole class instruction, delivered by teachers with support and training from a speech and language therapist, in mainstream schools from areas of SED.

II Method

1 Study design

This study used a between-participants randomized control design with within-participants repeated measures and convenience sampling. All partner schools of the NBSS in the geographical area where the first author worked were invited to take part in the study (n = 5). One school was excluded from the research as they were piloting a new first year literacy support programme that was similar to the researched intervention. All four participating schools were schools serving disadvantaged communities and had identified DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools) status (Department of Education and Skills, 2005). Two schools were randomly allocated to the intervention group and the other two schools to the control group. The intervention schools completed the programme between time one (pre-intervention: September) and time two (post-intervention1: January), and the control schools completed the programme between time two and time three (post-intervention2: May). All participating students were assessed at time one (T1) and time two (T2) in their respective schools. Only the control schools were assessed at time three (T3) due to reduced availability of researchers

All assessments were carried out by two qualified speech and language therapists and six student speech and language therapists. Prior to beginning the project the researchers attended two 60-minute workshops with the first author where they were trained in using the assessments and discussed possible answers for the word classes expressive and word definitions subtests. Following each assessment time (T1; T2; T3) the group met with the first author and discussed any issues or queries in relation to scoring. Each student was assessed by a different researcher at T1, T2 and T3. The researchers were blinded to the performance of the student at the previous assessment point but had knowledge of whether they had or had not received the intervention.

2 Participants

This study received ethical approval from the University of Limerick Ethics Committee. The schools were all single sex (three all female and one all male). All first year students (equivalent to year 8 in England and middle school Grade 7 in the USA) were invited to participate in the study (n = 247). Table one outlines demographic information.

Table one.

Participant information.

	Intervention	Control
Number of participants	128	75
Gender	female: 71; male: 57	female: 75
Age range (years)	11.11–13.10	12.00–13.11
Mean age (years)	12.7	12.7

Consent was sought from parents through school Principals. A detailed information and consent form was sent to their home, and parents were advised students would still be included in the intervention if they did not agree to the research; 245 agreed and 2 declined. All participants signed a consent form following verbal and written explanation from the tester.

Students who were unavailable for testing at any point were excluded from the analysis (n = 11). Students who were identified as having English as an additional language (n = 31) were included in the study, but not the analyses. Therefore 203 students were included in the analysis (82% of the original cohort).¹

3 Assessment materials

Standardized measures of receptive and expressive vocabulary skills were taken using three subtests from the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – 4 (CELF-4) (Semel et al., 2006) and the British Picture Vocabulary Scales (BPVS-3) (Dunn and Dunn, 2009). Both report good validity and reliability (Dunn and Dunn, 2009; Semel et al., 2006). A scaled score of 6 or less falls into the language difficulties range on the CELF-4 subtests and a standard score of 84 or less falls into the language difficulties range on the BPVS-3. Vocabulary assessments were carried out individually with each student.

CELF-4 Subtests:

Word Classes Receptive and Expressive subtest - This subtest requires participants to listen to groups of four words, decide which two words are connected and to explain the relationship between the two words. Scoring is separate for the expressive and receptive responses (maximum raw score of 24 for each).

Word Definitions subtest – This subtest requires participants to listen to a word within a sentence and to give a definition of that word (maximum raw score of 48).

Word Associations subtest - Students are asked to name words in a specified category within one minute standard scores are not available for this sub-test).

BPVS-3: The participant points to the picture corresponding to a heard word from a choice of four pictures (maximum raw score of 168).

4 Intervention programme

Students received an adapted version of the Vocabulary Enrichment Programme (Joffe, 2011), developed by the first author to fit in with whole class teaching. The intervention group received the programme in term one, waiting controls in term two. The adapted programme includes twelve sessions, each taking two forty minute classes to complete. These are based on sessions 1–10 of the Vocabulary Enrichment Programme (VEP), with two revision sessions added. The programme targets development of a combination of vocabulary learning strategies to foster independent word learning skills and using context to identify word meanings. Table 2 outlines the areas targeted each week (see Appendix 1 for detailed overview of session objectives).

Table 2.

The ‘Vocabulary Enrichment Programme’ 12 session outline.

Session	Topic covered
1	Introduction: What are words?
2	Describing words using senses, characteristics and antonyms/synonyms
3	Word maps; Syllables; Rhyme; Categorization
4	More syllables; Alliteration; Parts of speech: nouns/verbs
5	Parts of speech (adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns, articles, interjections)
6	Identifying parts of speech; Complex word maps; Understanding word families
7	Prefix, roots and suffixes; Dictionary use
8	Similarities and differences; Multiple meaning words; Dictionary use
9	Use of spider webs; Understanding and using idioms; Dictionary use
10	Using word detective strategies; Dictionary use
11	Revision and generalization session
12	Revision and generalization session

In each school, the first year English teachers (n = 12) were asked to run the programme in their regular English class. It was recommended that a resource teacher (commonly called learning support teacher) work with the English teacher in a team teaching approach. Resource teachers are teachers who work to support individual students and groups of students with additional needs in the students own classrooms or in a pull out model. Team teaching is a co-operative teaching method where two or more teachers work together to plan and deliver learning objectives to a group of students. Some classes chose to use team teaching (intervention = 5, control = 2) while some chose not to (intervention = 2, control = 3); teacher preference and timetabling impacted that choice. The waiting controls had English classes as normal in the first term.

5 Training and teacher support

Teachers received 5 hours of training in two 2.5 hour sessions with the first author. Training included background to the project and research; detailed explanations of the objectives; discussion and practice of the learning activities and opportunities to go through the resources. Teachers were provided with a Teacher Booklet with detailed lesson plans outlining; session objectives, teaching steps for each objective and options for different activities/homework. They were also given a memory stick containing extra resources developed by the first author. There was the option of brief weekly meetings with the first author and failing that email contact was made by the first author to each teacher. Teachers were required to complete a fidelity checklist that included a scale (1–5) of how teachers felt the class group met each session objective as well as sections detailing; absentee’s, any students who struggled to meet the session objectives, any adaptation to resources and what worked well/was a challenge. These were discussed with the first author at the weekly meetings and collected at end of the intervention. All staff in each school attended a 30–45 minute information session about the programme and research.

6 Data analysis

Due to the large sample size, the Shapiro–Wilk tests of normality were significant for all vocabulary measures. However the means and medians were similar and inspection of the Q-Q plots showed observed values were predicted by expected values. This indicated use of parametric tests for data analysis.

Independent and paired t-tests were used to identify any significant differences in the groups’ raw scores at T1 and for post hoc testing, and then two separate analyses were carried out. Firstly vocabulary performance for the intervention group and waiting controls from T1 to T2 was compared using ANCOVA for between groups, taking account of age and T1 scores as covariates. Secondly vocabulary performance for the intervention group and waiting controls from T1 to T2 to T3 was compared using a repeated measures within-participants design. Standard score changes were graphed and analysed using paired t-tests. Effect sizes for ANCOVA between groups and repeated measures are reported using partial eta squared values of 0.01 (small effect size), 0.06 (medium effect size), and 0.14 (large effect size) (Cohen, 1969; Richardson, 2011). Effect sizes for paired t-tests are reported using Cohen’s d values of 0.2 (small effect size), 0.5 (medium effect size), and 0.8 (large effect size).

III Results

Five separate tests of vocabulary understanding and use were used; four subtests of the CELF-4 and the BPVS-3. Overall, between 37% and 60% of all participants fell within the difficulties range (–1.25 SD from the mean) on every measure at T1. Independent T-tests were used to identify if the mean raw scores of the control and intervention group differed at pre-intervention stage; these showed no significant differences.

Table three presents the mean scores T1–T2–T3 and indicates significant raw and scaled/standard score changes over time and significant interactions for time by group.

Table three.

Vocabulary tests: T1, T2, T3 (mean and standard deviation).

	Intervention		Control
	T1: Mean (SD)	T2: Mean (SD)	T1: Mean (SD)	T2: Mean (SD)	T3: Mean (SD)
Raw scores:
CELF-4: Word classes-receptive	12.84 (3.89)	13.91^a (3.98)	12.97 (4.08)	13.81 (4.16)	14.66^a,b (4.11)
CELF-4: Word classes-expressive	7.92 (3.40)	9.36^a,b (3.81)	7.85 (3.99)	8.48 (3.81)	11.01^a,b (4.37)
CELF-4: Word definitions	17.27 (7.57)	19.20^a (8.50)	17.57 (8.88)	19.51^a (9.26)	22.19^a,b (8.69)
CELF-4: Word associations	46.60 (11.30)	49.99^a (11.85)	49.18 (12.86)	50.11 (13.67)	53.10^a,b (13.01)
BPVS-3	126.53 (15.79)	130.46^a,b (15.68)	128.05 (15.90)	129.53 (16.65)	133.49^a,b (14.78)
Scaled/standard scores:
CELF-4: Word classes-receptive	7.77 (3.09)	8.45^a (3.34)	7.80 (3.21)	8.40^a (3.35)	8.48^a (3.71)
CELF-4: Word classes-expressive	6.30 (2.79)	7.06^a (3.04)	6.08 (3.21)	6.47 (3.01)	7.86^a,b (3.60)
CELF-4: Word definitions	6.28 (2.76)	6.87^a (3.01)	6.25 (3.23)	6.96^a (3.38)	7.57^a,b (3.57)
BPVS-3	83.72 (13.03)	86.29^a (12.89)	84.89 (12.76)	86.20 (14.15)	87.78^a,b (14.54)

Notes. ^aEffect of time is significant at the 0.05 level. ^bInteraction of group is significant at the 0.05 level.

1 Raw score changes T1–T2:

All four subtests of the CELF-4 and the BPVS-3 showed significant effects of time (Word Classes Receptive (WC-R) = F(1, 199) = 351.875, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.639; Word Classes Expressive (WC-E) = F(1, 199) = 158.559, p < 0.001, n_p² = 0.443; Word Definitions (WD) = F(1, 199) = 451.736, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.694; Word Associations (WA) = F(1, 196) = 241.727, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.552; BPVS-3 = F(1, 198) = 889.939, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.818). Only WC-E and BPVS-3 illustrated a significant time by group interaction (WC-E = F(1, 199) = 4.016, p = 0.046, η_p² = 0.020; BPVS-3 = F(1, 198) = 5.419, p = 0.021, η_p² = 0.027), where the students who had received the intervention significantly improved from T1 to T2 compared to the students who had not received the intervention.

2 Scaled score changes T1–T2:

There were significant main effects of time on all scaled/standard scores (WC-R: F(1, 199) = 351.875, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.639; WC-E: F(1, 199) = 158.559, p < 0.001, n_p² = 0.443; Word Definitions (WD) = F(1, 199) = 451.736, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.694; Word Associations (WA) = F(1, 196) = 241.727, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.552; BPVS-3 = F(1, 198) = 889.939, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.818), but none of the interactions between time and group reached significance.² Post hoc t-tests illustrated that for the intervention group WC-R significantly increased from (Mean = 7.76, SD = 3.09) to (Mean = 8.45, SD = 3.34), t(127) = −3.46, p = 0.001 Cohen’s d = −0.307; WC-E significantly increased from (Mean = 6.30, SD = 2.79) to (Mean = 7.06, SD = 3.04), t(127) = −3.25, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = −0.28812; WD significantly increased from (Mean = 6.28, SD = 2.76) to (Mean = 6.86, SD = 3.01), t(126) = −3.17, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = −0.336 and the BPVS-3 significantly increased from (Mean = 83.72, SD = 13.03) to (Mean = 86.29, SD = 12.89), t(127) = −4.14 p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = −0.369. For the control group WC-R significantly increased from (Mean = 7.8, SD = 3.21) to (Mean = 8.4, SD = 3.35), t(72) = −2.46, p = 0.016, Cohen’s d = −0.290 and WD significantly increased from (Mean = 6.25, SD = 3.23) to (Mean = 6.96, SD = 3.38), t(72) = −3.31 p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = −0.390. WC-E and BPVS-3 did not improve significantly.

3 Scores for waiting controls T1–T2–T3

a Raw Scores

All raw score (RS) measures improved significantly from T1–T3 (WC-R: F(1, 72) = 35.83, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.332; WC-E: F(1, 72) = 94.74, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.572; WD: F(1,72) = 79.77, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.526; WA: F(1, 69) = 11.50, p = 0.001, η_p² = 0.143; BPVS-3: F(1, 72) = 46.66, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.393). Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment illustrated that only WD improved significantly from T1–T2 (p = 0.005), but all raw score measures improved significantly from T2–T3 (WC-R: p = 0.011; WC-E: p < 0.001; WD: p < 0.001; WA: p = 0.011: BPVS-3: p < 0.001).

b Scaled/Standard Scores

All scaled/standard score measures improved significantly from T1–T3 (WC-R: F(1, 72) = 20.25, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.220; WC-E: F(1, 72) = 59.73, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.453; WD: F(1,72) = 65.51, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.476; BPVS-3: F(1, 72) = 35.24, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.329). Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment illustrated that only WC-R (p = 0.049) and WD (p = 0.004) showed a significant effect of time from T1–T2. WD (p < 0.001), WC-E (p < 0.001) and the BPVS-3 (p = 0.004) improved significantly from T2–T3 replicating the treatment effect shown in the raw scores for the treatment group at T2.

4 Overall scaled/standard score changes T1–T2–T3

Figure 1 illustrates the changes in scaled/standard scores (SS) over time. Table 4 highlights changes in the percentage of students with standard scores within the vocabulary difficulties range from T1–T2–T3. It can be seen that in both groups the number of students in the difficulties range (< 1.25 SD from mean) has reduced over time, and the percentages are generally lower for the intervention group.

Figure 1.

Changes in standard scores T1–T2–T3.

Table 4.

Percentage of students in the vocabulary difficulties range (–1.25 SD from the mean): T1–T2–T3.

	Intervention		Control
	T1	T2	T1	T2	T3
WC-R	37.50	30.47**	37.33	33.33*	26.67
WC-E	53.13	39.06**	54.67	53.33	34.67**
WD	56.25	49.22**	56.00	50.67**	34.67**
BPVS-3	60.94	48.44**	46.67	48.00	36.00**

Note. *Effect of time on standard score improvement is significant at the 0.05 level. **Effect of time on standard score improvement is significant at the 0.01 level.

IV Discussion

This study evaluated the effectiveness of a whole class, teacher delivered oral vocabulary intervention for adolescents in mainstream schools in an area of SED. Results indicate that students who received the intervention improved significantly more than those that did not on two RS measures; WC-E and BPVS-3 with small to medium effect sizes. Although SS measure interactions did not reach significance, the intervention group improved on all SS measures T1–T2, while waiting controls only improved on two measures, WC-R and WD, all with small to medium effect sizes. When the waiting controls received the intervention they improved significantly on all RS measures and the WC-E, WD and BPVS-3 SS measures.

1 Is there a need for targeting vocabulary development at whole school level in schools within areas of SED?

Scaled/standard scores at pre-intervention illustrate that 37%–60% of students scored in the difficulties range on all vocabulary assessments. This is consistent with previous prevalence reports of SLCN at 50%–80% in areas of SED (Locke et al., 2002; Spencer et al., 2012). It strongly demonstrates the need for whole school approaches to vocabulary learning within a context of more integrated supports for those who need it. It also highlights the need for further high quality research into language enrichment interventions supporting this vulnerable group of young people.

2 Was the vocabulary intervention effective?

At T2 students who received the intervention improved significantly more than waiting controls on WC-E (RS) and the BPVS-3 (RS). In addition the waiting controls, who had not improved on these two measures during their non-treatment period, significantly improved on both WC-E and BPVS-3 following treatment. Although effect sizes are within the small to medium range, these findings suggest that the intervention was successful in developing a broader, deeper knowledge of the meaning of words and a stronger ability to define semantic connections, supporting previous research (Cirrin and Gillam, 2008; Lesaux et al., 2010). As previous research did not focus on oral vocabulary skills, despite studies showing that many students with literacy difficulties present with spoken language difficulties (Myers and Botting, 2008), the current study provides evidence that a vocabulary intervention of this kind may improve oral language abilities.

Although the intervention group improved significantly on all five RS vocabulary measures there was no significant time by group interaction for WC-R, WD and WA. This intervention supports students to develop word learning strategies for explaining and identifying vocabulary meanings as well as using context clues to identify word meanings. The WC-R and WD subtests require a deep knowledge of specific vocabulary. As the intervention did not focus on direct vocabulary instruction of the assessment vocabulary, it’s possible this may have influenced performance on these subtests. Perhaps more sessions focused on specific vocabulary terms would allow students to further integrate their knowledge and understanding of the vocabulary strategies and skills taught.

Despite identifying no significant time by group interaction for SS measures T1–T2, the intervention group improved significantly on all SS measures with small to medium effect sizes while waiting controls only improved WC-R and WD. Furthermore a greater percentage of the intervention group moved out of the ‘language difficulties’ range following the intervention which indicates potential improvement as a result of the intervention. It is also possible that SS were not sufficiently sensitive across a short time frame to illustrate change. Lesaux and colleagues’ (2010) research also produced positive outcomes on raw score vocabulary measures when assessing the skills of students from areas of SED. Interestingly, they too did not find significant differences on standardized measures.

From T1 to T2 waiting controls improved significantly on WD (RS), WD (SS) and WC-R (SS). The fact that the waiting controls showed improvements over such a relatively short time frame without receiving the intervention may be due to the experience of attending secondary school where they had more exposure to complex vocabulary.

When waiting controls received the intervention, all RS’s and WC-E (SS), WD (SS) and BPVS-3 (SS) showed treatment effects. Although this indicates programme specific improvements in student’s receptive and expressive word learning skills it should be interpreted with caution. Waiting controls had more time in secondary school and thus may have developed vocabulary skills more through regular schoolwork by T3 than the intervention group had by T2.

3 Why has word definitions improved?

Word definitions (WD) improved over each time point with each group. This may be linked to the fact that word definition skills develop in complexity throughout adolescence (Nippold, 1999). In addition, as all students had just begun secondary education and vocabulary is strongly linked to social and cultural experiences and exposure to word learning opportunities (Dockrell and Messer, 2004), this may have impacted improvement in WD.

4 Limitations of the study

There are a number of limitations to consider within the design of this study. First, incomplete re-assessment at time 3 means we cannot rule out effects of maturation over time, full re-assessment of all participants at T3 would have ensured that this was accounted for. Possible practice effects of the assessments must also be considered, as they were repeated in a short timeframe. A study with a repeated baseline would be helpful to ensure this was not an issue.

5 Clinical implications

Overall this RCT demonstrated positive indicators that a teacher-directed whole class approach to vocabulary intervention can be successful at improving students’ scores on selected vocabulary measures. It is a promising addition to previous research on the whole-class approach as a method of service delivery (Lesaux et al., 2010; McIntosh et al., 2007; Starling et al., 2012) and supports recommendations that schools in areas of SED should be treated on a whole-school basis (Spencer et al., 2012).

Previous studies illustrate the positive effects of vocabulary interventions with children with identified language difficulties; however, there is little evidence of the effectiveness of vocabulary interventions for children or adolescents from areas of SED. Although consideration must be given to the small to medium effect sizes, the study provides promising preliminary data indicating that a whole class approach can lead to significant gains in the comprehension and use of oral vocabulary for adolescents in schools in areas of SED. As this intervention aimed to develop student’s ability to use word learning skills to access and retain new vocabulary independently, it is expected that these skills will continue to benefit students in the future (Joffe, 2011). However the sustainability of this intervention warrants further research. It was beyond the scope of the project to re-assess students at a later time, but it may be important to continue to support students’ vocabulary development to mitigate the continuing effects of disadvantage.

V Conclusions

This study creates a foundation for further research in this area and provides evidence of a need for oral vocabulary interventions for adolescents in areas of SED. It highlights the potential for whole-class teacher-led service delivery methods being used to target oral vocabulary skills, across secondary schools in areas of SED through analysis of a successful collaboration, where a teacher-directed and speech-language-therapist supported intervention improved students’ oral language abilities. Findings contribute to the existing limited body of evidence for supporting adolescent language in mainstream post primary schools in areas of SED.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Detailed session aims and objectives: Vocabulary Enrichment Programme.

Session 1: Introduction: What are Words?	Students will understand that words are labels (made up of letters, sounds and meaning).
	Students will be able to identify where words are important and why (school, home, with friends, etc.).
	Students will identify at least one area of strength and weakness and will self-generate a target for themselves.
Session 2: Describing Words (Senses, Characteristics and Antonyms/Synonyms)	Students to understand that words have lots of connected meanings and name their 5 senses.
	Students to be able to use their 5 senses to describe an item.
	Students to understand and identify basic antonyms and synonyms.
Session 3: Word Maps, Syllables, Rhyme and Categorization.	Students to understand that there are lots of ways of describing a word and, the more information we know, the easier it is to remember the words.
	Students to be able to segment 2–3 words into syllables.
	Students to be able to say why words rhyme (sound same at the end) and identify words that rhyme.
	Students to understand that everything belongs in a category and to be able to identify the superordinate and subordinate categories of 2–3 items.
Session 4: Syllables, Alliteration and Parts of Speech - Nouns/ Verbs.	Students to be able to identify syllables, sounds and letters in words.
	Students to understand why we use the same sound at the beginning of words to describe things (alliteration).
	Students to understand what a noun is, that there are different types of nouns and to be able to give examples.
	Students to understand what a verb is, that verbs change depending on past, present and future and give examples.
Session 5: Parts of Speech	Students to understand and be able to name 2–3 of each part of speech.
Session 5: Parts of Speech	Students to be able to create sentences using each part of speech.
Session 6: Identifying all Parts of Speech, Complex Word Maps and Word Families	Students to understand and be able to identify all parts of speech within sentences.
	Students to be able to describe words using many features (word map).
	Students will be able to integrate all features of a word to guess the word.
	Students to understand that words are connected through the root meaning and words exist in families (e.g. happy, happiness, unhappy).
Session 7: Prefix, Roots and Suffix’s; Dictionary Use.	Students to understand that looking at part of a word can help with understanding the word meaning.
	Students to work out word meanings when given the ‘prefix’ or ‘root’.
	Students to understand why we need dictionaries.
Session 8: Similarities and Differences and Multiple Meaning Words; Dictionary Use	Students can identify characteristics of words including what’s similar and what’s different. Students can think abstractly about the features of different items.
	Students can think of connecting words quickly.
	Students understand that some words sound/spelled the same but have different meanings.
	Students to know all alphabet letters in sequence.
Session 9: Spider webs and Idioms; Dictionary Use	Students to understand why we use spider webs and how to use them.
	Students to understand that idioms (groups of words/phrases) can have a meaning that is different to the meaning of the individual words.
	Students to be able to put idioms in sentences.
	Students to know what information we can find out about a word from the dictionary.
Session 10: Word Detective Strategies; Dictionary Use	Students to understand that there are strategies to use if you do not know a word.
	Students to be able to use the word detective strategies to guess a word.
	Students to be able to use a dictionary to check a words meaning.
Session 11: Recap on Strategies: Word Map, Word Description. Introduce: Word Finding Strategies	Students to understand why we need and how we can use word maps in school.
	Students to understand why we need and how we can use antonyms/synonyms in school.
	Students to understand why we need and how we can use categories to help us in school.
	Students recognize when they can’t think of a word and to know 1–2 strategies for finding words.
	Students to recall what information you can get from a dictionary and identify for 3 words.
Session 12: Recap on Strategies and Generalization for Use: Word Detective, Prefix- Root-Suffix, Multiple Meaning	Students can identify one area where they would use the word detective strategies in school.
	Students to attempt to identify at least 3–4 words from their prefix/root/suffix.
	Students to be able to self-identify multiple meaning words/phrases that they now know.
	Students to identify at least one thing they have learned and at least one thing they still find difficult.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the schools and students who participated in the research.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the National Behaviour Support Service through University of Limerick where the first author and last author were employed at the time of the study.

Notes

References

Beck

McKeown

Kucan

(2002) Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.

Bercow

(2008) The Bercow report: A review of services for children and young people (0–19) with speech, language and communication needs. Nottingham: DCSF. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationdetail/page1/DCSF-00632-2008 (accessed June 2016)

Cirrin

Gillam

(2008) Language intervention practices for school-age children with spoken language disorders: A systematic review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 39: 110–37.

Cohen

(1969) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

Cunningham

Stanovich

(1997) Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability ten years later. Developmental Psychology 33: 934–45.

Department of Education and Skills (2005) DEIS (Delivering equality of opportunity in schools): An action plan for educational inclusion. Available at: https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/deis_action_plan_on_educational_inclusion.pdf (accessed June 2016).

Dockrell

Messer

(2004) Lexical acquisition in the school years. In: Berman

(ed.) Language development: Psycholinguistic and typological perspectives. New York: John Benjamins, pp. 35–52.

Dunn

Sewel

Styles

(2009) The British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS-3). 3rd edition. London: GL Assessment Ltd.

Fukkink

de Glopper

(1998) Effects of instruction in deriving word meaning from context: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 68: 450–69.

10.

Irish Association of Speech and Language Therapists (IASLT) (2007) Specific speech and language impairment in children: definition, service provision and recommendations for change. Dublin: IASLT. Available at: http://www.iaslt.ie/docs/public/exec/IASLT%20SSLI%20Position%20Paper%20Oct%202007.pdf (accessed June 2016).

11.

Joffe

(2006) Enhancing language and communication in language-impaired secondary school-aged children. In: Clegg

Ginsborg

(eds) Language and social disadvantage: Theory into practice. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 207–16.

12.

Joffe

(2011) Vocabulary Enrichment Programme. Milton Keynes: Speechmark.

13.

Joffe

Black

(2012) Social, emotional, and behavioural functioning of secondary school students with low academic and language performance: Perspectives from students, teachers, and parents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 43: 461–73.

14.

Joffe

Nippold

(2012) Progress in understanding adolescent language disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 43: 438–44.

15.

Larson

McKinley

(2003) Service delivery options for secondary students with language disorders. In Seminars in Speech and Language 24: 181–98.

16.

Law

Lindsay

Peacey

. (2000) Provision for children with speech and language needs in England and Wales: Facilitating communication between education and health services. London: Department for Education and Employment. Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4475/1/RR239.pdf (accessed June 2016).

17.

Lesaux

Kieffer

Faller

Kelley

(2010) The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly 45: 196–228.

18.

Locke

Ginsborg

Peers

(2002) Development and disadvantage: Implications for the early years. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 27: 3–15.

19.

McIntosh

Crosbie

Holm

Dodd

Thomas

(2007) Enhancing the phonological awareness and language skills of socially disadvantaged pre-schoolers: An interdisciplinary programme. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 23: 267–86.

20.

Myers

Botting

(2008) Literacy in the mainstream inner-city school: Its relationship to spoken language. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 24: 95–114.

21.

Nagy

Diakidoy

I-A

Anderson

(1993) The acquisition of morphology: Learning the contribution of suffixes to the meanings of derivatives. Journal of Reading Behaviour 25: 155–70.

22.

Nippold

(2004) Research on later language development: International perspectives. In: Berman

(ed.) Language development across childhood and adolescence: Trends in language acquisition research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–8.

23.

Nippold

(2007) Later language development: School-age children, adolescents and young adults. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

24.

Nippold

Hegel

Sohlberg

Schwarz

(1999) Defining abstract entities: Development in pre-adolescents, adolescents and young adults. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 42: 473–81.

25.

Richardson

JTE

(2011) Eta squared and partial eta squared as measurements of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review 6: 135–47.

26.

Semel

Wiig

Secord

(2006) Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals: Fourth edition (CELF 4). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.

27.

Spencer

Clegg

Stackhouse

(2012) Language and disadvantage: a comparison of the language abilities of adolescents from two different socioeconomic areas. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 47: 274–84.

28.

Stahl

Fairbanks

(1986) The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 56: 72–110.

29.

Starling

Munro

Togher

Arciulia

(2012) Training secondary school teachers in instructional language modification techniques to support adolescents with language impairment: A randomized control trial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 43: 474–95.

30.

Throneburg

Calvert

Sturm

Paramboukas

Paul

(2000) A comparison of service delivery models: Effects on curricular vocabulary skills in the school setting. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 9: 10–20.