The Effects of Self-Regulation on Science Vocabulary Acquisition of English Language Learners With Learning Difficulties

Abstract

This multiple-probe study examined the effects of self-regulation on the acquisition of science vocabulary by four third-grade English language learners (ELLs) with learning difficulties. The students were provided only direct vocabulary instruction in a baseline phase, followed by intervention and maintenance phases into which self-regulation strategies were incorporated. Analysis of data derived from quantitative measures of receptive and expressive vocabulary revealed participants performed significantly higher in the intervention and maintenance phases than in the baseline phase, indicating the positive effect of self-regulation on science vocabulary learning. Furthermore, in interviews, although the participants were positive in their evaluation of the intervention overall, they expressed a distinct preference for the use of self-regulation strategies. Implications for practice and further research are discussed.

Keywords

self-regulation science vocabulary ELL with learning difficulties academic word

Longitudinal studies document a persistent, disturbing trend toward academic underachievement among English language learners (ELLs) in reading (Crosson & Lesaux, 2010; Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, & Kelley, 2010) and across content areas (August & Shanahan, 2006; O. Lee, 2005). An important contributing factor to the academic underachievement of ELLs is limited knowledge of content vocabulary, the technical terms used in content-area subjects such as science, math, or social studies (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Carlo et al., 2004; Chamot & O’Malley, 1996; Gersten & Baker, 2000). To understand the text content and acquire new knowledge, knowledge of the unique terms used in the text is required (Stevens, Butler, & Castellon-Wellington, 2000). However, students who speak a language other than English have fewer opportunities to engage in academic discussions, to be exposed to rich content instruction, and to have good language models among their peers. Furthermore, when they have the opportunity to encounter content vocabulary in text, the words are often embedded in complex sentences (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Scarcella, 2003) making implicit acquisition of the meaning of words challenging. For these reasons, difficulty in learning content words may be greater for ELLs than English-only (EO) learners (August et al., 2005; August & Shanahan, 2006; O. Lee, 2005). Therefore, instruction that systematically and explicitly builds ELLs’ content vocabulary is essential for academic success (Kelley, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Faller, 2010).

In recent years, effective practices for teaching vocabulary have been identified. To learn vocabulary, first students need a student-friendly definition (i.e., not a dictionary definition but a definition that uses grade-level-appropriate vocabulary) to make sense of a word (Beck et al., 2002; Gersten et al., 2007). Second, students need to encounter the words in diverse contexts and in diverse formats (e.g., using visuals or as part of a story; August et al., 2005; Coyne, McCoach, & Kapp, 2007). Third, students should have opportunities to learn and use several strategies, including building new information based on prior knowledge, questioning and giving corrective feedback, and creating sentences with the word (Beck et al., 2002; Gersten, Baker, & Marks, 1998). Furthermore, vocabulary instruction has been found to be more effective when direct instruction is used (Bailey, Butler, LaFramenta, & Ong, 2004; Gersten et al., 2007).

When implementing direct instruction, teachers break down instruction into simpler phases, act as the locus for question-asking, offer ongoing feedback, model skills for students, provide fast-paced and individualized instruction, and frequently review lessons (Carnine, Silbert, & Kame’enui, 1997; Shippen, Houchins, Steventon, & Sartor, 2005; Swanson, 1999). Although the effectiveness of direct instruction in increasing the word knowledge of ELLs has been demonstrated (August et al., 2005; Gersten et al., 2007), it is uncertain whether it would be effective for all ELLs because the effects varied depending on the difficulty level of the task (Jitendra, Cole, Hoppes, & Wilson, 1998) and students’ academic achievement level (Gersten et al., 2007). For example, if ELLs have difficulties in language learning and learning skills, a more intensive intervention beyond just direct instruction may be necessary. Self-regulation has been used in a variety of contexts and has been effective in increasing the effectiveness of interventions (Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007; Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001).

Self-regulation has been defined as the ability to monitor, assess, and regulate one’s own behavior (Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). Students who learn this skill demonstrate increased academic engagement behaviors and greater attention span during academic activities, thus improving their academic performance (Harris, Friedlander, Saddler, Frizzelle, & Graham, 2005; Harris, Graham, Reid, McElroy, & Hamby, 1994; Konrad, Fowler, Walker, Test, & Wood, 2007). Self-regulation is often incorporated into an instructional approach. Instructional approaches tend to yield stronger effects on academic achievement when used in combination with another instructional strategy such as self-regulation (Gajria et al., 2007; Gersten et al., 2001). In particular, direct instruction in conjunction with self-regulation has been shown to be more effective than the use of a single strategy in improving academic performance for elementary, middle, and high school students (Gersten et al., 2001). For example, Jitendra et al. (1998) investigated the effects of a main idea strategy delivered using the direct instruction and a self-monitoring strategy on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities (LD). For the main idea strategy, students were taught to identify key ideas from passages. The direct instruction format used in their study was as follows:

Each lesson was introduced specifying the lesson objective, attaining students’ attention with a focus statement, connecting new learning with prior learning, and reviewing difficult vocabulary. In addition, the training included preteaching skills, presenting main idea rule statements, modeling the strategy using examples, checking student understanding with an interactive questioning procedure, and providing corrective feedback and allowing sufficient opportunities for guided and independent practice of taught skills. (Jitendra et al., 1998, p. 389)

In addition to the main idea strategy, students were taught to monitor their use of the main idea strategy with a prompt card. Although the main idea strategy increased reading comprehension skills, the main idea with self-monitoring strategy yielded additional positive effects. Results of meta-analyses of intervention studies (Swanson, 1999) support the finding that academic achievement is augmented by the use of multicomponent instruction, such as combining strategies with cognitive instructional components (e.g., self-monitoring and meta-cognition) and direct instructional components (e.g., systematically organized teaching routine, direct teacher modeling, and advance organizers).

While many researchers have investigated the importance of content vocabulary acquisition and optimal methods of instruction for ELLs (Gersten et al., 1998; Gersten et al., 2007), few have addressed the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction strategies with ELLs with learning difficulties who might need an intensive intervention (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Rodriguez, Ringler, O’Neal, & Bunn, 2009). Furthermore, while the use of self-regulation strategies by students with LD has been shown to be critical in enhancing their academic performance (Gajria et al., 2007; Konrad et al., 2007), its use by ELLs has received little attention (LeClair, Doll, Osborn, & Jones, 2009). Because self-regulation has shown positive results with students with LD (Gajria et al., 2007), we hypothesized that the use of self-regulation by ELLs would result in an increase in content vocabulary learning. The purpose of this study, was to investigate the effects of self-regulation on the acquisition of science vocabulary by third-grade ELLs with learning difficulties. The following research questions guided this study:

Research Question 1: What is the effect of self-regulation on the acquisition of receptive word definitions of ELLs with learning difficulties?

Research Question 2: What is the effect of self-regulation on the acquisition of expressive oral word definitions of ELLs with learning difficulties?

Method

Participants

This study was implemented in an elementary school in Central Texas. The school had 617 students and received Title I support; more than half of the students came from low-income families. The school had one bilingual third-grade classroom with 21 students. Of those 21 students, 4 Spanish-speaking ELLs with learning difficulties (Erica, Christine, Andrew, and Brian) met all the inclusion criteria. First, students were identified as ELLs by the school district because they indicated that Spanish was their primary language on a home language survey and their score on the Texas Education Agency–approved oral-language proficiency test (Pre-Language Assessment Scales [Pre-LAS]) was Level 1. They were also deemed to be at the beginning stage of English language development according to the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS). Second, students had to be academically at risk based on district criteria (i.e., scoring below the benchmark [60%] on the Middle of Year District Exam on the Benchmark Assessments) and classroom teacher observation. Third, students scored below grade level on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–3rd ed. (PPVT-III; Dunn & Dunn, 1999). Fourth, students had scores between 20% and 25% accurate on a researcher-developed vocabulary knowledge test.

Six students met the first two criteria and were assessed with the PPVT-III (Dunn & Dunn, 1999) and a researcher-developed vocabulary knowledge test. Five students who scored below grade level on the PPVT-III and scored between 20% and 25% accurate on a researcher-developed vocabulary knowledge test were included in the study. However, one student was in a car accident during the experiment and withdrew; thus, four students completed the study. Table 1 provides students’ demographic characteristics and results on the selection measures (TELPAS, Middle of Year District Exam, PPVT-III, and researcher-developed vocabulary knowledge test).

Table 1.

Participants’ Demographics and Testing Information.

				PPVT-III
Student	Gender	Age	Ethnicity	Raw score	Age equivalency (year-month)	Vocabulary knowledge
Erica	Female	8	Latino	61	4-9	10 (24%)
Christine	Female	9	Latino	78	5-11	7 (17%)
Andrew	Male	8	Latino	80	6-1	9 (22%)
Brian	Male	9	Latino	85	6-5	10 (24%)

Note. PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–3rd ed.

Measures for participant selection

Four measures were used for the selection of participants: TELPAS, Middle of Year District Exam, PPVT-III, and researcher-developed vocabulary knowledge test. TELPAS is an assessment program designed to measure the English acquisition level of K-12 students who are identified as limited English proficient. It assesses four language domains—listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The Benchmark Assessments of the Middle of Year District Exam is a standards-based measure implemented by the school district to assess students’ academic performance across subjects and academic progress throughout the year (beginning of year, middle of year, and end of year). The PPVT-III is a norm-referenced standardized instrument designed to measure students’ receptive vocabulary. A multiple-choice test, the PPVT-III, requires students to identify which of four numbered pictures best identifies a word. The internal consistency reliability of the PPVT-III ranges from .92 to .98 with a median of .95. Its correlation with a measure of verbal ability is .91 (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–3rd ed. Verbal IQ [WISC-III VIQ]). The researcher-developed vocabulary knowledge test consisted of 41 word-definition matching questions encompassing three science topics (life science, Earth science, and human body). The words tested were randomly selected from a glossary of science terms in a third-grade science textbook. A professional review group reviewed the questions to establish the content validity of the test and to ensure that they accurately measured students’ vocabulary knowledge. The review group consisted of five persons: a professor in a special education department, a third-grade bilingual education teacher, a third-grade general education teacher, and two doctoral students with teaching experience.

Dependent Measures

The dependent variable in this study was the students’ acquisition of word definitions. Thus, students were assessed at the end of every teaching session using a test of receptive and expressive definitions. At the completion of the maintenance phase, we interviewed the students to investigate their perception of the utility of the intervention.

Receptive vocabulary-definition matching test

A vocabulary-definition matching test was used to measure the students’ receptive understanding, that is, the ability to recognize the definitions of the target words. Vocabulary-definition matching is one approach to assessing the identification of word meanings (Read, 2000); it has proven to be a valid and reliable measure of students’ vocabulary knowledge in social studies (Espin, Shin, & Busch, 2005). The test format required students to match the six target words with their definitions from paired lists of words and definitions. A tester first read each definition one at a time, then asked the student to connect the definition to the word it matched. The student received 1 point for each correct answer and 0 points for each incorrect answer. Possible scores on this test range from 0 to 6 per session.

Expressive oral vocabulary definitions test

The expressive definitions test was developed to measure students’ ability to recall and produce word definitions. The development of this test was guided by the expressive definitions measure used in a vocabulary intervention study by Coyne and his colleagues (2007). Our expressive definitions test required students to define the target word orally. The instructor read the target word aloud and asked the student to provide its meaning. For example, for the word prevent, the instructor asked the student the question, “What does the word prevent mean?” and wrote down the student’s answer. Then, the instructor asked the following question, “Can you tell me anything more about the word prevent?” and wrote down the student’s answer.

The student’s answer for each target word was given a score from 0 to 3 points. Scoring was based on the following criteria: (a) 0 points for an unrelated response or no response, (b) 1 point for minimal partial knowledge, (c) 2 points for an incomplete response that displayed substantial partial knowledge, and (d) 3 points for a totally correct answer (Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985). More specifically, students were given a score of 1 for minimal partial knowledge if they provided only one keyword in the definition. Students were given a score of 2, indicating partial knowledge, if they (a) provided a short meaning with two or more keywords, (b) gave an example that displayed substantial knowledge, or (c) explained the meaning but incompletely. As the participants were ELLs, grammar errors and synonyms were allowed. The score range was from 0 to 18 points per session. Two persons scored all of the answers to ensure reliability. The first scorer was the researcher, and the other was a graduate student majoring in chemistry. When there was a disagreement, the raters reviewed the criteria, identified the discrepancy, and reached a decision by consensus.

Percentage of interscorer agreement for the two dependent measures was calculated. Interscorer agreement on the receptive definitions test was 100% for all participants. Interscorer agreement for the expressive definitions measure was 91.8% across students. The agreement values for the four students were 92.3%, 100%, 93.3%, and 82.4%, each.

Student interviews

Students were individually interviewed about their perceptions of the usefulness of self-regulation, as well as their preferences and recommendations. The researcher developed an interview questionnaire based on the interview questions described by Harris et al. (2005). The interview questions were as follows: “What things did you like most in using the self-regulation form?” “What did you not like in using the self-regulation form?” “What things helped you most understand the meaning of the words?” “What things were the least helpful for you to understand the meaning of the words?” and “Imagine you become a teacher. If you are going to choose one of these things to teach your students, which one would you teach?”

Experimental Design

A multiple probe across subjects design was used to assess the effects of self-regulation on the word meaning acquisition of ELLs with learning difficulties. The purpose of this design was to verify a functional relationship between the intervention and subject’s progress through the replication of effects across subjects (R. D. Horner & Baer, 1978). This study consisted of four phases: (a) baseline, (b) training, (c) intervention, and (d) maintenance. The researcher taught and tested six target words during each session of the four phases. At least three baseline probes were administered prior to the introduction of the intervention. The intervention was introduced to each of the four students at different points in time. The student with the most stable performance and decreasing trend during the baseline phase was selected as the first student for intervention training. After two sessions of training, the intervention sessions continued until the student either attained at least three scores higher than the highest score at baseline and showed an increasing trend or improved performance with stability. We applied these criteria to outcomes on the expressive definitions test. As the score range of the expressive definitions test was from 0 to 18 points, it would be more sensitive to changes in students’ performance than the receptive definitions test. All students received at least four sessions during the intervention phase. The number of maintenance probes was limited because of the limited number of words. This pattern was replicated across all participants.

Procedure

Prior to the initiation of the study, we developed a wordlist from which target words were selected. A total of 17 sessions were developed for the study. During each 30- to 35-min session, six words were taught and then assessed. Approximately, 26 to 30 min was allocated to the lesson followed by 4 to 5 min for testing. The study lasted 15 weeks. The authors implemented all lessons using a script. One-on-one instruction was conducted in the classroom.

Target word selection

We generated a master wordlist consisting of 102 science words using the same procedure used by Espin and colleagues (2005) in developing a curriculum-based measurement (CBM) of social studies vocabulary (content area). The words selected satisfied three criteria. They were (a) at third-grade level, (b) information-oriented (e.g., words that imply information or concepts), and (c) important and useful (i.e., words that appear frequently in the specialized content areas and have a precise meaning such as gravity or orbit). The word selection process was verified by the professional review group. We excluded the words that had already been taught in class the school year this study took place, to decrease the impact of prior knowledge on results.

Baseline phase

During the baseline phase, a routine incorporating principles of direct instruction (Carnine et al., 1997) was used to teach vocabulary, and was immediately followed by a vocabulary test. The vocabulary routine included five activities: (a) activating prior knowledge of the target word, (b) providing a student-friendly definition of the word, (c) explaining the word’s meaning in context using examples and pictures, (d) providing activities for word acquisition (asking questions and creating a sentence) using the word, and (e) reviewing the word. In the true or false quiz, the instructor provided a sentence including the target word and asked the student to identify whether the target word was used correctly in the sentence. The sentence was made up of an extended definition (true) or a definition of another word similar to the target word (false). This activity enabled the student to clarify the meaning of the word. In the sentence-making activity, the student was asked to create a sentence using the target word, helping him to use the word in an appropriate context and internalize its meaning. Each target word was taught following the steps listed above. These activities were delivered applying principles of direct instruction. The instructor reminded students of the steps and purpose of the activities before starting a lesson (e.g., advance organizer). Those activities were conducted using instructor modeling, guided practice, and corrective feedback. The instruction routine was systematic and well organized.

Self-regulation: Training phase

In this phase, two training sessions on the use of self-regulation were conducted. The vocabulary instructional routine used in the training session was identical to that used during the baseline phase but self-regulation strategies (self-goal setting and self-monitoring) with instructor prompts were incorporated into the routine. Therefore, in the training phase, the vocabulary lesson contained the following steps, in order: (a) self-goal setting, (b) activating prior knowledge of the target word, (c) providing a student-friendly definition of the word, (d) explaining the word meaning using examples and pictures, (e) providing activities using the target word (questioning and creating sentences), and (f) reviewing the word with self-monitoring of performance. Immediately after each lesson, two daily tests were administered. The self-regulation sheet that students used is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Self-regulation sheet.

Self-goal setting

Self-goal setting enabled the student to decide on the maximum number of words that he or she wanted to learn during a lesson. At the beginning of the lesson, a student established a learning goal. For example, the instructor said, “Today we will study six words: adaptation, produce . . . prevent.” Then, the instructor guided the student to make a quantifiable goal. The question the student was guided to ask was “How many words can I learn today?” On the self-regulation sheet, this question was printed with six options (i.e., 1 word, 2 words, . . ., 6 words), and the student chose one. The student was encouraged to set a higher goal if the original one was low, such as one or two words.

Self-monitoring

Self-monitoring consisted of self-assessment and self-recording (Harris et al., 2005). In self-assessment, students evaluated whether they understood the meanings of target words during the word review. For example, the instructor said, “Do you understand the word? Highlight the words you understood.” To ensure that students understood the task, an explanation of the word understand that included both elaboration of its meaning in this context as well as practice with related information and examples was provided. When the student answered “Yes” to the instructor’s question, the student was allowed to highlight the word on the table using a highlighter pen. Once the self-assessment was complete, the student counted the number of highlighted words and circled the number (i.e., 1 word, 2 words, . . ., 6 words) on the self-monitoring table.

Self-regulation: Intervention phase

After two training sessions, the intervention phase began. During the intervention sessions, the direct vocabulary instruction and self-regulation activities were implemented in the same sequence. The difference between the training phase and intervention phase was that in the latter, self-regulation—including self-monitoring and self-goal setting—was implemented by the students without prompts from the instructor.

Maintenance phase

To examine any delayed effects of the intervention, the vocabulary instruction and testing were repeated approximately 2 weeks after the intervention phase. The direct vocabulary instruction routine and self-regulation strategies used in the maintenance probes were identical to those used in the intervention phase. The two definitions tests were administered immediately after each lesson, just as they had been during the baseline and intervention phase sessions.

Fidelity

To minimize disruption to the one-on-one sessions, they were all audio-recorded. A research assistant randomly selected at least one session from each phase (i.e., baseline, training, intervention, and maintenance phases) for each student and assessed fidelity of instruction using an observation checklist. Tables 2 and 3 are the checklists that include the critical elements of the instruction. The research assistant assessed 43% of the sessions, and the fidelity was 100%. The assistant also assessed whether students used self-regulation as intended, and the fidelity was 100%.

Table 2.

Checklist for Direct Vocabulary Instruction: Researcher.

	Word number
Instructional activities	1	2	3	4	5	6
Activating prior knowledge	1	1	1	1	1	1
Providing student-friendly definition	1	1	1	1	1	1
Explaining the word’s meaning in context using examples and pictures	1	1	1	1	1	1
Providing activities for word acquisition	1	1	1	1	1	1
Reviewing the word	1	1	1	1	1	1

Note. 0 = disagree (not present); 1 = agree (present).

Table 3.

Checklist for Self-Regulation: Students and Researcher.

Self-regulation	Evaluation
Self-goal setting	1
Self-monitoring	1

Note. 0 = disagree (not present); 1 = agree (present).

Data Analysis

We used visual inspection to analyze data from the receptive and expressive definitions tests. We focused on changes and trends in the level of student performance within each phase and across the phases of the study (R. H. Horner et al., 2005). More specifically, we examined the slope of the data to determine whether student performance was increasing, decreasing, or remaining flat across the phases. We also examined the variability of the data, that is, the extent to which the data varied from the overall mean within a phase. Moreover, the immediacy of effect from the end of one phase to the beginning of another was examined. Finally, we looked for any overlaps of data points (R. H. Horner et al., 2005).

Results

Results on Receptive Vocabulary Knowledge Test

We investigated student outcomes on receptive definitions tests to examine the effects of self-regulation on the acquisition of receptive word definitions of ELLs with learning difficulties. Figure 2 displays the scores for each student on the receptive definitions tests during baseline, training, intervention, and maintenance. The score range was from 0 to 6 points per session. Students performed low overall when receiving only direct vocabulary instruction during the baseline phase. Mean scores on the receptive definitions tests during this phase were 1.0, 1.5, 1.4, and 2.2 points out of 6 for Erica, Christine, Andrew, and Brian, respectively. Once trained on the use of self-regulation during the training phase, student performance immediately improved. Mean scores during the training phase were 4.5, 4.5, 3.5, and 4.0 points for Erica, Christine, Andrew, and Brian, respectively. After the training phase, the students used self-regulation without instructor prompts (intervention phase), creating a more challenging condition for two of the students. Mean scores dropped for two students and increased for the other two. Mean scores for the four students were 3.8, 3.8, 5.3, and 4.8 points out of 6, respectively. Although the performance of the students was not stable during the intervention phase, with the exception of Erica, their performance in all sessions during the intervention phase was higher than their performance on the three consecutive sessions in the baseline phase prior to training. Erica’s score in the initial session during the intervention phase was 1 point. However, her performance dramatically improved over the course of the sessions. In the maintenance phase, which occurred 2 weeks after the intervention, the students improved their performance with stable mean scores of 5.5, 5.3, 6.0, and 4.0 points out of 6 for Erica, Christine, Andrew, and Brian, respectively. All but one of the students scored 6, the highest score, in the last session. The students’ test results became high and stable over time. This finding demonstrates a positive effect of self-regulation on the acquisition of content-area word definitions.

Figure 2.

Scores on the receptive definitions tests.

Results on Expressive Vocabulary Knowledge Test

We investigated student outcomes on the expressive definitions tests to determine the effects of self-regulation on students’ ability to orally provide the meaning of a word. Figure 3 displays the scores for each student on the expressive definitions tests during the baseline, training, intervention, and maintenance phases. Scores ranged was 0 to 18 points per session. Visual inspection of student scores on the expressive definitions tests revealed that all of the students demonstrated enhanced performance after the introduction of self-regulation strategies. When the students received vocabulary instruction without any self-regulation strategy, mean scores on the expressive definitions tests in the baseline phase were 7.7, 5.8, 4.3, and 6.0 points out of 18 for Erica, Christine, Andrew, and Brian, respectively. Enhanced performance of the students after training in self-regulation indicated the clear effects of self-regulation on students’ achievement. Mean scores during training were 13.0, 10.0, 10.0, and 11.5 points out of 18 for Erica, Christine, Andrew, and Brian, respectively. Furthermore, their mean scores when using self-regulation without instructor prompts (intervention phase) were even higher than their scores during the training phase. Their scores after the initial session of the intervention phase were 18, 12, and 18 points for Erica, Andrew, and Brian, respectively, indicating immediate effects of self-regulation. Christine scored 8 points. The effect of self-regulation strategies was not evident in her scores until the third session. Her scores over the five sessions were 8, 7, 14, 16, and 15 points. Mean scores increased to 13.8, 12.0, 12.8, and 17.4 points for Erica, Christine, Andrew, and Brian, respectively. Two weeks after the intervention phase, their improved performance continued and was stable in the maintenance phase, indicating continued effects of self-regulation. Mean scores during maintenance were 14.8, 14.7, 13.5, and 18.0 points out of 18 for Erica, Christine, Andrew, and Brian, respectively. We observed clear level changes and trends in data on the expressive definitions tests, within each phase and across phases.

Figure 3.

Scores on the expressive definitions tests.

Student Interviews

Students had a positive perception of self-regulation. To the question, “What things did you not like?” all students except Andrew responded, “I do not know.” Andrew did not respond to the question. Between the self-goal setting and self-monitoring, Erica and Brian preferred self-goal setting; both indicated that it increased their academic confidence. Christine and Andrew preferred self-monitoring because it helped them check whether they understood the words exactly. As for the perception of efficacy, all students except Erica indicated that self-regulation was helpful, explaining that it helped them review the vocabulary learning process or memorize the word’s meaning. Despite their varied opinions, all of the students agreed that self-regulation is a useful strategy during vocabulary instruction.

Discussion

This study examined the effect of self-regulation in conjunction with direct vocabulary instruction on the acquisition of science word knowledge by third-grade ELLs with learning difficulties. This intervention was implemented with students one-on-one. Despite the high level of intensity, the students showed low levels of acquisition of word meanings when only direct vocabulary instruction was used. This finding is not consistent with previous research (August et al., 2005; Carlo et al., 2004; Gersten et al., 2007) that showed the effectiveness of direct vocabulary instruction, including word-learning activities (e.g., providing student-friendly definition or explaining word’s meaning in context using examples). In our study, the students’ average scores almost doubled after incorporating self-regulation with direct vocabulary instruction. One possible reason for these results is the participants’ characteristics. In previous studies, participants’ academic levels were not specified. In this study, however, we targeted ELLs with learning difficulties, assuming that this characteristic would affect their achievement above and beyond what might be expected from students with limited English proficiency alone. The fact that Andrew’s scores were low throughout the baseline phase demonstrated the possibility that he might be experiencing difficulty in addition to those resulting from the language barrier. His noticeable improvement after the intervention indicated that his low performance was likely due to poor learning skills. Our results support findings from previous studies that showed that direct instruction was not sufficient for increasing the word knowledge of students with LD (Jitendra et al., 1998). As students need more or less intensive instruction depending on their learning abilities, the ELLs with learning difficulties in this study needed a more intensive intervention.

Using multiple strategies in instruction is one method by which to create an intensive intervention (Gajria et al., 2007; Gersten et al., 2001). Self-regulation, in particular, has been strongly recommended as an additional strategy for intensifying the effect of an intervention (Gajria et al., 2007; Gersten et al., 2001; Reid, 1996). In our study, students obtained an average of 4.4 points out of 6 on the receptive definitions tests and an average of 14.3 points out of 18 on the expressive definitions tests when the intervention consisted of self-regulation in conjunction with direct instruction. Moreover, the performance of all students except Erica was close to 100% on the receptive definitions tests as well as the expressive definitions tests after three or four self-regulation sessions. Student outcomes during the intervention and maintenance phases proved that self-regulation was a critical component.

Research on the relationship between self-regulation and academic learning attributes the change in academic performance to self-efficacy (Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). Schunk and Ertmer (2000) stated that self-regulation increases self-efficacy and motivation in learning, ultimately, improving academic achievement. Many ELLs have low self-efficacy and a passive attitude despite their potential (Konrad et al., 2007; Rodriguez et al., 2009). ELLs can increase their academic performance when their self-efficacy is enhanced through the use of self-regulation (Gersten & Baker, 2003; Konrad et al., 2007).

In this study, self-regulation consisted of self-goal setting and self-monitoring. At the beginning of each lesson in the training, intervention, and maintenance phases of the study, the students established a specific and personal goal for the number of words they would acquire during each lesson. The students tended to set high goals (range = 4–6 words) for themselves. Brian and Erica selected six words, the highest possible, during all sessions. Brian’s scores immediately increased after introducing self-regulation and remained high until the final session. Erica also obtained high scores, but they varied relative to Brian’s, indicating that the relationship between the goal set and the test scores was not consistent with this population.

Students also monitored their performance during the review of the words prior to the daily test. When self-regulation was not provided, students’ review process consisted of reading the word definitions just a couple of times. Andrew even pretended to review the words while he actually played with a pencil. However, after self-regulation training, we noticed that all of the students were actively involved in the word review. These results showed that self-regulation influenced their academic behavior as well as academic performance.

Students expanded the function of self-monitoring by frequently using it on their own. We observed that Erica and Christine extended the use of self-monitoring beyond the review at the end of the lesson to the other activities, such as the games, sentence making, and review of the target words in the middle of the lesson. They monitored their understanding of each word during instruction as well as during review, beginning with the third session of the intervention phase. Furthermore, the students modified the word-review method after they began using self-monitoring. Erica and Brian highlighted all six words every session, because they wanted the highest score. When they did not understand a word, they reviewed the definition on the sheet until they could highlight all the words. Andrew used self-monitoring and connected it to self-goal setting. He compared his goal with his score in self-monitoring; he seemed to identify his potential and was motivated by this process. These findings support the results of previous studies on the positive effects of self-monitoring on academic achievement (Harris et al., 2005; Konrad et al., 2007; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). This research indicated that self-monitoring increased task involvement and the attention span of students, thereby improving their academic performance.

Implications for Practice

Gersten et al. (2007) noted that many teachers have struggled in teaching content vocabulary to ELLs. Some teachers gauge students’ knowledge inaccurately, thus using the wrong approach (Gersten et al., 2007). For example, teachers may provide vocabulary instruction focusing on language acquisition activities assuming that ELLs’ low performance is due to the language barrier. But some ELLs may also have learning difficulties. When a research-based approach (e.g., direct instruction) is not effective, teachers can intensify instruction by adding another intervention approach such as self-regulation. We suggest that teachers start with direct instruction when teaching content vocabulary to ELLs. If students perform well with direct instruction, teachers may use that strategy exclusively. However, if students show low or unstable performance, teachers need to intensify the intervention by adding another strategy. The results of this study demonstrate that self-regulation in conjunction with direct instruction leads to significant improvement in students’ word acquisition.

This approach is consistent with the tiered instruction component of the responsiveness to intervention (RTI) framework. In Tier 1, evidence-based practices are provided to prevent learning difficulties. Students who do not respond to Tier 1 move to the second tier in the RTI process. In Tier 2, teachers provide an intensified intervention by decreasing group size, increasing the duration of intervention, and incorporating self-regulation strategies (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). The practice used in the baseline phase of the present study (direct instruction) is applicable to Tier 1 and the practice used in the intervention phase of the present study (self-regulation in conjunction with direct instruction) is applicable to Tier 2.

Next, the results of this study indicate that the use of self-regulation with a self-regulation guidance sheet is beneficial. S. Lee, Palmer, and Wehmeyer (2009) noted that the importance of this feature was that it allowed students to implement self-regulation without teacher prompts. Thus, students do not have to be pulled out of the general education classroom to use self-regulation.

Harris et al. (1994) stated that instructional strategies should be appropriate to target behaviors and efficient to use not only for teachers but also for students. The goal of the present study was to identify instructional practices that effectively supported students in learning the meaning of science words. It appeared that the extent to which the students contributed to their learning activities was a critical factor in improving their performance. For this reason, we chose to use self-goal setting and self-monitoring as self-regulation strategies that enabled students to set quantifiable goals at the beginning of each lesson. In this way, the students became actively engaged in learning activities by monitoring their own performance. Furthermore, these self-regulation strategies were efficient for the students to use; they were simple and did not require additional time because they were incorporated into the existing instruction.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The limitations of this study identify areas for future research. First, the study included only four students with similar demographic and academic characteristics. Given that ELLs are a homogeneous group that varies along several dimensions such as socioeconomic status (SES), language, and ability, it should be replicated with a larger and more varied group of ELLs to validate the findings. For example, it may be helpful to evaluate the use of self-regulation with groups stratified by academic achievement (e.g., high-achieving ELLs, average-achieving ELLs, low-achieving ELLs, or ELLs receiving special education) to identify the group or groups for which self-regulation is most beneficial.

Second, only proximal measures of word meaning were administered. Although meaningful, it is important to determine whether students’ knowledge of the word meaning is enough to increase their reading comprehension of science text and general academic language. To examine the effects of the intervention on other skills, such as academic language or comprehension, other measures are needed.

Third, as self-regulation was used as a treatment package and incorporated self-goal setting and self-monitoring, we could not identify the differential effect of each strategy on the acquisition of word meaning. Further research into the unique results of individual strategies will provide teachers with useful ideas for efficiently using such strategies.

Summary

In summary, knowledge of content vocabulary (e.g., words in science or social studies) is an important factor in the academic achievement of ELLs. However, most ELLs with learning difficulties struggle to learn academic content words. This study found that self-regulation in conjunction with direct instruction led to significant improvement in the science word acquisition of ELLs with learning difficulties, as compared with direct instruction only. The results indicated that those with learning difficulties would need an intensive intervention, and that self-regulation could be a critical strategy in formulating such an intervention. Finally, although students reported different preferences for substrategies (self-goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-recording), they reported a positive perception of self-regulation overall.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

August

Carlo

Dressler

Snow

(2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50–57.

August

Shanahan

(2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Washington, DC: National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.

Bailey

Butler

LaFramenta

Ong

(2004). Towards the characterization of academic language in upper elementary science classrooms: Report of the center for the study of evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Beck

I. L.

McKeown

M. G.

Kucan

(2002). Bring words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford.

Carlo

M. S.

August

McLaughlin

Snow

C. E.

Dressler

Lippman

D. N.

White

C. E.

(2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–215.

Carnine

D. W.

Silbert

Kame’enui

E. J.

(1997). Direct instruction reading (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Chamot

A. U.

O’Malley

J. M.

(1994). Instructional approaches and teaching procedures. In Urbschat

K. S.

Pritchard

(Eds.), Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction for ESL students. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Chamot

A. U.

O’Malley

J. M.

(1996). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A model for linguistically diverse classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 96, 259–273.

Coyne

M. D.

McCoach

D. B.

Kapp

(2007). Vocabulary intervention for kindergarten students: Comparing extended instruction to embedded instruction and incidental exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 74–88.

10.

Crosson

A. C.

Lesaux

N. K.

(2010). Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of fluent reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers’ text-reading fluency in English. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 475–494.

11.

Dunn

(1999). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

12.

Espin

C. A.

Shin

Busch

T. W.

(2005). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Vocabulary matching as an indicator of progress in social studies learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 353–363.

13.

Field

Martin

Miller

Ward

Wehmeyer

(1998). A practical guide for teaching self-determination. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

14.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

(2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 14–20.

15.

Gajria

Jitendra

A. K.

Sood

Sacks

(2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.

16.

Gersten

Baker

(2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470.

17.

Gersten

Baker

(2003). English-language learners with learning disabilities. In Swanson

H. L.

Harris

K. R.

Graham

(Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 94–109). New York, NY: Guilford.

18.

Gersten

Baker

S. K.

Marks

S. U.

(1998). Teaching English-language learners with learning difficulties: Guiding principles and examples from research-based practice. Reston, VA: Council of Exceptional Children.

19.

Gersten

Baker

S. K.

Shanahan

Linan-Thompson

Collins

Scarcella

(2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE No. 2007-4011). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

20.

Gersten

Fuchs

L. S.

Williams

J. P.

Baker

(2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.

21.

Harris

K. R.

Friedlander

B. D.

Saddler

Frizzelle

Graham

(2005). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of academic performance: Effects among students with ADHD in the general education classroom. Journal of Special Education, 39, 145–156.

22.

Harris

K. R.

Graham

Reid

McElroy

Hamby

(1994). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of performance: Replication and cross-task comparison. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 121–139.

23.

Horner

R. D.

Baer

D. M.

(1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.

24.

Horner

R. H.

Carr

E. G.

Halle

McGee

Odom

Wolery

(2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Council for Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.

25.

Jitendra

A. K.

Cole

C. L.

Hoppes

M. K.

Wilson

(1998). Effects of a direct instruction main idea summarization program and self-monitoring on reading comprehension of middle school students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14, 379–396.

26.

Kelley

J. G.

Lesaux

N. K.

Kieffer

M. A.

Faller

S. E.

(2010). Effective academic vocabulary instruction in the urban middle school. Reading Teacher, 64, 5–14.

27.

Konrad

Fowler

C. H.

Walker

A. R.

Test

D. W.

Wood

W. M.

(2007). Effects of self-determination interventions on the academic skills of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 89–113.

28.

LeClair

Doll

Osborn

Jones

(2009). English language learners’ and non-English language learners’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 568–577.

29.

Lee

(2005). Science education and English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75, 491–530.

30.

Lee

Palmer

S. B.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2009). Goal setting and self-monitoring for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 139–145.

31.

Lesaux

N. K.

Kieffer

M. J.

Faller

S. E.

Kelley

J. G.

(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.

32.

Nagy

W. E.

Herman

P. A.

Anderson

R. C.

(1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233–253.

33.

Read

(2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Reid

(1996). Research in self-monitoring with students with learning disabilities: The present, the prospects, the pitfalls. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 317–331.

35.

Rodriguez

Ringler

O’Neal

Bunn

(2009). English language learners’ perceptions of school environment. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23, 513–526.

36.

Scarcella

(2003). Accelerating academic English: A focus on the English learner. Oakland: Regents of the University of California.

37.

Schunk

D. H.

Ertmer

P. A.

(2000). Self-regulation and academic learning. In Boekaerts

Pintrich

P. R.

Zeider

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631–649). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

38.

Shippen

M. E.

Houchins

D. E.

Steventon

Sartor

(2005). A comparison of two direct instruction reading programs for urban middle school students. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 175–182.

39.

Stevens

R. A.

Butler

F. A.

Castellon-Wellington

(2000). Academic language and content assessment: Measuring the progress of ELLs (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 552). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

40.

Swanson

H. L.

(1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504–532.