Efficacy of a Tier 2 supplemental root word vocabulary and decoding intervention with kindergarten Spanish-speaking English learners

Nelson, J. Ron, Vadasy, Patricia F., & Sanders, Elizabeth A. (2011). Efficacy of a Tier 2 supplemental root word vocabulary and decoding intervention with kindergarten Spanish-speaking English learners. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(2), 184-211.

This research study tested an intensive vocabulary intervention targeted at kindergarteners who were English Learners. The idea was to give these children an extra dose of explicit vocabulary instruction to help them catch up with their English speaking peers. Vocabulary knowledge is important because one needs to know the meanings of words one is trying to decode. For English-speaking early readers, this is usually no problem, as the words they decode in texts are instantly recognized by them as words they use in their daily lives at home and at school. English Learners not only have to learn to decode words; they also have to learn word meanings. The treatment described here was designed to help with that.

The treatment, called “Early Vocabulary Connections,” is interesting in several ways. It seems to be multimodal, with various kinds of input and output. It is fast-paced, and there are repeated exposures to words. There is only one target word focused on per day. Use of words in meaningful contexts is stressed. All of these attributes are consistent with what we know about effective vocabulary instruction. The control condition was more like the typical vocabulary instruction that occurs during storybook reading in many kindergarten classrooms. The findings did demonstrate significant treatment effects for the treatment group, though mainly for the actual target words rather than for general word knowledge. Although in many ways the treatment approach looks like a good intervention to try, I wonder if it was not this particular treatment that seemed to work, but rather the intensity of the approach. The treatment gets at the target words in so many ways and in rapid succession, and I wonder if it is that aspect which helped with effectiveness rather than the exact kinds of activities used. Would any other similarly intense sequence of explicit vocabulary approach work equally well?

An interesting aspect here was that the treatment was developed as predictable (scripted?) routines, which enabled non-certificated paraeducators to do the teaching. I am of two minds about this. I fully appreciate the roles of paraeducators in today’s busy, sometimes crowded classrooms, and do not want to denigrate the contributions these individuals make to children’s education. However, as a teacher educator, and a literacy educator, I also value what certificated teachers and specialists such as special reading teachers and ESOL teachers can provide for children. If the time spent in these treatments with the paraeducator was in addition to time with specialists, then I have no problem with it. If it was designed to take its place, however, I do have a problem with that. I know there is a shortage of good specialists in schools today, and if paraeducators are implementing quality interventions, that is certainly better than no intervention at all. However, I’d hate for budget-conscious administrators to jump to the conclusion that paraeducators can provide all the intervention needed, and that schools can therefore do without the expense of hiring certificated specialists. Early readers who are also English Learners need and deserve the best quality assistance than we can give them if they are to have a chance of closing the gap between themselves and their English-speaking peers.