View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Continuing CHAAOS: Vocabulary Intervention for Students with Disabilities in Eighth Grade Who Are Also English Learners

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Continuing CHAAOS: Vocabulary Intervention for Students with Disabilities in Eighth Grade Who Are Also English Learners
Language: English
Authors: O'Connor, Rollanda E., Sanchez, Victoria M., Jones, Brian, Suchilt, Luisana, Youkhanna, Valencia, Beach, Kristen D.
Source: Learning Disability Quarterly. May 2022 45(2):108-120.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2022
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R324A160019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 8
Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Students with Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, English Language Learners, Vocabulary Development, Intervention, Academic Language, Grade 8, Language Arts, Special Education, Special Education Teachers, Receptive Language, Expressive Language, Program Effectiveness, Reading Comprehension, Teaching Methods, Decoding (Reading)
Geographic Terms: California
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement
DOI: 10.1177/0731948720922818
ISSN: 0731-9487
2168-376X
Abstract: Few studies have considered academic vocabulary interventions for students who have learning disabilities (LD) and also are English learners (EL). This research explored the effects of the third year of the Creating Habits that Accelerate Academic Language of Students (CHAAOS) vocabulary intervention for eighth-grade students who received English Language Arts instruction (ELA) in special education classes. Over 70% of student participants had LD and over half were EL. Special education teachers delivered 12 weeks of intervention spaced across 7 months to 36 students. Researchers compared outcomes on receptive and expressive measures with 17 students in business-as-usual (BAU) special education ELA. Students receiving the CHAAOS intervention learned the 48 taught words better than students in BAU conditions, retained their knowledge of words 4 weeks following the close of the intervention, and ended the year with higher vocabulary scores on a standardized measure than students in BAU classes. Students who were EL performed similarly on receptive knowledge of words to students who were native English speakers. This study documents the effectiveness of explicit vocabulary routines for students who have LD and are also EL. [For the corresponding grantee submission, see ED605674.]
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1338139
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEAJXTJNtVm9wa-oavFpgQCAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMvPAqcxIWpdgbLcjgIBEICBmllsRgjeV18znq8oKPBdBBXk7IB-daL8GSktFjcnXmqCrPlSnlmUK_aEznNuOLOFMQD3h-zl3fSDuXUKrl3GHC4M_pbGwIHeBRdB9Acsozm334bhGG-rUQpvrYAYvcCkz6tiL8CBmMscBu46sCNPQhXxaynMDxrJN-iFeGCq3AVjwZaddmvBXAGAEJL2z0tsB2P_H7kwW2Th744=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0156466284;dyw01may.22;2022Apr26.02:20;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0156466284-1">Continuing CHAAOS: Vocabulary Intervention for Students With Disabilities in Eighth Grade Who Are Also English Learners </title> <p>Few studies have considered academic vocabulary interventions for students who have learning disabilities (LD) and also are English learners (EL). This research explored the effects of the third year of the Creating Habits that Accelerate Academic Language of Students (CHAAOS) vocabulary intervention for eighth-grade students who received English Language Arts instruction (ELA) in special education classes. Over 70% of student participants had LD and over half were EL. Special education teachers delivered 12 weeks of intervention spaced across 7 months to 36 students. Researchers compared outcomes on receptive and expressive measures with 17 students in business-as-usual (BAU) special education ELA. Students receiving the CHAAOS intervention learned the 48 taught words better than students in BAU conditions, retained their knowledge of words 4 weeks following the close of the intervention, and ended the year with higher vocabulary scores on a standardized measure than students in BAU classes. Students who were EL performed similarly on receptive knowledge of words to students who were native English speakers. This study documents the effectiveness of explicit vocabulary routines for students who have LD and are also EL.</p> <p>Keywords: learning disabilities; English learners; vocabulary; intervention; CHAAOS; middle school</p> <p>As students approach their adolescent years, understanding meanings of academic words takes on increasingly large proportions of variance in reading comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref1">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref3">23</reflink>]). Students who struggle with academic language and reading comprehension have difficulty succeeding in content area courses in secondary grades ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]). Unfortunately, learning new vocabulary—especially the academic vocabulary of books and content areas—is more difficult than learning to decode words. Unlike decoding skills, which have limited and specific sets of relations and rules, vocabulary words used in texts continue to expand in number and complexity throughout schooling ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref5">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Learning meanings of new words is especially challenging when reading ability is poor because most words are learned through repeated exposure in text ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref6">41</reflink>]), and poor readers read less text than their average reader peers ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref8">25</reflink>]). Students with learning disabilities (LD) often have extraordinary difficulty with the vocabulary words in texts because these academic words are not commonly used in conversation and instead appear in texts these students may be unable to read independently. Students who are English learners (EL) have these challenges also, coupled with lack of exposure to academic language in English at home ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref9">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref10">32</reflink>]), which makes language gaps difficult to fill as the complexity of language used in school increases ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref11">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>For students who have LD and may also be EL, improving understanding of academic language can be arduous due to the sheer volume of word meanings to learn. Differences in language comprehension between students with average and below-grade level vocabulary can be huge by the time students reach middle school regardless of first language ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>]). Research consistently shows students who struggle with reading acquisition and vocabulary can learn meanings of new words in the short term on researcher-developed measures ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref13">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref14">35</reflink>]). A few studies in middle school have also documented retention of taught words over a few weeks or months ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref16">43</reflink>]). Nevertheless, for students with LD, it remains rare to demonstrate generalized improvement in academic vocabulary and comprehension on standardized reading measures ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref17">56</reflink>]). The present study reports findings from the third year of a 3-year project in which academic vocabulary was taught to students with LD, including students who were EL, in special education English Language Arts (ELA) classes in middle school.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-2">The Role of Vocabulary in Reading Comprehension</hd> <p>Teaching vocabulary effectively to poor readers in middle school is no small challenge, because poor readers are hampered by serious delays in reading words, understanding word meanings, and comprehension compared with peers, who mastered the reading basics years before ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref18">54</reflink>]). We focus on academic vocabulary because of its strong theoretical role in comprehension and potential instructional accessibility through its emphasis on oral language, as well as on reading. Most theories of comprehension include vocabulary as an essential component. As examples, the much-studied Simple View ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref19">18</reflink>]) posits reading comprehension as a function of the ability to read words (i.e., decoding and recognizing words) and language comprehension (i.e., vocabulary and language syntax). A recent study by [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref20">22</reflink>] found that these two factors accounted for 99% of reading comprehension among the 9-year-old participants. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref21">33</reflink>] acknowledged the importance of vocabulary but complicated the act of comprehending language and text with the process of using words and syntax to generate a mental representation of meanings of phrases, sentences, and paragraphs as the listener or reader moves through text. His construction-integration model of comprehension emphasizes actions of the reader in constructing meaning. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref22">47</reflink>] accepted both of these views of reading comprehension but focused on depth of word knowledge through lexical representation of words, including ways in which word meanings incorporate their graphical and semantic connotations, as well as linkages to contexts and usage. In all of these theoretical models, understanding word meanings plays a fundamental role in reading comprehension.</p> <p>The essential nature of word meaning in comprehension for older students is exemplified in studies such as those by [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref23">11</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>], who examined the effects of vocabulary on reading comprehension of students in ninth grade and beyond and found vocabulary to be a significant direct and indirect predictor of comprehension. More recently, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>] studied multiple predictors of reading comprehension among middle to high school students using a latent variable structural equation model. Both supporting and extending the earlier work of Cromley and Azevedo, results indicated that the effect of the latent construct of vocabulary was related significantly to reading comprehension across Grades 7 to 12 (β =.35–.51). Similarly, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>] assessed the relationship between verbal ability and passage comprehension using multilevel growth models. Their analysis indicated that vocabulary accounted for unique variance in passage comprehension (β =.13). These findings reinforce treating vocabulary as a relevant instructional target for students in middle school.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-3">Vocabulary Instruction</hd> <p>Several research reviews have identified key practices associated with strong intervention effects for students who have LD ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref27">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref28">54</reflink>]) and for students who are EL ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref30">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref31">55</reflink>]). Among these practices, explicit instruction is championed extensively (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref33">40</reflink>]). Hughes et al. characterize explicit instruction as "unambiguous, structured, systematic, and scaffolded" (p. 140). When compared with other approaches to teaching vocabulary, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>] found explicit instruction to be more effective; however, these studies had only a few instructional sessions, so long-term effects were not evaluated.</p> <p>Explicit vocabulary instruction incorporates a purpose and rationale for learning vocabulary, clear explanations and modeling, guided practice with feedback, ample practice opportunities, and active participation from students ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>]). Academic words and definitions are taught directly to students, examples and nonexamples are incorporated for practice, multiple exposures and practice opportunities are provided, and the academic words are used within exercises that require meaningful interaction with academic words.</p> <p>Several studies have demonstrated the success of explicit vocabulary instruction in middle school for students in general education classes. For example, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref37">38</reflink>] developed the Academic Language Instruction for All Students (ALIAS) vocabulary intervention for ELA classrooms that were low-performing and had high numbers of EL students. Results indicated that intervention students improved their knowledge of taught words and the intervention benefited both EL and native English speakers (NES). In addition, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref38">39</reflink>] studied the effects of a sixth- and seventh-grade vocabulary intervention, Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters (RAVE), for middle school students. Across both years of the study, RAVE students demonstrated growth on their knowledge of taught words when compared with control students; however, these studies did not include students with disabilities.</p> <p>Peer interaction and dialogue is another of the practices common to researched recommendations for both EL and students with LD ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref40">55</reflink>]). The early research of [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>] demonstrated that students with LD placed in interactive vocabulary learning conditions scored significantly higher on comprehension than their peers in a definition-only condition. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref42">36</reflink>] found that classroom discussion quality predicted vocabulary outcomes in particular for poor readers, and rich discussions have been found useful for students with disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]) and other poor readers ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref45">51</reflink>]). Interestingly, recommendations from research for improving vocabulary of students who are EL and for students with disabilities are remarkably similar ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref46">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref47">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>The combination of explicit instruction and peer interactions for practice has been used extensively in vocabulary studies in general education environments (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref48">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref49">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref50">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref51">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref52">39</reflink>]). Some of these general education studies have included students who have LD ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref54">36</reflink>]) or who are EL ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref56">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref57">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref58">55</reflink>]). Studies that focus on students with disabilities who may also be EL are rare, and studies that do include them rarely report results for these groups separately (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref59">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Other studies that included students with LD or who were EL have focused on content area words in social studies (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref60">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref61">53</reflink>]) or science ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref64">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref65">52</reflink>]). Because the goal of those studies was to improve content area learning, the interventions included many aspects of reading comprehension in addition to vocabulary, and so vocabulary effects could not be isolated to vocabulary instruction specifically.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref66">55</reflink>] synthesized outcomes for academic language instruction for students who were EL; however, if studies included more than 30% of students eligible for special education, they were excluded in the analysis. Nevertheless, Truckenmiller et al. identified similar attributes to effective instructional models as found in studies of special education: a small set of words not used commonly in everyday speech, multiple exposures across relevant contexts, multimodal methods such as graphics displaying word meanings, and discussion with peers and teachers, recommendations echoed by [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref67">13</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref68">35</reflink>]. Unfortunately, these reviews revealed few impacts of the instruction on standardized measures, replicating findings of [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref69">27</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref70">51</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-4">Context for the Current Study</hd> <p>Few studies of academic vocabulary instruction have been conducted in middle school special education settings that include students who have LD and may also be EL, which is concerning due to increasing numbers of students with LD who are also EL in schools ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref71">50</reflink>]). The current study explores the effects of the third year of the Creating Habits that Accelerate Academic Language of Students (CHAAOS) vocabulary intervention taught by special education teachers to students with disabilities in their intact ELA classes. Special education teachers of ELA were assigned randomly to either CHAAOS or business-as-usual (BAU) conditions in Year 1 of the study and were trained to implement 15 min of explicit vocabulary intervention with their sixth-grade students. Teachers taught meanings of 48 grade-appropriate academic words ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref72">43</reflink>]). In seventh grade, with a mix of new and returning students and teachers, students were taught an additional 48 academic words ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref73">45</reflink>]). In eighth grade, a new set of 48 academic words were taught and these results are reported here. In Years 1 and 2, students in CHAAOS classes learned and maintained the age-appropriate words significantly better than those in BAU conditions ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref74">43</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref75">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our research questions were as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Research Question 1: </bold> What are the effects of the eighth-grade CHAAOS intervention on learning the taught vocabulary?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Research Question 2: </bold> What are the effects of the eighth-grade CHAAOS intervention on using the taught vocabulary in contexts?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Research Question 3: </bold> What are the effects of the eighth-grade CHAAOS intervention on maintaining knowledge of taught vocabulary?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Research Question 4: </bold> What are the effects of the eighth-grade CHAAOS intervention on standardized measures of vocabulary and comprehension?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Research Question 5: </bold> How does first language affect response to the CHAAOS intervention?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0156466284-5">Method</hd> <p>The third year of CHAAOS instruction was designed for eighth graders with disabilities who may also be EL. As in many studies of academic language instruction, we used [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref76">10</reflink>] Academic Word List as our first resource; however, we also cross-referenced the words we selected with words recommended in [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref77">4</reflink>]<emph>Words Worth Teaching</emph>, sixth- through eighth-grade academic word lists from the Common Core State Standards ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref78">42</reflink>]), and the school district's list of words to teach in eighth-grade ELA. From these resources, we selected 48 words for instruction during eighth grade. These 48 academic words were taught across three 4-week cycles during the school year with each cycle of instruction including 16 words.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-6">Participating Teachers and Students</hd> <p>Our study took place in one southern California school district that enrolled approximately 20,000 students. The district had a high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged students (81%) and EL (36%) enrolled. We worked with three sixth- through eighth-grade middle schools with enrollments that ranged from 973 to 1,404 students and these schools participated in all 3 years.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-7">Teachers</hd> <p>Four eighth-grade special education teachers who had taught students with disabilities for 4 to 29 years participated in this study. Their assignment to condition was based on Year 1, in which the sixth-grade teacher in each of the three schools was assigned randomly to implement CHAAOS or serve as a BAU class teacher, in essence resulting in random assignment of schools to condition. Personnel in the BAU school were invited to use CHAAOS materials in subsequent years. In Years 2 and 3, schools maintained their assignments to condition with the participating grade.</p> <p>One of the CHAAOS schools added an additional special education teacher in seventh and eighth grades. Thus, three teachers taught in the CHAAOS condition in the current study. The fourth teacher taught in the BAU condition in eighth grade (the current study); however, he taught in the CHAAOS condition with his sixth- and seventh-grade classes, which were not part of the current study. Because each grade had its own set of materials, we found no crossover between his sixth- and seventh-grade CHAAOS and eighth-grade BAU classes. Two additional teachers had only one or two students who had been in the BAU condition in previous years and maintained their BAU status as eighth graders.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-8">Students</hd> <p>As this was a multiyear project, it is helpful to know the historical participation of the 53 eighth graders who participated in this third year of the project (CHAAOS, <emph>n</emph> = 36; BAU, <emph>n</emph> = 17). Of our 36 CHAAOS students, eight began CHAAOS intervention in sixth grade, 20 started intervention in seventh grade, and eight began intervention in eighth grade. Of the 17 BAU students in Year 3, 12 were in the BAU class in sixth grade, one joined the BAU in seventh grade, and four joined the BAU in eighth grade. Due to attrition and new students enrolling in the study, we focus on the eighth-grade cohort rather than cumulative effects of intervention.</p> <p>All students received special education services and were eligible based on the following designations: Specific Learning Disability (76%), Other Health Impairment (9%), Autism Spectrum Disorder (8%), Speech/Language Impairment (4%), and Emotional Disturbance (2%). Most students were EL (72%), with the primary language indicated as Spanish in school records. Demographic data are shown in Table 1.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Demographic Data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Variable</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Business as usual(<italic>n</italic> = 17)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Treatment(<italic>n</italic> = 36)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Total(<italic>n</italic> = 53)</th></tr><tr><th align="center">%</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">%</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">%</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7">Gender</td></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td>58.8</td><td>10</td><td>77.8</td><td>28</td><td>71.7</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>41.2</td><td>7</td><td>22.2</td><td>8</td><td>28.3</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Special education classification</td></tr><tr><td> SLD</td><td>70.6</td><td>12</td><td>80.6</td><td>29</td><td>77.4</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td> Autism</td><td>5.9</td><td>1</td><td>8.3</td><td>3</td><td>7.5</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td> OHI</td><td>17.6</td><td>3</td><td>5.6</td><td>2</td><td>9.4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td> SLI</td><td>5.9</td><td>1</td><td>2.8</td><td>1</td><td>3.8</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td> ED</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2.8</td><td>1</td><td>1.9</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Ethnicity</td></tr><tr><td> Hispanic</td><td>100</td><td>17</td><td>77.8</td><td>28</td><td>84.9</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td> Caucasian</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>16.7</td><td>6</td><td>11.3</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td> African American</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5.6</td><td>2</td><td>3.8</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td> Missing</td><td>4.0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1.9</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Language preference</td></tr><tr><td> Spanish</td><td>88.2</td><td>15</td><td>63.9</td><td>23</td><td>71.7</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td> English</td><td>11.8</td><td>2</td><td>36.1</td><td>13</td><td>28.3</td><td>15</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> ED = Emotional Disturbance; OHI = Other Health Impairment; SLD = Specific Learning Disability; SLI = Speech/Language Impairment.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-9">CHAAOS Intervention</hd> <p>CHAAOS eighth-grade words were clustered into three cycles. Each cycle included 16 lessons that were taught over 4 weeks. Teachers were asked to teach four lessons per week for approximately 15 min each. The core instructional components of CHAAOS lessons were based on explicit instruction and included the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Introduction of four new academic words per week;</item> <p></p> <item> Explicit instruction using student-friendly definitions;</item> <p></p> <item> Pairing definitions with a student-friendly context to illustrate meaning;</item> <p></p> <item> Follow-up vocabulary activities involving teacher guided, peer practice, and independent practice of words in context using scenarios, photographs, and graphic organizers;</item> <p></p> <item> Multiple practice opportunities with immediate feedback.</item> </ulist> <p>To encourage peer interaction, we used visual depictions of meanings in everyday contexts through drawings, photographs, and graphic organizers discussed with students as teachers displayed PowerPoint slides. Teachers followed whole-group instruction with partner and small-group activities that encouraged students' use of the words in discussion and brief writing activities. Although instruction was primarily oral, words were also shown in print on the projected slides, on word cards used in peer practice, and on writing activities in student workbooks developed for the study. In these ways, CHAAOS integrated phonemic and graphemic forms of words with common uses for the words and practice pronouncing and using the words with teachers and peers.</p> <p>Teachers in each CHAAOS classroom received instructional materials that included a teacher manual, 48 PowerPoint lessons divided into three cycles, student notebooks, and supplemental activities. The teacher manual was a hard copy of all lessons with directions and suggested scripts to use while teaching. The PowerPoint lessons were designed to be used with the entire class while providing instruction. The student notebooks mirrored the PowerPoint lessons to allow students to follow along and write responses. Supplemental activities were prepared for teachers and included individual flashcards sets of the academic words for students to use in class and a class review game of either BINGO or Jeopardy to be used as the culminating activity.</p> <p>To ease teacher implementation, each week followed a predictable routine for introducing and contextualizing the four new words per week across the three cycles. On Mondays, teachers introduced the four new words and discussed meanings with students. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays, teachers reviewed all four words and focused instruction and peer activities on two of the four words. Instruction on Thursdays integrated the four words with previously taught words with peer activity for practice and expansion of contexts. A sample instructional week of PowerPoint slides is shown in Supplemental Appendix A. All of these materials are available to download and print for free at https://gsoe.education.ucr.edu/CHAAOS/index.php</p> <p>Teachers and researchers met at the start of the eighth-grade school year to review procedures and participants. Cycle 1 instruction was provided in August and September, Cycle 2 instruction in October and November, and Cycle 3 instruction in January and February. During the instructional cycles, the research team completed observations in the classrooms to document fidelity to the CHAAOS activities. During remaining class time in the ELA classes, one of the CHAAOS teachers used the same reading programs used in the BAU class, described below. The other two CHAAOS teachers focused primarily on writing and editing skills during class time not spent on CHAAOS; teachers in both conditions used Newsela on Fridays.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-10">Instruction in the BAU Class</hd> <p>The BAU teacher used two reading programs in his class. Four days per week, he implemented Corrective Reading, Decoding C ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref79">15</reflink>]). Lessons began with decoding new words in the day's reading, review of previously taught words, and introducing one or two new vocabulary words. The majority of class time was spent reading aloud the day's story individually or chorally, which has controlled text to practice decoding patterns introduced sequentially. The teacher inserted questions at prescribed times and discussed answers when varied responses were appropriate. The last 5 min students paired up for fluency practice, starting from the beginning of the day's story.</p> <p>On Fridays, the teacher reported using Newsela, a web-based program used by all four teachers with adjustable reading levels implemented through Chrome Books. This activity was not observed in the BAU; however, CHAAOS classes also used this program weekly.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-11">Observations in Classes</hd> <p>Our observation tool used a 1- to 3-point rating for the four core activities within the lesson: discussing words and definitions, providing multiple contexts, practice/peer activities, and providing student support (see Supplemental Appendix B). Each main activity was subdivided into further components. For example, discussing words and definitions included how the teacher introduced and reviewed words and whether the teacher provided repetitions of the words and opportunities for students to respond to questions and offer examples. Overall, there were 12 areas where teachers could receive a 1 to 3 rating. Several of the observation tool features could be common across conditions, including minutes spent on vocabulary instruction, modeling, guided practice, independent practice, scaffolding student responses, and corrective feedback.</p> <p>Interrater reliability during observations was established in Year 1 at 92% across eight joint observations (see [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref80">43</reflink>]). In Year 2, interrater reliability was established between two raters again with 92% agreement on eight observations ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref81">45</reflink>]). Interrater reliability in Year 3 found 91% agreement over three observations. In CHAAOS classes, three observations were conducted in Cycle 1 for each teacher and two in Cycles 2 and 3, for a total of seven observations per teacher. In the BAU class, two observations were conducted per cycle for a total of six observations, which are described in the "Results" section.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-12">Measures</hd> <p>A set of experimenter-designed measures of vocabulary were administered pre- and post-instructional cycle on taught words. The first assessed word knowledge through a paper-and-pencil multiple-choice assessment and an individual oral assessment. The second involved how well students were able to use words in context, measured through a paper-and-pencil assessment and an individual oral assessment. Following these cycle-specific tests, measures of maintenance of taught words and standardized measures of reading and vocabulary were collected 4 weeks after the conclusion of the intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-13">Word knowledge</hd> <p>We assessed word knowledge through an experimenter-designed 16-item multiple-choice test of taught words that was given pre- and post-cycle. Students were asked to circle the correct definition for the taught word among four multiple-choice options. Test–retest reliability ranged from.88 to.96 across cycles. Correlation coefficients between the multiple-choice measure and the Comprehensive Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary Test (CREVT) were significant (<emph>r</emph> =.522, <emph>p</emph> =.001).</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-14">Using words in context</hd> <p>We assessed how students used vocabulary words in context with an experimenter-designed eight-item paper-and-pencil measure that required students to use the taught vocabulary words at the sentence and passage level, pre- and post-instruction at each cycle. Test–retest reliability ranged from.88 to.96 across cycles. Estimates of validity were obtained for the usage measures with the CREVT (<emph>r</emph> =.47, <emph>p</emph> =.003) and Woodcock–Johnson (WJ) Passage Comprehension (<emph>r</emph> =.39, <emph>p</emph> =.014).</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-15">Expressive vocabulary</hd> <p>To assess how well students could express their knowledge of vocabulary words, students were administered individually an expressive test where students were asked to generate a definition and sentence for the taught vocabulary words. Similar to others ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref82">7</reflink>]), we developed a 3-point scale (0 = <emph>incorrect</emph>, 1 = <emph>partially correct</emph>, 2 = <emph>correct</emph>) to describe the quality of student-generated definitions and sentences for taught words. Estimates of validity were obtained for expressive vocabulary scores with the CREVT (<emph>r</emph> =.52, <emph>p</emph> =.000) and the WJ Passage Comprehension (<emph>r</emph> =.46, <emph>p</emph> =.000).</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-16">Maintenance</hd> <p>The three cycles of instruction were taught between August and February. Similar to the studies of CHAAOS in the sixth and seventh grades, we were interested in whether CHAAOS students maintained knowledge of the eighth-grade words they had learned 4 weeks after the conclusion of the intervention. To test maintenance of vocabulary learning, we developed an 18-word vocabulary measure that drew six words from each of the three cycles. We selected the six words on which students scored lowest at pretest and highest on the immediate posttest, thus indicating words on which students showed the strongest growth in word knowledge for that cycle. Correlation coefficients between the maintenance measure and the three multiple-choice measures at each cycle were significant (<emph>r</emph> =.82,.87,.85; <emph>p</emph> =.001). In addition, the maintenance measure correlated significantly with the CREVT (<emph>r</emph> =.31, <emph>p</emph> =.020) and WJ Passage Comprehension (<emph>r</emph> =.362, <emph>p</emph> =.006).</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-17">CREVT</hd> <p>The CREVT is an individually administered standardized measure of vocabulary and was administered to participants during the spring of their eighth-grade school year ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref83">58</reflink>]). Receptive vocabulary requires students to point to a picture that represents what the examiner says. Expressive vocabulary is measured by asking students to define a word. Internal consistency across subtests is high, with coefficient alphas of.85 to.96. The general vocabulary score, which combines results from the receptive and expressive scores, is reported here. None of the words on this measure were taught in CHAAOS lessons. This measure was also used at the beginning and end of sixth grade, and end of seventh grade, and these scores were reported in earlier papers ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref84">43</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-18">Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement III (WJ-III)</hd> <p>The reading comprehension subtest of the WJ-III was administered individually to students during the spring of eighth grade ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref85">59</reflink>]). Passage Comprehension was measured by asking students to independently read short sentences that increase in difficulty that have a missing word; students are asked to supply the missing word. As with the CREVT, the WJ-III was also administered when students were in sixth and seventh grades, reported previously ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref86">45</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-19">Results</hd> <p>Prior to analyzing data to answer our research questions, we determined the fidelity of implementation for the intervention. Next, we analyzed the effects of the vocabulary intervention on knowledge of taught words. Then, we compared performance of CHAAOS and BAU students on how well they could use the taught words in the context for each cycle. Next, we analyzed scores on the maintenance test to determine whether there was evidence of maintaining knowledge of words over time. Next, we were interested in whether standardized scores changed for students. Finally, we compared performance of EL in the intervention with NES who also received intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-20">Fidelity of Implementation</hd> <p>The three CHAAOS teachers were consistent in their implementation and their overall fidelity was 88% (i.e., 2.64 of 3 points possible per item). In at least half of our observations, teachers varied the types of responses from students as directed in the manual, such as whole class, choral, individual, or group practice. Teachers often drew on student experiences to support their understanding of the words and provided additional explanations, examples, and sentences. Teachers were consistent with providing feedback, compliments, and positive reinforcement. When scaffolding was required, teachers provided individual and group support and discussion to make sure students understood the sentences and images that were presented. In addition, teachers often rephrased a student response to shape the student's words appropriately and prompted students with guided questions. On average, teachers implemented CHAAOS for 19 min per observation.</p> <p>We observed in the BAU class for about 20 min each visit, usually in the first part of class in which the teacher provided direct instruction on decoding, guided student practice, introduced one or two new vocabulary words, and began directing reading of the day's story. Across the six observations, vocabulary instruction ranged from 1 to 4.6 min and averaged 2.1 min. Some of the elements of explicit vocabulary instruction were present; the teacher provided a user-friendly definition, encouraged students to repeat the definition, and, when the word was encountered in text, asked students to provide the definition again. Unlike CHAAOS classes, no additional contexts for word usage were observed, nor did students practice the definitions with peers or generate usage for the taught words.</p> <p>On the items related to student support, the BAU teacher did not differ from CHAAOS teachers, averaging scores of 90% (2.71 of 3). He praised student effort enthusiastically, pointed out parts of words that were partially correct, scaffolded student responses by asking direct questions to guide students toward inferences, and rephrased students' answers. The CHAAOS word list had been provided to all participating teachers and their administrators, including those in the BAU, and several of the CHAAOS words were included in the eighth-grade district vocabulary list; however, we did not observe any of the CHAAOS words being taught in the BAU class.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-21">Analytic Decisions</hd> <p>We were interested in whether group differences would be found in performance on multiple measures of vocabulary during instructional Cycles 1 through 3. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) allowed us to examine group differences on several dependent variables simultaneously while also controlling for Type I error and taking into account the interrelations among variables ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref87">49</reflink>]). Considering our pretest measures were administered immediately prior to instruction and correlated significantly with our posttest measures (<emph>r</emph> =.346–.366, <emph>p</emph> =.004–.007), we decided to use pretest scores as covariates.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-22">Word Knowledge and Usage Measures</hd> <p>MANCOVA was conducted for the multiple-choice and usage measures using pretest scores as covariates. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. Treatment had a significant effect on vocabulary word knowledge and usage, Λ = 0.305, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref88">6</reflink>, 40) = 15.001, <emph>p</emph> =.000, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.692. Pillai's Trace, Hotelling's, and Roy's tests all converged with Wilks's Lambda yielding significant results. Examination of ANCOVA results revealed significant effects for vocabulary word knowledge at all cycles, Cycle 1: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref89">1</reflink>, 45) = 71.550, <emph>p</emph> =.000, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.614; Cycle 2: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>, 45) = 79.628, <emph>p</emph> =.000, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.639; and Cycle 3: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>, 45) = 32.195, <emph>p</emph> =.000, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.417. ANCOVA results for the vocabulary usage measures were mixed. The results were not significant at Cycle 1, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>, 45) = 2.854, <emph>p</emph> =.098, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.060. However, results were significant at Cycles 2 and 3, Cycle 2: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>, 45) = 5.918, <emph>p</emph> =.019, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.116; and Cycle 3: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>, 45) = 4.490, <emph>p</emph> =.040, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.091.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Scores on Taught Vocabulary by Treatment Condition.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Measure</th><th align="center" colspan="3">Business as usual (<italic>n</italic> = 17)</th><th align="center" colspan="3">Treatment (<italic>n</italic> = 36)</th></tr><tr><th align="center" colspan="2">Pretest</th><th align="center">Posttest</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Pretest</th><th align="center">Posttest</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7">Word knowledge</td></tr><tr><td> Cycle 1 multiple choice</td><td colspan="2">6.56 (2.71)</td><td>6.87 (2.39)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td colspan="2">8.09 (3.04)</td><td>14.37 (2.83)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td> Cycle 2 multiple choice</td><td colspan="2">6.38 (1.89)</td><td>6.44 (1.50)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td colspan="2">7.69 (3.22)</td><td>14.18 (2.92)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td> Cycle 3 multiple choice</td><td colspan="2">6.69 (2.09)</td><td>7.31 (2.94)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td colspan="2">7.23 (2.43)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td>13.91 (3.17)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td> Cycle 1 student definitions</td><td colspan="2">2.63 (3.10)</td><td>4.00 (4.68)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td colspan="2">5.26 (3.82)</td><td>15.50 (8.90)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td> Cycle 2 student definitions</td><td colspan="2">2.13 (2.73)</td><td>3.56 (2.94)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td colspan="2">2.68 (2.59)</td><td>11.21 (7.40)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td> Cycle 3 student definitions</td><td colspan="2">0.56 (1.21)</td><td>1.63 (3.14)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td colspan="2">1.21 (1.79)</td><td>8.06 (6.87)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Using words in context</td></tr><tr><td> Cycle 1 usage</td><td colspan="2">3.81 (1.52)</td><td>3.93 (1.58)</td><td colspan="2">3.86 (1.77)</td><td>5.51 (2.09)</td></tr><tr><td> Cycle 2 usage</td><td colspan="2">2.81 (1.83)</td><td>3.38 (1.71)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td colspan="2">3.97 (2.20)</td><td>5.09 (2.11)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td> Cycle 3 usage</td><td colspan="2">3.13 (1.41)</td><td>3.50 (1.51)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td colspan="2">4.20 (1.49)</td><td>5.09 (1.72)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td> Cycle 1 student sentences</td><td colspan="2">3.69 (3.42)</td><td>4.67 (5.19)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td colspan="2">5.47 (3.86)</td><td>12.29 (8.23)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td> Cycle 2 student sentences</td><td colspan="2">2.69 (3.20)</td><td>4.81 (4.72)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td colspan="2">3.56 (2.80)</td><td>10.12 (6.71)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td> Cycle 3 student sentences</td><td colspan="2">0.75 (1.13)</td><td>2.19 (2.51)</td><td colspan="2">1.44 (1.73)</td><td>6.76 (5.55)</td></tr><tr><td>Maintenance</td><td>Pre</td><td>Post</td><td>Follow-up</td><td>Pre</td><td>Post</td><td>Follow-up</td></tr><tr><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>6.00</td><td>7.50<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td>7.23<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td>5.81</td><td>16.38<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td>13.97<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>1.89</td><td>1.64</td><td>2.45</td><td>3.16</td><td>2.97</td><td>3.61</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note.</emph> Significant differences are marked with asterisks.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-23">Expressive Measures</hd> <p>MANCOVA was also conducted for the student-generated definitions and sentences across cycles using pretest scores as covariates. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. Treatment had a significant effect on expressive vocabulary, Λ = 0.643, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref95">6</reflink>, 39) = 3.613, <emph>p</emph> =.006, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.357. For student-generated definitions, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) results were significant at all cycles, Cycle 1: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>, 44) = 20.812, <emph>p</emph> =.000, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.321; Cycle 2: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>, 44) = 11.619, <emph>p</emph> =.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.209; and Cycle 3: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>, 44) = 5.557, <emph>p</emph> =.023, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.112. For student-generated sentences, ANCOVA results were once again mixed. Results were significant at Cycles 1 and 2, Cycle 1: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>, 44) = 8.699, <emph>p</emph> =.005, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.165; and Cycle 2: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref100">1</reflink>, 44) = 5.530, <emph>p</emph> =.023, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.112. However, results were nonsignificant at Cycle 3 (<emph>p</emph> =.098).</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-24">Maintenance</hd> <p>To determine how well CHAAOS and BAU students remembered definitions of taught words 4 weeks after completion of the intervention, we conducted repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), which compared performance of CHAAOS and BAU at pretest, immediately after instruction, and at maintenance. A significant effect was found for the interaction of treatment and time, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref101">2</reflink>, 90) = 53.67, <emph>p</emph> =.000, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.544. Although no difference was found between CHAAOS and BAU students at pretest (<emph>M</emph> =5.81 and 6.68, respectively; <emph>p</emph> =.257), students differed at immediate posttest (<emph>M</emph> =16.26 and 7.50, <emph>p</emph> =.000) and maintenance (<emph>M</emph> =13.97 and 7.23, <emph>p</emph> =.000) with CHAAOS students scoring significantly higher than students in BAU.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-25">Standardized Measures of Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension</hd> <p>Of particular interest was whether CHAAOS and BAU students differed on standardized measures of vocabulary and comprehension, which were gathered when students first entered the study and following treatment in Year 3. ANCOVA results indicated that treatment had a significant, positive effect on posttest vocabulary scores on the CREVT, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref102">1</reflink>, 41) = 6.45, <emph>p</emph> =.015, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.136, after controlling for pretests. However, treatment did not have a significant effect on posttest comprehension scores on the WJ-III after controlling for pretest differences, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>, 41) = 1.55, <emph>p</emph> =.221. Table 3 shows means and standard deviations on these measures.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 3. Scores on Standardized Measures by Treatment Condition.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Measure</th><th align="center">Business as usual (<italic>n</italic> = 17)</th><th align="center">CHAAOS treatment (<italic>n</italic> = 36)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">CREVT General Vocabulary Index</td></tr><tr><td> Time 1</td><td>74.89 (7.61)</td><td>74.03 (8.93)</td></tr><tr><td> Year 3 spring</td><td>69.20 (8.23)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td>72.97 (6.30)<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">WJ-III Passage Comprehension</td></tr><tr><td> Time 1</td><td>55.94 (13.93)</td><td>58.37 (12.26)</td></tr><tr><td> Year 3 spring</td><td>54.73 (12.85)</td><td>61.07 (11.90)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note.</emph> CHAAOS = Creating Habits that Accelerate Academic Language of Students; CREVT = Comprehensive Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary Test. WJ-III = Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement III. Time 1 = First administration of this measure, which was fall of Year 1 for most students, or as students entered the study by moving into BAU or CHAAOS classes. Significant differences are marked with asterisks.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-26">Exploratory EL and NES Performance</hd> <p>Because we were interested in whether students who were EL and NES differed on learning CHAAOS vocabulary words, we analyzed the performance of EL and NES within the treatment group only. ANCOVA results found no significant differences on posttest scores on the multiple-choice test of vocabulary knowledge (<emph>p</emph> =.547) or usage measures (<emph>p</emph> =.525) after controlling for pretest differences.</p> <p>The group size was small for this analysis, and so lack of difference should be interpreted cautiously. Examination of total scores across cycles for students who were EL and NES in the CHAAOS condition in Table 4 lend support to the notion that students learned definitions of words receptively similarly regardless of first language; however, expressive performance may have been more difficult for students who were EL.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 4. Treatment Outcomes by Language Status.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Measure</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Treated English Learners (<italic>n</italic> = 23)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Treated native English speakers (<italic>n</italic> = 11)</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Pretest</th><th align="center">Posttest</th><th align="center">Pretest</th><th align="center">Posttest</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">Word knowledge</td></tr><tr><td> All cycles multiple choice</td><td>21.52 (6.69)</td><td>42.35 (8.75)</td><td>26.00 (7.39)</td><td>42.73 (6.80)</td></tr><tr><td> All cycles student definitions</td><td>7.78 (6.73)</td><td>30.00 (21.16)</td><td>11.36 (8.62)</td><td>42.36 (20.36)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Using words in context</td></tr><tr><td> All cycles usage</td><td>10.74 (3.68)</td><td>14.35 (5.01)</td><td>14.36 (3.56)</td><td>18.00 (2.86)</td></tr><tr><td> All cycles student sentences</td><td>8.39 (5.84)</td><td>23.87 (17.61)</td><td>14.00 (8.14)</td><td>38.00 (16.44)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0156466284-27">Discussion</hd> <p>Despite growing numbers of students with LD who are also EL ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref104">50</reflink>]), few studies of vocabulary intervention have focused on this population. Results of the current study show that students who received 12 weeks of the intervention displayed consistent and substantial improvements on the multiple-choice vocabulary measure, in which effect sizes were large across cycles ( <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.56). This positive effect was mirrored among our expressive measures, with an average larger effect for generating definitions ( <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.21) than for generating sentences ( <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 0.14). These findings, which replicate the first and second years of the intervention ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref105">43</reflink>]), also align with prior research that has found that teaching academic words directly leads to improved word learning for students with LD ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref106">27</reflink>]) and for students who are EL ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref107">55</reflink>]), even though the words we taught were several grade levels above students' independent reading ability.</p> <p>We share the concern of other researchers that reading instruction in middle school is often eliminated in favor of tutoring support for passing courses ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref108">6</reflink>]). Unlike other studies, our observations in BAU classes revealed strong overall reading instruction; nevertheless, no observed class sessions offered more than 4 min of vocabulary instruction or practice. Although [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref109">55</reflink>] concluded that more teachers should be trained in academic language instruction, the extent to which special education training programs include this type of instruction is unknown.</p> <p>Importantly, students in CHAAOS classes maintained knowledge of the taught words 4 weeks after the conclusion of the intervention. This finding is noteworthy because CHAAOS is of longer duration with a larger core of vocabulary than most vocabulary studies in special education classes; in the current study, students were taught 48 academic words across 12 weeks of instruction spaced across 7 months. By contrast, most vocabulary instructional studies in special education have been of short duration ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref110">5</reflink>]) or focused on a content-specific and smaller set of words ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref111">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref112">52</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref113">53</reflink>]). For students to learn as many grade-appropriate academic words and maintain them over time is a rare finding in the special education literature.</p> <p>We note that students in BAU special education ELA classes also grew in knowledge of these academic words over time. Words taught during the CHAAOS intervention were drawn from widely available sources, including recommended words on [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref114">10</reflink>] and Common Core ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref115">42</reflink>]) lists, as well as the school district's list for eighth-grade general education ELA. The CHAAOS list of words was available in all classes because we had provided the intervention word lists to teachers and administrators in both conditions in all 3 years of the CHAAOS intervention. Nevertheless, the rate of growth in the BAU condition was slow in relation to students in CHAAOS classes. Taken together, these findings demonstrate the need for systematic vocabulary intervention to improve this key component of reading development for students with LD, regardless of first language.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-28">Generalized Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension Outcomes and Measures</hd> <p>Few studies in general education (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref116">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref117">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref118">39</reflink>]), special education (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref119">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref120">27</reflink>]), or with EL populations (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref121">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref122">38</reflink>]) demonstrate improvement on standardized measures of vocabulary or comprehension as a result of vocabulary intervention. Although theoretically disconcerting given vocabulary's role in reading comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref123">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref124">47</reflink>]), several factors contribute to the scarcity of measurable generalized gains linked to vocabulary intervention.</p> <p>First, interventions and standardized measures barely touch the range of vocabulary that supports reading comprehension at any particular grade level. We attempted to improve over earlier studies by including 48 academic words that were recommended for instruction to eighth-grade students. As this study reports the third year of intervention, several participants in CHAAOS classes had instruction on up to 144 words by the close of eighth grade. Second, the standardized measures we used (i.e., the CREVT and WJ-III) were broad range measures with ceiling criteria during test administration that prohibited most students from participating in the range of items intended to sample their grade level. Third, we intentionally excluded from our instructional lists words tested directly on the CREVT to avoid bias toward the treatment.</p> <p>Thus, we were surprised to find significant differences between conditions on the CREVT favoring students in CHAAOS classes. However, despite evidence that students in the CHAAOS classes made significant gains on this transfer measure of vocabulary knowledge compared with students in BAU, standardized scores on the CREVT do not demonstrate growth against the test norming group of students in general education. Rather, students in BAU conditions fell farther behind on the CREVT, and students in CHAAOS showed less slippage in scores over time, a finding also reported by [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref125">57</reflink>].</p> <p>Despite improving vocabulary, students in CHAAOS classes did not indicate significant growth on the reading comprehension standardized measure (WJ-III) relative to students in BAU. Even so, their scores did not decline significantly over time, which is common for students with disabilities in middle school ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref126">57</reflink>]). The limited range of items for each grade level on the WJ-III may have made it difficult to show growth based on exposure to just 48 new words, and especially on words that may have contributed to reading comprehension at higher levels than students could reach before exceeding the test ceiling.</p> <p>We see a related issue in the low-to-moderate validity ratings of our researcher-developed measures of vocabulary with the CREVT and WJ Reading Comprehension (i.e., validity ranges.30–.68, with most below.5). Students learned the taught words with CHAAOS instruction; however, their overall reading ability remained in the second- to third-grade range. Thus, high scores on learning taught words linked poorly with overall reading ability. Interestingly, the highest validity with standardized scores was drawn from the measure of student-generated definitions and sentences, which indicates a higher level of learning than selecting definitions ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref127">34</reflink>]). It is possible that students who performed well on these production tasks may also have been able to answer more items correctly on the standardized measures.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-29">Limitations</hd> <p>This study explored the potential of CHAAOS intervention to improve the vocabulary of students with disabilities in middle school who may also be EL. It was conducted in just one school district with the eighth-grade students who received special education in three schools; thus, we lack evidence for broad generalization of findings. With a larger sample, it may have been possible to analyze the cumulative effects of intervention; however, mobility in this district reduced student numbers, which only allowed analysis of the current year's intervention effects. Thus, it is impossible to determine whether the effects reported here are due to eighth-grade intervention alone, or whether intervention in prior years had some influence on student outcomes. Small sample size also inhibited more sophisticated analytic methods.</p> <p>We were interested in whether students who were EL would learn the words as well as students who were NES. Even though we found no significant differences based on first language, two concerns limit support for the hypothesis that students who were EL learned as much in CHAAOS classes as did students who were NES. First, the number of NES was smaller in both conditions than students who were EL; thus, a nonsignificant finding could be due to insufficient power in the analysis. Moreover, all of the participants who were EL spoke Spanish as their first language, and so no conclusion can be drawn regarding speakers of other languages.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-30">Implications</hd> <p>In CHAAOS classes, special education teachers devoted fewer than 20 min of their ELA allotted time to explicit and interactive vocabulary instruction. Although teaching CHAAOS decreased available time for other important instruction, devoting time to vocabulary did not lead to students falling farther behind in reading comprehension. Moreover, students maintained meanings of words they learned through CHAAOS instruction 4 weeks after instruction ended, which suggests that teaching vocabulary can be a valuable use of class time.</p> <p>The current research is important in being one of few studies to focus on academic vocabulary instruction for the growing population of students with LD and other disabilities who are also EL in middle school. This study demonstrates that when effective vocabulary practices that have been validated for students in general education, students with LD, or students who are EL are implemented (e.g., explicit instruction on word meanings, frequent exposure to the words in the classroom, extensive practice, review, and time spent discussing the words), learning is strong for students who have LD and are also EL. Therefore, we suggest that academic vocabulary instruction on grade-appropriate words is feasible in special education middle school classes in which most students read below their grade level. Special education teachers implemented CHAAOS with high fidelity and materials are available readily to download by teachers and researchers to evaluate replicability.</p> <hd id="AN0156466284-31">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Supplemental_Appendix_A_Instruction.docx</p> <p>Supplemental_Appendix_A_Instruction – Supplemental material for Continuing CHAAOS: Vocabulary Intervention for Students With Disabilities in Eighth Grade Who Are Also English Learners</p> <p></p> <p>Supplemental material, Supplemental_Appendix_A_Instruction for Continuing CHAAOS: Vocabulary Intervention for Students With Disabilities in Eighth Grade Who Are Also English Learners by Rollanda E. O'Connor, Victoria M. Sanchez, Brian Jones, Luisana Suchilt, Valencia Youkhanna and Kristen D. Beach in Learning Disability Quarterly</p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0156466284-32">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Supplemental_Appendix_B._Observation_Tool.docx</p> <p>Supplemental_Appendix_B._Observation_Tool – Supplemental material for Continuing CHAAOS: Vocabulary Intervention for Students With Disabilities in Eighth Grade Who Are Also English Learners</p> <p></p> <p>Supplemental material, Supplemental_Appendix_B._Observation_Tool for Continuing CHAAOS: Vocabulary Intervention for Students With Disabilities in Eighth Grade Who Are Also English Learners by Rollanda E. O'Connor, Victoria M. Sanchez, Brian Jones, Luisana Suchilt, Valencia Youkhanna and Kristen D. Beach in Learning Disability Quarterly</p> <p></p> <ref id="AN0156466284-33"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmed Y., Francis D. J., York M., Fletcher J., Barnes M., Kulesz P. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in Grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref36" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Archer A., Hughes C. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref55" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> August D., Branum-Martin L., Cardenas-Hagan E., Francis D. J., Powell J., Moore S., Haynes E. F. (2014). Helping ELLs meet the Common Core State Standards for literacy in science: The impact of an instructional intervention focused on academic language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7, 54–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.836763</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref77" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Biemiller A. (2010). Words worth teaching. SRA/McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref15" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bos C. S., Anders P. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510390</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref88" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bulgren J. A., Graner P. S., Deshler D. D. (2013). Literacy challenges and opportunities for students with learning disabilities in social studies and history. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref82" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cain K., Oakhill J., Lemmon K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref48" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Carlo M. S., August D., McLaughlin B., Snow C. E., Dressler C., Lippman D. N., Lively T. J., White C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classes. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–215. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.39.2.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref1" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Catts H. W., Adolf S. M., Weismer S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coxhead A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cromley J. G., Azevedo R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cromley J. G., Snyder-Hogan L. E., Luciw-Dubas U. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019452</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crosson A., McKeown M., Robbins K., Brown K. (2019). Key elements of robust vocabulary instruction for emergent bilingual adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50, 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18-0127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elleman A. M., Oslund E. L., Griffin N. M., Myers K. E. (2019). A review of middle-school vocabulary interventions: Five research-based recommendations for practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50, 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18-0145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engelmann S., Johnson G., Carnine L., Meyer L., Becker W., Eisele J. (1988). Corrective Reading Decoding Strategies. MacMillan/McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Englert C. S., Dunsmore K. (2004). The role of dialogue in constructing effective literacy settings for students with language and learning disabilities. In Silliman E. R., Wilkinson L. C. (Eds.), Language and literacy learning in schools (pp. 201–237). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman B. R., Koon S., Petscher Y., Mitchell A., Truckenmiller A. (2015). Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th-10th grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 884–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gough P. B., Tunmer W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall C., Roberts G. J., Cho E., McCulley L. V., Carroll M., Vaughn S. (2017). Reading instruction for English learners in the middle grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 763–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9372-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hart B., Risley T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Paul H. Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helman A., Calhoun M. B., Kern L. (2015). Improving science vocabulary of high school English language learners with reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714539769</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hjetland H. N., Lervag A., Lyster S. H., Hagtvet B. E., Hulme C., Melby-Lervag M. (2019). Pathways to reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from 4 to 9 years of age. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000321</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holahan J. M., Ferrer E., Shaywitz B. A., Rock D. A., Kirsch I. S., Yamamoto K., Michaels R., Marchione K., Shaywitz S. E. (2018). Growth in reading comprehension and verbal ability from grades 1 through 9. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(4), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916680984</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes C. A., Morris J. R., Therrien W. J., Benson S. K. (2017). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disability Research & Practice, 32, 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12142</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins J. R., Fuchs L. S., Van den Broek P. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins J. R., Matlock B., Slocum T. A. (1989). Two approaches to vocabulary instruction: The teaching of individual word meanings and practice in deriving word meaning from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 215–235. https://doi.org/10.2307/747865</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jitendra A., Edwards L., Sacks G., Jacobson L. (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones S., LaRusso M., Kim J., Kim H., Selman R., Uccelli P., Barnes S., Donovan S., Snow C. (2019). Experimental effects of word generation on vocabulary language, perspective taking, and reading comprehension in high-poverty schools. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12, 448–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1615155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jozwik S. L., Douglas K. H. (2017). Effects of multicomponent academic vocabulary instruction for English learners with learning difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40, 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717704967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamil M. L., Borman G. D., Dole J., Kral C. C., Salinger T., Torgesen J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices—A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4027). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy M., Deshler D., Lloyd J. (2015). Effects of multimedia vocabulary instruction on adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413487406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kieffer M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educational Researcher, 39, 484–486. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10378400</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krathwohl D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 212–218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuder S. J. (2017). Vocabulary instruction for secondary students with reading disabilities: An updated research review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717690113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawrence J. F., Crosson A. C., Pare-Blagoev E. J., Snow C. E. (2015). Word generation randomized trial. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 750–786. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215579485</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesaux N. K., Harris J. R. (2013). Linguistically diverse students' reading difficulties: Implication for models of learning disabilities identification and effective instruction. In Swanson H. L., Harris K. R., Graham S. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 69–84). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKeown M. G., Crosson A. C., Moore D. W., Beck I. L. (2018). Word knowledge and comprehension effects of an academic vocabulary intervention for middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 55(3), 572–616. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217744181</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLeskey J., Barringer M.-D., Billingsley B., Brownell M., Jackson D., Kennedy M., Lewis T., Maheady L., Rodriguez J., Scheeler M. C., Winn J., Ziegler D. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy W., Townsend D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). The common core state standards.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor R. E., Beach K. D., Sanchez V. M., Knight-Teague K., Orozco G., Jones B. (2019). Teaching academic vocabulary to sixth grade students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(4), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718821091</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor R. E., Sanchez V. M., Beach K., Bocian K., Roberts S., Chan O. (2017). Building better bridges: Teaching adolescents who are poor readers in 8th grade to comprehend history text. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40, 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717698537</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor R. E., Sanchez V. M., Jones B., Suchilt L., Youkhanna V., Beach K. D., Widaman K. (2020). Systematic CHAAOS: Teaching vocabulary in English/Language Arts special education classes in middle school. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717698537</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paris S. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420922839</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti C. A., Stafura J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor C. P., Carlo M., August D., Snow C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raykov T., Marcoulides G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez A., Rodriguez D. (2017). English learners with learning disabilities: What is the current state? Insights on Learning Disabilities, 14, 97–112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scammacca N., Roberts G., Vaughn S., Edmonds M., Wexler J., Reutebuch C. K., Klein C., Torgesen J. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling reading: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Center on Instruction, RMC Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seifert K., Espin C. (2012). Improving reading of science text for secondary students with learning disabilities: Effects of text reading, vocabulary learning, and combined approaches to instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712444275</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson E., Wanzek J., McCulley L., Stillman-Spisak S., Vaughn S., Simmons D., Fogarty M., Hairrell A. (2016). Literacy and text reading in middle and high school social studies and English Language Arts classrooms. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 32, 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2014.910718</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson H. L., Deshler D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940303600205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Truckenmiller A. J., Park J., Dabo A., Newton Y. W. (2019). Academic language instruction for students in grades 4 through 8: A literature synthesis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12, 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1536773</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn S., Martinez L. R., Williams K. J., Miciak J., Fall A., Roberts G. (2019). Efficacy of a high school extensive reading intervention for English learners with reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000289</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn S., Wexler J., Leroux A., Roberts G., Denton C., Barth A., Fletcher J. (2012). Effects of intensive reading intervention for eighth-grade students with persistently inadequate response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411402692</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallace G., Hammill D. D. (2013). The Comprehensive Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Pro-Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock R. W., McGrew K. S., Mather N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Riverside.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0156466284-34"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent those of the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This research was supported in part by Grant R324A160019 from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, to the University of California at Riverside.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supplemental material for this article is available on the <emph>Learning Disability Quarterly</emph> website with the online version of this article.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Rollanda E. O'Connor; Victoria M. Sanchez; Brian Jones; Luisana Suchilt; Valencia Youkhanna and Kristen D. Beach</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref127"></nolink>
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1338139
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1338139
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Continuing CHAAOS: Vocabulary Intervention for Students with Disabilities in Eighth Grade Who Are Also English Learners
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22O'Connor%2C+Rollanda+E%2E%22">O'Connor, Rollanda E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sanchez%2C+Victoria+M%2E%22">Sanchez, Victoria M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jones%2C+Brian%22">Jones, Brian</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Suchilt%2C+Luisana%22">Suchilt, Luisana</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Youkhanna%2C+Valencia%22">Youkhanna, Valencia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Beach%2C+Kristen+D%2E%22">Beach, Kristen D.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Disability+Quarterly%22"><i>Learning Disability Quarterly</i></searchLink>. May 2022 45(2):108-120.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R324A160019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Language+Learners%22">English Language Learners</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Language%22">Academic Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Arts%22">Language Arts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education+Teachers%22">Special Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Receptive+Language%22">Receptive Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expressive+Language%22">Expressive Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decoding+%28Reading%29%22">Decoding (Reading)</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22California%22">California</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Woodcock+Johnson+Tests+of+Achievement%22">Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/0731948720922818
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0731-9487<br />2168-376X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Few studies have considered academic vocabulary interventions for students who have learning disabilities (LD) and also are English learners (EL). This research explored the effects of the third year of the Creating Habits that Accelerate Academic Language of Students (CHAAOS) vocabulary intervention for eighth-grade students who received English Language Arts instruction (ELA) in special education classes. Over 70% of student participants had LD and over half were EL. Special education teachers delivered 12 weeks of intervention spaced across 7 months to 36 students. Researchers compared outcomes on receptive and expressive measures with 17 students in business-as-usual (BAU) special education ELA. Students receiving the CHAAOS intervention learned the 48 taught words better than students in BAU conditions, retained their knowledge of words 4 weeks following the close of the intervention, and ended the year with higher vocabulary scores on a standardized measure than students in BAU classes. Students who were EL performed similarly on receptive knowledge of words to students who were native English speakers. This study documents the effectiveness of explicit vocabulary routines for students who have LD and are also EL. [For the corresponding grantee submission, see ED605674.]
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1338139
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1338139
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/0731948720922818
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 108
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English Language Learners
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 8
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Arts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Receptive Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expressive Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decoding (Reading)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: California
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Continuing CHAAOS: Vocabulary Intervention for Students with Disabilities in Eighth Grade Who Are Also English Learners
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: O'Connor, Rollanda E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sanchez, Victoria M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jones, Brian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Suchilt, Luisana
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Youkhanna, Valencia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Beach, Kristen D.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0731-9487
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2168-376X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 45
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Disability Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1