Carlo, Mara S.; August, Diane; McLaughlin, Barry; Snow, Catherine E.; Dressler, Cheryl; Lippman, David N.; Lively, Teresa J.; White, Claire E. (2004). Reading Research Quarterly, v39 n2 p188-215. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ684719
Reviewed: April 2014
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
Reviewed: October 2006
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Vocabulary Improvement Program for English Language Learners and Their Classmates (VIP).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word mastery |
Vocabulary Improvement Program for English Language Learners and Their Classmates (VIP) vs. Business as usual |
15-weeks |
Grade 5;
|
8.76 |
2.24 |
No |
-- | |
|
Knowledge of multiple meanings of words (polysemy production) |
Vocabulary Improvement Program for English Language Learners and Their Classmates (VIP) vs. Business as usual |
15-weeks |
Grade 5;
|
2.38 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Word association measures |
Vocabulary Improvement Program for English Language Learners and Their Classmates (VIP) vs. Business as usual |
15-weeks |
Grade 5;
|
4.70 |
1.55 |
No |
-- | |
|
Morphology |
Vocabulary Improvement Program for English Language Learners and Their Classmates (VIP) vs. Business as usual |
15-weeks |
Grade 5;
|
16.36 |
10.93 |
No |
-- | |
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R) |
Vocabulary Improvement Program for English Language Learners and Their Classmates (VIP) vs. Business as usual |
15-weeks |
Grade 5;
|
15.13 |
17.48 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cloze passages |
Vocabulary Improvement Program for English Language Learners and Their Classmates (VIP) vs. Business as usual |
15-weeks |
Grade 5;
|
2.20 |
0.28 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The California site included classrooms from two schools that primarily served working class Mexican-American children in both bilingual and mainstream classes. The classrooms in Massachusetts were from a school that served working class, mostly Puerto Rican and Dominican students, within both bilingual and mainstream classes taught by bilingual teachers. The Virginia classrooms were recruited from an “English-medium” magnet school that served mainly working class Spanish speakers from the Caribbean and Central America.
One-hundred forty-two English language learners1 in the fifth grade participated in this study. Students were recruited from 16 classrooms in California, Virginia, and Massachusetts. Ninety-four English language learner students were in classrooms randomly assigned to the intervention group, and 48 students were in classrooms randomly assigned to the comparison group. Ninety percent (128 students) of the participants had pretest and posttest measures for at least one outcome. Follow-up contact with the first author revealed attrition in the comparison group; one classroom was not included in the analyses because a teacher left the study prior to intervention implementation, but after random assignment of classrooms to conditions (17 classrooms were originally assigned to conditions, but only 16 were in the analysis sample). In addition, some students in the overall sample received a pilot intervention in the fourth grade, and some did not. However, this intervention report focuses on fifth grade outcomes only.
The intervention implemented in the study was adapted and published by the authors as the Vocabulary Improvement Program for English Language Learners and Their Classmates (VIP). Students read newspaper articles, diaries, documentaries, and historical and fictional accounts related to the topic of immigration. This 15-week intervention included 30–45 minutes of teaching four days a week and focused on 10–12 target words per week. On Mondays participants were given the weekly text to preview in Spanish. On Tuesdays the text was introduced in English, and target words in the text were discussed. On Wednesdays participants formed heterogeneous groups (based on English language proficiency) and completed two types of cloze activities. On Thursdays participants engaged in word association, synonym/antonym, and semantic feature analysis tasks. Then on Fridays either analysis of root words and derivation, or knowledge of multiple meanings of words was stressed. Three lessons were observed (during weeks 4, 9, and 13), revealing that six of the nine of the intervention group teachers implemented more than 70% of the key lesson elements, two 50%–60%, and one 35%.
Students in the comparison group received their regular classroom instruction. The curriculum provided to the comparison group differed greatly across the schools in each region of the country. Teachers in the comparison group received some professional development in vocabulary teaching two years prior to the beginning of the intervention.
The study measured reading achievement using a researcher developed cloze measure. It measured English language development using measures titled Knowledge of Multiple Meanings of Words, Morphology, Word Mastery, Word Association, and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) (see Appendix A2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures). Assessments were given in the Fall and Spring of the academic year.
Researchers conducted biweekly Teacher Learning Community meetings with intervention group teachers, providing teachers with curriculum materials including detailed lesson plans, quasi-scripted lesson guides, overhead transparencies, worksheets, homework assignments, and all necessary reading materials. At these meetings, researchers facilitated discussions of practices that worked well in previous lessons and aspects of the curriculum that were problematic. The curriculum was not modified as a result of these meetings.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
McLaughlin, B., August, D., Snow, C., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., White, C., Lively, T., & Lippman, D. (2000, April). Vocabulary Improvement in English language learners: An Intervention Study. Symposium presented at the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, Washington, DC.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School Practice Guide