Attention to Orthographic and Phonological Word Forms in Vocabulary Instruction for Kindergarten English Learners
Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A. (2016). Reading Psychology, v37 n6 p833-866 2016. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1100465
-
examining100Students, gradeK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Explicit vocabulary instruction with spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised/Normative Update: Word Attack and Word Identification Composite |
Explicit vocabulary instruction with spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Explicit vocabulary instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
107.37 |
103.28 |
Yes |
|
|
Wide Range Achievement Test-4 (WRAT-4) Spelling Subtest |
Explicit vocabulary instruction with spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Explicit vocabulary instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
100.08 |
96.24 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IIIA (PPVT-IIIA) |
Explicit vocabulary instruction with spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Explicit vocabulary instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
86.45 |
76.67 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Matching words taught during instruction to their definitions |
Explicit vocabulary instruction with spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Explicit vocabulary instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
46.20 |
39.43 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
West
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 18 kindergarten classrooms located in 7 urban, public elementary schools in the Northwest that had above-average proportions of English learners.
Study sample
A total of 100 students were included in the analysis. All students were identified by their teachers as speaking a language other than English at home and had relatively low English language proficiency based on pre-intervention test scores. The students were on average 5.5 years old. About half of the sample was female (46 percent) and most students were receiving English learner (EL) services (77 percent). The study did not provide information about student race or ethnicity.
Intervention Group
The intervention has two components: explicit vocabulary instruction and spelling instruction. The explicit vocabulary component was based on the Early Vocabulary Connections intervention. In the intervention condition students received individual instruction from trained paraeducator tutors outside the classroom for 15 minutes per day, four days per week, for an average of 14 weeks. These sessions focused on a set of vocabulary words drawn from the Common Core State Standards. Each new target word from the list was taught through four activities: (1) explicitly defining the target word using a student-friendly definition, (2) hearing the word read aloud in a sentence paired with an illustration, (3) student practice using the word in a sentence, and (4) student practice reading the word in a sentence or story with tutor scaffolding. Each of these activities incorporated explicit written spelling practice, including word reading and pronunciation practice. At the end of each lesson, students practiced spelling three previously taught target words from dictation.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received explicit vocabulary instruction based on the Early Vocabulary Connections intervention. Students received 15 minutes of individual instruction per day, 4 days a week for 14 weeks. Students in the comparison condition covered the same words using the same four activities as the intervention condition. However, students did not receive explicit spelling practice. Instead, at the end of each lesson, students were given two prompts to use the target word in a sentence. The same tutors that implemented the intervention condition in a particular school also implemented the comparison condition in that school.
Support for implementation
Paraeducators served as the tutors who implemented the intervention. They participated in a one-hour training, including modeling each of the teaching activities for both conditions, and discussions of strategies to support and scaffold student oral and written responses. After the beginning of the study, staff observed tutoring sessions to monitor fidelity and provide coaching (during the first two weeks of the intervention).
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Explicit vocabulary instruction with spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Target Word Learning: Spelling |
Explicit vocabulary instruction with spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Early Vocabulary Connections |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
38.10 |
26.36 |
No |
-- |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU): Mean of Word Attack and Word Identification standard scores |
Explicit vocabulary instruction with spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Early Vocabulary Connections |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
107.37 |
103.28 |
No |
-- |
|
Wide Range Achievement Test-4 (WRAT-4) Spelling Subtest |
Explicit vocabulary instruction with spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Early Vocabulary Connections |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
100.08 |
96.24 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-IIIA) |
Explicit vocabulary instruction with spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Early Vocabulary Connections |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
86.45 |
76.67 |
No |
-- |
|
Experimenter-developed curriculum based measure of target word reading vocabulary |
Explicit vocabulary instruction with spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Early Vocabulary Connections |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
46.20 |
39.43 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
77% English language learners -
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Washington
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 7 urban, public elementary schools in the Northwest that had above-average proportions of English learners.
Study sample
A total of 100 students were included in the study. The 100 students were in 20 kindergarten classrooms. The students in this sample were on average 5.5 years old. About half of the sample was female (46 percent) and about three-quarters received English learner (EL) services (77 percent). The study does not provide further information about the race and ethnicity of the study sample. In the schools where the study was conducted, 69 percent of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. This statistic is not provided for the students in the study sample.
Intervention Group
The intervention has two components: explicit vocabulary instruction and spelling instruction. The explicit vocabulary component is based on the Early Vocabulary Connections intervention. In the intervention condition students received individual instruction from trained paraeducator tutors outside classrooms for 15 minutes per day, four days per week, for an average of 14 weeks. These sessions focused on a set of vocabulary words drawn from the Common Core State Standards. Each new target word from the list was taught through four activities: (1) explicitly defining the target word using a student-friendly definition, (2) hearing the word read aloud in a sentence paired with an illustration, (3) student practice using the word in a sentence, and (4) student practice reading the word in a sentence or story with tutor scaffolding. Each of these activities incorporated explicit written spelling practice, including word reading and pronunciation practice. At the end of each lesson, students practiced spelling three previously taught target words from dictation.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received explicit vocabulary instruction based on the Early Vocabulary Connections intervention. Students received 15 minutes of individual instruction per day, 4 days a week for 14 weeks. Students in the comparison condition covered the same words using the same four activities as the intervention condition. However, students did not receive explicit spelling practice. Instead, at the end of each lesson, students were given two prompts to use the target word in a sentence. The same tutors that implemented the intervention condition in a particular school also implemented the comparison condition in that school.
Support for implementation
Tutors participated in a one-hour training, including modeling each of the teaching activities for both conditions, and discussions of strategies to support and scaffold student oral and written responses. After the beginning of the study, staff observed tutoring sessions to monitor fidelity and provide coaching (during the first two weeks only).
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).