Effectiveness of Manipulatives During Shared Reading to Teach - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Effectiveness of Manipulatives During Shared Reading to Teach Vocabulary to Children with Down Syndrome

Kara Kaniefski Spring 2020

IMPORTANCE OF SHARED BOOK READING

• Shared book reading is beneficial to development of children
• Builds positive relationships
• Teaches preacademic skills
• Provides language learning opportunities
• An expansive vocabulary is linked to later school and reading success
• Recognized need to teach vocabulary to young children
• Optimize learning opportunities that can occur during shared reading

(Shared Reading, 2020; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994; Coyne, Simmons, Kame'enui, & Stoolmiller, 2004)

CURRENT RESEARCH BASE

• Shared reading vocabulary interventions proven to increase target word

knowledge

• Emphasizing target word
• Extra-textual talk
• Use of manipulatives before reading, asks open-ended questions throughout,

and provides extension activities after

• Suggests viable interventions for a relatively homogenous group of

children

(Blewitt & Langan, 2016; Gonzalez et. al., 2014; Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Wasik, et al., 2006 )

STUDENTS WITH DOWN SYNDROME

• Characteristics of individuals with Down syndrome
• Auditory processing difficulties
• Speech delays/lack of clarity
• Relative strength in visuospatial processing skills

(Dahle & McCollister, 1986; Downs & Balkany, 1988; Peuschel, Gallagher, Zartler, & Pezzullo, 1987)

RATIONALE

• Gaps in the existing literature surrounding the adaptation/application of

interventions to children with disabilities, specifically Down syndrome

• Current interventions may not work
• Based in an auditory processing activity
• Engage students through dialogue
• Current study
• Application of vocabulary intervention to children with Down syndrome
• Use of manipulatives to increase receptive word identification for children with

Down syndrome

• Support application success:
• Children with Down syndrome have better visual than auditory learning

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Is the use of manipulatives (e.g., figures representative of important characters, objects) during shared book reading more efficient than shared book reading without manipulatives at increasing target word accuracy for a children with Down syndrome as assessed through brief probes? 2. Does the use of shared reading with manipulatives sustain a higher level of engagement than shared reading without manipulatives? 3. Do EC professionals rate the use of shared reading as an important component of the preschool day for language learning as compared to other activities (e.g., centers, free play, recess, meal times)?

PARTICIPANTS

PARTICIPANTS

• Participant (1): Arlo
• 54 months
• African American male
• Down syndrome
• Primary Implementor (1)
• 24-years-old Caucasian female
• B.A. in Special Education
• Current Master’s student in Early Childhood Special Education
• Secondary Coders (2)
• 26-year-old male
• B.A. in Child Development
• Current Master’s student in Early

Childhood Special Education

• 23-year-old female
• B.A. in English and Education
• Current Master’s student in Early

Childhood Special Education

SETTING

• Empty classroom at child’s university-affiliated preschool
• Implementor and participant only present
• Table and chairs of an appropriate size for the participant

MATERIALS

• 3 book sets (each set is comprised of the book, corresponding manipulatives, 6

laminated target word stimuli cards)

• ABC Animal Jamboree by Giles Andreae
• Rumble in the Jungle by Giles Andreae
• Night Night Jungle by Amy Parker
• 12 laminated distractor cards
• Laminated “First, Then” board with 6 laminated tokens
• Participant specific reinforcer
• Spotify iPhone app
• Canon mini digital camera and tripod
• Dell desktop computer with Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word, and ProcoderDV

capabilities

BEHAVIOR SETS

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

• Target word accuracy
• Primary – used for decision

changes

• Measured through brief probes
• Engagement
• Secondary
• Measured through 5-s momentary

time sampling of shared reading sessions

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Adapted Alternating Treatments Design (AATD)

• Utilizes the rapid, iterative alternation of conditions to answer a comparison

question

• Why it is was chosen:
• Primary DV is an accelerating, non-reversible behavior
• Controls for threats to internal validity – separation of treatments
• Addition of control condition allowed for detection of history and

maturation

• Favorable when compared to a parallel treatments design (PTD) or rapid

acquisition design (RAD)

• Procedural infidelity and multitreatment were still threats to internal validity

(Sindelar, Rosenberg, & Wilson, 1985; Shepley, Ault, Ortiz, Vogler, & McGee, 2019)

STUDY TIMELINE

Comparison Phase

Baseline Shared Reading with Manipulatives Shared Reading without Manipulatives Control Maintenance At least 3 probes per condition before intervention Probes At least 5 sessions Shared Reading and Probe At least 5 sessions Independent Reading

• f Book and Probe

At least 5 sessions Shared Reading and Probe 1. Retention Probe 2. Intervention Sessions 3. Retention probe

PROBES

1. Lay out three stimuli cards (with pictures similar to those in the book) 2. Implementor: ”show me [target word]” 3. Following choice (right or wrong) offer brief verbal praise 4. Present token 5. Remove all stimulus cards 6. Repeat for each target word (six) 7. Three-minute reinforcement period 8. Repeat steps 1-7 for 6 target words again, counterbalancing position and distractors

COMPARISON PHASE

• Implementation of three rapidly alternated conditions
• Alternation of conditions were randomized
• Two of the same condition could not occur consecutively and each condition

must occur at least once per five sessions

• Set to continue until a priori criterion of at least 80% across two

conditions was met

SHARED READING WITH MANIPULATIVES

• Implementor: “let’s read”
• Neutral acknowledgement of participant contributions (“mhm”, “yeah”)
• Target words
• Label introduction of manipulative
• Allowed 15-s to interact with manipulative
• Removal of manipulative while simultaneously presenting a token
• Implementor: “we are all done reading”
• 3-min break with access to reinforcers
• Transition to probe procedures

EXAMPLE

SHARED READING WITHOUT MANIPULATIVES

• Implementor: “let’s read”
• Neutral acknowledgement of participant contributions (“mhm”, “yeah”)
• Target words
• Point to picture of corresponding word, first time that it is read
• Implementor: “we are all done reading”
• 3-min break with access to reinforcers
• Transition to probe procedures

CONTROL

• Participant provided book
• Implementor: “let’s read”
• 3-mins
• No attention from implementor
• End session after 3-mins or when participant says they are all done with

“we are all done reading”

• 3-min break with access to reinforcers
• Transition to probe procedures

CONDITION FEATURES

RESULTS – RECEPTIVE TARGET WORD ACCURACY

ANALYSIS OF CORRECT RESPONDING ACROSS ITEMS

RESULTS – ENGAGEMENT

INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT

• Agreement was calculated used the point-by-point method
• ([number of agreements]/[agreements + disagreements]) x 100
• IOA sessions were randomly decided based on a random number

generator

PROCEDURAL FIDELITY

• A quality of occurrence of aspects of the intervention
• Behavior did not occur (0)
• Occurred mostly/often (1)
• Occurred always (2)
• PF to be collected for 100% of sessions

SOCIAL VALIDITY

• Blind raters were recruited to subjectively measure the procedures and

goals of the intervention

• Demographics (N=8)
• Age range: 22-59-years-old (Mn = 47.88)
• Experience: 0-30 years (Mn = 11.56)
• Caucasian, female
• 75% bachelors, 25% masters

SOCIAL VALIDITY

SOCIAL VALIDITY

SOCIAL VALIDITY

DISCUSSION

• An increase in target word vocabulary for both shared reading formats
• Appears to be no differentiation when accounting for differences in

knowledge of target words during baseline

• No clear differentiation in engagement, but Arlo was more engaged in

80% of the shared reading with manipulative sessions

• Based on social validity data, shared book reading with manipulatives

condition was on average ranked high for child engagement, enjoyment, effectiveness as a language learning opportunity, and feasibility

LIMITATIONS

• Only one participant
• Differences in correct responding during baseline
• Limiting time through which the study was conducted

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

• Children with Down syndrome are able to learn receptive labels from

book reading

• Use of manipulatives during shared reading may be more appropriate

but not necessarily effective/efficient than shared book reading without manipulatives for vocabulary instruction

• Use of manipulatives may sustain engagement better than a typical

shared reading context

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

• More research to better understand the effects of using manipulatives in

a shared reading setting

• Possible studies examining the application of procedures to a small

group reading would improve knowledge surrounding generalizability

• f findings
• More research about supporting the learning of children with Down

syndrome in shared reading settings

CONCLUSION

• Based on analysis of data it is not possible to conclude a functional

relation

• Both types of shared reading are modestly effective at increasing

receptive vocabulary for a young child with Down syndrome

• Use of manipulatives during shared reading was associated with higher

levels of engagement during shared reading

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: the report of the commission on reading. Washington, D. C.: National Institue of Education. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: robust vocabulary instruction. New York, New York: The Guilford Press. Blewitt, P., & Langan, R. (2016). Learning words during shared book reading: The role of extratextual talk designed to increase child engagement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 150, 404-410. Blewitt, P., Rump, K. M., Shealy, S. E., & Cook, S. A. (2009). Shared book reading: When and how questions affect young children’s word learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 294- 304. Byrne, A., Buckley, S., MacDonald, J., & Bird, G. (1995). Investigating the literacy, language and memory skills of children with down’s syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 3, 53- 58. Chapman, R. S. (1997). Language development in children and adolescents with down syndrome. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 3, 307-312. Coyne, M. D., Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Teaching vocabulary during shared storybook readings: an examination of differential effects. Exceptionality, 12, 145- 162. Dahle, A. J., & McCollister, F. P. (1986). Hearing and otologic disorders in children with down syndrome. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90, 636-642. Downs, M. P., & Balkany, T. J. (1988). Otologic problems and hearing impairments in down syndrome. Advances in Down syndrome, 19-34. Fidler, D. J. (2005). The emerging down syndrome behavioral phenotype in early childhood: implications for practice. Infants & Young Children, 18, 86-103. Ganea, P. A., Pickard, M. B., & DeLoache, J. S. (2008). Transfer between picture books and the real world by very young children. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9, 46-66. Gonzalez, J. E., Pollard-Durodola, S., Simmons, D. C., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., Fogarty, M., & Simmons, L. (2014). Enhancing preschool children’s vocabulary: Effects of teacher talk before, during and after shared reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 214-226. Justice, L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words from storybooks: an efficacy study with at-risk kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 17-32. Justice, L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words froom storybooks: an efficacy study with at-risk kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 17- 32. Kumin, L. (1994). Intelligibility of speech in children with down syndrome in natural settings: parents’ perspective. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 307-313. Ledford, J. R., Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2018). Dependent variables, measurement, and reliability. In J. R. Ledford, & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single case research methodology (pp. 97-131). New York: Routledge.

REFERENCES

Mervis, C. (1990). Early conceptual development of children with down syndrome. In Children with down syndrome – a developmental perspective (pp. 252-301). Cambridge University Press. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy; Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Center for Family Literacy. Odom, S. L., & Diamond, K. E. (1998). Inclusion of young children with special needs in early childhood education: the research base. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(1), 3-25. Pekkonen, E., Osipova, D., Sauna-Aho, O., & Arvio, M. (2007). Delayed auditory processing underlying stimulus detection in Down syndrome. NeuroImage, 35, 1547-155-. Peuschel, S. R., Gallagher, P. L., Zartler, A. S., & Pezzullo, J. C. (1987). Cognitive and learning profiles in children with Down syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 21-37. Pueschel, S., & Hopmann, M. (1993). Speech and language abilities of children with down syndrome: a parent’s perspective. In Enhancing children’s cmmunication: research foundations for intervention (pp. 335-362). Baltimore: Brookes. Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14(3), 245-302. Sénéchal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J.-A. (1995). Individual differences in 4-year-old children’s acquisiiition of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 218-229. Shared Reading. (2020). Retrieved from Reading Rockets: https://www.readingrockets.org/strategies/shared_reading Shepley, C., Ault, M. J., Ortiz, K., Vogler, C., & McGee, M. (2019). An exploratory analysis of quality indicators in adapted alternating treatments designs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 1-12. Silverman, R. (2007). A comparison of three methods of vocabulary instruction during read-alouds in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 2, 97-113. Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternatting treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67-76. Walsh, B. A., & Blewitt, P. (2006). The effect of questioning style during storybook reading on novel vocabulary acquisitioin of preschoolers. Early Childhoood Education Journal, 33, 273-278. Wang, X., Bernas, R., & Eberhard, P. (2001). Effects of teachers’ verbal and nonvernal scaffolding on everyday classroom performances of students with down syndrome. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9, 71-80. Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: interactive book reading and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 243-250. Wasik, B. A., Bond, M. A., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a language and literacy intervention on head start children and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 63-74. Zucker, T. A., Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Pentimonti, J. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2013). The role of frequent, interactive prekindergarten shared reading in the longitudinal development of language and literacy skills. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1425-1439.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Arlo KIDTalk Lab

• Dr. Kaiser
• Dr. Ledford

ECSE 2020 Cohort

THANK YOU!

Questions?