Most early childhood (EC) programs include typi- mined the Distar Language instruction program (Engelcally developing children, children with disabilities, and/ mann & Osborn, 1976) to be successful for teaching or children considered “at risk.” Research indicates there decoding skills, but did not significantly improve comis a higher prevalence rate of language delays in pre- prehension because of limited vocabulary knowledge. school children with disabilities and those considered at More recently, Cunningham and Stanovich found that risk (Goldstein, 1994; Hart & Risley, 1995). The diver- vocabulary skills in Grade 1 predict more that 30% of sity of the EC classroom population ensures a wide range reading comprehension in Grade 11. It is reasonable to of knowledge and skill in the comprehension and use of assume that young children with disabilities and children oral language. This continuum of ability levels mandates considered at risk who experience language delays are the use of multilevel teaching strategies within the class- at a profound disadvantage. room curriculum. Quality education programs for young Although vocabulary is often emphasized in the aschildren, both in EC and early childhood special educa- sessment of young children, this emphasis is not mirtion (ECSE), utilize a curriculum that focuses on en- rored in the classroom in the form of direct purposeful hancing language development and emergent literacy instruction. In fact, in a study that identified the occurskills. Because early language development is correlated rence of various types of literacy events, Rowell (1998) with later academic and social success (Culbertson & found that only about one tenth of the teachers, in the Willis, 1993), language intervention is crucial for chil- 67 preschool classes observed worked in a purposeful dren in EC classrooms who enter with language defi- way on vocabulary. Several researchers have noted the ciencies. The curriculum needs to specifically address need for more systematic and planned curricula for voall areas of language including phonology (rules for cabulary teaching (Biemiller, 2001b; Chall, 1996). Edusounds), morphology (rules for words), syntax (rules for cators have primarily relied on children’s life experisentences), semantics (vocabulary/meaning), and prag- ences and, as the children get older, reading experiences matics (social rules) across many developmental levels. as the primary means for learning new vocabulary. In Vocabulary is one area of language that is empha- contrast, Biemiller (2003) recommends a strong teachersized in the assessment of young children. It is often directed vocabulary curriculum prior to Grade 2 in order used as part of the evaluation to determine readiness to to make a significant impact on reading and learning in learn and for early identification of developmental delay. the later grades. EC and ECSE preschool programs offer Research has shown that vocabulary knowledge is corre- a unique environment for this kind of intervention, but lated and predictive of later reading comprehension require teachers to target specific vocabulary. (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Scarborough, 1998). Current recommended practice for young children Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin (1990) found many children indicates a need to blend developmentally appropriate from working-class families had become competent read- practice (DAP) and individualized instruction (Bredeers by third grade, but experienced problems through kamp & Copple, 1997; Grisham-Brown, Pretti-Frontczac, Hemmeter, & Rigley, 2002; Horn, Lieber, Sandall, & Schwartz, 2001). This requires the teacher to look for
Read full abstract