Brynildssen, S. (2000). Vocabulary’s influence on successful writing. (Report No. EDO-CS-00-08). Bloomington, IN:ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED-99-CO-0028)

The Center for Family Literacy. www.familylit.org

Hay, I., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2007). Facilitating children’s emergent literacy using shared reading: A comparison of two models [Electronic version]. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30,191-202.

Justice, L., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning: New words from story books: An Efficacy Study with at-risk kindergartners [Electronic version]. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 17-32.

Montgomery, J.K. (2008). Vocabulary interventions for RTI: Teir’s 1, 2, 3. Presented at the ASHA Convention in Boston, MA.

The National Reading Panel. www.nationalreadingpanel.org/

Rupley, W., & Nichols, W. (2005). Vocabulary instruction for the struggling reader [Electronic version]. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 239-243.

Spiegel, D. (1991). Instructional resources: Materials to promote vocabulary development [Electronic version].  The Reading Teacher, 44, 504-507.

Ukrainetz, T. (2006). Contextualized language intervention. Greenville, SC: Thinking Publications.

Wasik, B., Bond, M., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of language and literacy interventions on head start children and teachers [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 63-74.

The Vocabulary Development of Children: The Impact on Literacy

            Vocabulary is the inventory of words that a person both uses and understands—the words we use to communicate (Montgomery, 2008). Words are the building blocks of our language. Without words we would not be able to make sentences in order to read, or talk with others. Each word we know has its own meaning and many of those words have multiple meanings (Spiegel, 1991). Vocabulary is largely related to overall literacy such as reading, writing, listening, and speaking language. Literacy is an individual’s ability to read, write, speak and problem-solve in order to function at work, school, home, and in society (Bass, Williams, & Goldstein, 2007). Vocabulary is a building block for literacy development and it is important for caregivers to help develop good vocabulary skills in children.

            There are several reasons why it is important for caregivers to aid in the development of a child’s vocabulary. Parents and caregivers are children’s first teachers. Hannon the author of Literacy Home and School claims that learning literacy, including vocabulary, takes place at home before children enter into school. Children are born knowing 0 words. Although these words seem to just appear, children have actually learned these words from their exposure to information that they have heard and seen in their environment (Ukrainetz 2006;Edwards, Fourakis, Beckman, and Fox, 1999). In this sense, children are blank slates that need to be written on, with words!

            It is a common misunderstanding that children learn words only by their grade level when in fact, children mostly learn words through their personal experiences with them (Montgomery, 2008). This is why it is crucial for caregivers to facilitate vocabulary development at home. It is recommended that children learn approximately 3,000 words per year, when only 200-400 words are taught directly in school (Montgomery, 2008). According to the statistic above, it is assumed that most children are not being confronted with all the words that they should be learning.

            Caregivers can help by adopting techniques or methods that allow children to learn new words. It is important for caregiver’s to know that there are two ways that children learn vocabulary: directly and indirectly. The direct learning of vocabulary is considered to be a more formal way of learning words, usually by direct instruction, direct word review, and word learning strategies (Montgomery, 2008); like the vocabulary training that is taught in school. The other way that children learn vocabulary is the indirect method. Indirect vocabulary learning is accomplished when children have meaningful conversations with adults, listen to stories, and read to themselves (Montgomery, 2008). This type of exposure can increase a child’s knowledge of words to supplement or add to the vocabulary inventory that a child has (Hay & Fielding-Barnsley, 2007). Although this is not to say that caregivers cannot teach vocabulary from a direct approach but it is statistically proven that children are more likely to expand their vocabulary when they learn word meanings indirectly. However, The National Reading Panel urges that vocabulary should be taught directly and indirectly. More importantly, a combination of these teaching methods can lead to the best exposure for a child (2007; Montgomery, 2008).

            Not only is it important for parents to know how children learn vocabulary but caregivers should also know that there are four types of vocabulary that are important for children to develop in order to increase their literacy. These four types are listening, speaking, reading and writing (Montgomery, 2008). Well developed vocabularies can help children improve their overall literacy skills. Children with higher levels of literacy skills are more likely to succeed both academically and socially (Beirman et al., 2008).

            For literacy development it is important that children be able to develop a listening vocabulary (Montgomery, 2008). This is a person’s ability to understand spoken language. This type of vocabulary starts to develop in infancy when young children rely on the noises around them in order to begin forming words. Most children begin learning vocabulary by listening to the adults around them (Ukrainetz, 2006). As children develop and go on to school expectations for listening increase. For children this skill is necessary to have so that they can understand directions that are given orally (Beirman et al., 2008). Children need to be able to listen so that they can be taught the language rules that are required for reading and writing (Justice, Meir, Walpole, 2005). Not only is a listening vocabulary used for following directions but it will aid the child in understanding stories they hear or conversations they may have with others.

            Another type of vocabulary that is important for literacy development is speaking vocabulary. This type of vocabulary can be defined as the words that one uses to speak or the words we use to express ourselves. This type of vocabulary is important for literacy development so that children can express themselves (Beirman et al.). Speaking vocabulary begins when children are around one year old. This spoken vocabulary allows children to communicate their wants and needs. When children have limited spoken vocabularies they often have difficulty communicating their wants, needs, and feelings that are biological, social, and emotional in nature (Wasik, Bond, & Hindman, 2006). Children first learn literacy through their listening and speaking vocabularies. It is important that caregivers supply opportunities for children to communicate through the means of listening and speaking. In order for children to learn how to read and write, they must rely on their listening and speaking vocabularies so that they may make sense of sentences and words.

            Vocabulary is of primary importance when children are learning how to read. According to The National Reading Panel, “Vocabulary development has long been considered important for reading comprehension and is one of the five building blocks necessary for reading” (2001). Good vocabulary allows children to understand or make sense of the meaning of written text (Beirman et al.).  Researchers suggest that children with underdeveloped vocabularies are at risk for later reading problems (Justice, Meir, Walpole, 2005). Reading comprehension is a complex task that is especially dependant on one’s own knowledge of vocabulary (2007). It goes for any reader that if too many words are not understood by a person when they read, it is unlikely that the reader will gain an understanding from what they read; this is especially true in children who are struggling readers (Rupley & Nichols, 2005). The National Reading Panel urges that reading comprehension is important to the growth of a child’s reading skills, as well as their capacity to obtain an education. It is also important that caregivers help develop their children’s written vocabulary. Words are the tools that are used for writing, so it is important that a child is equipped with these tools so that they may be able to write. When children are writing they must be able to come up with the words that they write on their own. Further, children should be able to understand the meaning of words that they are using in order to write and use them correctly (Brynildssen, 2000). The size and quality of a child’s vocabulary affects the quality of a child’s writing skills. Vocabulary will influence the descriptiveness and accuracy of the child’s writing (Brynildssen, 2000).

            Since vocabulary is a foundation for literacy, establishing a good vocabulary base is important for children if they are to become literate individuals. Children with strong vocabularies are more able to identify and access the meanings of words in order to comprehend through reading, writing, listening, and speaking. All of these skills will increase a person’s literacy and the likelihood for academic success and social adjustment (Wise, Sevcik, Morris, Lovett, &Wolfe, 2007). Researchers claim, “Language skills, like vocabulary, support social-emotional adjustment and foster childrens’ abilities to understand and comply with the demands of school” (Bierman et al., 2008).

            Caregivers can engage in many activities that can help children develop their own vocabulary skills that will ultimately improve literacy skills (Rupley & Nichols, 2005). One of the most beneficial activities is dialogic reading. Dialogic reading is a method of book reading where children are provided with many opportunities to talk and engage in conversation. The caregiver becomes an active listener that asks questions, adds information, and encourages the child to talk about pictures as well as discuss important concepts (Wasik, Bond, & Hindman, 2006). There are several themes found within dialogic reading that can attribute to vocabulary learning. The first theme is repeated exposure to words. Wasik, Bond, & Hindman, suggest that book reading offers experiences for children to be exposed to unfamiliar words that children may not encounter in everyday experiences. The more the child comes in contact with a word the more likely that the child will remember, understand, and use the word. Justice et al. suggest that repeat exposure to new words through conversation, text, or reading helps when children are learning new words (2005). Another method for increasing exposure is known as expansion. This is where the caregiver adds to a phrase or word that a child says. This can help expose children to new words that are more complex. The second theme is adult interactions. Children expand their knowledge of new words by relating them to words that they already know. Adults can help with this process by helping the child make connections between word meanings (Hay & Fielding-Barnsley, 2007). Vocabulary words can also be more meaningful to the child if caregivers can connect words to a child’s experiences (Hay & Fielding-Barnsley, 2007). Caregivers can also rephrase sentences to help simplify word meanings so that the caregivers can be sure that the child is making sense of the words. Another theme is that children should be asked to point out pictures or words in a book and ask the child to comment on them (Center for Family Literacy). The caregiver can also ask the child questions like “What do you call this?” in order for a child to name objects or people in a book. If I child is unsure of what a word means or what to call something the caregiver should be sure to give the child information to expand their understanding. Dialogic reading can help a child to develop each of the four types of vocabulary mentioned earlier. Overall research shows that dialogic reading conducted between caregivers and children can increase and accelerate the vocabulary development needed for good literacy skills (Hay & Fielding-Barnsley, 2007).

            Vocabulary is a strong predictor of a child’s literacy skills. More specifically, vocabulary development that allows a child to listen, speak, read, and write. Caregivers can engage in meaningful activities with children to accelerate their vocabulary development so that they may assist a child in developing the literacy skills that can critically influence a child’s opportunities for success.

Author/Publishing Body/ Point of View:

The author of www.earlyliteracylearning.orgis not specified within the web page. However; there is information in the ‘contacts’ section of the website that gives the e-mail address, address, and telephone number for Tracy L. Masiello, Ph.D. who is affiliated with the website/organization. The website is funded by the U.S. Department of Education specifically, the Office of Special Education Programs of the Research to Practice Division. CELL or Center for Early Literacy Learning is endorsed by the Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute that is linked on the homepage. When this link is followed it takes you to the homepage of the Puckett Institute, a non-profit organization that claims to encourage family intervention and improvement in areas related to health.  The CELL site is also linked on the Puckett Institution site under the tag ‘project sites’.  There is a list of advisory board members that I assume helped to create this website or at least helped to guide the content of this website.  The list of people found on the advisory board seems to be associated with government education agencies and specialists regarding literacy and teachers.Again this website seems to be affiliated with government organizations as well as Universities like University of Connecticut, as well as the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Family Literacy, and the American Institute for Research. Upon searching ASHA website, I did not find any links or articles written about CELL. The point of view found within the web page is that of advocates for the early or assisted development of literacy within the family environment. CELL provides reviews, research and a list of literacy development techniques that can be of use to those working with families and children to increase literacy development. Because the site is endorsed by government agencies and a large field of professionals that are knowledgeable about literacy in some form takes on the agenda to provide good intervention strategies involving literacy and the family dynamic.  All documents within the website include reference lists containing several sources that are located at the bottom of each written article. References include areas found within speech-pathology, education, developmental psychology and more. All references are documented in APA format and seem to be correct.

 Accuracy of the information:

Information on the site seems to be accurate. The articles including those with research give appropriate background information and methods or practices that the articles content is based on. The background information used has several citations that can be further verified upon searching through a database. Most articles were published with in the last two years and the references used are current within the last 10 years. All articles give the date of publication including year, month, and day that the article was published. The copyright date of the website is dated to be 2006 which indicates an aspect of currency. There is no place where the viewer can note when all information was updated.

Overview: This webpage seems to have a high quality of information that is backed by strong resources. It is appropriate fro educators, specialists, and families that are interested in information involving techniques and research with early literacy learning. The site indicates the goals, frameworks, research, and references that are endorsed by the organization. A helpful tool found within the website is the site map that gives an outline of the contents of the website.

This progress memo serves to document the unit entitled Technology as a Clinical Tool. The section has spanned about four weeks that have included a great amount of content. There were two defining assignments in this section that although they may seem dissimilar they strike in the same vein.  The first assignment included an evaluation of software that is specific to someone with a communication disorder that can either help maintain, teach, or re-teach a communication skill. Evaluating software requires the evaluator to look at several aspects that consider the quality, appropriateness, and the effectiveness of the software. Key questions that I learned when assessing software are: how many viewpoints are taken into consideration if this software is going to be used? This means that if I want to implement software I need to look at the client, parent/guardian, and implementer to gauge how the specific software will serve its supposed purpose. I think that there are several facets to consider but I think by far the most important is; Does this fulfill the needs of the individual? I did learn about my specific software but, I learned more about the process of choosing tools for therapy or assessment, not just tools specific to technology. Secondary to completing the software evaluation we were required to assess the work of our peers. The assignment was to look at other software evaluations and note the strengths and weaknesses of our reviewees. From this experience I was exposed to different writing styles and processes of evaluating. This helped me to learn about my performance. I learned that being concise is a good way to express meaning and maintain the attention of my reader. I also learned that is hard to evaluate peers because they often have a different perspective and I do not want to limit their creativity because of my own thoughts. I think that peer reviewing is a good tool to modify work but I also think that it would be nice to review and talk about it with the person face-to-face. The second major assignment was the adaptive technology assignment. This assignment required the student to discover the definition and purpose of adaptive technology. From what I have learned about adaptive technology, I will describe it as this; an adaptive technology is any technology that aids someone in accomplishing a task; specifically, a task that requires the user to focus on rehabilitation, habilitation, or the maintenance of a skill.  Adaptive technologies are technologies that serve to improve someone’s functional abilities whether in communicational, vocational, or everyday living type of setting. Although an adaptive technology can serve many people, this unit focused on how these technologies can aid populations that SLP’s commonly serve. We had to find information on who, what, why, where, when, and how the technologies were used. This helped to create a general outline of the project. The hardest thing for me about this project was condensing information down to fit the length requirements. Although cutting information is hard, I think it really hopes to focus in on the important parts of the material. Synthesizing information is a hard task to accomplish but I think that it is most useful to really gain an understand of a specific subject area.

• Process Summary

I have notice a change in my habits of completing work. I break the work to be done down in a step-by-step process. For example, I have the habit of being implusive and trying to finish things in one go-around. I am now trying to make everything a process that spans a few days. I feel like this helps keep my thoughts together in that I have time to process information and make changes as I go through a process of complying, re-organizing, and creating new information. I found that I am more successful when I take a few days to break something apart and then put it back together. I also do this with the discussion question of the week, I take a day or so to really think about the question and read what others are saying to try and find a new perspective.

I also had the opportunity to refine my skills with PowerPoint. I have not used this program since high school but because I have been using much more technology since then, I am using this program more efficiently. I also like PowerPoint because it helps me to organize my thoughts. I am a very visual learner so the information that I have put together will stay with me longer because I have the strong visual connection to the information. I have also become more efficient in using the wiki program setup for the class. I can maneuver more quickly and I know how to accomplish posting and revising the information that I put on the wiki.

• Assessment/Reflection

I thought that the process of putting a presentation together was very valuable to me. I have learned a lot from making sure that I have proper permission for images and other content that is included in my work. As a student I think it is vital to know how to pull resources in the appropriate manner because much of my professional career will include the same tasks. I think that as students get farther in school and gain more knowledge about a field they often forget that although we have this knowledge, the people that we serve do not, that is why we have a job. From this observation I think that it is important to make information concise and simple to understand. As professionals that really rely on interpersonal communication, I think that it is imperative to have this skill. I also really like reading the discussion. I enjoy being able to get other perspectives and thoughts from other people in class because it allows me to see the different standpoints that an SLP can take. It is interesting to see the underlying cultural currents and personal values of my classmates. Again, I think this concept relates back to interpersonal communication and that the more exposure we have to different viewpoints we will be able to look at information or ideas in several different ways.

 I believe that i have met the standards required for this project to check for clarity i went back through to make sure that my statements made sense. I modified wording on a few slides to avoid unnecessary words that may make passages more lengthy and confusing. I also pulled the definition of adaptive technology from another source because not everyone supports Wikipedia and i do no want to discredit my work because someone may or may not have an opinion of Wikipedia. I think I made the relevance clear by illustrating WiVik as an adaptive technology. I thought that it was important to address the subject of adaptive technology by using a definition found in the IDEA Act that is written by the government. I think this connection makes the presentation and purpose stronger. I think that the clarity has improved with the changes that I have made. The images used reinforce meaning because they give a graphic display of the program or tools associated with WiVik. I think information in the presentation in accurate and can be verified by the references. Hyperlinks are provided so that people that read the presentation via the Internet will be able to immediately check the accuracy of information; however, journal articles are not instantly available. I think I could have been more specific in some instances but i because we were under length guidelines, I had to be as specific as possible in a small amount of words. I think the presentation has depth and the factors that make this difficult are being able to separate or combine the project categories when necessary. For example, where and who, relating to the technology, can either be addressed separately or together. I decided to put them together to make it more clear. I think that I addressed logic by coming up with a good order for the slides presented. I think that it is important to have good flow so that it makes sense. I think that the presentation is logical and easy to follow. I think that the central idea is that Wivik is an adaptive technology that can aid users in communication. I think that all the aspects of the central idea have been covered and support the significance of the project. I also do not believe that there is any trivial information found within the presentation. I feel like it is important when doing reports or presentation on a software to not endorse your materials. I think that there are benefits to this software but i have to describe them not sell the product. I do not feel that the presentation in biased nor does it support any population more than another.

Objectivity:

The purpose of this website, assumed from the content, is to provide products for dogs by selling items (via the Internet) such as dog food. The website endorses the love of dogs vs. the love of cats. The endorsement is accomplished by saying that everybody loves dogs and then claims that those who do not like dogs, like cats. The information and claims located on the website are biased and are based solely on the author/website opinion.

Accuracy:

The company does not cite any sources for information or development purposes. The site authors, Rebecca H. and Carl M, have small pieces of information about their past job experiences but information about the authors does not parallel previous background to the current site. The link for Rebecca is a link that brings up broken images and an faulty website that seems to be connected to the Purina website. Carl M. is mentioned to have background information in public speaking and what seems to be information about some digital networking experience. All information seems to be a biased construct of the organization because of the radical claims and lack of research and resources used in the formation of the site.

Authority:

The author’s names are unrecognizable. Rebecca’s role is said to be the president and chief creative officer of betterdogfood.com while Carl is said the be the chairmen/CEO/founder of the website betterdogfood.com. There is a link on one of the pages that says betterdogfood.com is owned by petchick when the link is followed an Outlook e-mail pages is provided with Rebecca’s email in the send window. Earlier it was unclear that she was in fact the owner of the site. E-mail addresses are included for both but Carl’s address was accessed via the link in his biographical section; however’ Rebecca’s is provided through hyperlink found within the text. The biographical information was lacking in content and did not seem relative to the purpose of the site. For example, in Carl’s biography it said that he was an international speaker and there was a hyperlink provided that came up to be a transcript written by Carl on the Internet World Exhibit dated 2006. The name of the hyperlink was a ‘kazakhstan’ which i thought to be a poor choice because it was about a particular event and not the country. This poor naming is seemingly unrelated to the content of the website and lacks in appropriate categorization. There was a rating of the website found via hyperlink provided within the website to an ‘eopinion’ page that had a rating from a user. The user rated the site as being 1 star out of 5 categorizing the site as

Currency:

The copyright was indicated on the following pages: homepage, investor page, and store front page. The date the site was created, first post, and any revisions were not found on the website. The page content does not necessarily demand updating although it would be in the best interest of the company to do so. If the company were to have specials or sales then the website would need to be updated. Almost all links are not in working order however, this was explained in that the sites ‘E-commerce provider’ went out of business so product links and other graphic interfaces are either not working or partially working. Other links found within the page are not correct;for example, there is a passage that says ‘we are the first food related dot com’ and then it provides a hyperlink that is assumed to serve as an example. This link navigates away from a page and send the user to another company overview page. This company is unrelated in that it is a company that has to do with the stock market.

Coverage:

Almost all topics within the website are superficially addressed and developed. The link that tells about the available stock options within betterdogfood.com seems to be well developed but I do not know much about stocks. The inconsistency in the way the financial information is presented compared to the other content within the site may relay that this site is fraudulent or attempting to scam users. There are links that are used for examples but the links are either incorrect or not working or they are completely unrelated to the topic at hand. I do not see any of this information as being valuable for anyone. There really is no content in the site; the information is inaccurate and unclear and visibly biased.