Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Exploring the semantic structure of children’s responses in a vocabulary intervention

Thu, March 21, 12:30 to 2:00pm, Hilton Baltimore, Floor: Level 2, Key 3

Integrative Statement

To be successful readers, children must be able to utilize an interconnected bank of semantic knowledge that gives text meaning (Neuman, 2010; Ouellette, 2006). This kind of semantic knowledge, characterized by richly-connected networks of associated words and concepts, is referred to as depth of word knowledge (Anderson & Freebody, 1985). Unfortunately, research shows that low-income children have less exposure to a high quantity of diverse vocabulary words compared to their higher-income peers (Hart & Risley, 1995; Rowe, 2008). This rich vocabulary exposure is likely an important building block in the construction of
semantic networks. Many vocabulary interventions have aimed to increase children’s depth of knowledge, but few have examined the organization of children’s semantic space in response to vocabulary instruction.
Researchers often explore the organization of semantic networks by examining the thematic and taxonomic (or syntagmatic and paradigmatic, respectively) relationships that exist in children’s lexicons (Hadley et al., 2018; Cronin, 2002). While being able to provide syntagmatic information about words indicates some depth of knowledge, paradigmatic information demonstrates deeper semantic knowledge (Ervin, 1961; Neuman et al., 2011). The present study examined children’s semantic space in response to a vocabulary intervention by analyzing children’s usage of syntagmatic and paradigmatic information.
The Language for Reading project taught words though shared-book reading and playful learning experiences designed to support children’s depth of word knowledge. A total of 138 low-income preschoolers (ages 3- to 5-years) were taught 80 difficult words over seven months.
An expressive test of word knowledge (Hadley et al., 2018), designed to capture depth of knowledge, was administered pre- and post-intervention. Scores on this measure indicated that children’s depth of word knowledge was significantly greater at post-test compared to pre-test, B = 0.93, SE = 0.04, p < .001. Preliminary results from coded responses on the expressive test demonstrate that children who gave either syntagmatic or paradigmatic information performed better on additional vocabulary measures. Those who provided paradigmatic information had significantly better results on a receptive measure of target vocabulary items and significantly better PPVT scores compared to children whose responses did not receive points for paradigmatic information, t(105) = 5.52, p < 0.001 (receptive); t(101) = 2.65, p < 0.05 (PPVT). Similarly, children who provided syntagmatic information had significantly better results on these two measures compared to children who did not receive points for syntagmatic information, t(105) = 7.56, p < 0.001 (receptive); t(101) = 2.24, p < 0.05 (PPVT). While children who provided paradigmatic information did not demonstrate higher vocabulary ability than children who gave syntagmatic information, these results demonstrate that children with higher vocabulary abilities learned the target words at a deeper level. This is likely because these children had richer semantic spaces, or more points of connection, allowing them to connect target words to their existing networks. While it is promising that this vocabulary intervention promoted low-income children’s depth of word knowledge, future work should continue examining how to increase depth of knowledge in children with lower vocabulary ability.

Authors