LSHSS_45_3_204Supp1.pdf (348.76 kB)
Classroom-Based Narrative and Vocabulary Instruction (Gillam et al., 2014)
journal contribution
posted on 2014-07-01, 00:00 authored by Sandra Laing Gillam, Abbie Olszewski, Jamison Fargo, Ronald B. GillamPurpose This nonrandomized feasibility study was designed to provide a preliminary assessment of the impact of a narrative and vocabulary instruction program provided by a speech-language pathologist (SLP) in a regular classroom setting.
Method Forty-three children attending 2 first-grade classrooms participated in the study. Children in each classroom were divided into high- and low-risk subgroups on the basis of their performance on a narrative test. Narrative and vocabulary instruction was provided by an SLP in 1 classroom for three 30-min periods per week for 6 weeks. Results The children in the experimental classroom made clinically significant improvements on narrative and vocabulary measures; children in the comparison classroom did not. Within the experimental classroom, children in the high-risk subgroup demonstrated greater gains in narration and fewer gains in vocabulary than children in the low-risk subgroup. There were no subgroup differences in the comparison classroom.
Conclusion These preliminary results provide early evidence of the feasibility of implementing a narrative instruction program in a classroom setting. Children at a high risk for language difficulties appeared to profit more from the narrative instruction than from the embedded vocabulary instruction. More extensive research on this instructional program is warranted.
Method Forty-three children attending 2 first-grade classrooms participated in the study. Children in each classroom were divided into high- and low-risk subgroups on the basis of their performance on a narrative test. Narrative and vocabulary instruction was provided by an SLP in 1 classroom for three 30-min periods per week for 6 weeks. Results The children in the experimental classroom made clinically significant improvements on narrative and vocabulary measures; children in the comparison classroom did not. Within the experimental classroom, children in the high-risk subgroup demonstrated greater gains in narration and fewer gains in vocabulary than children in the low-risk subgroup. There were no subgroup differences in the comparison classroom.
Conclusion These preliminary results provide early evidence of the feasibility of implementing a narrative instruction program in a classroom setting. Children at a high risk for language difficulties appeared to profit more from the narrative instruction than from the embedded vocabulary instruction. More extensive research on this instructional program is warranted.
