Vocabulary :: Communication, Language

Vocabulary is very important to everyday reading because it is all of the words in a language. According to Bursuck and Damer (2010) students â€Å"learn to decode harder text, they are more likely to encounter words that are not part of their oral language† (p. 231). Being familiar with words and the meaning of the word assists student’s fluency as well as comprehension. According to the National Institute of Literacy (2007) vocabulary is â€Å"words used in speech and print to communicate† (p. 14). Vocabulary can be divided into two categories â€Å"oral or spoken words and written words† (National Institute of Literacy, 2007, p. 14). The National Institute of Literacy (2007), agree with Bursuck and Damer (2010), stating that â€Å"vocabulary knowledge is important to reading because the oral and written words promote comprehension and communication† (p. 14). Since vocabulary is extremely important Pullen, Tuckwiller, Konold, Maynard, & Coyne, 20 10 used a â€Å"three tier model for students at risk for a reading disability† (p. 110). Pullen et al. (2010) states that vocabulary development occurs through incidental learning and home environment before formal schooling† (p. 111) The intervention created by Pullen et al. (2010) was meant to increase students’ vocabulary of at risk students. The intervention (2010) participants â€Å"were 224 first grade students in elementary schools in a diverse population and moderate percentage of students in socio-economic status† (p. 114). The intervention (2010) itself created by ___________________ was a three-tier system: Tier 1 consisted of classroom instruction and â€Å"students who do not respond to tier 1 will receive tier 2 instruction and tier 3 is the most intensive level and if student do not respond to this level they are referred to a special education evaluation† (p. 114). To identify students who may be at risk of disability, the intervention (2010) used the PPVT-4 as a standardized test. Pullen et al. (2010) used the test to asses the baseline level â€Å"of receptive vocabulary and identify participants as either at risk of not for reading failure† (p. 115). The authors of the intervention (2010) selected the PPVT-4 because â€Å"it demonstrated reliability, indicating that is a sound measure for measuring receptive vocabulary† (p. 115). For a post-test, the authors (2010) used a researcher-developed measure to asses students’ acquisition of target words used in the intervention (p. 115). Pullen et al. (2010) had a three-tier system where tier 1 and tier 2 were designed â€Å"around two story books appropriate for first grade students† (p.