1. The Effects of Multimedia-Enhanced Instruction on the Vocabulary of
English-Language Learners and Non-English-Language Learners in
Pre-Kindergarten Through Second Grade
Rebecca Silverman
University of Maryland—College Park
Sara Hines
Hunter College
This study compared traditional and multimedia-enhanced read-aloud vocabulary instruction and inves-
tigated whether the effects differed for English-language learners (ELLs) and non-English-language
learners (non-ELLs). Results indicate that although there was no added benefit of multimedia-enhanced
instruction for non-ELLs, there was a positive effect for ELLs on a researcher-designed measure and on
a measure of general vocabulary knowledge. Furthermore, for children in the multimedia-enhanced
condition, the gap between non-ELLs and ELLs in knowledge of instructional words was closed, and the
gap in general vocabulary knowledge was narrowed. The multimedia support did not negatively impact
non-ELLs, indicating the potential of multimedia-enhanced vocabulary instruction for ELLs in inclusive
settings.
Keywords: vocabulary, multimedia, storybook reading, English language learners, instruction
Researchers agree that insufficient vocabulary knowledge is a
critical problem for many young children, particularly English-
language learners (ELLs; August & Shanahan, 2006; Snow, Burns,
& Griffin, 1998). Children need to know a wide range of words to
understand the texts they will encounter in school. Many ELLs
who come to school with limited English-language background
find that vocabulary is their most frequently encountered obstacle
in attempting to access information from classroom texts (August
& Hakuta, 1997; Carlo et al., 2004; Jime´nez, 1994). Given the
growing number of ELLs in U.S. schools, research to determine
effective instructional techniques to assist young children from
diverse linguistic backgrounds in acquiring early vocabulary
knowledge is of utmost importance.
One instructional technique that shows promise for supporting
the vocabulary development of ELLs is the use of multimedia, in
which content is presented through a combination of various
visuals and sounds. An example of multimedia is video that
contains live action, animation, voice-overs, text, and music. Re-
cent research suggests that complementing the traditional story-
book reading format, in which children hear a book read aloud and
see the static pictures in the book, with a multimedia presentation
that reinforces the meaning of the text may benefit children learn-
ing a second language (Verhallen, Bus, & de Jong, 2006). It is
hypothesized that augmenting the primarily verbal and limited
nonverbal information conveyed in the traditional storybook read-
ing experience with added nonverbal information in the form of
dynamic audiovisual reinforcement may enhance the vocabulary
growth of ELLs. In the study described here, we investigated the
effect of adding multimedia reinforcement in the form of video to
traditional vocabulary instruction provided through reading story-
books aloud and, specifically, explored whether multimedia-
enhanced instruction is differentially effective for English lan-
guage learners and non-English language learners (non-ELLs).
Effective Vocabulary Instruction for Non-English-
Language Learners
Most research on vocabulary instruction has been conducted
with non-ELLs in the context of traditional storybook reading, also
known as read alouds (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007; Biemiller &
Boote, 2006; Coyne, Simmons, Kame’enui, & Stoolmiller, 2004;
Penno, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Silver-
man, 2007a, 2007b; Wasik, Bond, & Hindman, 2006). Research
indicates that instruction during read alouds should be direct and
rich (Beck & McKeown, 2007; McKeown & Beck, 2004; National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD],
2000). Specifically, when reading storybooks to beginning or
non-readers, teachers should provide children with definitions that
are child friendly and explicit and actively engage children in word
analysis. This includes comparing, contrasting, and connecting
word meanings and relating new words to children’s background
knowledge and to new and varied contexts beyond the book in
which the word appeared (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Dickinson &
Smith, 1994; Hargrave & Se´ne´chal, 2000; Penno et al., 2002;
Silverman, 2007b; Wasik et al., 2006; Whitehurst et al., 1994).
Also, instruction should provide children with clear phonological
and orthographic representations of targeted words to aid storage
in and retrieval from memory (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002;
Juel & Deffes, 2004; Silverman, 2007b). Finally, words should be
reinforced and repeated for optimal learning (Beck & McKeown,
2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; NICHD, 2000).
Rebecca Silverman, College of Education, University of Maryland—
College Park; Sara Hines, Department of Special Education, Hunter Col-
lege of the City University of New York.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rebecca
Silverman, College of Education, University of Maryland, 1308 Benjamin
Bldg., College Park, MD 20742.
Journal of Educational Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association
2009, Vol. 101, No. 2, 305–314 0022-0663/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0014217
305

2. Vocabulary Instruction for English-Language Learners
Research suggests that vocabulary instruction that works for
non-ELLs works as well if not better for ELLs (August & Shana-
han, 2006; Carlo et al., 2004; Collins, 2005; Silverman, 2007a). In
a study in which the same research-based vocabulary intervention
was implemented through read alouds with both non-ELLs and
ELLs in kindergarten, ELLs grew in knowledge of words targeted
in the intervention at the same rate and grew in general vocabulary
knowledge at a faster rate than their non-ELL peers (Silverman,
2007a). In fact, it may be that some components of vocabulary
intervention are especially important for ELLs. Because ELLs may
not understand the meaning of many foundational vocabulary
words (e.g., same versus different), they may need additional or
different instructional support than non-ELLs during vocabulary
instruction (Gersten & Baker, 2000: Gersten & Geva, 2003; Moats,
2001). For example, illustrating words and acting out words have
been suggested as two strategies that may be particularly helpful in
teaching vocabulary to ELLs (Gersten & Baker, 2000; Gersten &
Geva, 2003; Roberts & Neal, 2004). Augmenting vocabulary in-
struction with multimedia enhancements such as video may be
another way to support the vocabulary learning of ELLs (Cham-
bers, Cheung, Madden, Slavin, & Gifford, 2006; Kamil, Intrator, &
Kim, 2000).
Multimedia Support for Vocabulary Instruction
The hypothesis that multimedia enhancements may encourage
vocabulary learning is supported by Paivio’s (1986) dual-coding
theory, which posits the existence of separate systems for process-
ing verbal and nonverbal information. According to this theory,
when information is conveyed both verbally and nonverbally,
these two systems support each other and enable greater informa-
tion recall. Multimedia enhancements may provide children with
more robust nonverbal information than that presented in the static
pictures in storybooks and allow children to more effectively use
their nonverbal processing system to support their verbal process-
ing of the storybook content.
Though some critics may argue that multimedia could detract
from children’s learning by diverting their attention away from
verbal content, Neuman (1997) has suggested in her theory of
synergy that augmenting verbal information with multimedia en-
hancements may actually contribute to children’s learning of new
content by providing them with added tools for processing new
information. In fact, multimedia enhancements such as zoom shots
and sound effects could make actions more salient and draw
children’s attention to germane details that will foster their under-
standing of important concepts (Kamil et al., 2000). However, in
spite of the popularity of multimedia with young children and
arguments supporting its usefulness for vocabulary instruction,
research investigating the effect of multimedia support for vocab-
ulary instruction has been limited. A review of some of the existing
research follows.
Non-English-Language Learners
Much of the research investigating the effect of multimedia on
children’s vocabulary has focused on educational television. For
example, in a study with preschool children, Rice and Woodsmall
(1988) investigated whether children learn words while watching
educational television in an experimental setting and whether such
learning is influenced by the children’s age, their vocabulary level,
and the type of words introduced. After viewing a 15 min educa-
tional television program with voice-over narration featuring 20
novel words, the experimental group performed significantly better
than the control group on object, action, and attribute words but
not on affective words. The researchers found that the results were
stronger for older children, but the effects were not limited to
children with more advanced vocabularies.
Rice, Huston, Truglio, and Wright (1990) looked at the effects
of viewing educational television at home in a 2-year longitudinal
study with children who were between 21⁄2 years and 41⁄2 years old
at the beginning of the study and found that children who had
watched Sesame Street more frequently earned higher scores on a
measure of receptive vocabulary. There was no effect for watching
other television programming such as cartoons. The relationship
between educational television viewing and vocabulary was only
significant for the younger children. Rice et al. suggest that this
difference by age might be due to the waning appeal of Sesame
Street as children become older.
Linebarger, Kosanic, Greenwood, and Doku (2004) examined
the effect of educational television viewing on literacy develop-
ment, including vocabulary growth, with children in kindergarten
and first grade. The participants viewed 17 episodes of Between
the Lions, a series created to teach emergent literacy skills, in their
classrooms. Teachers were directed “not to discuss or refer to the
show, link it to other classroom activities, or otherwise integrate it
into the day-to-day curriculum” (p. 305). Although Linebarger et
al. found higher word recognition and standardized reading scores,
as well as improvement on phonemic awareness and word recog-
nition tasks, for viewers over controls, there were no significant
differences for vocabulary-related tasks. They suggested that fu-
ture research explore whether reinforcement of television viewing
through classroom conversation and related activities would lead
to different results.
In summary, research investigating the effect of multimedia,
specifically television programming, on vocabulary instruction
with a general population of young children has led to inconclusive
results. It seems that the effects of educational television could
depend on children’s age and interest in specific content, the type
of words introduced through the educational programming, the
nature of the content itself (e.g., noneducational cartoons versus
educational programming such as Sesame Street and Between the
Lions), or the setting of the television program viewing (i.e., at
home or in school). Additional research on the effect of multime-
dia on vocabulary is needed. Furthermore, considering that the
studies previously described were conducted with primarily mono-
lingual, English-speaking children, it is important to look at the
effect of multimedia with children from other linguistic back-
grounds as well.
English-Language Learners
A few studies have been conducted to investigate the effective-
ness of educational television and other multimedia support of
vocabulary for young ELLs. For example, Uchikoshi (2006) ex-
amined the vocabulary growth of Spanish–English bilingual kin-
dergarten students in school who had been assigned to groups in
306 SILVERMAN AND HINES

3. which they watched educational television programs, either Arthur
or Between the Lions, or to a control group. Experimental groups
did not receive classroom reinforcement of television viewing. As
in the Linebarger et al. (2004) study, classroom viewing of the
educational television programs did not have an effect on vocab-
ulary growth. However, Uchikoshi also found that children who
watched the two educational TV programs at home had stronger
vocabularies at school entry than those who did not. Uchikoshi
(2006) suggested that the positive effects of home viewing in
contrast to classroom viewing might be related to reinforcement of
words introduced in the programs by parents and siblings. Similar
to Linebarger et al. (2004); Uchikoshi (2006) suggested that for
non-ELLs and ELLs alike, viewing educational television pro-
gramming may be more effective with instructional scaffolding to
promote incidental vocabulary learning.
Chambers et al. (2006), rather than using educational television
programs, looked at the effect of multimedia support specifically
created to reinforce vocabulary words contained in the Success for
All reading program (Success for All Foundation, Baltimore, MD).
The authors stated that the multimedia materials (i.e., video clips)
were developed to be particularly beneficial to English language
learners, who constituted a third of participants. The authors stated
that the results partially supported their hypothesis that multimedia
would enhance beginning readers’ achievement. Results did not
differ for non-ELLs and ELLs. However, although vocabulary was
an instructional focus, vocabulary outcomes were not measured.
The researchers recommended future research investigating the
effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on vocabulary growth.
In a study particularly relevant to this investigation, Verhallen et
al. (2006), working with children learning Dutch rather than En-
glish, explored whether multimedia features enhanced the reading
progress of second-language learners in kindergarten. Children in
the experimental group watched a computer presentation of a
storybook that included, in addition to the spoken text and static
pictures presented to the control group, zoom shots and other
multimedia effects (e.g., sound) to focus the children’s attention on
important visual details. The comprehension of the children in the
experimental group was significantly better than those in the
control group. Also, even though vocabulary was not taught di-
rectly in the multimedia condition, the experimental group evi-
denced greater gains in vocabulary.
As with research conducted with non-ELLs, research on the
effects of multimedia for supporting the vocabulary learning of
ELLs is inconclusive. While some of the research suggests that
multimedia support may enhance the word learning of second-
language learners (Verhallen et al., 2006), other research suggests
that multimedia, at least without instructional scaffolding, does not
have added benefit for ELLs (Uchikoshi, 2006). Additionally,
while Chambers et al. (2006) did not investigate gains in vocab-
ulary, their research suggests that multimedia instruction may not
be differentially effective with non-ELLs and ELLs. Further re-
search on the effect of multimedia on vocabulary for both non-
ELLs and ELLs is needed.
Current Study
The research questions guiding this study were the following:
(a) What is the effect of a multimedia-enhanced read-aloud vo-
cabulary intervention as compared with a read-aloud vocabulary
intervention that does not include multimedia enhancement on
early elementary school–aged children’s knowledge of words tar-
geted in the intervention, general vocabulary knowledge, and
knowledge of the content introduced in the intervention? (b) Does
the effect depend on children’s language background (i.e., whether
children are ELLs or non-ELLs)?
Method
Sample
The study was set in a small, semiurban public school in the
northeast. The teachers of the pre-kindergarten through second
grade English-language classrooms in the school participated in
this study. There were two classrooms per grade level in prekin-
dergarten through first grade and one classroom in second grade.
In second grade, both the regular classroom teacher and the re-
source teacher participated in the project. Therefore, 8 teachers in
total participated in the study. All of the teachers were female.
Seven of the teachers were White, and 1 was Black. Of these 8
teachers, 1 was a new teacher, 1 had been teaching for more than
30 years, and the rest had been teaching for 2–20 years. Half of the
teachers had a master’s degree, and all of the teachers had a
bachelor’s degree in education.
Eighty-five children across the four grade levels participated in
the study. Of these 85 children, 15 were in pre-kindergarten, 28 in
kindergarten, 25 in first grade, and 17 in second grade. The
average age of the children in the sample was 61⁄2 years, with a
range of 41⁄2–81⁄2 years. A little over half of the sample was male.
According to school records, 48% of the sample was Black, 20%
was White, 20% was Asian, 7% was Hispanic, and 5% was
classified as “other.” Also, 55% received free or reduced lunch,
which was used in the study as a measure of socioeconomic status
(SES).
Information on children’s primary language was obtained from
parent questionnaires. Parents were asked, “What is your child’s
primary language?” The parents of 68% of the children responded
that their children spoke English as their primary language. These
children were considered non-ELLs in this study. The parents of
32% of the children responded that their children spoke a language
besides English as their primary language. These children were
considered ELLs in this study. Among the ELLs in this study, 33%
were Black, 3% were White, 52% were Asian, and 11% were
Hispanic. ELLs spoke a wide range of languages as their primary
language including Haitian Creole, Portuguese, Mandarin, and
Spanish.
Intervention
There were two intervention conditions in this study: (a) non-
multimedia and (b) multimedia. In both of these conditions, teach-
ers implemented a scripted intervention lesson 45 min per day for
3 days a week over the course of 12 weeks. The length and
duration of the intervention were held constant across conditions.
The content of both conditions was habitats (i.e., rainforests,
savannahs, coral reefs, and deserts) and incorporated both narra-
tive and information texts. The focus on habitats was in alignment
with the school district’s science standards. There were two main
reasons that we chose to use science content in our intervention.
307MULTIMEDIA-ENHANCED VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

4. First, given the vast number of reading and math standards that
must be addressed on a given school day, teachers often argue that
there is not enough time for vocabulary instruction. Many teachers
also feel that there is not enough time for science. Integrating
vocabulary and science in the intervention allowed teachers to
address both of these important instructional components at the
same time. Second, a focus on content area topics in the early
grades is essential for building children’s background knowledge
(Dreher, 2003; Duke, 2003).
The intervention in each of the conditions was similar in many
ways. In both conditions, the intervention consisted of four 3-week
cycles, one cycle for each habitat. Children in both conditions
heard the same books in the same order and were introduced to the
same words in each of these books. Three books were read per
cycle in both conditions. The researchers chose books on the basis
of content, accessibility, and engagement. In other words, books
were chosen to be (a) relevant to the habitats that we had chosen,
(b) easy enough for children to comprehend but challenging
enough for children to increase their knowledge, and (c) interesting
enough to keep children’s attention. Eight words per book were
chosen as target words. Additionally, four words essential to the
overriding theme (i.e., discover, habitat, community, and explore)
were addressed in a short introduction to the intervention and
reinforced throughout the intervention. Therefore, 100 words were
addressed in the 12-week intervention. The words were chosen on
the basis of the approach used by Beck et al. (2002). Therefore, all
words were Tier-2 words (i.e., words that are sophisticated and
used often in literary or academic texts) that were important to the
content of the books in which they appeared. For example, some of
the words chosen for the rainforest habitat were creature, rare,
depend, tropical, territory, and dangerous. The same books and
words were used at all grade levels in the study. Teachers approved
all books and words chosen for the curriculum to ensure they were
appropriate for their students. Appendix A provides a list of books
and target words for each unit.
For the multimedia condition, we chose four videos, one per
habitat, to use in the intervention. Because we wanted to use
materials that would be easily accessible and because we could not
find already-made videos to accompany each intervention book,
the videos (i.e., DVDs) did not directly match the books in the
intervention. Three of the DVDs used in the intervention were
from the National Geographic Really Wild Animals series (Na-
tional Geographic, 2005): Totally Tropical Rainforests, Deep Sea
Dive, and Swinging Safari. We also used the desert segment of the
Video Learning System DVD Habitats (FogWare, 2005). Because
the videos were not aligned to the books, it was difficult to find
short, cohesive clips that matched the specific words targeted in an
individual book. For example, though we may have taught tropi-
cal, dangerous, and territory through one book, these words may
appear at the beginning, middle, or end of the video, making it
difficult to show these words in the same, relatively short clip. On
the other hand, while we may have taught predator, prey, and wild
in three different books, these words might appear all in one short
segment of video. Therefore, we chose to show clips from the
video for each habitat after the 6 book-reading days to facilitate the
review of all of the words taught across books. These clips were
chosen to be intentionally short (i.e., about 5 min) to maintain
children’s attention and to facilitate re-viewing of the clips.
The conditions differed in the number of days that students
heard each book and in whether or not they watched video pre-
sentations related to the content of the books. In the nonmultimedia
condition, teachers read each book on 3 days. They also imple-
mented scripted curricula that accompanied the read-aloud books
for their condition. In the multimedia condition, teachers read each
book on 2 days. Then, for 3 days at the end of the cycle, teachers
showed children different clips from a video that related to the
habitat for that cycle. Teachers also implemented the scripted
curricula that accompanied the read-aloud books and video clips
for their condition.
To understand the difference between the two conditions, con-
sider the following. For the rainforest unit in the nonmultimedia
condition, teachers read The Great Kapok Tree (Cherry, 1990) for
3 days in Week 1, Life in the Rainforest (Berger, 1996) for three
days in Week 2, and Nature’s Green Umbrella (Gibbons, 1994) for
3 days in Week 3. In Week 4, teachers began the unit on savan-
nahs. In the multimedia condition, teachers read The Great Kapok
Tree (Cherry, 1990) for 2 days in Week 1. They read Life in the
Rainforest (Berger, 1996) for the remaining day in Week 1 and the
first day in Week 2, and they read Nature’s Green Umbrella
(Gibbons, 1994) for the remaining 2 days in Week 2. In Week 3,
teachers showed different clips from Totally Tropical Rainforests
(National Geographic, 2005) over the course of 3 days. As in the
nonmultimedia condition, in Week 4, teachers began the unit on
savannahs.
Teachers in both conditions taught the same scripted curriculum
for the first two lessons for each book. In the first lesson, teachers
introduced the book and four vocabulary words and then read the
entire book straight through without stopping. After reading the
book, they reviewed new vocabulary, asked children to say words
and/or read the new words on word cards, and guided the children
in playing word games such as “Finish My Sentence” (e.g., “A
place where an animal lives and is in charge is its . . . territory”)
and “Match That Word” (e.g., “Which goes with tropical: ice-cold
or very warm?”). In the second lesson, teachers reintroduced the
book, reviewed vocabulary words from the first lesson, and then
introduced four new vocabulary words. Then, teachers read and
stopped to review words taught in the first lesson as they were
reading. After reading, teachers reviewed the four new vocabulary
words, asked children to say words and/or read the new words on
word cards, and guided children in playing word games such as
“True or False” (e.g., “If an animal attacks another animal, it is
trying to hurt it. True or False?”) and “Choose the Right Word”
(e.g., “Is a beautiful butterfly dangerous or bright?”).
The third lesson of the curricula for each book was implemented
only in the nonmultimedia condition. In the third lesson, teachers
reintroduced the book for a final time and reviewed vocabulary
words from Lessons 1 and 2. Then, teachers read the book and
stopped to review the vocabulary words. After reading, teachers
asked children to give examples of words in other contexts and had
children answer questions about the words (e.g., “What would you
wear if you were in a tropical rainforest?”).
Instead of the third lesson for each book, teachers in the mul-
timedia condition taught three lessons using three different video
clips (one per day) at the culmination of the focus on a given
habitat. For each of the video lessons, teachers initially reviewed
the target words that would be illustrated in the 5-min clip to be
shown that day. Then, children viewed the video clip without
308 SILVERMAN AND HINES

5. interruption. Next, teachers ran the video clip again, stopping at
designated places to emphasize target words. After showing the
video clip, teachers had children answer questions about the words
and give examples of words in other contexts.
Assignment to Condition
For assignment to condition, teachers were paired across grades
(e.g., the 2 first grade teachers were paired together). One teacher
was randomly assigned to the nonmultimedia condition, and the
other was assigned to the multimedia condition. Then, across pairs
of teachers, children were randomly assigned to the nonmultimedia
or the multimedia condition. For instance, of the 25 children in
first grade, 13 were randomly assigned to the nonmultimedia
condition, and 12 were randomly assigned to the multimedia
condition. Therefore, due to random assignment to condition, some
children received intervention from their regular homeroom
teacher, and some received intervention from the other teacher at
their grade level. Random assignment within grades rather than
across the entire sample was necessary to limit disruption of the
students’ schedules. (Note that since there was only one classroom
at the second-grade level, the regular classroom teacher and the
resource teacher were randomly assigned to condition, and half of
the class was randomly assigned to each condition.)
Teacher Training and Fidelity of Treatment
Teachers were trained on implementing the scripted curriculum
during a 1-day in-school session with the researchers. Then, 3
weeks into the intervention, the researchers observed in each
classroom to assess and provide feedback on implementation.
Finally, to document teacher fidelity to the intervention, a research
assistant (RA) unaware of the study design completed fidelity
checklists at two randomly selected times for each teacher. The
checklists included items such as the following: (a) the teacher
introduced the words; (b) the teacher defined words as stated in the
curriculum; and (c) the teacher asked children to provide examples
of each word. Average fidelity was 94%.
Assessments
Both prior to and following the intervention, children were
assessed on knowledge of words targeted in the intervention,
general vocabulary knowledge, and knowledge of science concepts
taught in the intervention.
Knowledge of target words. A researcher-designed measure
was used to assess children’s knowledge of words targeted in the
intervention. The target vocabulary assessment (TVA) was based
on the measure used in Beck and McKeown (2007). For each
target word, children were asked four yes-or-no questions. For
example, for the word habitat, children were asked the following
questions: (a) “Does habitat mean a place where an animal lives?”
(b) “Does habitat mean food that an animal eats?” (c) “Is a
rainforest a habitat?” and (d) “Is an elephant a habitat?” If children
answered at least three of the four questions correctly, they re-
ceived a point for the target word. The assessment contained a
random sample of 60 of the 100 words targeted in the intervention.
The assessment was administered over two testing periods so that
children were not overwhelmed by the number of questions. Va-
lidity of this assessment derives from the fact that it is matched to
the content of the intervention, it contains questions similar to
questions teachers asked in the intervention, and it is modeled on
an assessment used in prior research in the field. The reliability of
the assessment will be discussed later in the Results section.
General vocabulary knowledge. The Peabody Picture Vocab-
ulary Test–Third Edition (PPVT–III; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) was
used to assess children’s general vocabulary knowledge. This is a
commonly used norm-referenced measure of receptive vocabulary
in which children choose one of four pictures that corresponds to
the target word given orally by the test administrator.
Science concepts knowledge. Children’s knowledge of science
concepts taught in the intervention was assessed via a researcher-
designed science assessment (SCI). In this assessment, children
were given two open-ended queries per habitat. For example, for
the rainforest habitat, children were asked the following: (a) “What
is a rainforest like? Tell me what you know about rainforests.” (b)
“What kinds of plants and animals live in the rainforest? Tell me
about them.” RAs scored this assessment by giving 1 point for
every independent, correct statement about the habitat. For exam-
ple, for the two queries previously described, 1 child responded to
the first query by saying, “It has a lot of trees, and it has layers.”
He responded to the second query by saying, “Wild plants and tree
frogs.” RAs gave the child 2 points for the answer to the first query
and 2 points for the answer to the second. Each child’s assessment
was scored separately by two RAs whose interrater reliability was
86%. The validity of this assessment derives from the fact that it
contains content addressed in the intervention and includes ques-
tions similar to those asked in the intervention. Reliability of this
assessment will be discussed in the Results section.
Analyses
After examining descriptive statistics and conducting prelimi-
nary analyses to compare the treatment and control groups and to
assess the reliability of the researcher-developed measures, we
used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to answer the research
questions. To answer the first research question related to the
effects of the conditions (i.e., nonmultimedia vs. multimedia), we
executed three separate analyses. Each analysis corresponded to a
different outcome variable: (a) posttest TVA, (b) posttest PPVT,
and (c) posttest SCI. Raw scores rather than standard scores were
used in analysis of the PPVT because standard scores are resistant
to incremental change over a short period of time. In each analysis,
we controlled for pretest scores and included language background
(i.e., ELL vs. non-ELL) and SES (i.e., free/reduced lunch vs.
non-free/reduced lunch) as covariates. We also tested teacher,
grade level, and gender effects in separate ANCOVA models with
posttest as the outcome and pretest as a covariate. We found no
teacher effects on the PPVT and TVA and no grade level or gender
effects on any of the outcome variables. We found teacher effects
on the SCI measure. However, since there were no group (i.e.,
multimedia vs. nonmultimedia) effects on this measure and since
including teacher in the model (a) does not change the results and
(b) causes the group coefficient to become nonestimable due to the
collinearity of teacher and group, we did not report models with
teacher as a covariate.
To answer the second research question—whether the effects of
condition depend on children’s language background—we inves-
309MULTIMEDIA-ENHANCED VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

6. tigated interactions between language background and condition.
Interactions between SES and condition were also explored in
separate models. There were no interactions between SES and
condition. Therefore, SES by condition interactions were not in-
cluded in final models. However, it is important to note that free
and reduced lunch status, used here as the measure of SES, may
not be an adequately sensitive indicator of socioeconomic status.
Therefore, in the future, the differential effects of various types of
vocabulary instruction should be explored using alternative mea-
sures of SES. For each analysis, we calculated effect sizes
(Cohen’s d) by dividing the difference between adjusted means by
the root mean square error of the outcome variable under consid-
eration (Cohen, 1988; Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1996).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Tables 1 and 2 present descriptive statistics of demographic and
assessment variables for the entire sample for the nonmultimedia
and multimedia groups and for non-ELLs and ELLs. Both pretest
and posttest TVA and PPVT scores were normally distributed.
Posttest SCI scores were also normally distributed, but pretest SCI
scores were positively skewed. Though raw scores for the PPVT
were used in the analysis presented here, standard scores also are
provided in Table 2. Before the intervention began, the average
standard PPVT score was 82.70 with a standard deviation of 17.21
for the ELLs and 97.10 with a standard deviation of 14.50 for the
non-ELLs.
Preliminary Analyses
To investigate whether there were differences between the con-
ditions at the beginning of the study, we conducted one-way
ANOVAs and chi-square tests. The ANOVAs showed that there
was no difference between conditions on pretest TVA, F(1, 84) ϭ
0.10, p ϭ .756; PPVT, F(1, 84) ϭ 0.60, p ϭ .440; or SCI, F(1,
84) ϭ 0.52, p ϭ .471. Furthermore, the chi-square tests revealed
that there was no difference between conditions on language
background, ␹2
(1, 85) ϭ 0.09, p ϭ .759, or SES, ␹2
(1, 85) ϭ
1.47, p ϭ .226. Therefore, we determined that the groups were
comparable on assessment variables and demographic character-
istics.
To determine the reliability of the TVA, we investigated corre-
lations and internal consistency. The correlation between the pre-
test PPVT and the pretest TVA was .78, and the correlation
between the posttest PPVT and the posttest TVA was .79. The
internal consistency of the pretest TVA as determined by Cron-
bach’s alpha was .91, and the internal consistency of the posttest
TVA was .92. On the basis of this data, we concluded that the TVA
is a reliable assessment of children’s target vocabulary knowledge.
The internal consistency of the pre- and posttest SCI was .67 and
.73, respectively. This data suggest that the SCI assessment has
acceptable internal consistency. As will be discussed later, further
investigation of the reliability of the SCI assessment is needed in
future research.
Knowledge of Target Words
The unadjusted means for the TVA in Table 2 show that
non-ELLs in the nonmultimedia condition gained the same number
of points (about 10) from pretest to posttest as non-ELLs in the
multimedia condition, on average. However, ELLs in the multi-
media condition gained about 17 points, whereas ELLs in the
nonmultimedia condition gained only about 11 points from pretest
to posttest. Results from ANCOVA revealed that for the post-test
TVA, there were main effects of pretest TVA, F(1, 84) ϭ 133.48,
p Ͻ .001, and condition, F(1, 84) ϭ 4.34, p ϭ .041. There were no
main effects of SES, F(1, 84) ϭ .12, p ϭ .733, or language
background, F(1, 84) ϭ 3.10, p ϭ .082, but there was an interac-
tion between condition and language background, F(1, 84) ϭ 4.42,
p ϭ .039. Adjusted posttest means for non-ELLs were 42.2 in the
nonmultimedia condition and 42.1 in the multimedia condition.
For ELLs, adjusted posttest scores were 41.8 and 48.4 in the
nonmultimedia and multimedia conditions, respectively. Contrasts
based on adjusted means revealed that while there was no effect of
condition for non-ELLs (p ϭ .981), there was an effect of condi-
tion for ELLs (p ϭ .013). The effect size of the multimedia
condition over the nonmultimedia condition for ELLs was .97.
General Vocabulary Knowledge
There were similar results on the PPVT. The unadjusted means
for the PPVT in Table 2 show that non-ELLs in the nonmultimedia
condition gained about 11 points from pretest to posttest while
non-ELLs in the multimedia condition gained about 9 points. In
contrast, ELLs in the nonmultimedia condition gained about 11
points, while ELLs in the multimedia condition gained about 23
points. Results of ANCOVA showed that for the posttest PPVT,
there was a main effect of pretest PPVT, F(1, 84) ϭ 160.33, p Ͻ
.001, and SES, F(1, 84) ϭ 7.64, p ϭ .007. There were no main
effects for condition, F(1, 84) ϭ 3.45, p ϭ .067, or language
background, F(1, 84) ϭ 0.78, p ϭ .381. However, there was an
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Children in the Sample
Variable
Percentage of sample (N ϭ 85)
Total sample
Nonmultimedia
group
Multimedia
group
Grade
Pre-kindergarten 17.7 9.4 8.2
Kindergarten 32.9 14.1 18.8
First grade 29.4 15.3 14.1
Second grade 20.0 11.8 8.2
Gender
Male 56.5 29.4 27.1
Female 43.5 21.2 22.4
Race
White 20.0 11.8 8.2
Black 48.2 25.9 22.4
Asian 20.0 10.6 9.4
Hispanic 7.1 2.4 4.7
Other 4.7 0 4.7
Socioeconomic status
Free/reduced lunch 55.3 24.7 30.6
Non-free/reduced lunch 44.7 25.9 18.8
Child’s primary language
English (non-ELL) 68.2 35.3 32.9
Not English (ELL) 31.8 15.3 16.5
310 SILVERMAN AND HINES

7. interaction between condition and language background, F(1,
84) ϭ 5.43, p ϭ .022. Adjusted means for non-ELLs in the
nonmultimedia and multimedia conditions were 90.3 and 89.0,
respectively. For ELLs, adjusted means were 86.6 for the nonmul-
timedia and 97.8 for the multimedia condition. Contrasts showed
that there was an effect of condition for ELL children (p ϭ .013)
but not for non-ELL children (p ϭ .675). The effect size of the
multimedia condition over the nonmultimedia condition for ELLs
was .99.
Knowledge of Science Content
As shown by the unadjusted means for the SCI assessment in
Table 2, non-ELLs in the nonmultimedia condition gained
about 7 points from pretest to posttest, and non-ELLs in the
multimedia condition gained about 7.5 points. ELLs in the
nonmultimedia condition gained about 6 points, while ELLs in
the multimedia condition gained about 9 points. The only effects
found in ANCOVA were for pretest SCI, F(1, 84) ϭ 21.81, p Ͻ
.001. There were no effects for condition, F(1, 84) ϭ 0.69, p ϭ
.408; SES, F(1, 84) ϭ 1.65, p ϭ .202; or language background,
F(1, 84) ϭ 0.00, p ϭ .989, on posttest SCI, and there was no
interaction between condition and language background, F(1,
84) ϭ 0.12, p ϭ .725. Adjusted means for non-ELLs were 14.5 and
15.2 for the nonmultimedia and multimedia conditions, respec-
tively. For ELLs, the adjusted means were 13.9 for the nonmulti-
media condition and 15.8 for the multimedia condition. None of
the contrasts for differences in adjusted means between conditions
and across groups was significant. This suggests that all children
across conditions and groups gained on the SCI assessment at
about the same rate.
Discussion
Vocabulary instruction through read alouds is the most thor-
oughly researched and widely used method for teaching words to
young children (NICHD, 2000; Snow et al., 1998). However, some
previous research suggests that augmenting read alouds with mul-
timedia may increase the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction,
especially for children with limited word knowledge (Verhallen et
al., 2006). In this study, we investigated the effects of a research-
based, read-aloud vocabulary intervention that was enhanced with
multimedia support for vocabulary learning. We compared the
multimedia-enhanced intervention with a parallel intervention that
did not include the multimedia enhancements. We also investi-
gated whether there was a differential effect of the multimedia
enhanced intervention for non-ELL and ELL children.
The results indicate that while there was no effect of the use of
multimedia for non-ELL children, there was an effect for ELL
children, both on a researcher-designed measure and on a general
measure of vocabulary knowledge used in this study. Furthermore,
for children who experienced the multimedia-enhanced vocabulary
intervention, the gap between non-ELL and ELL children in
knowledge of words targeted during the intervention was closed,
and the gap in general vocabulary knowledge was narrowed. This
is an important finding given the vocabulary needs of children for
whom English is a second language (August, Carlo, Dressler, &
Snow, 2005; Carlo et al., 2004; Jime´nez, 1994; Snow et al., 1998).
Moreover, the use of multimedia support in lieu of traditional
reinforcement did not negatively impact the achievement of the
non-ELL children in terms of vocabulary or science content learn-
ing. Therefore, the multimedia-enhanced intervention was as ef-
fective as the intervention that did not include multimedia en-
Table 2
Unadjusted Means and Standard Deviations for the Pretest and Posttest Scores
Measure
Assessment scores
Total sample Nonmultimedia group Multimedia group
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
TVA
Total sample 31.9 11.0 42.1 11.3 31.5 11.5 41.7 12.2 32.3 10.6 44.5 10.2
Non-ELL 34.2 10.9 44.0 10.7 34.2 11.1 44.1 11.3 34.1 10.8 43.9 10.3
ELL 27.0 9.9 41.1 12.4 25.4 10.6 36.3 12.9 28.5 9.4 45.6 10.4
PPVT
Raw scores
Total sample 78.0 23.3 90.2 21.3 79.9 25.0 90.7 24.2 76.0 21.4 89.6 18.1
Non-ELL 84.7 20.7 94.7 19.7 86.3 21.6 97.2 21.8 82.9 19.9 91.9 17.1
ELL 63.7 22.3 80.5 21.6 65.2 27.1 75.7 23.4 62.2 17.8 84.9 19.6
Standard scores
Total sample 92.5 16.7 98.0 15.5 93.8 17.7 98.9 16.4 91.2 15.8 97.1 14.6
Non-ELL 97.1 14.5 101.3 15.0 97.9 14.7 102.9 16.0 96.3 14.5 99.71 14.1
ELL 82.7 17.2 90.9 14.2 84.4 20.7 89.8 14.0 81.1 13.8 92.0 14.9
SCI
Total sample 7.5 6.1 14.7 7.8 8.1 6.3 14.7 8.2 6.9 5.8 14.8 7.4
Non-ELL 8.1 6.0 15.2 7.8 8.5 5.9 15.3 8.1 7.6 6.1 15.1 7.8
ELL 6.3 6.1 13.8 7.6 7.1 7.2 13.2 8.7 5.6 5.1 14.4 6.8
Note. Both raw and standard scores are reported for the PPVT though only raw scores were used in analysis. TVA ϭ researcher target vocabulary
assessment; PPVT ϭ Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; SCI ϭ researcher science assessment; non-ELL ϭ non-English-language learner; ELL ϭ
English-language learner.
311MULTIMEDIA-ENHANCED VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

8. hancements for non-ELLs, and it was more effective for promoting
the vocabulary knowledge of ELLs.
The findings in this study are aligned with some previous
research on the use of multimedia enhancements with ELL chil-
dren (Verhallen et al., 2006). It may be that, in accordance with
Paivio’s (1986) dual-coding theory, presenting information about
words to children through two channels, one verbal and one
nonverbal, supports their learning of words. Such dual presentation
may be especially important for ELLs who have less well-
established English-language vocabularies with which to process
verbal information in English. As Nagy and Scott (2000) suggest,
word learning is multidimensional and consists of different types
of knowledge. It may be that for ELL children who have a difficult
time understanding the verbal definitions of words, representing
words in more than one way may supplement and clarify the
instructional dialogue and provide children with the additional
information they need to make sense of the words they are learn-
ing. Therefore, the addition of dynamic visuals and sounds in the
video to the verbal definitions and the static pictures in the context
of the read-aloud books may provide ELL children with multiple
means to acquire word knowledge and allow them to use infor-
mation from both the read-aloud and the multimedia presentation
to support their vocabulary development. Non-ELLs may not have
responded differentially to the read-aloud interventions with and
without the multimedia because their verbal abilities are well
developed enough to allow them to take advantage of verbal
information without the support of nonverbal cues.
Given that ELL children in the multimedia-enhanced interven-
tion group showed accelerated growth not only in knowledge of
target words but also in general vocabulary knowledge as mea-
sured by the PPVT, it may also be that when immersed in a
language-rich intervention that was supported by a multimedia
enhancement, the ELL children were able to attune to and inter-
nalize the meanings of many more words than just those specifi-
cally taught. As Neuman (1997) suggested in her theory of syn-
ergy, exposing children to multiple media may foster additional
interpretive tools that can enhance their meaning-making abilities.
Implications
As discussed previously, vocabulary knowledge correlates
closely with reading comprehension and is crucial for school
success (NICHD, 2000; Snow et al., 1998). English-language
learners who lag behind their native English-speaking peers in
breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge are at risk for expe-
riencing difficulty in reading throughout their school years
(August & Shanahan, 2006). Intervention that speeds up the vo-
cabulary growth of ELLs is needed so that they can catch up to
their peers and keep up with instruction in school (August et al.,
2005). Increasingly, ELLs are being educated in English-only
classrooms alongside their English-speaking peers. Therefore, in-
tervention must be poised to affect this acceleration while meeting
the needs of all children in the class. The multimedia intervention
described here was able to accelerate the vocabulary learning of
ELL students such that the gap between non-ELL and ELL stu-
dents narrowed by the end of the intervention. At the same time,
the multimedia did not hinder the vocabulary learning of non-
ELLs, who learned words at the same rate as their peers who were
not in the multimedia intervention. Therefore, multimedia en-
hancement may be an appropriate way to augment vocabulary
instruction to meet the needs of ELLs in inclusive settings, as well
as in ELL classrooms.
However, it is important to note that in previous research on the
effects of multimedia, there was no effect on vocabulary when
there was no additional instructional support (Linebarger, 2004;
Uchikoshi, 2006). In the multimedia-enhanced intervention in this
study, teachers guided children to notice words in the video and
scaffolded children’s word learning by discussing words in the
context of the video. It is likely that just showing the video to the
children instead of using the video as part of a multifaceted
vocabulary intervention would not have been as effective. Future
research should explore this possibility further, but in the mean-
time, teachers should consider the use of multimedia to enhance,
not supplant, comprehensive vocabulary instruction in the class-
room.
Limitations
This study was conducted in a limited number of classrooms and
for a short duration. Also, the assessments used to measure student
learning were not ideal for this study. Specifically, the researcher
vocabulary assessment relied heavily on language in that it asked
children to respond “yes” or “no” to whether a word was used
correctly in a series of four sentences. Given that many young
children, particularly those with limited vocabulary, may have
difficulty with tasks that are wholly linguistic, we may have
underestimated students’ learning by using a purely linguistic task.
A task involving pictures, similar to the PPVT, should be used in
future studies assessing the effect of multimedia on vocabulary
learning. Similarly, the science assessment that we used in the
study was linguistic in nature. The assessment required children to
respond to open-ended questions about the habitats they were
studying in the intervention. This assessment and the coding
scheme we created to measure students’ content knowledge may
have better captured students’ learning if it had incorporated
pictures and multiple-choice questions. Future research on the
effect of multimedia on vocabulary learning should employ alter-
native means of assessment.
Future Directions
Further research on the effect of multimedia on vocabulary
instruction should proceed in a few directions. First, research on
the effect of multimedia should be implemented on a larger scale
so that researchers can consider teacher and grade-level effects.
Second, research should be conducted on how teachers might
incorporate the use of multimedia to enhance vocabulary instruc-
tion without the intensive support provided by the researchers in
the intervention described here. For instance, if teachers chose
their own books, words, and video clips, what would be the effect
of the intervention? Third, since the multimedia-enhanced inter-
vention was particularly effective for ELL children, would it be
equally effective for other groups of children with limited vocab-
ulary knowledge (e.g., children with language-based learning dis-
abilities or children living in poverty)?
Additional questions to explore in future research that are spe-
cific to the intervention described in this study include the follow-
ing: (a) Would showing the video before the book reading, in order
312 SILVERMAN AND HINES

9. to build background knowledge on the content in question, be
more effective than showing the video after the book reading? (b)
Would embedding video clips throughout the book-reading portion
of the intervention rather than showing the video on a separate day
be more effective?
Conclusions
Teachers of young children must be prepared to use research-
based methods to build the vocabulary knowledge of all children
so that they can comprehend text later in school. Also, they must
be ready to implement innovative intervention strategies to accel-
erate the vocabulary growth of ELL children so that they can catch
up to their peers. Augmenting well-established methods of vocab-
ulary instruction through read-alouds with multimedia enhance-
ments for ELLs may be one way that educators can meet both of
these goals.
References
Arnold, C. (1997). African animals. New York: Harper Collins.
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of
vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Dis-
abilities Research and Practice, 20, 50–57.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for
language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Academy Press.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-
language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-
Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income
children’s vocabulary repertoire through rich and focused instruction.
Elementary School Journal, 107, 251–271.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life:
Robust vocabulary instruction. New York. Guilford.
Berger, M. (1993). Life in the rainforest. New York: Newbridge Educa-
tional Publishing.
Berger, M. (1994). Life in a coral reef. New York: Newbridge Educational
Publishing.
Berger, M. (1995). Life on the African savannah. New York: Newbridge
Educational Publishing.
Berger, M. (1996). Life in the desert. New York: Newbridge Educational
Publishing.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building
meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 98, 44–62.
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C., Dressler, C., Lipp-
man, D. N., et al. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary
needs of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream class-
rooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–216.
Chambers, B., Cheung, A. C., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Gifford, R.
(2006). Achievement effects of multimedia in a Success for All reading
program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 232–237.
Cherry, L. (1990). The great kapok tree. San Diego, CA: Voyager Books.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, M. (2005). ESL preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition from
storybook reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 406–408.
Coyne, M. D., Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., & Stoolmiller, M.
(2004). Teaching vocabulary during shared storybook readings: An
examination of differential effects. Exceptionality, 12, 145–162.
Davis, G. W. (1997). Coral reef. New York: Children’s Press.
Dickinson, D., & Smith, M. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teach-
ers’ book readings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story
comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104–122.
Dreher, M. J. (2003). Motivating struggling reading by tapping the poten-
tial of information books. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming
Learning Difficulties, 19, 25–38.
Duke, N. K. (2003). Reading to learn from the very beginning: Informa-
tional books in early childhood. Young Children, 58, 14–20.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—
Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
FogWare (2005). Video learning system 6: Habitats [DVD]. San Jose, CA:
Author.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instruc-
tional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66,
454–470.
Gersten, R., & Geva, E. (2003). Teaching reading to early language
learners. Educational Leadership, 60, 44–49.
Gibbons, G. (1994). Nature’s green umbrella. New York: Harper Collins.
Gibbons, G. (1996). Deserts. New York: Holiday House.
Hargrave, A., & Se´ne´chal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention with
preschool children who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of
regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research Quar-
terly, 15, 75–90.
Jime´nez, R. (1994). Understanding and promoting the reading comprehen-
sion of bilingual students. Bilingual Research Journal, 18(1 & 2),
99–119.
Juel, C., & Deffes, R. (2004). Making words stick, Educational Leader-
ship, 61, 30–34.
Kamil, M. L., Intrator, S. M., & Kim, H. S. (2000). The effects of other
technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 3, pp. 771–788). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Linebarger, D. L., Kosanic, A. Z., Greenwood, C. R., & Doku, N. S.
(2004). Effects of viewing the television program Between the Lions on
the emergent literacy skills of young children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96, 297–308.
McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Direct and rich vocabulary
instruction. In J. F. Baumann and E. J. Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary
instruction: Research to practice (pp. 41–58). New York: Guilford.
Moats, L. (2001). Overcoming the language gap. American Educator, 25,
4–9.
Nagy, W., & Scott, J. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 3, pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Geographic Society. (2005). Really wild animals series: Totally
tropical rainforests, deep sea dive, and swinging safari [DVDs]. Wash-
ington, DC: National Geographic School Publishing.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Re-
port of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. An
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on read-
ing and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No.
00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Neuman, S. (1997). Television as a learning environment: A theory of
synergy. In J. Flood, S. Brice Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of
research on teaching through the communicative and visual arts (pp.
15–30). New York: Simon & Shuster.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representation: A dual coding approach. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary
acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories:
Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 94, 23–33.
Rathmell, D., & Rathmell, D. (2006). Octavia and her purple ink cloud.
Mount Pleasant, SC: Sylvan Dell Publishing.
Rice, M. L., Huston, A. C., Truglio, R., & Wright, J. (1990). Words from
313MULTIMEDIA-ENHANCED VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

10. “Sesame Street”: Learning vocabulary while viewing. Developmental
Psychology, 26, 421–428.
Rice, M. L., & Woodsmall, L. (1988). Lessons from television: Children’s
word learning when viewing. Child Development, 59, 420–428.
Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps
them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology,
86, 54–64.
Roberts, T., & Neal, H. (2004). Relationships among preschool English
language learners’ oral proficiency in English, instructional experience
and literacy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29,
283–311.
Rosnow, R., & Rosenthal, R. (1996). Beginning behavioral research: A
conceptual primer (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Silverman, R. (2007a). A comparison of three methods of vocabulary
instruction during read-alouds in kindergarten. Elementary School Jour-
nal, 108, 97–113.
Silverman, R. (2007b). Vocabulary development of English-language and
English-only learners in kindergarten. Elementary School Journal, 107,
365–383.
Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Steiner, B. A. (1996). Desert trip. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books for
Children.
Uchikoshi, Y. (2006). English vocabulary development in bilingual kin-
dergarteners: What are the best predictors? Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 9, 33–49.
Ufer, D. A. (2006). The giraffe who was afraid of heights. Mount Pleasant,
SC: Sylvan Dell Publishing.
Verhallen, M. J. A. J., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M. T. (2006). The promise
of multimedia stories for kindergarten children at risk. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 98, 410–429.
Wasik, B., Bond, M., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a language and
literacy intervention on Head Start children and teachers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98, 63–74.
Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M.,
& Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care
and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psy-
chology, 30, 697–699.
Appendix A
Books and Words Used in the Intervention
Unit/book Vocabulary words
Introduction/no book discover, habitat, community, explore
Rainforests
The Great Kapok Tree (Cherry, 1990) chop, produce, creature, rare, depend, destroy, disappear, ruin
Life in the Rain Forest (Berger, 1993) territory, bright, tropical, vast, layer, dangerous, attack, native
Nature’s Green Umbrella (Gibbons, 1994) thick, thrive, steamy, climate, flourish, canopy, shady, humid
Savannahs
The Giraffe Who Was Afraid of Heights (Ufer,
2006)
predator, problem, afraid, path, appetite, approach, charge,
defend
Life on the African Savannah (Berger, 1995) covered, browse, scatter, herd, prey, scavenger, graze, migrate
African Animals (Arnold, 1997) variety, wild, huge, enormous, height, weight, roam,
endangered
Coral reefs
Octavia and Her Purple Ink Cloud (Rathmell &
Rathmell, 2006)
escape, sting, practice, camouflage, cozy, empty, dart, marine
Life in a Coral Reef (Berger, 1994) shallow, threaten, stony, force, dwell, flow, survive, deep
Coral Reef (Davis, 1997) surface, provides, bottom, shelter, odd, fierce, warning, protect
Deserts
Desert Trip (Steiner, 1996) struggle, hike, trail, slick, arid, spiny, distant, steep
Life in the Desert (Berger, 1996) unusual, moisture, harsh, receive, useful, expand, active,
surroundings
Deserts (Gibbons, 1996) appearance, oasis, formed, adapt, communicate, nomads,
visible, tribes
Received February 6, 2008
Revision received June 16, 2008
Accepted August 8, 2008 Ⅲ
314 SILVERMAN AND HINES