Vocabulary Instruction on Sesame Street: A Content Analysis of the Word on the Street Initiative.

LSHSS

Research Article

Vocabulary Instruction on Sesame Street: A Content Analysis of the Word on the Street Initiative Anne L. Larsona and Naomi L. Rahnb

Purpose: Authors of this content analysis examined how Sesame Street’s Word on the Street initiative aligns with research-based practices for selecting and teaching vocabulary to young children and considered how speech-language pathologists can use educational media to supplement traditional vocabulary instruction. Method: Study authors used a well-established vocabulary selection hierarchy to analyze 170 target words across 7 seasons of Word on the Street to judge appropriateness for preschool vocabulary instruction. The authors then coded vocabulary instruction across 96 episodes to determine frequency and types of teaching strategies used within this educational program.

Results: Target word selection was appropriate in 77% of episodes. Some instructional strategies were used frequently (e.g., exposure to a word, examples, and nonexamples), whereas others were used rarely (e.g., definitions, active learning). Across episodes, there was substantial variability in how many opportunities children had to learn words. Conclusions: Vocabulary instruction during Word on the Street could be improved by targeting only high-utility words, maximizing learning opportunities during all segments, and increasing strategies that promote deep processing. Although research is needed to examine word learning during Word on the Street, speech-language pathologists may find selected segments targeting Tier 2 words useful for augmenting traditional intervention approaches.

I

Children who are living in poverty often have oral language skills that lag behind their more advantaged peers (Halle et al., 2009; Hart & Risley, 1995). Research by Hart and Risley (1995) identified a large gap in vocabulary knowledge between young children living in poverty compared with young children from professional families. This word gap—differences in vocabulary exposure estimated as high as 30 million words—can now be identified in children as young as 9 months (Halle et al., 2009) and 18 months (Fernald, Marchman, & Weisleder, 2013) of age. Lower levels of vocabulary exposure and acquisition can lead to difficulties with early literacy skills, and therefore have the potential to cause delays in later academic achievement (Hart & Risley, 1995). These early differences in language production (e.g., total number of different words used) persist into elementary school and beyond, leading to differences in language development and reading achievement (Walker, Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994). Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) have an important role in addressing vocabulary deficits, as related to literacy, by using evidence-based strategies to teach vocabulary to young children. The American Speech-LanguageHearing Association has identified preferred practice patterns

n order to become successful readers, young children need to develop a strong foundation in language development. Oral language development, including vocabulary acquisition, forms an important basis for both early literacy learning (Dickinson, McCabe, Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003; National Early Literacy Panel [NELP], 2008; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, 2005) and reading comprehension (Dickinson, Cote, & Smith, 1993; NELP, 2008; Stahl, 1999; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). A child’s vocabulary is a reflection of background knowledge and what a child knows about the world around him or her (Neuman, 2011; Stahl, 1999). Children with limited background knowledge and verbal skills are more likely to have difficulties learning to read (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

a

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis West Virginia University, Morgantown Correspondence to Anne L. Larson: [email protected]

b

Editor: Marilyn Nippold Associate Editor: Julie Masterson Received August 30, 2014 Revision received December 23, 2014 Accepted March 12, 2015 DOI: 10.1044/2015_LSHSS-14-0079

Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 46 • 207–221 • July 2015 • Copyright © 2015 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/lshss/934277/ by a Univ Of Newcastle User on 01/31/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx

207

for SLPs working with preschoolers focused on increasing both receptive vocabulary and expressive language skills (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2004). In addition, a growing body of evidence suggests that carefully designed vocabulary interventions are effective in increasing preschool children’s word knowledge (Gonzalez et al., 2011; Hong & Diamond, 2012; Neuman & Kaefer, 2013; Neuman, Newman, & Dwyer, 2011; Pollard-Durodola et al., 2011; Roskos & Burstein, 2011), which may help improve later reading and academic outcomes.

Theoretical Framework In this content analysis, we adopted a social ecological theoretical framework that emphasizes the importance of early interactions or transactions between young children and their environment (Ramey & Ramey, 1998; Sameroff & Fiese, 2000). We based our analysis on the assumption that children learn words through ongoing interactions and experiences in their environment. The nature of these interactions has significant implications for language, vocabulary, and early literacy acquisition (Fernald & Weisleder, 2011; Harris, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2011). It is unfortunate to note that the number of words learned through incidental exposure is lower than was once thought, and is insufficient to close the word gap for children who have limited exposure to high-quality language learning environments (e.g., children living in poverty; Neuman, 2011). Thus, if vocabulary acquisition is to be accelerated for children who lag behind their peers, words must also be taught explicitly. Although this explicit instruction is critical, teaching children new words can be challenging. Paris (2011) suggested that vocabulary is an unconstrained skill that develops across an individual’s lifetime. Vocabulary knowledge increases gradually over time, and often individuals require many exposures to a word before a full understanding of the word is acquired. Vocabulary is broad in scope and difficult to teach directly (Paris, 2011). Despite these challenges, SLPs can use several strategies to increase the breadth and depth of a child’s lexicon (see McGregor, 2009), therefore increasing the likelihood that young children will learn the words they need to become successful readers. In the following section, we discuss the importance of vocabulary selection and describe several vocabulary instruction techniques that can be used to teach new words to children at risk for experiencing difficulty with language development and reading achievement.

Supporting Literacy Through Vocabulary Selection and Instruction The first step in an effective vocabulary intervention is determining which words will be taught (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Biemiller, 2010; Marulis & Neuman, 2010; Neuman, 2011; Spencer, Goldstein, & Kaminski, 2012). One commonly used method for vocabulary selection is the three-tiered approach by Beck et al. (2002). In this

208

approach, Tier 1 words are described as basic words, unlikely to require direct teaching for children to know their meanings (e.g., baby, clock). As such, Tier 1 words are not recommended for instruction because many children already know their meanings or will learn their meanings through everyday interactions with the environment. Tier 3 words are generally not recommended as vocabulary targets. Tier 3 words are low-frequency words specific to particular disciplines (e.g., isotope, peninsula). Tier 3 words are recommended as vocabulary targets when the need arises (e.g., during instruction in a science or geography unit). In contrast, Tier 2 words are high-utility words for mature language users that can be taught and used in a variety of ways. Tier 2 words provide more specific representations for concepts that children already know (e.g., envious, coincidence, and incredible). Beck et al. (2002) recommend that instruction focus primarily on Tier 2 words, which are most likely to impact children’s language understanding and use. Once words are selected, the second consideration is how the target words will be taught. A review of the literature on vocabulary instruction suggests at least seven characteristics of quality vocabulary instruction for young children. First, children need frequent opportunities to learn a new word (Beck et al., 2002; Graves, 2009; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). Even after multiple exposures, children often do not learn all vocabulary words taught during explicit vocabulary interventions (see, e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007; Coyne, McCoach, Loftus, Zipoli, & Kapp, 2009; Robbins & Ehri, 1994). In addition to intentionally exposing children to target words multiple times, words should be presented in varied contexts to facilitate a deep understanding of the word’s meaning and use (Beck et al., 2002; Graves, 2009). For example, a child might need to hear the word incredible used in several different situations (e.g., in a conversation about an amazing play made in a baseball game, in a storybook about an unlikely superhero, and in reference to the child himself learning to ride his bike without training wheels). Another important characteristic of vocabulary teaching is to ensure that opportunities for learning target words are relevant and meaningful to the learner (Stahl & Nagy, 2006). Target words should not always be selected by the instructor, but should also be determined based on the child’s interests and needs. For example, a teacher or parent might explain the meaning of a new word when it is encountered during book reading or within the context of a conversation to help facilitate the child’s understanding of the book or discussion as needed in the moment (Beck et al., 2002). When target word instruction is planned, activities should allow sufficient time to promote deep processing (as opposed to surface-level knowledge) of a word’s meaning and use (Beck et al., 2002; Graves, 2009; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). Word learning activities should require children to think critically about the meanings of words (Neuman, 2011). For example, instruction can support learning new semantic relationships between words (McGregor, 2009), and might require students to consider how words are

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 46 • 207–221 • July 2015


related within taxonomies (Neuman, 2011). Word definitions must also be considered. When defining a word, Beck et al. (2002) suggest that explanations of the word’s meaning should be “student-friendly” (p. 35) using everyday language, and that descriptions should include information about how the word is typically used. Children should be actively involved in word learning, as opposed to simply listening to others define or use the word (Beck et al., 2002; Graves, 2009; Neuman, 2011; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). For example, teachers or caregivers might ask a child to repeat the target word, answer a question about the word (Beck et al., 2002), or use the word in context (Graves, 2009). Visuals should be provided during vocabulary instruction to explain the meaning of target words (Graves, 2009; Neuman, 2011). Graves (2009) recommends using the “definition, rich context, and a picture” method in which the instructor provides a definition of the word, information about how the word is used, and a visual that exemplifies the word’s meaning (p. 73). Teaching with visuals can also include the use of video. For example, Neuman (2011) and colleagues have developed an intervention for preschool children (World of Words [WOW]) that uses video clips, including segments from Sesame Street (e.g., Elmo’s World), to introduce new words in taxonomic categories. In an examination of the WOW curriculum, Neuman et al. (2011) randomly assigned 28 Head Start classrooms to either WOW or a control condition. Children in the WOW condition outperformed children in the control group on measures of word knowledge, including words in the same taxonomic category that were not directly taught. Although video clips from Sesame Street are only a portion of the entire curriculum package, Neuman and colleagues (2011) argue that embedded multimedia is an important method for increasing word learning. Despite these recommended vocabulary instruction strategies, only some are being used in practice by SLPs working with children who have delays in vocabulary development (Justice, Schmitt, Murphy, Pratt, & Biancone, 2014). Justice et al. (2014) analyzed vocabulary words taught and examined instructional strategies used by 24 SLPs providing intervention to 48 kindergarten and first-grade students. Study authors coded vocabulary words by using the tiered approach by Beck et al. (2002) and found that only 12% were Tier 2 words that would be recommended for instruction using this framework. Researchers noted that on average, SLPs used only a few recommended strategies for teaching new vocabulary—encouraging the child to use or define a word (96%), using a word related to the vocabulary target (83%), and providing a definition of the word (57%). SLPs rarely used other important strategies such as providing a demonstration of the word and putting the word into context (Justice et al., 2014).

Teaching Vocabulary Through Educational Media Word learning has been thought to occur primarily through a child’s observations of and interactions with

familiar adults and peers in the environment. Given the pervasive nature of technology in most cultures, researchers have become increasingly interested in how and to what extent young children learn words through various forms of technology, including tablets, computers, and television. In a review of the influence of technology on learning, Hsin, Li, and Tsai (2014) identified 47 studies with language and literacy outcomes for children from birth to 8 years of age. Most of the outcomes reported were either positive or mediated by other factors such as age or gender; only one negative outcome was reported. Based on their review, Hsin et al. (2014) concluded that technology generally has positive effects on language and literacy learning. In an analysis of data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, Bittman, Rutherford, Brown, and Unsworth (2011) found that even after controlling for time spent reading, Internet access was positively associated with receptive vocabulary at age 4 years, and having a computer in the home (regardless of Internet access) was positively associated with receptive vocabulary at age 8 years. Additional studies have examined vocabulary teaching through educational media for children who have disabilities affecting language development. Moore and Calvert (2000) examined vocabulary acquisition for 14 preschoolers with autism who were randomly assigned to teacher- or computerimplemented vocabulary intervention. Children in the computer-implemented group were more attentive to instruction and learned more words. Results should be interpreted with caution, however, given the small sample size in this study. In a study using clips from an animated television program, Rice, Oetting, Marquis, Bode, and Pae (1994) demonstrated that children learn words through incidental exposure, and that increases in the number of target word exposures allowed children with specific language impairment (SLI) to learn words at a rate similar to their peers with no language impairment. It is unfortunate to note that gains were not retained long-term. Learning From Television In comparison to the research on language and literacy learning from newer forms of technology, educational television programming has been viewed as an important avenue for early literacy learning for several decades (see Rice, Huston, & Wright, 1982). The Nielsen television audience report (2010–2011) estimates that children between the ages of 2 and 11 years watch almost 26 hours of television a week—over 3 hours a day (Nielsen, 2011). Access to television is even more pronounced for young children living in low-income households (Linebarger, Moses, Garrity Liebeskind, & McMenamin, 2013). Linebarger et al. (2013) found that children with low socioeconomic status spend nearly 7 more hours per week watching television and DVDs compared with their peers from working-class families. Given the amount of time young children spend engaged with media, researchers have sought to determine the extent to which young children gain vocabulary knowledge during television viewing, and how educational programming may be used to increase language and reading

Larson & Rahn: Vocabulary Instruction on Sesame Street


209

proficiency (Anderson, Lavigne, & Hanson, 2013; Linebarger & Vaala, 2010). Although many children begin watching television around 9 months of age (Linebarger & Walker, 2005), there are few notable effects of language learning from educational media for children younger than age 2 years. Before this time, most children do not have the attention or knowledge to fully comprehend television programming and are often unable to apply information from television content to real-life experiences—a phenomena referred to as the video deficit (Anderson & Pempek, 2005). After age 2 years, children become, “capable of learning from TV” (Anderson et al., 2013, p. 643). As a child’s attention and understanding increase, learning from television is more likely to occur. The traveling lens model (see Linebarger et al., 2013 for a short review) suggests that television programming must be targeted at a child’s level of interest and attention to result in maximum comprehensibility. Rice et al. (1982) describe a spectrum where on one end, inconsistent, unpredictable, and highly novel content results in incomprehensibility, and on the other, redundant, expected, and familiar content results in boredom. Although repetition of programming can be beneficial to preschoolers’ comprehension of episode content (Crawley, Anderson, Wilder, Williams, & Santomero, 1999), it must be balanced with novelty to ensure children maintain attention and focus. Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that children can learn from exposure to educational television programming (Wright et al., 2001), and that some types of early viewing are associated with statistically significant positive outcomes (e.g., higher grades, more reading, less aggression) as late as high school (Anderson et al., 2001). Wright et al. (2001) examined the effects of television viewing on school readiness and vocabulary development with two cohorts of children between 2 and 5 years of age, and 4 and 7 years of age. They found that frequent viewers of generalaudience programs performed more poorly on academic measures than did infrequent viewers of general-audience programs. They also determined that more frequent viewing of child-focused educational programs between ages 2 and 3 years predicted high performance on later academic skills in the areas of reading, math, school readiness, and receptive vocabulary. Sesame Street viewing accounted for the majority of child-focused educational programs (80%) reported in the study. Learning From Sesame Street Sesame Street is one particularly influential children’s television program well suited to providing language and literacy instruction to young children. It is estimated that Sesame Street is viewed by more than 6 million children each week (Sesame Workshop, n.d.). Estimates from Nielsen and U.S. Census Data from 1969 to 2010 suggest that more than 82 million Americans are Sesame Street graduates (Sesame Workshop, n.d.). In addition to reaching millions of young children in America, Sesame Street is broadcast in more than 150 countries and has a long

210

history of providing significant positive effects on a variety of educational and social outcomes for young children all over the world (see Mares & Pan, 2013, for a complete review). In a 2-year longitudinal study, Rice, Huston, Truglio, and Wright (1990) examined the effects of naturalistic home viewing of Sesame Street on the receptive vocabulary development of 326 children split into two cohorts beginning at either 3 or 5 years of age. Parents submitted television viewing diaries every 6 months, and researchers administered a standardized receptive vocabulary measure at the beginning and end of the study to assess children’s vocabulary growth. Although significant effects faded for the older cohort, regression analyses demonstrated a positive correlation between vocabulary growth and Sesame Street viewing at 3 to 3.5 years of age when controlling for additional child and parent variables. The content of Sesame Street is dynamic, with the identified curricular focus changing to reflect the makeup of the U.S. population; changes in professional understanding of children’s growth, development, and learning; and changes in society (Lesser & Schneider, 2001). Early literacy skills, such as phonological awareness, rhyming, and letter names, have been targeted since the inception of Sesame Street. Other important literacy skills, such as vocabulary, however, have only more recently become part of the curricular focus. Although research has always been an important component to guide the program’s curriculum, much of the research conducted by Sesame Workshop (formerly Children’s Television Workshop) is inaccessible to external researchers (Truglio & Fisch, 2001) making it difficult to determine the extent to which Sesame Street programming is research-based. In 2007 (the 38th season), Sesame Street developers created the Word on the Street initiative specifically to improve vocabulary development and early literacy skills in young children at risk of language delay by, “closing the word gap, one word at a time” (Sesame Workshop, n.d.). Word on the Street content is built into specific parts of each Sesame Street episode, with the goal of introducing viewers to one new target word each time they watch the program. Each target word is first introduced by a Muppet, Murray, at the beginning of each episode during a segment in which Murray interviews people to ask for the meaning of the word and examples of the word. The target word is repeated later in the episode as part of the street scene, a story-like segment in which characters work together to solve a problem, and again in a short celebrity segment in which celebrities explain the meaning of the word (Sesame Workshop, 2007). In addition to including Word on the Street content in each Sesame Street episode, Sesame Workshop also produced a toolkit for the first season of the initiative. The Word on the Street toolkit included activity cards with suggestions for caregivers to explore Season 38 target words and extend vocabulary learning into a child’s natural environment. All materials in the toolkit were provided in English and Spanish. Because the toolkit was only available



for the first season’s target words, and not accessible to all children and families, we focused our review on Word on the Street content within Sesame Street television programming. Researchers at Sesame Workshop conducted a pilot study providing tentative evidence that children can learn program-specific words while watching Word on the Street content. Schiffman, Cohen, Kotler, and Truglio (2008) studied preschool children’s (n = 112) word learning during episodes of Sesame Street and found statistically significant differences between children in the experimental group (exposed to Word on the Street content) and children in the control group (exposed to Sesame Street content related to nutrition). Preschoolers in the experimental condition learned an average of 4.59 out of eight possible target words compared with peers who learned an average of 2.93 words. Schiffman et al. (2008) provided evidence that preschool children can learn words while viewing Sesame Street episodes, suggesting that the Word on the Street initiative may play a part in teaching new words to young children. In an earlier review of Sesame Street literacy content, however, Mates and Strommen (1995) provided evidence of many missed opportunities to address phonological awareness and functional literacy skills in Sesame Street episodes. Mates and Strommen (1995) also identified Sesame Street segments that conveyed a negative message about reading and writing. Moses and Duke (2008) obtained similar results suggesting that although Sesame Street is a leader among early childhood educational media programs, there are still relatively few portrayals of literacy in its programming.

Focus of the Current Study The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine Sesame Street episodes that incorporate the Word on the Street initiative to identify the target words selected for teaching within each episode, as well as how words are being taught through Word on the Street segments (i.e., opening Murray scene, street scene, and celebrity scene). The goal of the study was to determine the extent to which the Word on the Street initiative aligns with research-based methods for teaching young children vocabulary through educational media and to examine the implications for clinical practice. We addressed the following research questions in our analysis: (1) What types of words are being taught in the Word on the Street initiative? (2) How are words being taught during Word on the Street segments? And (3) to what extent do the instructional methods used in Word on the Street align with research-based methods of vocabulary instruction?

Method In this study, we analyzed the types of words targeted in the Word on the Street initiative, as well as the way target words are used within Sesame Street content. To address our first research question, we examined target

words introduced across 180 episodes from the beginning of the initiative in 2007 (Season 38) through the end of the 2013–2014 season (Season 44). After omitting duplications, a total of 171 words were examined. This corpus of words included 38 nouns, 23 adjectives, and 15 verbs. An additional 19 words could be considered nouns or verbs (e.g., engineer), and one word could be used as a noun or adjective (e.g., liquid). All words were in English except for one word that was introduced in Spanish (baile). In addition to examining target words from the Word on the Street initiative, we also viewed Word on the Street content from 96 episodes available on Netflix (Seasons 38–42) and Sesame Go (Seasons 43 & 44). Within the 96 sample episodes, we coded the number of times each target word occurred, as well as the nature of the vocabulary instruction strategies that were used for each target word occurrence.

Coding Target Word Tiers Beck et al.’s (2002) tiered system focuses primarily on school age children. Because Sesame Street is designed for preschool viewers, we adapted definitions for Tiers 1, 2, and 3 words from Beck et al. to better fit the population of interest for this study and to allow for precise coding of target words. We used an iterative process to develop coding descriptions and determine target word tiers. Total interrater reliability for tier coding across seasons was based on the final version of the flowchart (see Figure 1). In addition to the original Tier 1 definition by Beck et al., we added that Tier 1 words are used by young children across most dialects, cultures, and geographic regions of the United States. Tier 2 words were defined in a similar manner as Beck et al. (2002). If the word was thought to require instruction in order for young children to understand its meaning, and was judged as being relevant to young children across cultures, dialects, and geographic regions of the United States, the word was coded as Tier 2. Beck et al. suggested that Tier 3 words are only used for a particular academic subject (e.g., math, science, music). We expanded the definition of Tier 3 words to include those words used only for a specific activity or preacademic subject area. Words specific to a particular dialect, culture, or geographic region of the United States (e.g., cactus) were also coded as Tier 3 words because their use is more limited than Tier 1 and Tier 2 words. One, non-English target word was first translated and then coded based on the tiered system. Across seasons, interrater reliability was 91.81% (157/171).

Coding Instructional Strategies Used in Target Word Occurrences To address our second and third research questions, we used a content analysis approach (Neuendorf, 2002) to determine how target words are used within Word on the Street content and to compare each occurrence to research-based recommendations for quality vocabulary instruction. We coded target word occurrences during



211

Figure 1. Target word tier flowchart. Definitions (i.e., Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3) have been adapted from Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction (Chapter 1), by I. L. Beck, M. G. McKeown, and L. Kucan, 2002, New York, NY: Guilford Press. Copyright © 2002 by Guilford Press. Adapted with permission.

three segments (Murray scene, street scene, celebrity scene) across 96 Sesame Street episodes. Although target words are occasionally used in later parts of some Sesame Street episodes (e.g., Abby’s Flying Fairy School, Elmo’s World), we focused on the Murray, street, and celebrity scenes for this analysis on the basis of the Sesame Street Season 38 press release stating that the Word on the Street initiative is built into these segments specifically (Sesame Workshop, 2007). The only exception to analyzing these three segments occurred in eight episodes of Season 39 in which there was no celebrity scene (cheer, friend, cactus, robot, penguin, subtraction, brush, and laundromat). In these cases, we coded target word occurrences in the Murray and street scenes only. We coded target word occurrences each time an onscreen character used the episode’s target word in isolation, within a short phrase, or during a song. When onscreen characters said the word in unison, only one occurrence was coded. If the target word was quickly repeated three or more times by the same character, only one occurrence was coded. We developed categories for coding on the basis of our review of evidence-based practices for vocabulary instruction. We transcribed each utterance including the target word, noted the section of the episode the word was used in, and coded the target word occurrence into one of four categories: definition, example/nonexample, leading question, or exposure. In addition, we noted whether each target word occurrence included active participation. Each of these categories is described below (see Table 1).

212

We coded occurrences as definitions when an onscreen character provided an explicit description of the meaning of the target word. Each definition was transcribed word for word and reviewed to determine if it included student-friendly language as recommended by Beck et al. (2002). An example/nonexample was coded if the onscreen character provided a verbal or visual example or nonexample, or compared the target word to something else to provide the viewer with information about the target word. We coded occurrences as leading questions when one character used the target word in a question or comment without providing additional information about the target word’s meaning or use, and a second character immediately responded by describing the target word or providing an example of the target word. The leading question category was included to account for examples and definitions of the target word provided by a second character, usually in response to a question about the target word. Any remaining occurrences of the target word that did not fit into the abovementioned categories were coded as exposure. Exposure served as a catchall category any time the target word was used without the character providing additional information about the word’s meaning or use. In addition to each of the abovementioned categories, we coded target word occurrences as active participation when an onscreen character intentionally involved the television viewing audience while saying the target word. Participation included asking the audience to repeat the target word, engage in an activity related to the target word, look for the target word on screen, or respond to a question



Table 1. Descriptions and examples of instructional strategies coded. Instructional strategy

Description

Example (target word surprise)

Definition

Explicit description of the meaning of the target word.

Example/nonexample

Verbal or visual example or nonexample of target word and comparisons made with target word. One character uses target word in a question or comment without additional information about the word’s meaning or use followed by a second character who immediately responds by describing the target word or providing an example/nonexample of the target word. Use of the target word without providing additional information about the word’s meaning or use. Onscreen character intentionally involves television viewing audience while saying target word (e.g., repeat word, engage in physical movement, look for an example of the word on screen, respond to a question about the word).

Leading question

Exposure Active participation

about the target word. Active participation was coded if the onscreen character looked directly at the camera and addressed the audience as “you” while using the target word. We used a flowchart to code each target word occurrence (see Figure 2). First we determined if the target word occurrence provided information about the word. If so, we examined the target word occurrence to determine whether it described the word by pinpointing the word’s meaning with everyday language. Words that met this criteria were coded as definition. If the target word occurrence did not sufficiently explain the meaning of the word, we analyzed the occurrence to determine whether the target word occurrence provided a verbal or visual example/nonexample of

In the celebrity scene, celebrity says, “So surprise means when something happens that you don’t expect.” In the Murray scene, Murray says, “Surprise!” when a girl opens a can of worms and the worms pop out. In the Murray scene, when interviewing people, Murray asks, “What does the word surprise mean?” A person responds, “Something that you didn’t expect.”

In the celebrity scene, celebrity says, “Surprise is a great word.” In the celebrity scene, celebrity says, “Come on, say it with me, surprise!”

the target word. If so, the target word occurrence was coded as example/nonexample. Target word occurrences that did not provide or imply information about the target word were analyzed to determine whether they were immediately followed by another onscreen character describing or providing an example/nonexample of the target word. In these cases, target word occurrences were coded as leading question. If the target word occurrence was not immediately followed by another character describing the target word, the occurrence was coded as exposure. The first author coded 96 episodes as described above. To determine interrater reliability, the second author coded 24 randomly selected episodes from Seasons 38 to 42 (25%

Figure 2. Instructional strategies flowchart.



213

of the sample). Interrater reliability was 80%. Discrepancies between coders were discussed, and final coding decisions were determined by the first author.

Data Analysis After coding the data, we used descriptive statistics to summarize target word tiers for the 171 unduplicated target words from Seasons 38 through 44. We also used descriptive statistics to examine the use of instructional strategies (definition, example/nonexample, leading question, exposure, and active participation) in target word occurrences across 96 episodes.

Results Results are reported for the type of target words (by tier) used in the Word on the Street initiative and how words were taught during occurrences within Word on the Street segments.

category due to high utility across a variety of contexts and a low likelihood of being acquired without direct teaching. Twenty-six words (15.2%) were considered Tier 3 words, used only for specific subjects or activities. Examples of Tier 3 words included the following: laundromat, paleontologist, and arachnid. When compared with the corpus of 171 unique target words used in all episodes of the Word on the Street initiative, the 96 target words used in the sample episodes had a similar representation of Tiers 1, 2, and 3 words. The majority of words (77.1%) in our sample were considered Tier 2 words, 11 words (11.5%) were Tier 1 words, and the remaining 11 words (11.5%) fit the Tier 3 category. Results suggest a similar proportion of Tiers 1, 2, and 3 words in sample and total episodes.

Instructional Strategies Used in Target Word Occurrences

Target Word Tiers Of the 171 unique target words used in the Word on the Street initiative, 15 words (8.8%) were considered Tier 1 words, unlikely to require instruction in order to be learned by young children (see Table 2). Examples of Tier 1 words included the following: mail, pasta, and brush. In addition, the one non-English target word, baile, was coded by its English equivalent, dance, and also fit in the Tier 1 category. In total, 130 target words (76%) met the criteria for Tier 2 words. Words like binoculars, challenge, and stumble fit this

Sesame Street characters used the Word on the Street target words a total of 2,593 times across the Murray, street, and celebrity scenes within the 96 sample episodes (see Table 3). On average, each episode included 27.01 occurrences of the target word (SD = 13.43); however, there was a very large range depending on the episode, with some episodes mentioning the target word only six times ( penguin), and others mentioning the target word a total of 87 times (nature) within the three segments. Sesame Street characters used target words most frequently during the celebrity scene (42.07%). Target words were used in the street scene a total of 850 times (32.78%) and in Murray’s opening scene a total of 652 times (25.14%). It is interesting

Table 2. Examples of target words, by tier. Tier 1 baile (dance) brush curly friend garden mail newspaper pasta penguin robot windy

214

Tier 2 absorb accessory activate amplify angry apology appetite athlete author balance binoculars bones booth brainstorm brilliant career careful celebration challenge cheer concentrate confidence crunchy deciduous disguise

engineer experiment family float fragile fragrance frustrated gigantic grimace half humongous inflate innovation inspect jealous lazy liquid machine miniature mustache nature observe patience persistent plan

Tier 3 predicament prepared prickly recipe reinforce relax senses sigh soggy spectacular speedy splatter struggle stubborn stumble sturdy surprise tool toss translate tricycle unique vibrate volunteer

allergic arachnid ballet cactus glockenspiel habitat hibernate laundromat paleontologist rhyme subtraction



Table 3. Number of target word occurrences, by segment. Segment

N

M (SD)

Mdn

Range

Murray Street Celebrity Total

652 850 1,091 2,593

6.79 (1.60) 8.85 (11.72) 11.36 (5.58) 27.26 (13.43)

7.0 4.5 11.5 24.0

3–11 0–57 0–26a 6–86

a Eight episodes without a celebrity scene were counted as having zero target word occurrences. Without these episodes, the minimum number of target word occurrences in the celebrity scene is four.

with the target word (e.g., tricycle, struggle), or asking the audience to help identify an occurrence of the target word on screen. For example, in the episode targeting the word curly, Big Bird requested help from the audience by asking, “Can you help us find a monster that’s tall, thin, and has curly fur on the top of his head?” Active participation also occurred when an onscreen character asked the viewing audience to interact with the target word in the moment by feeling their vocal cords during the vibrate episode.

Discussion to note that eight episodes did not mention the target word during the street scene ( penguin, mail, gigantic, appetite, apology, struggle, liquid, confidence). The instructional strategies used most frequently in sample episodes were exposure and example/nonexample (see Table 4). Together, these two categories accounted for the vast majority of target word types (42.65% and 41.19%, respectively). Exposure occurred, among other times, at the conclusion of almost every Murray scene, when Murray asked the audience to listen for the target word. For example, in one episode, Murray said, “Keep listening for the word recipe, today on Sesame Street.” For the example/ nonexample category, a celebrity used the word fragile as he showed the viewing audience a cookie jar and said, “See this jar? It’s fragile.” Definitions were used less frequently (6.8%) in sample episodes. For example, a celebrity targeting the word persistent said, “Persistent means not to give up even when things don’t go the way you want them to.” Leading questions accounted for 9.65% of target word occurrences, and occurred most frequently in the Murray scene (68%). For example, Murray asked, “What things are gigantic?” and additional onscreen characters responded to the question by giving examples such as “a whale” and “a dinosaur” without again repeating the target word, gigantic. Active participation occurred only 24 times (0.93%) in the 96 sample episodes. Active participation primarily involved having the viewing audience repeat the target word after an adult model (10 out of 24 occurrences). For example, in the episode targeting the word stumble, the celebrity invited the audience to repeat the word by saying, “Come on, say it with me, ssstumble, stummmble, stumble.” Active participation also included asking the viewing audience to act out the word (e.g., robot, sigh), asking about experience Table 4. Number of instructional strategies used within sample episodes. Strategy Definition Example/nonexample Leading question Exposure Active participation

N

M (SD)

Mdn

Range

178 1,068 250 1,106 24

1.85 (1.32) 11.13 (7.86) 2.60 (1.44) 11.52 (7.70) 0.25 (0.56)

2 9 2 10 0

0–6 1–39 0–7 0–51 0–3

In this study, we compared research-based strategies for vocabulary selection and instruction to observable content in Sesame Street’s Word on the Street initiative. Findings indicate that Word on the Street content includes many, but not all, research-based vocabulary instruction practices. In the following section, we review areas in which current Word on the Street content aligns with research-based vocabulary instruction practices. Next, we suggest areas for improving vocabulary instruction within Word on the Street. Last, we address limitations of our analysis, and discuss directions for future research and ways that Word on the Street content may be adapted for use in therapeutic settings.

Areas of Alignment With Research-Based Practices in Vocabulary Instruction Visuals Results of our analysis suggest that Word on the Street segments effectively used visuals to teach vocabulary to young children through educational media. Graves (2009) suggested that using pictures can be a useful strategy when trying to explain the meaning of a new word to a child. Sesame Street characters explain target words while showing pictures of objects onscreen. They can also demonstrate the meaning of words through actions. Recent research suggests that having young children watch similar actions representing the same verb can help increase understanding (Twomey, Lush, Pearce, & Horst, 2014). Examples of verbs targeted in the initiative include hibernate, concentrate, observe, and inspect. The use of video for teaching new vocabulary words, verbs in particular, is a strength of the Word on the Street initiative and a worthwhile consideration for future vocabulary teaching initiatives. Student-Friendly Definitions Word on the Street segments generally provided student-friendly definitions as suggested by Beck et al. (2002). Words were defined by using simple language likely to be understood by young children, rather than with precise, dictionary-like explanations. For example, the word disguise was defined by a celebrity saying, “Disguise is when you change the way something looks to make it hard to tell what it is.” In contrast to this student-friendly definition, Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines disguise as “apparel assumed to conceal one’s identity or counterfeit another’s” (Disguise, 2014). It should be noted, however,



215

that definitions were provided infrequently in Word on the Street segments (6.8% of episodes). This is in contrast to the analysis by Justice et al. (2014), in which SLPs provided definitions for 58% of the words taught. Although definitions in the Word on the Street initiative are child-friendly, they may be too infrequent to impact word learning.

Tier 3 targets correctly, it seems clear that these targets are too specific and advanced for use by preschoolers trying to learn words by viewing the show. Thus, we suggest that instructional time should focus exclusively on Tier 2 words that are most likely to be new and of use to viewers in everyday situations.

Relevance Since its inception, Sesame Street producers have been committed to providing educational programming for young children that is well-matched to the interests and abilities of the child (Mielke, 2001). Sesame Street’s history of thoughtfully designed programming and formative research (see Truglio, Lovelace, Seguí, & Scheiner, 2001) suggests that vocabulary instruction embedded into the program is relevant and meaningful to young viewers. Despite these strengths, Word on the Street content is limited to preselected words and may not be able to match the individual focus possible during live vocabulary intervention where SLPs can select target vocabulary on the basis of the child’s interests and needs.

Frequent Opportunities to Learn the Word Current research does not provide a firm conclusion on the number of times a young child needs to hear a word before being able to use the word functionally (for a discussion of this, see Beck et al., 2002; Bloom, 2000; Graves, 2009; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). For children with SLI, however, researchers have demonstrated that more repetitions are needed to learn words at the same level as peers who have typically developing language (Rice et al., 1994). It seems plausible that the more often a child hears a word, the more likely he or she is to recognize, understand, and be able to use that word in the future. Regardless of the target word type (i.e., Tier 1, 2, or 3), the Word on the Street initiative consistently includes several repetitions of the target word in the Murray and celebrity scenes. Target word occurrences in the street scene, however, are less frequent and vary widely between episodes, with some episodes failing to use the word in the Street Scene altogether. Given this inconsistency in opportunities for children to learn words, there may be varying benefits to viewers, and implications for how Word on the Street content can be used in intervention settings (i.e., is a word repeated frequently enough to make the episode an efficient way to teach a target word). These limitations could be addressed by increasing the consistency of target word occurrences across episodes. As in previous reviews describing literacy content on Sesame Street (e.g., Mates & Strommen, 1995; Moses & Duke, 2008), we noted missed opportunities to include target words within each episode, with a significant deficit during the street scene. For example, in the episode titled, “Jack’s Big Jump,” Jack stumbles while attempting to jump over a line of candlesticks. Onscreen characters encourage Jack to try again but do not label the stumbling action that is shown on screen. The target word stumble is used only one time in the street scene when a kangaroo sings, “Don’t worry if you stumble or if you fall and get a bump.” Multiple exposures to the same verb through similar, but different, video examples can increase young children’s knowledge of that word (Twomey et al., 2014). The street scene provides an excellent opportunity to teach words within a story context and to facilitate initial understanding of a new word. It is unfortunate to note that the street scene is the most underutilized segment of the Word on the Street initiative. We suggest increasing opportunities for vocabulary learning within the street scene by closely aligning story content with the target word and maximizing target word use by onscreen characters.

Areas for Improvement The Word on the Street content included many recommended practices for vocabulary instruction; however, we identified several areas of instruction that could be strengthened to provide more optimal vocabulary instruction during television viewing. Word Selection The majority of target words in the Word on the Street initiative were Tier 2 words (77.1%). This finding is in contrast to the results by Justice et al. (2014) suggesting SLPs target primarily Tier 1 (87%) words. Justice et al. (2014) recommended that SLPs use more systematic approaches to word selection and provide instruction on Tier 2 and academic words. We recommend that Word on the Street content include only Tier 2 words so that children watching Sesame Street have exposure to new words they can easily use in their everyday environments. By including Tier 1 words such as mail and brush, we would argue that the Word on the Street initiative wastes valuable instructional time teaching young children words they are likely to already know and use. Tier 3 words like pirouette and glockenspiel are unnecessary targets that are not likely to be encountered or used by young children. To demonstrate this point, we noted at least one case where a Tier 3 target word was not used consistently across episodes. A glockenspiel, as defined by a celebrity in a Season 39 episode, is a musical instrument that looks, “a lot like a xylophone, but a xylophone has wooden bars and a glockenspiel has metal bars.” In a later episode about dinosaurs, Sesame Street characters find several buried objects as they pretend to be paleontologists. Upon coming across an instrument with metal bars, an adult Sesame Street character incorrectly labels it as a xylophone. If the Sesame Street characters themselves do not use previous

216

Multiple and Varied Contexts for Deep Processing In addition to including more, and higher quality, target word occurrences in the street scene, target words could



also be included in other parts of each Sesame Street episode. In order to have a solid understanding of a new vocabulary word, young children need time to process the word and understand its meaning across a variety of contexts (Beck et al., 2002; Graves, 2009). The Word on the Street initiative currently incorporates target words into three segments of each episode, all of which occur within the first half of the episode. Although target words are occasionally included outside of these segments, incorporating intentional learning opportunities within later-occurring Sesame Street segments would provide children with more opportunities to learn and think about the target word over time. Another possibility to increase deep processing of target vocabulary is to systematically reintroduce target words that have been taught in earlier Sesame Street episodes. For example, in the episode targeting the word mail, the previous target word, newspaper, could have easily been incorporated and reinforced within the episode. Using target words across episodes would allow for repeated practice over a longer period of time. Future programming might include alternate formats beyond television for expanding vocabulary instruction. Although we did not review the Word on the Street toolkit in this analysis, similar materials may be useful as a way for caregivers and practitioners to reinforce words learned during Sesame Street episodes across a variety of contexts. Interactive, individualized tablet apps or computer programs might also be used to strengthen target word learning considering the broad benefits of technology on language and literacy outcomes (see Hsin et al., 2014). Active Involvement We know that young children need to interact with new words to learn and use them in their everyday environments (Beck et al., 2002; Graves, 2009; Neuman, 2011; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). Rehearsing new words can help stimulate acquisition and retention (Beck et al., 2002). Our review suggests that young children watching Sesame Street have very few opportunities to engage with target words in the Word on the Street initiative. Although Sesame Street characters occasionally ask viewers to count, sing, or chant with them, the characters in this sample seldom posed questions related to target words or asked the audience to engage with target words during the episode. Active engagement occurred very infrequently (

Word on the Street: Engaging Local Leaders in a Dialogue About Prostate Cancer Among African Americans.

Sesame Street goes to jail: physicians should follow.

Sectioning on the street - futility or utility?

Hawadith Street Initiative: A unique Sudanese childhood charity experience.

housing dilemma.

Alcohol in urban streetscapes: a comparison of the use of Google Street View and on-street observation.

The Street Folk.

Street trees reduce the negative effects of urbanization on birds.

The 1977 Street Drug Analysis results: PharmChem Research Foundation.

Statewide Dissemination of Sesame Street Resources for Families Affected by Incarceration.

Violence and the code of the street: a study of social dynamics among street children in Makeevka, East Ukraine.

The medical care of street youth.

The man in the street: a tale of two cities.

Modeling LED street lighting.

A Stab in the Dark?: A Research Note on Temporal Patterns of Street Robbery.

Street View of the Cognitive Map.

High street eye tests.

Wall Street remains bearish on value of genome project.

Effects of alternative street school on youth involved in prostitution.

Street corner research.

High street eye tests.

The Ontario Veterinary College: Temperance Street era.

Finger-to-Beat Coordination Skill of Non-dancers, Street Dancers, and the World Champion of a Street-Dance Competition.

Isoflurane, driving and walking down the street.