• 0Shopping Cart
Edge Enterprises
  • About Us
  • MyAccount
  • EdgeProducts
    • The Learning Strategies Curriculum
    • Content Enhancement Routines
    • Teaming Techniques
    • Strategic Tutoring
    • Cooperative Thinking Strategies
    • Community Building Series
    • Strategic Math Series
    • Motivation Strategies
    • Social Skills Programs
    • Speaking with Power Series
  • CustomerSupport
    • Contact Us
    • FAQs
    • eBook Customer Support
  • ProfessionalDevelopment
  • QuickOrder
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Vocabulary LINCing Routine

Edwin S. Ellis
According to research, the best way to teach vocabulary words so students remember them is within the context of subject-matter instruction. For example, the best way to teach the meaning of the word “segregation” might be within a lesson about the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1960s. However, although some students will learn the meaning of the word with this approach, many students will not. They might not be able to remember the difference between “segregation” and “integration,” for example.
That’s where the Vocabulary LINCing Routine comes in handy! Based on a set of memory tools for vocabulary learning, the routine can be used by teachers to teach the meaning of vocabulary words in a memorable way during ongoing lessons. The teacher and students work together to record background knowledge, rhyming words, pictures, and stories on a LINCS Table in a way that helps students remember important parts of the definition of a new word.
This manual includes specific steps for introducing the LINCS Table to students, as well as the steps for developing LINCS Tables as a part of whole-class discussions. Multiple examples of LINCS Tables are included throughout the book, as are ideas for adapting the instruction and teaching students how to construct LINCS Tables on their own.
This item must be purchased through the Center for Research on Learning

SKU: CE1L Categories: Content Enhancement Routines, Published by The Center for Research on Learning, Routines for Increasing Student Performance
  • Additional information
  • Research
  • About the Author

Additional information

Dimensions 8.5 × 11 in
Cover

Paperback

Dimensions (W)

8 1/2"

Dimensions (H)

11"

Page Count

50

Publisher

Edge Enterprises, Inc.

Year Printed

2001

Requirements

Professional Development Strongly Recommended

Description

Research on the LINCing Routine

Overview
The LINCing Routine is a set of procedures teachers use to teach students the LINCS Vocabulary Strategy. Students use the strategy to learn the meaning of a new word. The effects of teaching the LINCS Vocabulary Strategy were compared to the effects of teaching the Word Mapping Strategy in this study. The Word Mapping Strategy is a strategy students use to predict the meaning of new words. The study included a total of 230 ninth graders in nine intact general education English classes. Students with disabilities (SWDs) and without disabilities (NSWDs) were enrolled in each of the classes. Three classes participated in each of three groups: the group receiving instruction in the LINCS Vocabulary (VL) Strategy (n = 6 SWDs, 73 NSWDs), the group receiving instruction in the Word Mapping (WM) Strategy (n= 10 SWDs, 69 NSWDs) , and a comparison test-only [TO]) group (n = 8 SWDS, 64 NSWDs). Classes were randomly selected into the two experimental groups. The third group of classes served as a normative comparison. A pretest-posttest control-group design was combined with a pretest-posttest comparison-group design.

Results
Figure 1 displays the mean percentage of 20 words that students in both experimental groups (i.e., the VL an/ WM groups) learned during the strategy instruction as determined by a written test that required students to write the meaning of the words. The mean scores of VL students are depicted with the bars in the center of the figure. With regard to changes from pretest to posttest for the VL group, the three-way interaction of time x subgroup x group was found to be significant, Wilks’ Λ = .964, F(2,224) = 4.138, p = .017, partial η2 = .036 (a small effect size). When the file was split on subgroup, the time x group interaction was significant for the SWDs, F(2,21) = 12.90, p < .001, partial η2 = .563 (a large effect size), and for the NSWDs, F(2,203) = 367.388, p < .001, partial η2 = .780 (also a large effect size). The paired-sample t-tests revealed that significant differences were found between the pretest and posttest scores for the SWDs in the VL group, t(5) = -5.391, p = .003, d = 1.074 (a large effect size), and for the NSWDs in the VL group, t(72) = -26.879, p< .001, d = .089 (a medium effect size). No differences were found for the TO subgroups.


No differences were found between the posttest scores of the VL and WM groups on this measure. However, large significant differences were found between the posttest scores of the VL subgroups and the TO subgroups [SWDs: F(1,20) = 12.589, p <.01, partial η2 = .386 (a moderate effect size); NSWDs: F(1,202) = 543.479, p <.001, partial η2 = .730 (a large effect size).

Figure 2 displays the mean percentage of points students earned on a test of strategy use, with the mean scores for VL students on the right side of the figure. Students in the VL group took a test requiring use of the LINCS Vocabulary Strategy; students in the WM group took a test requiring use of the Word Mapping Strategy. With regard to the VL group, a significant difference was found between the pretest and posttest scores, Wilks’ Λ = .262, F(1,77) = 217.184, p < .001, partial η2= .738 (a large effect size). There were no differences between the SWDs and the NSWDs in learning the LINCS Vocabulary Strategy.


Conclusions
Students in ninth-grade general education classes were able to learn the LINCS Vocabulary Strategy and the meaning of words taught during strategy instruction. The effect sizes in each case were large. There were no differences in performance between the students with and without disabilities.

Reference for this study*
Harris, M. L., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (in preparation). The effects of strategic morphological analysis instruction on the vocabulary performance of secondary students with and without disabilities. Available through Edge Enterprises, Inc. or call Edge for updated publication information.

*This research study won the Researcher of the Year Award from the Council for Learning Disabilities in 2008.

About the Author

Edwin (Ed) S. Ellis, Ph.D.

Affliations

 

        Professor
        Special Education and Multiple Abilities
        University of Alabama
        President
        Makes Sense Strategies, LLC
      Research Affiliate and SIM Professional Development Specialist
      University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning

My Background and Interests
Although I didn’t realize it at the time, my interest in learning and teaching began way back in 1965 at age 15. My youngest brother had been diagnosed with learning disabilities, and with both parents working 80+ hours a week, many of the responsibilities for his treatment fell on my shoulders. This was back when perceptual motor training to establish brain hemisphere dominance to cure LD was in vogue. I spent countless hours doing “angels in the snow” types of activities with him and trying to help him learn to read and write, although I was somewhat clueless about how to do it. His and my own emotional experiences led me to pursue college studies in the area of psychology, and becoming a teacher never crossed my mind. I accidentally fell into special education when an opportunity presented itself with a tuition grant to pursue a master’s degree in special education/learning disabilities. I didn’t have anything else to do, and it seemed like a way to extend my interest in psychology in a practical way. Only when I had my own classroom and became very invested in understanding my students did I realize that I was one of those people who was “born to teach”… and born to observe and think about learning. I’ve been hooked ever since!

During the late 1970s, due to my service volunteer experiences developing a pretrial diversion program for delinquent adolescents and working in a adolescent drug rehabilitation program, paired with my experience as a teacher of students with LD, I became the education coordinator for one of the Child Service Demonstration Centers (CSDC), which were federally funded programs charged with developing and validating interventions for students with LD. Our particular CSDC program focused on developing interventions for adolescents with LD who had been adjudicated (convicted). Of the many CSDCs that were funded, only a few focused on services for adolescents, and fewer still actually did anything to validate their effectiveness. One of these was a CSDC directed by Don Deshler, a new Assistant Professor at KU, and another one was directed by Naomi Zigmond at the University of Pittsburgh. Those of us concerned with the validation of our programs would meet at conferences to share what we were doing and our data. These were exciting times for all of us, and especially for me because I was collaborating with some brilliant people, and we were all trying to figure out what to do, how to do it, and how well it worked. Most of the CSDCs, however, failed to validate their interventions, so subsequent federal support shifted to funding five research institutes where learning disabilities could be addressed in a systematic, empirical manner, and interventions could be scientifically validated.

Dick Shieffelbush and Ed Meyen were awarded one of these institute grants, and thus the Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities (KU-IRLD) was born. Don Deshler, who was the Coordinator for the KU-IRLD recruited many of us who had been collaborating with him within the CSDCs to come to KU for doctoral studies and to work at the KU-IRLD (now known as the KU-CRL). That’s how I landed in Kansas, and that’s how I became a part of an effort to change education that continues today.

The Story Behind the LINCS Vocabulary Routine
One of the things effective learning strategy teachers do is work very hard at promoting transfer and generalization of a strategy by students to other classes and settings. In other words, they want students not only to learn an effective/efficient strategy, they want the students to put the strategy to work in a range of situations and settings in ways that pay off for students. As a resource teacher, one of the things I would do to promote generalization of a strategy my students had learned was to be a “guest teacher” in my students’ general education classes and teach strategy lessons to all of the students in those classes. I would typically do this after my students had already mastered the strategy in my resource classroom. Thus, when I was teaching the general education students how to use the LINCS Strategy, for example, my students in those classrooms were often the only ones who already knew how to perform the strategy and could demonstrate their abilities to others. Obviously, this was very motivational for my students, but another objective was to make the general education teachers aware of the strategy my students had been learning and how it worked so that they could continue to promote its use in the classroom when I was not around.

What I learned while doing these “guest teacher” presentations was that most of the typical learners could readily acquire the LINCS Strategy, but students who were struggling to learn tended to need more intensive and extensive instruction in it for them to know how to perform it well enough to use it independently. I also learned that even when I did not provide the intensive strategy instruction to my students, they still benefited greatly when general education teachers embedded their subject-area instruction with activities that involved creating LINCS devices for the new vocabulary. From this knowledge sprang the LINCing Routine.

My Thoughts about Content Enhancement Instruction
Don Deshler helped me understand that the way to support inclusion and provide real access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities was to enable subject-area teachers to use “robust” instructional techniques – that is, instructional routines powerful enough to really impact the learning of students who struggle to learn complex information while also being very effective for all other students in general education classes. Research on the effectiveness of the LINCing Routine shows that it clearly qualifies as one of those robust instructional routines. Furthermore, just as the LINCS Strategy proved to be a good strategy to teach when introducing students to learning strategies, so too has the LINCing Routine been a good introduction to the concept of Content Enhancement for subject-area teachers.

Teacher Feedback on the LINCS Vocabulary Routine
Subject-area teachers have indicated to me that the LINCing Routine is easy to learn, is easy to embed into their current instructional practices, and does not rob them of instructional time. Perhaps most importantly, teachers are very pleased when they immediately experience what Content Enhancement is all about as their students’ performance on classroom tests suddenly and dramatically improves. These experiences help subject-area teachers become much more invested in learning and using other Content Enhancement Routines that are more complex and demanding of their pedagogical knowledge, skills, planning time, and energy but that are also very effective and important to use.

My Contact Information
Please contact me at edwinellis1@gmail.com or at (205) 394-5512.

Related products

  • Lesson Organizer Routine: Instructor’s Manual

    Read more Show Details
  • LINCS Vocabulary Strategy: Instructor’s Manual (eBook)

    Read more Show Details
  • Main Idea Strategy: Improving Reading Comprehension Through Inferential Thinking (Teacher Instructional Manual)

    $15.00
    Add to cart Show Details
Copyright 2009-2020 - Edge Enterprises, Inc.
Privacy Policy | Return Policy
Visual Imagery Strategy: Instructor’s ManualWord Identification Strategy: Instructor’s Manual
Scroll to top