Learning Strategies Curriculum: LINCS Vocabulary Strategy
Study: Harris, Schumaker, & Deshler (2011)

Summary

The Vocabulary Strategy, known as "LINCS," is a strategy that students can use to learn and retain the meaning of new words. The program's purpose is to teach students to be active learners by using a variety of memory tools when encountering new vocabulary. When using the strategy, students first focus on the word and its definition. Then they identify a "Reminding Word," a word that they already know that helps them remember the new word. It usually rhymes with the new word. Next, they create a sentence that connects the Reminding Word with the definition. Then they draw a picture of the definition that includes an image related to the reminding word. Finally, they test themselves over the word and its definition by following a specific sequence: stating the word, the reminding word, and the sentence, remembering the picture, and stating the definition. Students create their own study cards as they use the strategy. The program can be implemented with individual students, small groups, or classes.

Target Grades:
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Target Populations:
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
  • English language learners
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
  • Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
  • Other: Any student who has difficulty learning the definitions of new vocabulary.
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Expressive and receptive vocabulary
  • Vocabulary
Where to Obtain:
Edge Enterprises, Inc. (publisher); Edwin S. Ellis (author/developer)
Edge Enterprises, Inc., 708 W. 9th St. Suite 104, Lawrence, KS 66044
785-749-1473; FAX: 785-749-0207
www.edgeenterprisesinc.com
Initial Cost:
$9.50 per Teacher
Replacement Cost:
$9.50 per Teacher per N/A

The instructor's manual costs $9.50. Each teacher will need one. The manual includes step-by-step instructions for eight stages of instruction which the teacher can follow in implementing the program. It also includes visual aids, practice sets of words, quizzes, a pretest and a posttest, answer keys, and a progress chart. Teachers are given permission to copy the materials for use in teaching students.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • EL Specialist
  • Interventionist
Training Requirements:
Approximately two to three hours.

The training involves lecture, discussion, models of the instruction, a powerpoint presentation, cooperative-group activities, paired activities, role-playing practice, scoring activities, and implementation planning.


The training manuals and materials were field tested with certified professional developers who are associated with the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. These individuals provide training in workshops and college courses across the nation. They have provided feedback on the training materials, and revisions were made as required.

Access to Technical Support:
They can obtain initial training, instructional coaching, and ongoing support through the International Network of Professional Developers associated with the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
45
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
5
Minimum Number of Weeks:
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

The Vocabulary Strategy, known as "LINCS," is a strategy that students can use to learn and retain the meaning of new words. The program's purpose is to teach students to be active learners by using a variety of memory tools when encountering new vocabulary. When using the strategy, students first focus on the word and its definition. Then they identify a "Reminding Word," a word that they already know that helps them remember the new word. It usually rhymes with the new word. Next, they create a sentence that connects the Reminding Word with the definition. Then they draw a picture of the definition that includes an image related to the reminding word. Finally, they test themselves over the word and its definition by following a specific sequence: stating the word, the reminding word, and the sentence, remembering the picture, and stating the definition. Students create their own study cards as they use the strategy. The program can be implemented with individual students, small groups, or classes.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
not selected Kindergarten
not selected First grade
not selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
selected Ninth grade
selected Tenth grade
selected Eleventh grade
selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
selected English language learners
selected Any student at risk for academic failure
selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
selected Other
If other, please describe:
Any student who has difficulty learning the definitions of new vocabulary.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
not selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
Edge Enterprises, Inc., 708 W. 9th St. Suite 104, Lawrence, KS 66044
Phone Number
785-749-1473; FAX: 785-749-0207
Website
www.edgeenterprisesinc.com

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$9.50
Unit of cost
Teacher

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
$9.50
Unit of cost
Teacher
Duration of license
N/A

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

The instructor's manual costs $9.50. Each teacher will need one. The manual includes step-by-step instructions for eight stages of instruction which the teacher can follow in implementing the program. It also includes visual aids, practice sets of words, quizzes, a pretest and a posttest, answer keys, and a progress chart. Teachers are given permission to copy the materials for use in teaching students.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

   four to six

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
45
Minimum number of sessions per week
5
Minimum number of weeks
selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:
During several of the instructional stages, students are expected to reach mastery. If their score does not reach the mastery criterion, they are to be given feedback by the teacher and then should repeat the practice activity again until they reach mastery in each stage.

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
Yes

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:
The program does not require technology. However, an interactive digital program is available for teacher and student use when learning new words. The digital program is called the "Vocabulary LINCing Interactive CD." Students and teachers can create LINCS Tables with this digital program. Teachers can demonstrate how to create LINCS Tables, and students can complete assignments by learning new vocabulary with this program. The digital program is available through Edge Enterprises, Inc. for $12.00.

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?
1

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?
At-cost

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
Approximately two to three hours.

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
The training involves lecture, discussion, models of the instruction, a powerpoint presentation, cooperative-group activities, paired activities, role-playing practice, scoring activities, and implementation planning.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
not selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
not selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
not selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
The training manuals and materials were field tested with certified professional developers who are associated with the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. These individuals provide training in workshops and college courses across the nation. They have provided feedback on the training materials, and revisions were made as required.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?
Yes

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

They can obtain initial training, instructional coaching, and ongoing support through the International Network of Professional Developers associated with the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

Harris, M. L., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2011). The effects of strategic morphological analysis instruction on the vocabulary performance of secondary students with and

        without disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 1, 17-33. 

Harris, M. L. (2007). The effects of strategic morphological analysis instruction on the vocabulary performance of secondary students with and without disabilities. [Unpublished

         doctoral dissertation]. University of Kansas. 

Study Information

Study Citations

1) Harris, M. L., Schumaker, J. B. & Deshler, D. D. (2011). The Effects of Strategic Morphological Analysis Instruction on the Vocabulary Performance of Secondary Students with and without Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1) 17-33; 2) Harris, M. L. The Effects of Strategic Morphological Analysis Instruction on the Vocabulary Performance of Secondary Students with and without Disabilities. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Participants were 230 public school ninth graders who were regularly enrolled in nine inclusive English classes, including students with and without disabilities. Three of the classes were randomly selected to receive instruction in the Vocabulary LINCing Strategy. Three classes were randomly selected to receive instruction in the Word Mapping Strategy, and three of the classes were randomly selected as the normative comparison classes. The students' parents signed informed consent forms to allow the students' participation.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
The students with disabilities had active IEPs. After informed consent was obtained, their IEPs and test scores were reviewed to determine whether the students fit the criteria for having a disability. (Their standardized achievement and IQ data were collected from school records to facilitate this process.)

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
  • identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
10.0%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • emotional disability label,
  • placed in an alternative school/classroom,
  • non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
  • designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
The three classes that received instruction in the Vocabulary LINCing Strategy (the submitted intervention) was the experimental group (79 students).

Specify which condition is the control condition:
The three classes that received "business as usual" vocabulary instruction was the comparison condition (72 students).

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):
The three classes that received instruction in the Word Mapping Strategy took part in the third condition (79 students).

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9 100.0 % 100.0 % 0.00
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American 32.9 % 40.3 % 0.18
American Indian 1.3 % 1.4 % 0.00
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.0 % 2.8 % 2.08
Hispanic 25.3 % 22.2 % 0.10
White 34.2 % 30.6 % 0.08
Other 6.3 % 2.8 % 0.44

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch
No Subsidized Lunch

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.00
Learning Disabilities 5.1 % 8.3 % 0.30
Behavior Disorders 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.00
Emotional Disturbance 0.0 % 1.4 % 1.40
Intellectual Disabilities 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.00
Other 2.5 % 1.4 % 0.68
Not Identified With a Disability 92.4 % 88.9 % 0.21

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.00
Not English Language Learner 100.0 % 100.0 % 0.00

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 57.0 % 43.1 % 0.34
Male 43.0 % 56.9 % 0.34

Mean Effect Size

0.34

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

Analyses were conducted to determine whether there were differences between the three groups with regard to demographic variables and test scores before the study began. Pearson chi-square results showed that there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to gender or ethnicity. One way ANOVAs revealed no significant differences among the groups on the vocabulary achievement standard scores (whole groups) and full-scale IQ scores from the WISC-III (students with disabilities only). (See the statistical statements in the article on page 21.)

Design Half Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Random
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
The nine classes were each randomly assigned to one of the three groups ( the Vocabulary LINCing, Word Mapping, or control groups).

What was the unit of assignment?
Classes
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:
The classes were public school ninth-grade English classes in which students with and without disabilities were enrolled and expected fully to engage in the instruction.

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:
Students' scores on vocabulary assessments were used in the data analyses.

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
not selected Small Group
selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
Minimum group size
Maximum group size

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
2.00
Sessions per week
5.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
45.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
The instructor of the Vocabulary LINCing Strategy (and the Word Mapping Strategy) was a graduate student who was completing her Ph.D. She had 10 years of teaching experience at the secondary level. Her advisors provided her support.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
The fidelity of treatment information was obtained for the Vocabulary LINCing Strategy instruction with a checklist that listed the instructional practices associated with teaching the strategy. Each item on the checklist was a teacher behavior. An observer used the checklists during class sessions in which the strategy was taught. The sessions were also videotaped for reliability purposes.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
The primary scorer and the reliability observer for the fidelity data were blind to the purpose of the study. Items on the fidelity checklist were compared item-by-item. The scorers agreed on 111 out of 120 opportunities to agree for 93% agreement. (The range on individual lessons was 80% to 100%.) Results indicated that the instructor implemented an average of 96% of the required instructional behaviors across the strategy lessons.

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
No, the control classrooms were engaged in business-as-usual English classes. The vocabulary instruction on the Vocabulary LINCing fidelity checklists would not have pertained to those classes.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Full Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
selected Full sample
not selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Pretest scores were compared across the three groups using ANOVAs. No statistically significant difference was found between the pretest scores for any of the three tests. To determine whether there were any differences across the three groups regarding their demographic data and standardized test data, chi-square tests and one-way ANOVAs were conducted. The Pearson's chi-square results showed that there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to gender or ethnicity. The ANOVAs revealed no significant differences among the groups on their vocabulary achievement standard scores on the SAT-10 and full-scale score from the WISC-III. (See the article for the statistical statements on p. 21.)
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
There were no missing data.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
If a variable only pertained to the Word Mapping Strategy, it was excluded. Thus, the percentage of points earned on the Word Mapping Strategy test was excluded. That test was only administered to students assigned to the group that received instruction in the Word Mapping Strategy.
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
For the Vocabulary LINCing Strategy Test, which measured students' knowledge and use of the strategy, a repeated measures ANOVA with one between-subjects factor (SWDs versus non-SWDS) was used to examine changes from the pretest to the posttest. Then a separate paired sample t-test was performed to determine whether gains made by the subgroups were significant. For the Word Knowledge Test and the Meaning Prediction Test, separate repeated-measures ANOVAs were used with two between-subjects factors (condition and subgroup) to examine changes from pretest to posttest. To examine differences between the posttest scores of the three groups, a two-way ANCOVA with two between-subjects factors (condition x subgroup) was conducted, with the pretest scores serving as the covariate. The results showed that with regard to the performance of the Vocabulary LINCing group on the Vocabulary LINCing Test, the main effect of time was significant. Thus, the posttest scores were significantly higher than the pretest scores, representing a large effect size (eta squared = .738). This means that the students learned to use the Vocabulary LINCing Strategy. When the students were tested over the meaning of the words that had been directly taught during the instruction, both students with (SWDS) and without disabilities (NSWDs) in the Vocabulary LINCing Group made significant gains, representing large effect sizes. On the Meaning Prediction Test, no significant differences were found between the pretest and posttest scores for either the experimental or control groups. Likewise, there was no difference between the posttest scores of the experimental and control groups. This means that teaching the Vocabulary LINCing Strategy to students did not enable them to predict the meaning of unknown words.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
E-ESSA
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA*

Program Outcomes: A total of six studies met standards. Five involved targeted forms of SIM and one involved CLC. Outcomes were remarkably consistent, with four of the six effect sizes falling in the range from +0.07 to +0.15, with an average of +0.10. Several of the outcomes were statistically significant, qualifying SIM for the ESSA “Strong” category.

 

Number of Studies: 6

 

Average Effect Size: 0.10

 

Full Report

 

*Evidence for ESSA evaluated the Strategic Instruction Model, which encompasses Learning Strategies Curriculum.

 

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Data Collection Practices

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.