Sound and Meaning Cue Card

This cue card can be used to support the teaching of new vocabulary using a direct instruction approach.

Thanks to Rose Brooks, Independent Education Consultant for the creation of this resource.

---

Download

More Information

“Green for what we mean, red for what is said” (Parsons & Branagan, 2017)

Research suggests that for pupils with low levels of vocabulary, particularly those with Developmental Language Disorder, vocabulary improvement is enhanced by a combined focus on the sound structure and meaning of words (St John & Vance, 2014), and this remains the case even in secondary school (Lowe et al., 2019). It seems that the dual emphasis provides a higher quality of input for word learning and memory than meaning alone (Perfetti & Hart, 2002). There is emerging evidence that this may also be a useful mainstream classroom strategy for Key Stage One pupils (Silverman, 2007). The phonological cues in the combined approach may have the potential to support wider skills beyond vocabulary, such as phonemic awareness and phonic reading (Duff et al., 2015; Munro et al., 2008).

The sound and meaning cue card can be used to teach new vocabulary using the STAR direct instruction approach (Blachowitz & Fisher, 2014). Select the target word (ideally a Tier 2 cross-curricular word linked to a high quality text - Beck et al., 2013). Next, teach the word through the red phonological awareness prompts and the green meaning prompts to support word learning and to make it easier to retrieve. Then, activate or apply the word in other contexts, for example through a game or activity. Finally, review the word on a regular basis to ensure it stays in memory and is not forgotten.

References

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. Guilford Press.

Blachowicz, C. L. Z., & Fisher, P. (2014). Teaching vocabulary in all classrooms. (5th Ed.). Pearson.

Duff, F. J., Reen, G., Plunkett, K., & Nation, K. (2015). Do infant vocabulary skills predict school‐age language and literacy outcomes? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(8), 848-856. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12378

Lowe, H., Henry, L., & Joffe, V. L. (2019). The effectiveness of classroom vocabulary intervention for adolescents with language disorder. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 62(8), 2829-2846. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0337

Munro, N., Lee, K., & Baker, E. (2008). Building vocabulary knowledge and phonological awareness skills in children with specific language impairment through hybrid language intervention: A feasibility study. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 43(6), 662-682. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820701806308

Parsons, S. & Branagan, a. (2017). Wordaware: Teaching vocabulary across the day, across the curriculum. Routledge.

Perfetti, C., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (Vol. 11, pp. 189-213). John Benjamins Publishing.

Silverman, R. (2007). A comparison of three methods of vocabulary instruction during readalouds in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1086/525549

St John, P., & Vance, M. (2014). Evaluation of a principled approach to vocabulary learning in mainstream classes. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(3), 255-271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659013516474

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., Donahue, J., & Garon, T. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 468-479. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.3.468