Efficacy of Word Within the Word 1AbstractThe Word Within the Word is a system of instructional materials designed to teachstudents vocabulary through etymology. An exploratory study of the efficacy of the materialswas conducted to test students ability to recognize, use, and recall vocabulary when prompted.Ten middle school teachers and their 493 students participated in the study. Five teachers usedThe Word Within the Word for vocabulary instruction, and five used traditional instructionalmethods. Students completed two measures of vocabulary knowledge: 1) an out-of-levelsentence completion test comprised of practice items from SAT Critical Reading tests, and 2) atest of prompted vocabulary recall that required students to provide the correct word for a givendefinition and word stem. Data analysis tested for effects according to type of curriculum, gradelevel, and gifted identification. Analysis of results on the sentence completion test revealedsignificant differences with moderate effect sizes, favoring students in The Word Within theWord classes, in 6th and 7th grade. Analysis of results on the prompted vocabulary recall testrevealed significant with moderate to large effect sizes at all grade levels, favoring students inThe Word Within the Word classes. Gifted students performed significantly better than typicallydeveloping students on both measures, however, there was no interaction between giftedidentification and type of curriculum. Results suggest that in this case gifted and typicallydeveloping students in classrooms using The Word Within the Word were more skilled invocabulary recognition, use, and recall than students receiving traditional vocabulary instruction,especially in sixth and seventh grade.1Efficacy of Word Within the Word 2IntroductionPossession of a substantial vocabulary is a hallmark of an educated mind, a cornerstoneof eloquence, wisdom, and humor. Skilled choice of the appropriate word is at the heart ofnegotiation and collaboration. Vocabulary is a chief medium of conveying the story of ancienthistory and visions of future worlds. Ease with technical language distinguishes a novice froman expert. More pragmatically, a substantial vocabulary provides access to academicopportunities, including Talent Search programs, college admissions, and scholarships. For theseand other reasons gifted students should continue to build their vocabularies from kindergartenthrough twelfth grade.Yet little is known about the best methods to cultivate the vocabularies of advancedstudents. Research on vocabulary instruction focuses primarily on elementary grades levels,second language learners, or students who are academically at-risk (Kameenui & Maumann,2012). A commonly recommended practice for these students is incidental vocabularyinstruction, where vocabulary is acquired as a result of reading quality literature (McCurquodale& Kirkland, 2006). It may seem reasonable to think that gifted students would learn advancedwords as they read quality literature, but this is not guaranteed. Vocabulary acquisition viaincidental reading is dependent on access to rigorous literature, and evidence suggests thatliterature assigned in middle and high school classrooms is substantially less challenging todaythan it was 20 years ago (Renasissance Learning, 2013). Even bona fide classics are notguaranteed to present students with opportunity to develop their vocabularies. Thompson (2002)points out that the number of advanced words varies dramatically from classic to classic. By hiscount, Of Mice and Men, a novel with complex characters and worthy themes, has only around2Efficacy of Word Within the Word 325 advanced vocabulary words while Tom Sawyer has nearly 300. Moreover, incidental learningrarely goes beyond surface level understanding of target words; for this reason, most expertsrecommend that incidental vocabulary instruction be augmented with explicit instruction ofwords and their meanings (Biemiller, 2004; Lehr, Osborn, & Hiebert, 2004; Marzano, 2004;Nagy, 2005).Direct instruction of vocabulary is generally designed to help students learn highfrequency words (Beck, McKeown, & Kocan, 2013) using word play (Blachowicz & Fischer,2012), graphic organizers (Lovitt, 1994), or morphology, the study of word structure (Carreker,2005; Wilson, 2005). The primary objective of these strategies is to help students acquirevocabulary that will aid in reading comprehension, a limited goal that falls far short of adeptlanguage use or, for verbally gifted students, nuanced appreciation of words.Vocabulary Instruction for Gifted Students. Experts in gifted education have longrecognized the need for advanced students to cultivate their verbal skills. As Michael noted,Because language is mans chief means for receiving and transmitting knowledge,understanding of language is essential to progress. Gifted persons may be supposed, therefore,to need superior skill in the use of language and superior understanding of, and familiarity with,the media of language expression. (as cited in Passow, 1996, p. 25). Given the importance ofadvanced vocabulary to academic success and professional expertise, it has received surprisinglylittle attention in the gifted education literature. Even studies directly related to gifted students inlanguage arts rarely include vocabulary outcomes (i.e., Feng, VanTassel-Baska, Quek, Bai &ONeill, 2005; Oh, Hailey, Azano, Callahan, & Moon, 2012; VanTassel-Baska, Johnson,Hughes, & Boyce, 1996).3Efficacy of Word Within the Word 4Guidance on differentiating vocabulary instruction for gifted students is also sparse. Theonly text on developing verbal ability in gifted students (Van Tassel-Baska, Johnson, & Boyce,1996) has one chapter devoted to differentiated word play (Boyce, 1996) and a chapter on formallanguage study (Thompson, 1996). A graphic organizer called Vocabulary Web, based on wordetymology, is also recommended as a method of introducing students to etymology (VanTassel-Baska & Little, 2011). Each of these provides some insight on how to vary vocabularyinstruction, but none provides an organized hierarchy that could be used as a basis forcomprehensive differentiation based on depth and complexity of vocabulary understanding.Experts in vocabulary instruction do provide a scheme that might help establish a basisfor systematic vocabulary differentiation. Nagy and Scott (2000) describe the different levels atwhich one could know a word. Surface word comprehension is at the bottom of theirhierarchy, followed by the formation of schemas that describe relationships among words. Theirnext level of word knowledge is awareness of word connotations and other subtleties of wordmeaning. The highest level is word consciousness, the awareness of and interest in words, theirmeanings and their power (Lehr, Osborn, & Heibert, 2004, p.16).This hierarchy provides a helpful beginning but fails to provide a tier where studentscome to know words with the level of sophistication needed to challenge for gifted students,where they, engage in language experiences at more complex, more abstract, more advanced,and more intense levels (Passow, 1996, p. 30). Missing from this scheme, and from much ofthe literature on vocabulary instruction, is etymology. The study of word etymology shiftsstudents attention from components of word structure to the components of word meaning,leading to a more insightful and exacting understanding of words. Bowers (2008) provides anexample that distinguishes morphology and etymology using the words plea and please. The4Efficacy of Word Within the Word 5words please and plea have a different morphology because they have different bases. In thiscase the bases are the same as the words please and plea. However, the suffix -ant can be addedto the base please to create the word pleasant; pleasant cannot be formed from the base plea.Morphology helps students understand why the plural of plea is pleas, not please, and why thepast tense of plea is pled.If the study of plea and please ended with morphological analysis, students mightconclude that the words are entirely different, but this is a misconception. Etymological analysistakes students past surface structural differences and reveals a deeper conceptual similarity. Pleaand please share common meaning through the Latin root, placere, to please. The Latin rootunites please and plea with other words as well, like placebo.Thompson (2002) claims that grounding vocabulary instruction in etymology has farranging benefits including comfort with complex words, precise word choice, early acquisitionof discipline-specific language, recognition of foreign language cognates, ease with spelling, andappreciation for language subtleties. Etymology provides a conceptual framework forunderstanding language, consistent with the advanced cognitive attributes observed in giftedstudents (Gallagher, 2009). Adding etymology to the Nagy and Scott hierarchy in Table 1introduces abstraction, depth, and complexity to the study of vocabulary, creating a bridge fromword knowledge to the more substantial appreciation suggested by the term word consciousness.The Word Within the Word. The Word Within the Word presents a new paradigm ofvocabulary instruction with etymology as its foundation, so students view vocabulary, not asa set of lists of words but a system of thinking, a way of building, analyzing, spelling,pronouncing, using and choosing words (Thompson, p. 1, 2013, emphasis added). Thecurriculum is based on the belief that students who are well-versed in vocabulary will be able to:5Efficacy of Word Within the Word 6think intelligently about whether one word is more appropriate than another,more specific than another, more consonant than another with the rhythm andorchestration of the sentence, or more resonant in meaning than another. Theycan bring an array of criteriacognitive, affective, and aestheticto criticalthinking about word choice. (Thompson, 2002, p. 64)The Word Within the Word is comprised of a series of vocabulary lessons that integratethe study of words with the study of Greek and Latin stems. Words and stems are selected toreveal deep-structure similarities among words that may appear different on the surface, allowingstudents to see their conceptual underpinnings. Students begin by memorizing stems and wordsso they are immediately accessible, or automatized (Sternberg, 1977) much like memorizingmultiplication tables. Once absorbed, students engage with the words and stems throughactivities that require a variety of different cognitive skills; these are described in Table 2.Instead of focusing on high frequency words the The Word Within the Word features classicwords, words that regularly appear in classic literature. Sophisticated word play is encouraged inexercises like the Neologists Lexicon, where students use word parts to create new, originalvocabulary. Throughout, students apply higher order thinking to the study of language. The WordWithin the Word meets many of the curriculum modifications recommended for gifted students:the content is plentiful and advanced, students learn to think about language systems andstructures instead of discrete pieces of information. Opportunities for creativity and originalityare embedded in each lesson. Interdisciplinary thought is included through literary selectionsfeaturing words on the list. The multifaceted approach to word study is also consistent withrecommendations for vocabulary instruction from the National Reading Panel (2000), whichinclude presentation of words in rich contexts and varying forms of vocabulary use.6Efficacy of Word Within the Word 7Although The Word Within the Word enjoys broad popularity, especially among teachersof the gifted, it has not been subjected to efficacy studies. The current study was designed as aninitial exploration of the effectiveness of the The Word Within the Word as compared totraditional vocabulary instruction. Three research questions framed the study: 1) How do middleschool students in classrooms using The Word Within the Word (WWW) compare with middleschool students in classrooms using traditional instructional methods (TIMs) on an out-of-leveltest of vocabulary recognition knowledge?, 2) How do middle school students in classroomsusing WWW compare with middle school students in classrooms using TIMs on a test ofprompted vocabulary recall?, and 3) What differences in vocabulary recognition and use orprompted vocabulary recall are observed between gifted and typically developing students inclassrooms using WWW or TIMs?MethodParticipantsTeachers. Ten teachers and 493 students from six middle schools in a southeasternurban school district participated in the study. All ten teachers volunteered to participate in thestudy, and all were provided a materials stipend in return for their participation. Each of the 10teachers reported integrating vocabulary instruction throughout the school year.Five of the 10 teachers used The Word within the Word (WWW) materials in theirlanguage arts classes. Every WWW teacher had at least three years of experience with thecurriculum. One teacher had never attended professional development specific to WWW, onehad attended one professional development session, and the remainder had been to more thanfour professional development sessions specific to the curricula. Most of these professional7Efficacy of Word Within the Word 8development sessions were comprised of one-hour overviews of the material. Three of the fiveteachers used the materials in several different course sections, resulting in a total of 12classrooms using WWW materials.The remaining five teachers used traditional instructional methods (TIMs) to teachvocabulary. The most frequently mentioned strategies were studying word etymology,memorizing word lists, and using vocabulary games or puzzles. Only one of the TIMS teachershad attended professional development devoted to vocabulary instruction. Two of the five TIMSteachers administered study tests to multiple class sections, creating a total of 11 TIMsclassrooms.Students. A total of 493 middle school students participated in the study, 87 sixthgraders, 200 seventh graders and 206 eighth graders. Two hundred sixty-one of the 493 studentsmet state criteria for gifted programs, which included a combination of demonstrated advancedreasoning ability (cognitive abilities at the 96th national age percentile using nationallyrecognized measures), demonstrated academic achievement (94th national percentile or higher onapproved achievement tests), and/or demonstrated academic performance (GPA of 3.75 out of4.00). The study included 38 gifted students in sixth grade, 117 in seventh grade and 106 ineighth grade.Most students were in heterogeneously grouped classes, assigned as a part of the regularscheduling procedures. The proportion of gifted and typically developing student in eachclassroom varied. Teachers using WWW tended to have more gifted students, however this wasnot always the case: one teacher using WWW had more typical than gifted students and oneTIMs teacher had more gifted than typical students. Distribution of gifted and typicallydeveloping students across grade levels and classrooms is presented in Table 3.8Efficacy of Word Within the Word 9MaterialsTeacher survey. Teachers completed a survey that asked how they approachedvocabulary instruction. Teachers using WWW were asked which sections of the curriculum theyused, teachers using traditional curriculum were asked to list the instructional strategies theyused during vocabulary instruction. All teachers were asked whether they approachedvocabulary study as a year-round activity or as a specific unit of study.SAT Critical Reading vocabulary test. A 20-item multiple choice test was constructedfrom practice items in an SAT preparation book published by the College Board (2009). Testitems were selected based on difficulty level as designated by the College Board; four items wereselected at each of five difficulty levels. Students generally do not take the SAT until highschool, so this test was considered out-of-level of both gifted and typically developing students.The sentence completion items were designed to assess students knowledge of wordmeaning and their understanding of how words fit within a sentence. Each item was comprisedof a sentence that was missing one or two words. Students had to select which of four possiblewords, or word pairs, best completed the sentence. To answer the question correctly studentshad to understand both the meaning of the words and they fit within the context of the sentence.Chronbachs alpha calculated on the administration of this test was .68. Given the source of theitems--a book published by the College Board designed for the specific purpose of preparingstudents for the SAT--and given the exploratory nature of the study, .68 was deemed adequate.Prompted Vocabulary Recall test. Multiple-choice tests assess a students ability torecognize a correct answer from among given choices. They do not measure a students ability9Efficacy of Word Within the Word 10to produce a correct answer from memory. A 10-item test was created to assess students abilityto produce advanced vocabulary when prompted. Each item on the test provided students with adefinition and a single word part, either a prefix, root, or suffix. Students were asked to producethe word that both used the word part and met the definition. For example, the correct answerfor the item that presented the prefix mela and the definition sadness or depression of thespirits was melancholy. Words for this test were selected based on their frequent presence oneighth grade word lists for a variety of school districts. Chronbachs alpha for the promptedvocabulary recall test was .68.ProcedureAll teachers gave the tests to their students within the same two-week time framefollowing spring break. Teachers received the tests on the first day of the administration periodand had no prior knowledge about the tests up to that point. The tests were administered in asingle 45 minute class period as part of regular instruction. Test forms were coded to createstudy variables for Grade Level (Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth), Gifted Status (Gifted or Typical)and Curriculum (WWW or TIMs) prior to analysis.Data AnalysisData analyses were conducted in three phases. In the first phase a univariate analysis wasconducted on demographic and classroom variables to identify potential covariates that should beincluded in the main analysis. In the second phase a three-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)was conducted on student responses to the Sentence Completion test and Prompted VocabularyRecall test to assess possible differences in performance according to Curriculum (WWW orTIMs), Gifted Status (Gifted or Typical) and Grade Level (6th, 7th, or 8th). Type III Sums ofSquares were used when interpreting the data. Using Type III Sums of Squares is advised when10Efficacy of Word Within the Word 11cell sizes are unbalanced; it also has the advantage of providing the variation attributable to anygiven variable after adjusting for the effects of other variables and interactions. This approachallows for interpretation of a main effect even in the presence of interactions. In the third phase,post hoc tests were conducted where indicated in the ANOVA results. The Games Howellformula for paired contrasts was used for post hoc comparisons to account for unequal varianceand cell sizes.Effect sizes for the ANOVA and for the pairwise comparisons were calculated usingCohens d. Cohen (1988) suggested a convention of 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = medium effect, and0.8 = large effect for interpretation. However, guidelines on how to interpret the magnitude ofCohens d vary. Recent recommendations for interpreting effect size emphasize the importanceof establishing contextual benchmarks as opposed to general guidelines; for example, averageeffect size for annual growth in elementary school is different from middle school (Coe, 2002;Hill, Bloom, Black & Lipsey, 2004). Hill and colleagues report that the average annual gain ineffect size on standardized reading and mathematics tests in sixth grade are .23 and .30,respectively. In a meta-analysis of 36 studies these authors found that the average effect size ofan intervention in middle school was .27 (Hill et al, 2004). This is similar to to Lipsey et als(2012) report that average annual growth for middle school reading ranges from .23-.26.Together these add weight to Slavins (2009) suggestion that an effect size of .25 is educationallyrelevant.ResultsResults of the data analysis revealed significant differences between students inclassrooms using WWW and TIMs. Differences were observed in overall comparisons ofWWW and TIMS classrooms, between ability levels, and across grade levels.11Efficacy of Word Within the Word 12Univariate Analysis of Student Demographic DataThe analysis of student demographic data yielded no significant differences by gender.While there were indications of differences by racial/ethnic group, the proportional difference inrepresentation across groups disallowed including the variable in the analysis.Average test scores by teacher and class section are presented in Table 4. Theconsiderable variability in class composition across grade, teacher, and class section disallowedformal analysis nesting students within class, teacher, and school. A cursory review of theaverage scores reveals considerable variability across class sections for any given teacher,regardless of the curriculum she or he used. Most teachers who included only one section in thestudy had average scores comparable to average scores of teachers with multiple sections. Thissuggests that the test results were not skewed to any meaningful extent by the skill set of anindividual teacher. The only exception was the teacher who had a self-contained class of giftedstudents. In contrast, the differences observed in average scores by ability and by curriculumwere much more consistent and trended in the direction of the formal data analysis.Analysis of VarianceSentence Completion test. The three-way ANOVA yielded significant main effects forCurriculum, Gifted Status, and Grade Level. Average scores for students in each group arepresented in Table 5; ANOVA results are summarized in Table 6.The three-way ANOVA yielded a main effect for Curriculum, F(1,481) = 9.20, p .05, d = 0.00. The three-way interaction of Curriculum x Gifted Status x Grade Level was notsignificant F(2, 480) = 0.79, p > .05, d = 0.00.Grade level differences: WWW v. TIMs. A significant two-way interaction wasobserved for Curriculum x Grade Level. Table 7 contains summary statistics for the Games-Howell post hoc test of these differences. The post hoc analysis yielded significant differencesbetween 6th grade students in classrooms using WWW or TIMs (WWW M = 7.81, sd = 3.15; 6thGrade TIMs M = 5.29, sd = 2.00; 5% critical difference = 1.75, mean difference = 2.53, p < .001,d = 0.96). A significant difference, favoring students in WWW classrooms, was also observed in7th grade (WWW M = 9.87, sd = 2.98; 7th grade TIMs M = 7.11, sd = 2.82; 5% critical difference= 1.22, mean difference = 2.76, p < .05, d = 0.74). There was no significant difference inSentence Completion test scores of WWW and TIMs students in 8th grade (WWW M = 9.22, sd= 3.37, TIMs M = 8.84, sd = 3.82; 5% critical difference = 1.45, mean difference = 0.39, p > .05,d = 0.30).13Efficacy of Word Within the Word 14Grade level differences: Gifted v. Typical. Post hoc analysis of the interaction of Gradex Gifted Status yielded no significant difference between 6th grade Gifted and Typical studentson the Sentence Completion test. Significant differences were found in 7th grade, favoringgifted students (Gifted M = 10.41, sd = 2.72; Typical M = 6.69, sd = 2.50; 5% critical difference= 1.08 mean difference = 3.72, p < 0.001, d = 0.95). Significant differences were also observedbetween 8th grade Gifted and Typical students, favoring gifted students (Gifted M = 10.84, sd =3.32, Typical M = 7.06, sd = 2.85; 5% critical difference = 1.24, mean difference = 3.78, p .05, d = 0.06.14Efficacy of Word Within the Word 15Grade level differences: WWW v. TIMs. Table 10 contains the results of the GamesHowell post hoc analysis of the Curriculum x Grade interaction. The analysis revealedsignificant differences between students in WWW and TIMs students, favoring WWW studentsin 6th grade (WWW M = 2.56, sd = 1.61, TIMs M = 0.43, sd = 0.60,; 5% critical difference =0.70, mean difference = 2.13, p < .000, d = 1.75), 7th grade (WWW M = 3.23, sd = 1.77, TIMs M= 1.63, sd = 1.43; 5% critical difference = 0.67, mean difference = 1.60, p < 0.001, d = 0.99), and8th grade WWW M = 3.91, sd = 2.17, 8th TIMs M = 2.15, sd = 1.72; 5% critical difference =0.81, mean difference = 1.76, p < 0.001, d = 0.90).Grade level differences: Gifted v. Typical. Post hoc analysis of the interaction betweenGrade x Gifted Status revealed significant differences favoring gifted students in 6th grade(Gifted M = 2.68, sd = 1.73, Typical M = 1.55, sd = 1.51; 5% critical difference = 1.05, meandifference = 1.11, p < .05, d = .70), 7th grade (Gifted M = 3.46, sd = 1.64, Typical M = 1.49, sd =1.41; 5% critical difference = 0.62, mean difference = 2.00, p < .0.001,d = 1.29), and 8th grade(Gifted M = 3.89, sd = 1.97, Typical = 1.88, sd = 1.73; 5% critical difference = 0.71, meandifference = 2.11, d = 1.08). These results are presented in Table 11.DiscussionThe current exploratory study was designed to address three research questions: 1) Howdo middle school students in classrooms using Word Within the Word compare with middleschool students in classrooms using traditional instructional methods on an out-of-level test ofvocabulary recognition knowledge?, 2) How do middle school students in classrooms usingWord Within the Word compare with middle school students in classrooms using traditionalinstructional methods on a test of prompted vocabulary recall?, and 3) What differences in15Efficacy of Word Within the Word 16vocabulary recognition and use or prompted vocabulary recall are observed between gifted andtypically developing students in classrooms using Word Within the Word or traditionalinstructional methods? Analysis of the main effects and interactions in data suggest that studentsin classes using Word Within the Word were somewhat more skilled in word recognition and use,and substantially more skilled in prompted vocabulary recall, than students in classes usingTIMs.SAT Sentence Completion TestThe ANOVA of student responses on the SAT Sentence Completion test yielded asignificant effect for type of Curriculum, although the overall effect size was both small andsmaller relative to the effect sizes for Grade Level and Gifted Status. Grade Level, a variablethat represents a combination of maturation and prior learning, had a smaller effect size thanGifted Status. On the surface this finding seems to suggest that student ability was the mostsubstantial determinant of performance on sentence completion multiple-choice test items foundon the SAT Critical Reading test.A different picture emerges when investigating the Curriculum x Grade Level interaction.The impact of curricular choice was substantial when looking at grade-specific comparisons.Sixth and seventh grade students in WWW classes performed significantly better than students inTIMs classes; effect size measures suggest that the difference in curricula made a large impacton students performance on this test of vocabulary recognition and use. In 8th grade thedifference in average scores, although favoring WWW students, was not significant, and is likelythe reason there was no main effect for Grade Level in the analysis. Even in this case, the effectsize measuring the magnitude of difference between 8th grade WWW and TIMs students16Efficacy of Word Within the Word 17exceeded Cohens threshold for a small effect and matched the effect size of other educationalinterventions in middle school (Hill, Bloom, Black, & Lipsey, 2008).Analysis involving grade and ability comparisons always result in significant yet largelyunimportant results, for example, one would expect gifted eighth grade students to scoresignificantly better than typically developing sixth grade students on an achievement measure. Inthis case, non-significant findings in the cross-grade analysis were more noteworthy. Forinstance, sixth grade students in WWW classrooms scored higher than seventh grade TIMsstudents and seventh grade WWW students scored higher than students than TIMs students ineighth grade, that is, the differences were non-significant where one would usually expect to seesignificant differences favoring students in higher grades. In this case students in WWW classesperformed up to a grade level beyond expectation on the out-of-level measure of wordrecognition and use.Prompted Vocabulary Recall.As previously mentioned, multiple-choice questions are, in part, an assessment of wordrecognition; effective vocabulary instruction should also result in better word recall. ThePrompted Vocabulary Recall test was designed to determine whether students couldspontaneously recall a word when provided relevant prompts.Results of the ANOVA on the Prompted Vocabulary Recall test were morestraightforward than results of the SAT Sentence Completion test. Students in WWW classesscored significantly higher than students in TIMs classes on the Prompted Vocabulary Recall testoverall and at each grade level. The effect size for the main effect of Curriculum was moderate,but larger than the effect size for Grade Level and Gifted Status. Measures of Cohens d17Efficacy of Word Within the Word 18comparing WWW and TIMs exceeded the threshold for a large effect at each grade level.Together, these findings all suggest that that curricular choice had a larger influence than eitherability level or grade level on Prompted Vocabulary Recall.As with the SAT Sentence Completion test, analysis of the interaction effects on thePrompted Vocabulary Recall test resulted in some noteworthy nonsignificant results. Forinstance, 6th grade WWW students and 8th grade TIMs students had statistically similar scores.This non-significant finding that suggests superior growth for 6th graders in WWW classrooms,especially when contrasted with 6th graders in TIMs classrooms, whose scores were significantlylower than 8th grade students. Combined, these results suggest that students in classrooms usingWWW could recall vocabulary better, when prompted, than TIMs students in the same grade andsometimes WWW students recalled vocabulary with the same accuracy as TIMs students severalgrades higher.The magnitude of difference between WWW and TIMs students on the PromptedVocabulary Recall test was larger and more consistent than on the SAT Sentence Completiontest. This is a somewhat counterintuitive result: students who are better at recalling vocabularymight naturally be expected to also be better at recognizing vocabulary. Explaining this seeminganomaly is beyond the scope of this study but several possibilities are readily available. First,WWW students may have benefitted more from the overt cue provided by the word stem.Second, the Prompted Vocabulary Recall test may have been easier, since it was designed atgrade level and the SAT Sentence Completion test was out-of-level. A third explanation is thatresults of the SAT Sentence Completion test were influenced by a training effect, the result ofthe increasing amount of classroom time devoted to standardized test preparation. Gifted18Efficacy of Word Within the Word 19students in particular may have benefited from a practice effect if they had already completed theSAT to qualify for a Talent Search program.Differences by Ability Level.Gifted Status had significant main effects with small to modest effect sizes in bothANOVA models. The interaction between Gifted Status and Curriculum was non-significant,suggesting that each variable had an independent impact on performance on the two studymeasures. Interactions between Gifted Status and Grade Level are explained to some extent bysignificant differences in comparisons of Typical 6th grade students and Gifted 8th gradestudents.Grade-specific comparisons also indicated that identification as gifted had a large effecton test performance that was independent of curriculum. The fact that the majority of giftedstudents in this sample were in heterogeneous classes suggests that this performance differencewas not due to systematic ongoing in-depth differentiation by ability, as might be expected in ahomogenous classroom. The magnitude of the effect size by student ability level was larger thanthe effect size for grade-to-grade maturational or learning differences on both measures,suggesting that the impact of student ability is substantial.In the current study The Word Within the Word was superior to traditional instruction incultivating word recognition, use, and recall for both gifted and typically developing students.Both gifted and typically developing students with WWW curriculum had higher scores on thetwo study measures than gifted and typically developing students in classes using TIMs.Although WWW was originally designed for gifted students, these results suggest that allstudents benefit from rigorous, cohesive curriculum. They also suggest that curriculum will not19Efficacy of Word Within the Word 20erase fundamental differences in ability. Typically developing students in WWW classes scoredsignificantly higher than typically developing students in TIMs classes, but they did not routinelyscore higher than gifted students taught using WWW.The results of this exploratory study are constrained by some limitations. Chief amongthese is the lack a statistical control for prior learning, which would be particularly helpful indiscerning true achievement differences between gifted and typically developing students. Theassignment of students to heterogeneous classrooms within schools likely randomized the impactof prior learning in this study to some extent, as does the fact that gifted and typical studentswithin classrooms had six months shared instruction prior to the study; however, a control wouldundoubtedly create a superior model. Additional research using pre- post-test design wouldprovide additional clarity to current findings.Distribution of gifted and typical students across classrooms, including threehomogeneous classrooms (two gifted, one typical), made analysis by teacher/classroom difficult.However, it was interesting to note from classroom averages that teachers who taught multiplesections had scores that varied considerably, regardless of the materials used. No single classsection showed dramatic superiority on study measures, making it more plausible that individualteacher skill did not skew the results.Finally, although statistical methods were used to control for differences in group sizes,some groups, particularly gifted 6th grade TIMs students, were very small, and must beinterpreted with caution.Despite these limitations, the consistency of the findings across grade levels and themagnitude of the effect sizes, especially for the Prompted Vocabulary Recall, suggest there is ameaningful difference between the WWW and TIMs classrooms. Ideally this initial investigation20Efficacy of Word Within the Word 21will serve as a springboard to additional research including additional variables and examiningdifferent conditions, for instance, the efficacy of The Word Within the Word at different gradelevels, using different outcome measures, and testing for knowledge retention over time.While there is still much to learn about the efficacy of The Word Within the Word, theresults of this initial study indicated higher achievement on measures of vocabulary knowledge,use, and recall using The Word Within the Word when compared to traditional methods ofinstructing vocabulary. This finding was equally true for gifted and typically developing middleschool students in this study, especially in the early middle school years.21Efficacy of Word Within the Word 22ReferencesThe American Heritage Dictionary. (5th ed.). (2012). Boston: Houghton Mifflin CompanyBeck, I., McKeown, M. G., & Kocan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabularyinstruction (2nd Ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Biemiller, A. (2004). Teaching vocabulary in the primary grades: Vocabulary instruction needed.In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice(pp. 2840). New York: Guilford.Blachowicz, C. L. Z., & Fischer, P. (2012). Keeping the fun in fundamental: Encouragingword awareness and incidental word learning in the classroom through word play. In J.F. Baumann & E. F. Kameenui (Eds.). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice.New York: Guilford.Bower, P. (2008). WordWorks Newsletter #33. Downloaded July 16, 2013,http://wordworkskingston.com/WordWorks/Newsletter_33_-_links_to_PYP_files/WW%20%20%2333%20with%20comments.pdf.Boyce, L. (1996). In the big inning was the word: Word play resources for developing verbaltalent. In J. VanTassel-Baska, D. T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbaltalent: Ideas and strategies for teachers of elementary and middle school students (pp.259-272). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Carreker, S. (2005). Teaching reading: Accurate decoding and fluency. In J. R. Birsh(Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (2nd ed., pp. 43-81). Baltimore,MD: Paul H. Brookes.Coe, R. (2002). Its the effect size stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. Paperpresented at the British Educational Research Association annual meeting, Exeter,22Efficacy of Word Within the Word 23England, September 12-14. Accessed August 4, 2013 athttp://www.cem.org/attachments/ebe/ESguide.pdf.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.Feng, A. X., VanTassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., Bai, W., & ONeill, B. (2005). A longitudinalassessment of gifted students learning using the integrated curriculum model (ICM):Impacts and perceptions of the William and Mary language arts and science curriculum.Roeper Review, 27(2), 7883.Gallagher, S. A. (2009). Designed to fit: Educational implications of gifted adolescentscognitive development. In F. Dixon (Ed.), Programs and services for gifted secondarystudents (pp. 3-20). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Kameenui, E. J. & Maumann, J. F. (2012). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (2nded.). New York: The Guilford Press.Lehr, F., Osborn, J., & Hiebert, E. H. (2004). A focus on vocabulary. Honolulu, HI: PacificResources for Education and Learning.Lipsey, M.W., Puzio, K., Yun, C., Hebert, M.A., Steinka-Fry, K., Cole, M.W., Roberts, M.,Anthony, K.S., & Busick, M.D. (2012). Translating the Statistical Representation of theEffects of Education Interventions into More Readily Interpretable Forms. (NCSER2013-3000). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Instituteof Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Lovitt, S. (1994). Strategies for adapting science textbooks for youth with learning disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 105-116.23Efficacy of Word Within the Word 24Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research onwhat works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.Marzano, R., & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic vocabulary (5th Ed.). Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.McCorquodale, G. J., & Kirkland, L. (2006). Building oral language and vocabulary through theuse of literature. Childhood Education, 83(1), p.32-m.Nagy, W. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive. In E.H. Hiebert, & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning: Bringing research to practice(pp. 2744). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D.Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 269-284).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment ofthe scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.Washington DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Oh, S., Hailey, E., Azano, A., Callahan, C., & Moon, T. (2012). What works in giftededucationDocumenting the model-based curriculum for gifted students. Society forResearch on Educational Effectiveness, [serial online]. January.Passow, A. H. (1996). Talent identification and development in the language arts. In J.VanTassel-Baska, D. T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent: Ideasand strategies for teachers of elementary and middle school students (pp. 23-33).Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.24Efficacy of Word Within the Word 25Renaissance Learning (2013). What kids are reading: The book reading habits of students inAmerican schools. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R004101202GH426A.pdf.Slavin, R. E. (2009). IBMs Writing to Read: Is it right for reading? Phi Delta Kappan, 72(3),214-216.Sternberg, R. J. (1997). A triarchic view of giftedness: theory and practice. In N. Coleangelo, &G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 4353). Boston, MA: Allyn andBacon.Thompson, M. C. (1996). Formal language study for gifted students. In J. VanTassel-Baska, D.T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent: Ideas and strategies forteachers of elementary and middle school students (pp. 149-173). Needham Heights,MA: Allyn & Bacon.Thompson, M.C. (2002). Vocabulary and grammar: Critical content for critical thinking.Journal for Secondary Gifted Education, 8(2), 60-66.VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Boyce, L.N. (Eds.) (1996). Developing verbal talent: Ideasand strategies for teachers of elementary and middle school students. Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon.VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D. T., Hughes, C., & Boyce, L. N. (1996). A study of languagearts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,19(4), 461-480.VanTassel-Baska, J., & Little, C. (Eds.) (2011), Content-based curriculum for gifted learners.Waco, Tx: Prufrock Press.25Efficacy of Word Within the Word 26Wilson, B. A. (2005). Instruction for older students struggling with reading. In J.R. Birsh(Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (2nd ed., pp. 319-344). Baltimore,MD: Paul H. Brookes.26Efficacy of Word Within the Word 27Table 1.A Hierarchy of Word KnowledgeExample using the word question An expression ofinquiry that invites or calls for a reply.Example using the word bequestThe act of giving or leaving personalproperty by a will.*LevelSurface WordMeaningType of Knowledge Knows the currentdefinition of the wordWordmorphology Knows how the word is formed from a base incombination with a suffix or prefixQuest + ionBe + questWord schemasand families Understands that additional words havesimilar spelling features and these sometimessuggest similar meaningUnderstands the historic source of the word;recognizes that knowingthe source leads to more precise understandingAppreciates the system oflanguage; takes pleasure or pride in the understanding InquestRequestConquest InquestRequestConquestWordetymology The origin ofThe origin of bequest is question is the LatinBe (cause to be orquaerere, to ask, seekprovide) + Old English cwis, sayingAppreciation that a question is a query but a bequest is a pronouncement.WordconsciousnessDerived from Nagy & Scott (2000) and Bowers (2008)http://www.realspellers.org/forums/orthography/10-comments/unsorted-comments/941-morphology-etymology.*definitions for both words are from the American Heritage Dictionary (2012)27Efficacy of Word Within the Word 28Table 2.Sections in a The Word Within a Word LessonSectionDescriptionWord Within the Word List Vocabulary words presented along with a Greek or Latin stemand the meaning of the stem.Stem close-upIntroduction of a word stem, selected from among the stemspresented in the word list. A separate set of stem-specificwords is presented with this description.TestsCumulative tests that require students to define both key stemsand words: for sublime, students provide the definition SUB aswell as for the word sublimeNotesIn depth explorations of words. Subsections includeMicropoems, which reveal philosophical kernels at the heart ofword stems, and Classic Words, which present wordscommonly found in classic literature.TranslationStudents translate ponderous passages into clear, elegantEnglish.Verbal DiversionsExercises in antonyms and analogies that require dictionaryuse.IdeasA description of the ideas evoked by selected words from theword list. For example, when students study the wordautodidacts they are introduced to examples, includingRobinson Crusoe, Frankenstein, and Wile E. Coyote.InventionsNeologists Lexicon. Students combine stems to create newwords. They provide the word, pronunciation, etymology, anddefinition.Sesquipedalian Passages. passages from various genres ofliterature are transformed by replacing common words fromthe text with advanced vocabulary.28Efficacy of Word Within the Word 29Table 3Distribution of Students Across Grades and TeachersWWWGiftedGrade Level 6th7th8thTypicalGiftedTIMsTypical34985532293441951175466Teacher ACDEF493052342223340326Teacher GHIJB53841314163317333829Efficacy of Word Within the Word 30Table 4.Mean and Standard Deviation on the SAT Sentence Completion Test and Prompted Vocabulary Recall Test for Gifted and TypicallyDeveloping Students with Teachers using The Word Within the Word (WWW) or Traditional Instructional Methods (TIMS) in Sixth,Seventh and Eighth Grades.SAT Sentence Completion Test GiftedMeansd9.572.958.434.507.852.385.5011.17 8.75 9.2010.7011.09 9.00 na 9.3310.0011.201.003.053.273.292.302.45 na na2.601.411.92 TypicalMeansdn7.442.65 97.003.11 148.223.10 95.248.009.757.22na8.335.256.007.336.636.472.19 172.002.762.22na3.61689na6Prompted Vocabulary Recall GiftedMean sdn3.29 1.94 142.57 1.51 72.69 1.38 130.502.563.152.804.264.361.00 na2.892.503.200.584 TypicalMean sdn2.78 1.72 91.71 1.14 142.22 1.72 90.411.672.251.78na2.330.671.301.801.880.880.62 171.371.581.64na1.21689na6Grade6thCurriculum Teacher SectionWWWE1 2 3TIMSIA11232112341n14713418201027221na9457thWWW1.46 181.50 201.75 101.48 271.71 22 na1 na na0.78 90.58 41.645DFTIMSB2.34 122.00 101.73 92.13 81.96 161.07 121.42 101.54 90.99 81.15 16G30Efficacy of Word Within the Word 318thWWWC123112312 8.7110.31 8.1012.6712.19 9.0012.11 9.3810.002.562.663.412.802.662.653.124.271.87713102516319857.736.797.67na 9.67 7.3010.007.686.571.74 112.49 142.74 9nana3.574.313.105.763.501.333.002.882.802.14 72.18 131.52 101.48 251.41 160.58 31.60 191.460.84852.192.793.00na3.220.651.251.370.931.66 111.42 142.29 9nanaDTIMSH1.58 92.92 201.83 41.89 192.24 141.20 90.75 201.26 41.01 190.73 14J31Efficacy of Word Within the Word 32Table 5.Mean Scores of Students in WWW and TIMs Classrooms on the SAT Sentence Completion Test and Prompted Vocabulary Recall testby Grade (6th, 7th, 8th), Gifted Status (Gifted, Typical), and Grade x Gifted Status. SAT Sentence Completion TestWWWTIMS MsdnMsd9.19 3.24211 7.893.55Total Prompted Vocabulary Recall WWWTIMSTotalnnnM sdMsdM282 3.52 1.83211 1.67 1.58nTotal282sdGrade Level6th667th1278th897.82 3.159.87 2.989.22 3.3721 5.2973 7.11117 8.842.002.823.82 87 7.21 3.10200 8.87 3.20206 9.00 3.62 66 2.56 1.61127 3.23 1.77 89 3.91 2.1721 0.43 0.6073 1.63 1.44117 2.15 1.72872002062.052.652.911.701.822.11Gifted StatusGifted187 10.10 3.15Typical95 7.39 2.59Grade x Gifted Status6th Gifted34 8.47 3.26 Typical32 7.13 2.927th Gifted Typical8th Gifted Typical74 10.65 3.19137 6.39 2.74261 10.26 3.17232 6.80 2.72187 3.80 1.90 95 2.28 1.5874 2.82 1.45137 1.25 1.442612323.521.671.831.58 4175.505.241.002.1938498.16 3.236.47 2.8134 2.94 1.6332 2.16 1.51 4170.50 0.580.41 0.6238492.681.551.731.51982910.50 2.81 7.76 2.5619549.946.112.202.29117 10.41 2.72 83 6.69 2.5098 3.59 1.7029 2.00 1.4419542.79 1.081.22 1.33117833.461.491.641.41553410.40 3.39 7.32 2.3251 11.31 3.2266 6.92 3.10106 10.34 3.32100 7.06 2.8555 4.69 2.0534 2.65 1.7451663.02 1.461.48 1.601061003.891.881.971.7332Efficacy of Word Within the Word 33Table 6.Analysis of Variance of Student Scores on the Sentence Completion Test by Curriculum (Word,TIMs), Grade Level (6th, 7th, 8th) and Gifted Status (Gifted, Typical)SourceCurriculumGrade LevelGifted StatusCurriculum * Grade LevelCurriculum * Gifted StatusGrade Level * Gifted StatusCurriculum * Grade Level * Gifted StatusModelErrorTotalType III SS75.48205.34431.6680.373.1076.0612.941838.453948.365786.81df121212211481492F 9.2012.5152.594.900.384.63 0.7920.36p.003.000.000.008.539.010.455.000d0.200.410.550.200.000.200.001.3733Efficacy of Word Within the Word 34Table 7.Games Howell Post Hoc Analysis of Grade Level (6th, 7th, 8th) x Curriculum (WWW, TIMs) forthe SAT Sentence Completion Test5 % Critical Difference1.747781.359781.475031.527311.520691.747781.550551.647111.690921.683961.359781.550551.223711.286261.278381.475031.647111.223711.407531.400341.527311.690921.286261.407531.455311.520691.683961.278381.400341.45531 Mean Difference (I-J)2.53247-2.055830.70859-1.40654-1.01943-2.53247-4.5883-1.82387-3.939-3.551892.055834.58832.764430.64931.03641-0.708591.82387-2.76443-2.11513-1.728021.406543.939-0.64932.115130.387111.019433.55189-1.036411.72802-0.38711 (I) Curriculum th6 WWW (J) Curriculum th6 Traditional7th Word7th Traditional8th Word8th Traditional6th Word7th Word7th Traditional8th Word8th Traditional6th Word6th Traditional7th Traditional8th Word8th Traditional6th Word6th Traditional7th Word8th Word8th Traditional6th Word6th Traditional7th Word7th Traditional8th Traditional6th Word6th Traditional7th Word7th Traditional8th Wordp (2-tailed) .001 .001 .732 .082 .376.001.001.020.001.001.001.001.001.688.175.732.020.001.001.005.082.001.688.001.972.376.001.175.005.972Cohens d 0.96 0.76 0.24 0.43 0.290.961.800.741.421.160.761.800.950.200.300.240.740.950.690.520.431.420.200.690.300.291.160.300.520.306th TIMs7th WWW7th TIMs8th WWW8th TIMs34Efficacy of Word Within the Word 35Table 8.Games-Howell Post Hoc Analysis of Gifted Status (Gifted, Typical) x Grade Level (6th, 7th, 8th)Interaction on the SAT Sentence Completion Test (I)(J) Gifted Status Gifted Status6th Gifted6th Typical 7th Gifted 7th Typical 8th Gifted 8th Typical6th Typical6th Gifted7th Gifted7th Typical8th Gifted8th Typical6th Gifted6th Typical7th Typical8th Gifted8th Typical6th Gifted6th Typical7th Gifted8th Gifted8th Typical6th Gifted6th Typical7th Gifted7th Typical8th Typical6th Gifted6th Typical7th Gifted7th Typical8th Gifted5 % Critical Difference 1.9594 1.73795 1.76589 1.83039 1.77952 1.95941.400211.436171.517111.453321.737951.400211.077441.185171.101211.765891.436171.077441.227321.146451.830391.517111.185171.227321.248241.779521.453321.101211.146451.24824 Mean Difference (I-J)1.68851-2.252361.47115-2.681731.09789-1.68851-3.94087-0.21736-4.37023-0.590612.252363.940873.72351-0.429373.35026-1.471150.21736-3.72351-4.15288-0.373252.681734.370230.429374.152883.77962-1.097890.59061-3.350260.37325-3.77962p (2-tailed) Cohens d .1220.56 .0040.75 .1460.51 .0010.67 .4500.36.122.001.998.001.837.004.001.001.901.001.146.998.001.001.935.001.001.901.001.001.450.837.001.935.0010.561.420.081.260.210.751.421.420.021.200.510.081.421.240.140.671.260.021.241.060.360.211.200.141.067th Gifted7th Typical8th Gifted8th Typical35Efficacy of Word Within the Word 36Table 10.Analysis of Variance of Student Scores on Prompted Vocabulary Recall test by Curriculum(Word, Traditional), Grade Level (6th, 7th, 8th) and Gifted Status (Gifted, Typical).SourceCurriculumGrade LevelGifted StatusCurriculum * Grade LevelCurriculum * Gifted StatusGrade Level * Gifted StatusCurriculum * Grade Level * Gifted StatusModelErrorTotalType III SS130.27 82.85102.0416.332.6716.231.55649.631218.361867.99df121212211481492F51.4316.3540.283.221.053.200.3123.32p.001.001.001.04.31.04.74.001d0.550.410.460.200.200.200.061.4736Efficacy of Word Within the Word 37Table 11.Games Howell Paired Comparisons Grade Level (6th, 7th,8th) x Curriculum (WWW, TIMs) forPrompted Vocabulary Recall. (I) Curriculum th6 WWW (J) Curriculum th6 Traditional7th Word7th Traditional8th Word8th Traditional6th Word7th Word7th Traditional8th Word8th Traditional6th Word6th Typical7th Traditional8th Word8th Traditional6th Word6th Typical7th Word8th Word8th Traditional6th Word6th Typical7th Word7th Traditional8th Traditional6th Word6th Typical7th Word7th Traditional8th Word5 % Critical Mean Difference Difference(I-J) 0.701082.13203 0.73218-0.66774 0.753120.93047 0.87994-1.34951 0.735020.406760.701080.602440.630100.778970.606120.732180.602440.666970.807430.646460.753120.630100.666970.826470.670090.879940.778970.807430.826470.810010.735020.606120.646460.670090.81001-2.13203-2.79978-1.20157-3.48154-1.72527 0.66774 2.79978 1.59821-0.68177 1.0745-0.93047 1.20157-1.59821-2.27998-0.523711.349513.481540.681772.279981.75627-0.40676 1.72527 -1.0745 0.52371-1.75627Cohens d 1.75 0.40 0.61 0.71 0.251.752.121.092.191.340.402.120.990.340.620.611.090.991.240.340.712.190.341.240.900.251.340.620.340.90p (2-tailed) .001 .087 .005 .001 .596.001.001.001.001.001.087.001.001.141.001.005.001.001.001.209.001.001.141.001.001.596.001.001.209.0016th TIMs7th WWW7th TIMs8th WWW8th TIMs37Efficacy of Word Within the Word 38Table 12.Games-Howell Post Hoc Analysis of Gifted (Gifted, Typical) x Grade Level (6th,7th,8th)Interaction for Prompted Vocabulary test. (I)(J)5 % Critical Mean DifferenceGifted Status Gifted Status Difference(I-J) thth6 Gifted6 Typical1.04981.10687 th 7 Gifted0.94902-0.83776 th 7 Typical0.951571.16392 th 8 Gifted1.00354-1.21003 th 8 Typical0.953650.897896th Typical6th Gifted7th Gifted7th Typical8th Gifted8th Typical6th Gifted6th Typical7th Typical8th Gifted8th Typical6th Gifted6th Typical7th Gifted8th Gifted8th Typical6th Gifted6th Typical7th Gifted7th Typical8th Typical6th Gifted6th Typical7th Gifted7th Typical8th Gifted 1.04980.777810.781160.84545 0.78370.949020.777810.622140.702180.625760.951570.781160.622140.705380.629351.003540.845450.702180.705380.708580.95365 0.78370.625760.629350.70858-1.10687-1.94463 0.05704 -2.3169-0.20898 0.83776 1.94463 2.00168-0.37227 1.73565-1.16392-0.05704-2.00168-2.37395-0.266021.210032.316900.372272.373952.10792-0.89789 0.20898-1.73565 0.26602-2.10792p (2-tailed) .029 .106 .007 .008 .070.029.001.000.001.969.106.001.001.641.001.007.000.001.001.825.008.001.641.001.001.070.969.001.825.001 Cohens d0.700.460.750.650.460.701.210.041.330.200.461.211.290.240.940.750.041.291.400.250.651.330.241.401.080.460.200.940.251.087th Gifted7th Typical8th Gifted8th Typical38