Vocabulary Acquisition

[Pages:1]

Vocabulary Acquisition

in the Content Areas

by Debra Hadley

West Caldwell High School, Grades 9-12

and

Eric Wilson, Oak Hill K-8, Grade 4

RE5040 Spring 2012

Appalachian State University

Dr. David Koppenhaver

Introduction

Vocabulary study at any grade level can be a vicious circle. Many students have weak vocabularies meaning they need explicit teaching of words. Explicit teaching of words is often ineffective and doesn’t lead to long-term retention and deep understanding. Word study can also be boring and frustrating for students. So they only surface learn the words – never getting deep into meaning. They are just surfing across the ocean of knowledge. They never dive into inquiry, curiosity and deeper meaning. That fact means their vocabularies remain weak, and the whole nasty circle starts over in every new content area class.

For Debra, this issue is best illustrated with a recurring script that is carried out in her classroom. It doesn’t happen every day, or even every week. But it happens often enough that I have noticed it, grouped it and wondered about it. The script is always about words. I get a set of related complaints from my students. Sometimes it happens while I’m teaching and sometimes while I’m just talking to students. It goes something like this, “Ms. Hadley what does that word mean?” or Ms. Hadley, why do you have to use such big words?” or my favorite “These words are too hard Ms. Hadley!” This is a distressing incident every time it occurs because I know a strong vocabulary is the key to reading and to understanding facts and then building those facts into new concepts. Based on my six years of these conversations and the academic performance of my students in the classroom and on our Career and Technical Education post-assessments, I know students in my poor, rural high school have weak vocabularies. They also lack effective strategies for acquiring deep knowledge of new words. Let two weeks pass and then ask a student about words from a previous unit. Blank looks will result. Students learn words for the test, but don’t transfer that knowledge into long-term memory. So the problem is that students don’t have a big base of words to build on and they lack effective strategies to really learn the new words they need when working in specific content area. That is why I chose content area vocabulary for my research study topic. I wanted to know how to teach vocabulary better, so my students could do better in my class, on our mandatory final exam – and in their other classes as well.

We started with the observation that students in our poor, rural schools have difficulty acquiring a deep understanding of the content area vocabulary related to the concepts we are trying to teach them. This fact crosses the divide between Eric’s fourth-grade teaching in a K-8 school in the eastern part of Caldwell County and Debra’s teaching of Family and Consumer Science (Home Ec.) in a high-minority population traditional high school in the western part of the county. This problem certainly has more than one cause, but a poor basic vocabulary is a key part of it. Our combined 27 years of teaching experience has shown us that many of our students lack a broad vocabulary that would allow them to read, speak, listen and write effectively in content area study. Teaching also has shown us that many of our students display only a superficial understanding of newly taught vocabulary words. They often misuse words or misconstrue their meaning when using dictionary definitions. Another issue is long-term recall of the words and meanings. Their understanding does not have sticking power. Students in Debra’s classes admitted freely that they learn words “for the test” when the topic of vocabulary study was discussed.

In reflecting on the topic of vocabulary in the content area, we identified some critical factors. Poor vocabulary knowledge is a common factor for many students. Weak vocabulary leads to difficulty in understanding content concepts. Reading is the most powerful way to improve vocabulary. The student groups of concern are often poor and/or resistant readers, so vocabulary is unlikely to improve without intervention. Also, as students progress through the grade levels, they encounter an increasingly complex and specialized vocabulary as they begin more in-depth content area study (Bintz, 2011). These factors led to the conclusion that a relationship exists between students' vocabularies and their performance in school. This hypothesis is based on the relationship between the recall and remember aspects of Bloom's taxonomy (word knowledge or vocabulary) and the higher order thinking (questioning, exploring synthesizing) that will let students fully understand the concepts in the content areas. If students could be taught engaging strategies for learning content area vocabulary that led to deep understanding, then this should have increased content area performance. Success in this area may begin a cycle of positive behaviors that increase motivation and chances for mastery on end-of-grade or state-mandated final exams.

It all boils down to the fact that students need to have word knowledge so they can ask questions and improve their understanding of content area concepts. But teaching words can pull the life right out of any content unit. This quotation sums up content area vocabulary difficulties perfectly. “… The complaint, at least of science educators, (is) that the bulk of text-centered science instruction is learning the meanings of hundreds of new scientific terms rather than experiencing the intellectual rush of hands-on inquiry” (Pearson, Hiebert, & Kamil, 2007). Similar complaints can be heard in almost any content area discussion on vocabulary regardless of grade level. The situation in the classroom is that poor student vocabularies, poor reading skills and low motivation make it necessary to spend a lot of time teaching key terms, just so the conversations about content can begin. These ideas led us to the question, “How can we engage students in content area vocabulary study that is more meaningful and powerful, so they can internalize the meanings of words instead of just surface learning them?”

Literature Review

Introduction: Readings about vocabulary all stress that it should be taught to students regularly, directly and with a variety of strategies to maintain interest and engagement of students. Numerous studies show a direct relationship between vocabulary and reading comprehension. Students with strong vocabularies are strong comprehenders as well as the reverse. Studies have also shown that the best way to increase vocabulary is through reading, but that is a life-long endeavor. Classroom teachers must address grade-level issues and have a fixed amount of time to do so. The literature generally supports the premise that direct and explicit teaching of words is beneficial to students. How to adequately teach vocabulary that will promote a deep understanding and long-term retention by students is the difficulty facing educators. Vocabulary has been studied in depth, and a consensus has developed about how students acquire word meanings and the elements of quality vocabulary instruction.

The research by Pullen, Tuckwiller, Ashworth, Lovelace and Cash (2011) studied effective methods for implementing intensive vocabulary instruction, especially for students who are at risk for reading disability. The primary focus was to aid teachers in the implementation of more effective vocabulary practices within their classrooms. The importance of vocabulary in beginning reading was examined. Research showed that storybook reading provided exposure to a richer oral language and vocabulary than that found in typical daily conversation. A Example/Non-example Activity with Pictures was used in the study. The assessment of the students’ word knowledge was done at the receptive, contextual, and expressive levels. Hundreds of the administered assessments showed high rates of reliability.

The research by Gibson (2011) demonstrates how children can learn strategies that will aid in their understanding and internalization of new words and its concepts. The simple task of giving students “word lists” and test preparation activities is not enough for students to truly understand and retain introduced vocabulary. Students need to be immersed into a world of analytical thinking while in the classroom. Teachers should use a variety of techniques to accomplish this immersion. Gibson suggests reading aloud a variety of high quality literature merely for the children’s enjoyment. Another purpose of read-aloud is to demonstrate and engage students in analytical talk and reasoning. Reflection on the text’s ideas is more important than the recall of literal information. Activities need to be implemented that will help students better internalize the studied vocabulary. Students will need to be taught how to direct their personal cognitive attention in methods that better support learning by their teacher. A classroom that implements complex thinking and elaborate communication achieves results that are higher than the national average.

The research by Stygles (2011) reinforces the importance of morphological word study in the classroom. The implementation of the morphological word study showed a positive gain in the students' vocabulary. Stygles implemented an eight-week instructional plan including word sorting, word hunts, games, and other daily activities that were incorporated into daily reading and writing lessons. Techniques, such as, mini-lessons were used which included instruction around orthographic patterns and meanings of words in a semantic and syntactical sense at the syllable juncture phase. Word study was performed, not in isolation, but collaboratively. Read-alouds, mentor texts, and vocabulary notebooks were other methods used to acquire the desired outcome. The study found that morphological awareness is an essential tool needed for students to achieve higher levels of reading.

In their article, Bravo and Cervetti (2008) outline the basics of content area vocabulary instruction by focusing on its importance and its challenges and pitfalls. The purpose is to build an understanding so that strategies for rich and deep understanding of vocabulary can be implemented in the classroom. The authors assert that content area vocabulary is as important as the concepts because the vocabulary allows discourse that makes the content concept transparent, and because in the specialized world of the content area, often the vocabulary words represent the key concepts of the content. They argue that the challenge of content area vocabulary is that the concepts are abstract and often the terms are unknown as well as the concept they represent. They propose that multiple and varied exposures to the new words increase understanding and outline three ways to give students those multiple exposures. The three research-proven strategies are: 1. pairing definitional activities on new words with contextual exposure; 2. presenting and allowing students to manipulate terms as part of a web of related concepts (concept mapping); and 3. exposing students to the words in a multimodal way (using terms in lab or with activities that don’t involve reading or writing). To conclude, the authors suggest using, “texts, charts, concept walls, discussions and writing experiences” to deepen students understanding of content area vocabulary.

Harmon, Wood and Hedrick (2008 ) assert that most learning in middle and high school occurs in subject matter domains (content areas), and the specialized vocabulary of these content areas can create challenges to readers. The nature of the problem is particularly vexing because the vocabulary of the domain is so tightly woven into the fabric of concepts. They describe the nature of content vocabulary as critical for comprehending informational texts. They note that explicitly taught strategies are required for students to navigate informational texts and that those texts have specific text features that may help or hinder readers. They believe instructional time should include vocabulary study. They break content area vocabulary down into four types: academically technical terms, nontechnical specific vocabulary, word clusters or phrases and symbolic representations (like math or science symbols).

They base their structure of effective content vocabulary instruction on work by M.F. Graves. Graves proposes that effective word study should provide rich and varied language experiences, teach individual words, teach strategies to learn those words and promote word consciousness. They offer an array of strategies for direct teaching of vocabulary and integrating vocabulary study into content area reading and classroom work. They believe that classroom work should be tied to research by having students work on integration, clarification, identification, linguistic attention and metacognition. Each point is briefly described below.

Integration – connecting words to learn on concepts or word already known. Skills include linking and connecting.

Clarification – making sure students can sort out the domain specific uses of polysemous words (those with different meanings in different contexts like the word function). Skills include understanding key phrases like "be adjacent to" or "primarily composed of."

Identification – using prior knowledge and other strategies like imagery and mnemonic devices to create rich associations.

Linguistic attention – studying the meaning of root words, suffixes and prefixes to give students powerful ways to deduce meaning in content area readings.

Metacognition – Using direct instruction to teach students to think about their thinking. Strategies include ways for students to monitor their own comprehension and adjust strategies to navigate text and classroom work. If all of this works, then the researchers hope that students will learn to read like a mathematician, scientist or archeologist. (The article focuses specifically on those content areas as examples.)

In this report, Nagy (1998) seeks to shine a light on what is wrong with traditional vocabulary instruction by explaining what is needed for rich, deep understanding of new words. He seeks not to offer a plethora of strategies for teaching vocabulary but to give teachers a way to analyze strategies and determine their usefulness based on what has been proven to work. Three important parts of effective vocabulary instruction are identified: integration, repetition and meaningful use. Integration is based on schema theory in that the concepts students are to learn are not assemblages of facts, but interconnected webs of related facts and ideas. Therefore, new knowledge must be linked to existing knowledge and built into a new web for it to have deep and rich meaning. Repetition is just that – students need multiple exposures to a word in varied settings before they can internalize its meaning. Nagy says the key to doing that without boredom is the next key part. Meaningful use means the students are not instructed to copy down the definitions of these words and then use them correctly in sentences. Meaningful use means students are manipulating the words, thinking about them, using them and asking themselves questions about the words that allow them to deepen their understanding.

Kesler (2010) asserts because the link between vocabulary, reading skill and comprehension is well-established, it makes sense to directly teach students vocabulary words in context. His work was based on research and focused on first through thirds graders in a high-needs urban elementary school. He offers four strategies to allow students to deepen their understandings of new words encountered in text – possible sentences, using context clues, repeated readings and using body movements. The rationale for possible sentences is that it encourages students to think deeply about meaning and to process the words on many levels. The possible sentences use target words and begin a unit-long exploration. After the sentences, students search for the words in text, compile charts noting word occurrences, snap their fingers when they read or hear the word, used tally marks in a word race to see which was used most often. Context clues involved the old tried-and-true method of cloze reading. But the activity was jazzed up with shared reading. Students brainstormed words that could fill the blank in the sentence, discussed the words and then revised as the letters of the answer were revealed one or two at a time. The benefit of the first two strategies is that students are generating words, connecting meanings, thinking about synonyms and using analysis to work with words. The next strategy, repeated readings, used the passages from the context clues activity. Repeated readings support fluency and prosody and help students cement word meanings. They also improve comprehension and may help students build confidence. The last strategy is designed to get kids moving and perhaps tire out the firecracker kid. The strategy introduced target words in a reading passage in the order they appear in text. The author used Graves' six step sequence (write on chart paper, discuss meaning in context, draw show or use pictures and examples to connect to prior learning, choose examples and nonexamples, generate examples and nonexamples with guidance). The students then read the passage and acted out the action in the text and then discussed the words again.

Bintz (2011) argues that vocabulary is much, much more than memorizing definitions. He asserts it is a life-long process that begins at the start of language acquistion as toddlers. He also says people do not learn words by looking them up or memorizing definitions. They learn words by “hearing, seeing and using words in meaningful contexts” (45). Vocabulary becomes even more critical as students transition into middle school because they then begin content area study in an intensive way. Lack of vocabulary slows down reading, reduces fluency, and hinders comprehension. To read better students need more vocabulary, and to build vocabulary students need to read. Bintz suggests tackling this dilemma with repeated readings, which have been shown to reliably improve fluency, comprehension and vocabulary. He also offers four factors to consider when planning vocabulary instruction: the type of students, the target words, the instructional purpose and the strategies to be used. He then offers eight strategies for teaching vocabulary in a meaningful way. They are alphaboxes, word questioning, linear array, polar opposites, story impressions, word sorts for narrative and expository texts, and anticipation guides.

Conclusion: Vocabulary study that does not increase students' abilities to understand, use and retain long-term the meanings of words is fruitless. Traditional vocabulary study practices of looking up words in the dictionary, using them in sentences and taking a weekly quiz do not help students grow in their word knowledge or reading. Effective strategies suggested include: repeated readings, multiple exposures to words in context, concept web building strategies (Matrix, diagram, organizer, concept map etc.), pre-discussion and contextualizing words before reading a passage (Graves’ six steps), cloze reading passages in a shared reading activity, alphaboxes, word questioning, linear array, polar opposites, story impressions, word sorts for narrative and expository texts, anticipation guides, morphological (Greek and Latin word roots, prefix and suffix meaning) study, possible sentences, and kinesthetic activities linked to word meanings. Nagy, in particular, stresses that having “a plethora” of strategies is not the answer. Teaching strategies that are based on what research says is sound and effective vocabulary building practice is the key. That is why Nagy offers no strategies in his research report. Numerous studies show that to fully develop students’ vocabularies; instruction must be regular, explicit and teach students more than just the definitions. Students need strategies to use, the ability to monitor their own learning and comprehension and to develop a “word consciousness” that lets them see words as the gateways to concepts. There are some important factors to consider when planning vocabulary instruction. The student’s background knowledge, the nature of the word and the concept it represents, and the time available have to be balanced. The strategies should allow students repeated opportunities to work with words, build upon student’s prior knowledge and incorporate the words into new concept webs. Only then will vocabulary drive reading forward and deepen understanding of the concepts.

Research Questions

Having rolled all that around in our heads and thought about our teaching practices and the requirements of the study, we devised the following research questions.

• What effect will research-based vocabulary strategies have on the attitude of students toward vocabulary study?

• Will research-based vocabulary strategies increase performance of students in areas such as test performance and long-term retention of vocabulary terms?

Research Design

Participants

D. Hadley’s participants are all high school students. West Caldwell High School is a poor rural school with an enrollment generally between 850 to 900 students. The school qualifies for Title 1 status and declines the funding. It is the highest minority population school in a county that has recently been rocked by the loss of more than 10,000 manufacturing jobs in furniture and textiles. The action research was carried out in an Apparel 1 class of 17 students. All of the students are young women. Eleven are white; one is African-American or Mixed Race; four are Latinas, and one is Hmong. There are 16 students in the regular course of study and one student in the Occupational Course of Study (OCS). Of the regular study students, two receive modifications through our Exception Children’s program and five are second language English speakers – four Latinas and one Hmong. One of the Latinas is a foreign exchange student and came at the beginning of the school year with very limited English skills. The other Latinas and the Hmong student have strong English skills and receive no modifications or services from our ELL teacher.

The research was carried out with all the students because all of them must be prepared for a required state test at the end of term, and all of them need to master the terms to succeed on the test. Of particular concern in this class are the two students who receive EC services with Read Aloud, Separate Setting and Extended Time as modifications. They seem unable to pass any assessment regardless of the preparation. They have consistently failed tests that are open notes and tests where the questions and answers were reviewed in advance. They have been a frustrating puzzle that has eluded solving.

E. Wilson's participants are all fourth grade elementary students.  Oak Hill School is mainly a low-income family school.  My entire fourth grade class is made-up of a Caucasian population. This classroom population is predominately female.  The participants in this study are five female students.  All five of these females are considered to be academically at-risk students based on their End-of-the-Grade Test, STAR Reader and DIBELS scores, in reading. Three students for this study group receive daily instruction in the DIBELS program. The remaining two students receive no reading intervention, outside of the classroom. Low reading levels, motivation, and self-esteem are recurring themes for these students.

Intervention Procedures

Methods of Instruction – Practices proven to be effective for vocabulary study are definitional and contextual exposure to words and repeated and varied exposure to words. There are proven research-based strategies that support the practice of teaching of vocabulary words. They include semantic mapping, concept webs, explicit teaching of word knowledge concepts, and games or other activities that repeat exposure to words and deepen understanding. In the end, if the strategies (and the students) have done their work, then new schema will have been created around the words for deeper understanding and better long-term retention.

Plan for Instruction/Intervention

Qualitative Data was gathered in a questionnaire that asked students about their opinions of and general strategies for attacking vocabulary learning, and their ideas about how to learn words. Some questions were open-ended and others on a Likert Scale.

The intervention plans and activities followed a research-proven sequence. Students started each unit of study with semantic mapping, followed with concept webs and other related activities, repeated exposure and reviewed with vocabulary games and then tested on the terms. The study was designed to begin on Monday and conclude on Friday – fitting into the usual instructional week. A more detailed description of the plan follows.

1. In carrying out these research-based strategies, students kept all vocabulary work in a notebook called a Personal Vocabulary Dictionary. The Personal Vocabulary Dictionary included all the handouts and student created work done during the course of the research study.

2. On the first day of a vocabulary unit, students were introduced to the words through focused discussion/demonstration or another kind of interest-building activity. The goal of focused discussion was to activate any prior knowledge students had of the words. A semantic mapping activity followed the discussion. Semantic mapping included student-created definitions, synonyms and antonyms, examples and non-examples, and pictures or graphics. This activity was designed to begin to create rich associations.

3. On subsequent days of instruction, students participated in work on concept webs. They included webbing activities, Frayer models, knowledge frameworks and word sorts by category, using the words/concepts in hands-on activities and Word Wall activities. These activities are all research-based and their two-fold purpose was to create and reinforce rich associations of meaning for the words and provide students with repeated and varied exposures to the words.

4. The final vocabulary learning activity was a game-playing day. Students engaged in definitional and contextual games designed to test and reinforce their knowledge of the words. The purpose of the games was to provide students with repeated and varied exposure to the words.

5. The vocabulary units concluded with a closed-book quiz.

Samples of materials used in Debra’s classroom follow. They have been condensed for space considerations.

Semantic Map

The following semantic map proved to be a student favorite. Pictures were provided for them to cut and paste onto the page. Debra’s students called these “Meaning Boxes.” We eventually modified these by changing antonyms and synonyms to “what it does” and “why you need it.”

|Word/student-friendly definition |

|Key words to know what it means |a picture to help you remember |

| | |

|antonyms |synonyms |

Students also played games to review the words and repeat their exposure. One of the favorites in Debra’s classroom was a game called Shazam! The rules to Shazam! are listed below.

Shazam!

Supplies needed:

• Cans, jars or containers for drawing cards (one per group)

• set of cards with individual vocabulary words printed on them

• Shazam! cards for each container (two or three Shazam cards per set)

• Small prizes

How to play

• Divide the class into groups. Each group receives a Shazam! Can. The can should contain a set of vocabulary cards and Shazam! cards

• Students take turns pulling a card. The student must read the vocabulary word out loud and show the card to the group. The student then must define correctly the vocabulary word. If the group agrees the definition was correct, the student keeps the card.

• If the group agrees the definition was not correct, then the card goes back into the can.

• If a student draws a Shazam! card, everyone’s cards go back into the can.

• Students must listen to all the definitions to make sure the game is fair.

• The first person to hold seven cards wins a prize.

Despite its specific instructions, students struggled with the following concept map and uniformly disliked it. They much preferred to sort word cards to definitions and then place those under headers, which is a valid concept mapping activity.

Crossword Puzzle

As part of a weekly game used for review, students were required to correctly fill out a teacher generated crossword puzzle. The crossword puzzle generator is located at the website Read, Write, .

[pic]

Data Collection

Two kinds of data were collected – questionnaires on student vocabulary attitudes and weekly vocabulary quizzes that capped each vocabulary unit. The questionnaires were differentiated for the two classrooms and asked questions about attitudes toward vocabulary study and strategies used. One questionnaire was given before the study started and another after it had concluded. Samples of an initial questionnaire are shown below. They have been condensed and answer blanks removed for space considerations.

Debra’s classroom:

Questions About Vocabulary First name only, please __________________________

1. When I need to learn a vocabulary word, these are the things that I do (list them, please)

and this is why I do them.

3. When a teacher says we are going to study vocabulary, I feel …

5. I think that it is (circle one) very easy, easy, kind of hard, hard or very hard

to learn new vocabulary words.

Eric’s classroom:

E. Wilson’s students were given a weekly vocabulary quiz, comprising of two sections. One section, of the quiz, was a vocabulary matching section. In this section, students were required to correctly match the vocabulary word to its definition. The second section gave the students an incomplete sentence with a choice of four vocabulary words. Only one vocabulary word, of the four, could correctly be used in the given sentence. Each weekly vocabulary quiz was cumulative in manner. The first quiz used a total of six vocabulary words. An additional six vocabulary words were added at the start of each week of interventions. A total of eighteen words were covered during this study.

Both Classrooms:

The quizzes were closed book and were given in two parts – matching terms with definitions and sentence completion. Baseline data was collected on vocabulary work without interventions. These words were called Set A words. Data also came from vocabulary work during the interventions. These words were called Set B words. By giving a final unannounced vocabulary quiz of an equal mix of Set A and Set B terms, we created a data set that showed how students performed after time had passed since instruction. Their performance on terms from Set A was compared with their performance on terms from Set B.

Debra’s classroom:

Debra’s students worked with a total of 63 words in the six weeks of the study. These words covered units on color theory, elements of design, apparel industry careers and career preparation, parts of the sewing machine part 1 and parts of the sewing machine part 2. A few sample sentence completion questions are listed below.

_______________________________ colors are made by mixing a primary color and a secondary color.

This part of the overall apparel industry actually makes clothes. Factories in the _____________________ __________________ sector cut cloth and sew it into garments.

If you don't lower this part during sewing, the stitches will be very loose and pull out easily because the fabric isn't being held down. It is the _________________ ____________.

Data Analysis

The questionnaires were analyzed by generating written reports. The questions themselves gave us a natural way to group and then examine the data. We used the following principles to report the data, so it could be analyzed. Self-reported student strategies were listed. The report of responses noted similarities and differences. Similar responses were grouped and counted. Subjective responses were analyzed for positive, negative or neutral, etc. content. Our data showed that most students had neutral or negative attitudes about vocabulary study and that only a few of them knew a research-proven strategy. Several of Eric’s students and a few of mine listed illustrations or pictures as a way to learn words. That is a research-proven strategy.

Reporting the students’ quiz scores in spreadsheets in Excel allowed us to easily calculate class averages. It also allowed us to track trends in the data over time and convert them easily into visuals like graphs and charts. For Debra, this grid sparked the idea to group her students by ability. The groupings were done based on perceived ability – not study data. The groups’ performances were then tracked in separate spreadsheets. Eric worked with a study group of five students – so grouping was not a logical reporting method. Both of us compared baseline quiz performance to intervention performance and used the spreadsheets to track changes in overall and individual scores.

Results

For the attitude questionnaire, we surveyed students before and after the intervention. The responses to the initial questionnaire were similar in both classrooms. The majority of students in both classrooms reported neutral or negative responses to the question about their feelings on vocabulary study. For the 22 students in both classrooms, five reported positive feelings, six reported negative feelings and eight reported neutral feelings. Good was recorded as positive. O.K. was listed as neutral. The negative responses varied. In Debra’s classroom one student responded “scared” to the question about how she felt about vocabulary study. Another wrote down “distressed” [sic]. Of the 22, only six reported using a research-based strategy. A few of them listed using pictures with definitions. Many of Debra’s students relied on flashcards. Some listed studying and others read the words and definitions over and over. The follow-up questionnaire saw very different responses. In Debra’s classroom, on the question about feelings toward vocabulary, six students reported positive feelings, three were neutral and only two were negative. In Eric’s classroom, four students reported they were more confident as readers because of the work, and one reported she was about the same. All five of his students responded yes to the question, “Would you like to have the vocabulary interventions continued the remainder of the school year?” In Debra’s classroom, 12 of the strategies that students reported they used and liked were research-based.

The performance of students in response to the quizzes before and after intervention was not uniform in the two classrooms. Eric’s students showed a significant and sustained improvement in performance during intervention. Debra’s student performance was mixed. Class averages were used to assess her data initially. Further examination of the data in more detail was carried out to gain insight and perspective on the intervention results.

Vocabulary Matching Eric’s Classroom

At the start of the study, I was unsure of the outcome for the baseline data. I felt certain that the baseline data would be low for some, if not, all of the study group participants. The final baseline data in the vocabulary matching did, indeed, turn out low scores from all of the participants. For the vocabulary matching section, two participants had the highest scores each of at fifty, two others scored forty, and one participant had the lowest score of thirty. Surprisingly, after only one week of interventions, the vocabulary matching scores increased significantly. Two participants scored eighty percent correct, while the remaining three had perfect scores each of one hundred percent. Intervention Week 2 saw still increased scores from all of the participants. The lowest scores for this intervention week was two participants scoring eighty-five percent correct, one scoring ninety percent correct, another scoring ninety-five percent correct with the last participant having a perfect score of one hundred percent correct. I noted that with each week of interventions, the participants confidence was growing, as well as, their ability to retain what they were learning in their interventions and applying that to other subject area studies. For Intervention Week 3, there was a decrease for two participants in the vocabulary matching section each scored a seventy, while one student increase to a perfect score. The other two participants retained perfect scores of one hundred.

Vocabulary in Sentence Eric’s Classroom

As with the Vocabulary Matching Baseline data, the expectations were met with low scores for the Baseline data in the Vocabulary in a Sentence section. However, Intervention Week 1 saw an encouraging one hundred percent score for all of the participants. Intervention Week 2 continued a trend of high scores with two participants scoring ninety percent correct, one participant scored ninety-five percent correct, and two participants retaining perfect scores of one hundred percent correct on their quizzes. Intervention Week 3 saw the most significant decrease in the group’s scores, particularly, with the Vocabulary in a Sentence scores. I noted that, unlike intervention week’s 2 and 3, during intervention week 3, the student’s interest and concentration levels were lacking. There were several possible factors that could have contributed to this lack of interest and concentration by the participants. Week 3 was the week before the school’s Spring Break and the participants were anxious for a break from school. Another possible factor was that on week 3 of interventions, Eric introduced laptop computers to be used, instead of the familiar student dictionaries the students had been using. While the students were excited about using the computers, much time was spent uploading the new computers, approximately 30-45 minutes. These computers had never been used before and each computer had to upload the necessary programs before use. Once all the students were finally ready to use their computers, several of the participants had trouble finding the information needed for collection for week 3 interventions. After several attempts to guide the participants by Eric, the students were finally able to locate the needed information. After using computers, the students expressed much interest in using the computers as a more effective way to collect data. Eric felt that since this was the first time that the participants had used laptop computers to collect data, the decrease in scores was a reflection of that inexperience.

Eric’s Study Group Averages

[pic]

The data gathered for the class averages seem to suggest that the interventions used with the participants was helpful. Student’s confidence increased, they appeared to have a greater interest in word study and reading, itself. They, also, voiced that they were better able to connect how the word study was helping them to tackle unfamiliar words in its pronunciation and meaning. Similar to the findings from Stygles word study, this study group saw positive gains through its own weekly word study interventions. While there were positive gains and negative losses throughout this study, it is apparent that vocabulary word study, in the classroom, is an effective way to help students build their vocabulary.

Debra’s Class Averages

Overall, Debra’s ability groupings proved to be accurate. High students consistently scored highest with the other groups following a downward trend through the grading scale. The performance trend for all groups followed a similar path showing that instruction was having a relatively uniform effect on the students across abilities.

At the beginning of the study, I was concerned about student performance on Baseline 1. After intervention began, those concerns increased when numbers from Intervention 1 were added. The numbers for baseline unit one and intervention unit one clearly needed to be further examined. A baseline unit with scores that high – and an intervention unit with scores that low must be studied. The types of assignments that students did during the units were examined. The difference appeared to boil down to hands-on activities versus bookwork. When the type of work done in each unit was evaluated, it became clear that the two units where students had higher performance were units that involved mostly hands-on work, regardless of whether there was intervention.

One might suppose that baseline unit one was too easy. That is not the case. It covers Color Theory and is a difficult unit. Students have struggled with it mightily in the past. I have developed a series of hands-on activities to teach the terms and concepts. Those hands-on activities may have been an unintended intervention. They fit neatly into at least two of Nagy’s categories of sound vocabulary instruction. Hands-on activities require repeated exposure to the words. And the work itself is meaningful use in that students are using the words during activities that immerse them in physically carrying out the content concepts. A comparison of the quiz scores grouped by work type shows an increase in scores for the three units that involve hands-on work. In both types of work, intervention units resulted in higher overall scores although the bookwork difference was negligible when reflected in class averages. The data shows that on units with hands-on activities, the class average fell in the C range on the 7-point grading scale, which Debra’s school system uses. On bookwork units, the class average was in the F range.

Breakdown on Failing Grades

But class averages can mask trends in individual performance. Examination of the performance of the failing students in the bookwork units shows an intriguing trend in baseline performance compared to intervention performance. A breakdown of individual scores on Baseline 2 shows that seven of the 17 students scored an F on the quiz. Most of the students who failed this quiz were in the group designated as low. That fact was also true in the results for the Intervention 1 quiz.

Those F scores on Baseline 2 skew the overall data significantly downward as they are 15, 20, 30, 35, 55, 55 and 65. Intervention 1 had one more student in the failing category, but for the group overall their scores were noticeably higher. Scores that fell into the F range on Intervention 1 were 23, 36, 46, 53, 54, 57, 59 and 67. That data suggested it would be useful to take a closer look at the students who failed the two quizzes. Focusing on the low group in particular seemed logical because the failing scores clustered there. Examination of the students in the lowest performing group showed that intervention scores were higher with one notable exception. The group average also was higher for intervention – even with V’s performance on Baseline 2 in the calculation.

Results from the final data set in Debra’s classroom – a comparison of Set A and Set B words on surprise quiz were mixed. Overall, students performed higher on Set B (intervention words) than Set A (baseline words), but the differences were small. And one group of students, middle high, had higher performance on Set A. Factors that may have affected these numbers are that Set B contained significantly more words than Set A – even though the numbers of words on the quiz were equal with 16 words from each set included. A greater amount of time had lapsed between the study of Set A words as well.

Discussion

Vocabulary is such a critical component of the beginnings of learning anything – even outside of schools. Word knowledge is the first building block upon which all learning rests. Therefore, it is vital that the strategies and techniques used to teach it be sound and effective. And it is important to every teacher in every classroom, regardless of grade level or subject area. It seems clear from our data that research-based vocabulary strategies can improve students’ performance on word tasks. Both classrooms showed demonstrable improvement in test scores when using vocabulary strategies. Eric’s data is much clearer than Debra’s. But when the data is broken down as it was for Debra’s low performing group and examined – clear advantages to the intervention strategies are shown. It is amazing how perceptive students can be. Several of Debra’s students identified hands-on work as helpful with the vocabulary even though it wasn’t taught or identified as a strategy during the intervention. Eric’s students also nailed down one of the accepted bits of vocabulary wisdom. Words for intensive study should be carefully selected and few in number. On the final questionnaire, they suggested that vocabulary study units contain no more than six words.

“But there are some principles which can help a teacher to get the best returns on time and energy devoted to vocabulary instruction. The key issue is to identify the specific type of difficulties posed by different words in the text, and adapting instruction to deal efficiently with them. More specifically, one needs to choose words very carefully for intensive instruction, and make strategic use of minimal instruction” (Nagy, 1988).

These are words that Eric took to heart, but Debra did not. Debra’s word sets were made up of terms that she has identified as critical from the unit assessments and/or the course guide that directs the teaching of all Career and Technical Education courses. Those terms for the four master units covered during the study numbered 63. Students were responsible for anywhere from 10 to 13 terms in each objective. The words did not repeat or carry over from week to week. Eric’s students studied 18 terms during the course of the study, and his work was cumulative. The data clearly shows that his students learned and gained, not only knowledge, but also skill during the research study. Debra’s data is not as clear and convincing – but analysis that digs deeper than class averages showed clear value in the work as the numbers for the low group and the failing students on the bookwork assignments showed. The intervention wasn’t a magic pill that could solve all vocabulary problems. That much is clear from the data. There are limits – and Debra’s word count was clearly over the limit. The issues with depth and breadth of curriculum are decided, changed and improved on a state level – and that is beyond the scope of this research study. It does however impact teachers and students, especially in CTE since students are tested on every objective in the mandatory final exam. Student performance also is tracked by teacher, so that is something always in the back of the teacher’s mind – like it or not.

Perhaps the most potent and important gains from this work were in the attitudes of students to vocabulary study. The questionnaire data was clear and convincing in both classrooms. Students reported more positive attitudes about vocabulary study, named research-based strategies as helpful and preferred, and expressed more confidence in word learning. It is most encouraging that Eric’s data was so clear and his students are in fourth grade. They have many years of schooling in front of them. If this intervention ripples forward, it could have a profound effect on their learning and choices in school and life. By the time students reach Debra’s classroom, they have had more than a decade of school experience, and so many of the low-performing students have developed a defeatist attitude and numerous coping strategies. Some of the coping strategies they employ are extremely frustrating to teachers – they may include learned helplessness, disruption, distraction, lack of initiative and little if any work effort. It is these students who most need effective strategies for vocabulary study – and who often are the least motivated to use them. The fact that most of the attitudes about vocabulary in Debra’s classroom improved is a hopeful sign.

Not just a sign – but an outright amazing fact was that all of Eric’s students requested that the intervention continue! Debra’s students did not express that kind of affection for the intervention, but they did learn and valued the work even if they didn’t admit it. In the week after the intervention had concluded, her students were working on, what else, key terms. A group of about five students requested that they be allowed to do their work on the classroom Wiki that had been used during the research study. Permission was granted, of course.

Eric’s Classroom

After review of the vocabulary units covered, there is a noticeable increase in student performance from the baseline to intervention data collected. The interventions had a positive impact on the student’s test results. While there were some variations in the intervention scores, none dropped below the original baseline scores. While intervention weeks 1 and 2 scores remained well above the baseline data scores, a noticeable drop is seen in the week of intervention 3 scores. This drop is particularly obvious in the area of vocabulary in a sentence. Perhaps this is because the “novelty” of the new vocabulary work had worn off, and student attention to their tasks was decreased. There were other factors in the classroom that week as well. Week 3 was the week before the school’s Spring Break and the participants were anxious for a break from school. Another possible factor was that on week 3 of interventions, Eric introduced laptop computers to be used, instead of the familiar student dictionaries the students had been using. While the students were excited about using the computers, much time was spent uploading the new computers, approximately 30-45 minutes. These computers had never been used before and each computer had to upload the necessary programs before use. Once all the students were finally ready to use their computers, several of the participants had trouble finding the information needed for collection for week 3 interventions. After several attempts to guide the participants by Eric, the students were finally able to locate the needed information. After using computers, the students expressed much interest in using the computers as a more effective way to collect data. I felt that since this was the first time that the participants had used laptop computers to collect data, the decrease in scores was a reflection of that inexperience.

The data gathered for the class averages seem to suggest that the interventions used with the participants was helpful. Students’ confidence increased as the study progressed; they appeared to have a greater interest in word study and reading, itself. They also voiced that they were better able to connect how the word study was helping them to tackle unfamiliar words in its pronunciation and meaning.

Debra’s Classroom

During this intense study in my classroom, I’ve learned a great deal about research-based vocabulary strategies and about the nuts and bolts of how students learn words. I think differently about vocabulary now. When I am faced with a word to teach, I can break it down into label and concept. I have a better understanding of how students learn words – and how to guide them through it. Vocabulary was important enough for me to study because I must teach students a great number of words in very specific content areas – and many of the words are jargon. Because of its specificity, jargon is particularly difficult to teach to teenagers in a poor, rural high school. They come in with a weak vocabulary foundation, weak study skills and low motivation.

Like most thorny problems in life, the answer to vocabulary work for students is not quick or easy. This study has shown me that I had not been teaching vocabulary well enough. I hadn’t been doing the write definitions, write sentences, quiz on Friday thing – but I wasn’t too far above it. Teaching vocabulary well requires thought, planning and deliberate concentration on its value – on a regular basis. And I hadn’t been doing that. I was familiar with Harmon’s work on Word Walls and with extended definition and pictures to fortify student understanding. I also have a motto on my classroom’s chalkboard. “See it; hear it; learn it by doing it.” I try to guide my teaching by that motto every day. So my instruction wasn’t hopeless, but it wasn’t as careful, targeted and planned as it needs to be for my students to deeply learn the words of our content area units.

It became evident during this research that vocabulary study done well is a time-sucking black hole in the instructional day. I spent about 45 minutes, four days a week on vocabulary during the research project. It takes a lot of time to teach words well. Given the standard course of study teachers face in North Carolina – there just isn’t enough time to teach all the words this way. The course I used for my research, Apparel 1, has 12 standards and each standard has then at least two or three objectives. That is a lot of material to cover in 90 minutes over the course of 90 days. There are nearly 200 key terms in that course work. Divide the words by the days available and it becomes mathematically clear that it is an impossible task. That impossibility factor won’t just be in my classroom. All teachers face this mathematical dilemma of instructional content vs. time. It is a lesson I learned the hard way, but I’m not the first to understand it.

Intensive vocabulary instruction is needed to produce word knowledge of any depth. However, only a fraction of the potentially unfamiliar words in a story could be covered by such instruction, so it is necessary to decide when intensive instruction is really called for. What sorts of words in a selection require this kind of attention? Intensive instruction is most appropriate, first of all, for words that are conceptually difficult—that represent complex concepts which are not part of students' everyday experience. Second, such instruction usually depends on having a group of words that have related meanings (or at least, all relate to a single topic). Third, intensive instruction is most worthwhile when the words to be covered are important in two senses – important to the understanding of a selection, or important because of their general utility in the language (Nagy, 1988).

The study did teach me one thing that I had not anticipated. I already was using a powerful intervention that is not mentioned outright in any of the literature I reviewed – hands-on work. In examining the troubling initial data with Baseline 1 results being higher and Intervention 1 results being lower, the difference appeared to be hands-on assignments. I believe one of the more significant findings in this study is the importance of hands-on work. Nagy’s three requirements for deep understanding of words are integration, repetition and meaningful use. Because the hands-on work allows student to repeat exposure to the words without boredom and apply the terms in meaningful use, I think it is a powerful intervention on its own. But I believe it also is an important factor in the first requirement – integration. Because many of my students are poor readers with weak study skills and because my content area is often completely unfamiliar to students, integration can be difficult. They often do not have the word knowledge foundation upon which to scaffold novel words and concepts. Hands-on activities support integration by giving students real opportunities to see the word “in action.” They can then build schema based on the hands-on experience.

When the data was rearranged out of the chronological sequence and grouped by work type (hands-on vs. bookwork), it became clear that hands-on activities had been a powerful and unintended intervention. The best example of this was an answer to a question on the final surprise quiz in the sentence completion section. Students had to call correct key terms out of their heads. Sentence completion words were not represented in the matching section, and there was no word bank. One question asked about the part of the sewing machine that moves the fabric. The correct answer is feed dogs. One student clearly could not call the words to mind. Her answer was “zig-zag things.” I initially marked it wrong, but suddenly it occurred to me what she had done. She had described perfectly the appearance of the feed dogs on the machine. She had a visual image of the part that moves the fabric, and she knew what it did and how it worked. She just couldn’t call the word. Perhaps it is the softie in me – but I gave her credit for that response. She had mastered the concept, but in that moment couldn’t provide the label. Had I included feed dogs in the matching; I believe she would have found the term there and put the correct words in the blanks. But I didn’t give them that help with the test. And that brings me to one of the essential questions that I’m still wrestling with. What is an accurate and fair “test” of a student’s knowledge? Is it application of the concept or recall of it? Is it performance on tests or performance on tasks?

On the topic of thorny issues, early on I was afraid that the intervention was going to be a failure. But I believe it succeeded on several fronts. I learned a lot about my own teaching. My student’s attitudes toward vocabulary study were changed in positive ways, and after breaking down the performance of my lowest group, I believe the intervention was effective in its intended purpose. On student attitudes, the final vocabulary questionnaire showed an improvement. On the first questionnaire, V’s response to the question, “When a teacher says we are going to study vocabulary, I feel … “ was “scared because if is [sic] in English I have to study more than everybody else so I can understand and not forget it.” Her response to the same question at the end of the intervention was “good.” Another response that shows improvement in attitude was from Abby (a Hmong student with no mods). To the feeling question on the final questionnaire, she responded “that I can learn them easier, but it’ll take work (a lot).” The student inserted the last two words in parentheses in her response. As for numbers, on the initial questionnaire there were five negative and five neutral responses to the “I feel …” questions. On the final questionnaire there were only two negative responses and three neutral responses. Students also listed intervention strategies as tactics they will use in future on vocabulary words. Semantic maps, games and hands-on work were strategies most often listed as useful activities for word study. Two students listed the Wiki as an activity that had helped them learn. We collaborated on definitions with pictures on a class Wiki for some of the units. Students seemed to enjoy being able to edit the pages – and to work together.

In addition to the hands-on work influencing the study results, there were other factors at play. There were a significant number of interruptions to our instructional time. This study coincided with our school’s preparations for the Junior/Senior Prom and with the registration period for next year’s classes. Third period is split with lunch in the middle. Also there were many absences from numerous field trips, viruses and an outbreak of mono. Absences made vocabulary study more difficult. The significant time we spent on semantic maps was difficult to replicate in make-up work. Absent students missed the discussion of words and the critical review work. And make-up quizzes were a quandary and something of a nightmare. At different points, three students were under threat of disciplinary action during separate weeks of the intervention – and one was in ISS for three days. Another established an attendance pattern bordering on truancy, and she and had home-life issues as well. This student is one I would describe as strategically absent, so she missed several quizzes. And one of the most insidious influences is the second semester itself. In my high school, we have observed that second semester is much more difficult than the first. Students who failed or performed poorly in first semester bring that baggage into the classroom with them. There are an unbelievable number of interruptions and the blossoming of the landscape brings Spring Fever to faculty and students. Senior students also may suffer from a healthy dose of “senioritis.” The sheer number and length of the list of these distracting factors should stand as testament to their influence.

The students I had hoped would benefit most from the study – my two EC girls who struggle with testing – showed mixed results. As the chart above illustrates, from Baseline 2 forward, the data shows a clear upward trend until the final quiz. T was absent for the Intervention 3 quiz and K’s performance fell off. The issues with Baseline 1 have already been discussed, and by the time we got to Intervention 3 students were tired of the work. I know this because several of them shared that fact with me.

There was one other bit of data that I wanted to study. I looked at the classroom assessments that were administered for the units – but weren’t a part of the formal intervention. This data was, once again,

mixed. The chart on this page shows a significant improvement for T, but the reverse for K. K is a student who freely admits that she is a poor tester. She does not suffer from poor self-esteem (at least obviously). She has talked to me about how she knows she is smart – she just can’t take tests.

Conclusions

I believe that a less intensive program of word study that starts with the semester and continues throughout the 18 weeks would be more useful to students. Careful selection of the words to be taught will be critical, as will teaching students to “talk the talk.” I believe it is important that the ways that students are expected to learn something be transparent to them. Explicit age-appropriate teaching of how people learn words and conversations about the success or failure of the attempted strategies could empower students to take charge of their own learning. In this digital age, it is critical that students reading, writing, speaking and listening skills keep up. As the jargon and technology shift, today’s workers and professionals must have the learning skills to move and grow with the changes.

Increasing vocabulary knowledge is a fundamental part of the process of education, both as a means and as an end. Lack of adequate vocabulary knowledge is already an obvious and serious obstacle for many students, and the number of such students can be expected to rise as an increasing proportion of our students fall into categories considered educationally at risk. At the same time, advances in knowledge will create an ever-larger pool of concepts and words that a person must master to be literate and employable (Nagy 1988).

So a functioning strong vocabulary is critical, and the customary practices of vocabulary instruction (copy definition; write sentence; quiz on Friday) are ineffective. How could sound vocabulary practice get into regular use in schools? To get the word out to teachers at all levels would mean that the tenets and practices of sound, effective vocabulary instruction should be a part of the teacher preparation programs at universities.

I (Debra) remember during my first year of teaching English having a moment of panic about half way through. It had become clear to me that teacher’s college had showed me what I needed to teach them – but not how to do it. A practical course in research-proven vocabulary instruction and the basics of how people build knowledge could go a long way in improving the quality of teaching vocabulary specifically and the quality of teaching overall.

I had hoped this research would give me the some easy and effective ways to help my students learn the words they need to know for our work and tests. I can’t say these strategies were easy, but they were effective, even if time-consuming. Despite the mixed results of my part of the study, I am committed to improving my teaching of vocabulary to my students. As I was reflecting on this study, it occurred to me that time spent teaching anything that students learn only “for the test” is a complete waste. So “time-sucking black hole” or not – I can’t go back now. I’m going to have to find a way to make this new vocabulary instruction work. I don’t like wasting my time and I detest busy work. So I will be refining my teaching of vocabulary words for the foreseeable future.

References

Bintz, W. P. (2011). Teaching Vocabulary Across the Curriculum. Middle School Journal, 42(4), 44-53.

Bravo, M., & Cervetti, G. N. (2008). Teaching Vocabulary Through Text and Experience in the Content Areas.

In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What Research Has To Say About Vocabulary Instruction (pp. 130-149). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Gibson, S. (2011). Teaching vocabulary: High student engagement in text and talk. California Reader Winter

2001, 45(2), 5-10.

Harmon, J. M., Wood, K. D., & Hedrick, W. B. (2008). Vocabulary Instruction in Middle and Secondary

Content Classrooms: Understandings and Direction from Research. In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Vocabulary Instruction (pp. 150-181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Kesler, T. (2010). Shared Reading to Build Vocabulary and Comprehension. Reading Teacher, 64(4), 272-277.

Nagy, W. E. (1988). Vocabulary Instruction and Reading Comprehension. Champaign, Illinois: Center for the

Study of Reading. (Retrieved from ERIC).

Pullen, P. C., Tuckwiller, E. D., Ashworth, K., Lovelace, S. P. and Cash, D. (2011), Implementing Intensive

Vocabulary Instruction for Students At Risk for Reading Disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26: 145–157.

Stygles, J. (2011). Implementing morphological word study in the intermediate classroom. New England

Reading Association Journal, 46(2), 60-66.

-----------------------

Word

Definition

Where you use it

Why you need it

Give it meaning to you with a picture, drawing, example, synonym etc.

Theme Sorter

2. Look at our key terms list and decide on some categories to organize them into. Ask yourself what two or three ways could I group the terms to show relationships? Use the Thought Questions to guide your sorting.

4. Write your categories in these circles.

5. Group your key terms in the rectangles below.

3. Though Questions:

Describe what each term means/does to yourself or a partner. What words come up over and over? These could be categories.

Do you need one term to understand or use another? If so, these terms are related. What do terms have in common?

All but one group scored higher on intervention words in Debra’s classroom for the final surprise quiz.

T

V

K

A

T

K

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download