Academic language: Vocabulary Plus



Academic language: Vocabulary Plus

The primary purpose of this session is to give middle school classroom teachers background information and a working definition of academic language. Key components of academic language-- vocabulary, word density, discourse markers, genre, register and code switching-- are illustrated and applied within a classroom context from a cognitive and socio-cultural perspective. Hopefully, teachers who attend will leave this session with a better understanding of how to develop their students’ language skills, thinking skills, and socio-cultural skills through academic language.

Academic language

Academic language is the language of school and the professional workplace, and it refers to both expressive and receptive language. Unlike everyday conversation, academic language exudes a distant authoritative persona, characterized by technical words and a succinct style (Nagy, & Townsend, 2012; Schleppegrell, 2009; Schleppegrell & O’Hallaron, 2011; Snow & Uccelli, 2009; Zwiers, 2007).

More specifically, academic language encompasses

1. the technical vocabulary used within specific subjects as well as the general vocabulary common across all academic disciplines;

2. the various genres for speaking and writing that are accepted in academic and professional venues;

3. the way a writer/speaker structures, presents and contextualizes information;

4. the way a reader/listener comprehends and organizes information so that it can be retained and recalled;

5. a way of thinking (Bunch, 2011; Duff, 2010; Nagy & Townsend, 2012; National Research Council; Schleppegrell, 2009; Snow, 2010; Snow & Uccelli, 2009).

6. Register/stance and code switching act as an umbrella that stretches over all these elements.

More specifics on each element

1. Vocabulary has three tiers (in regards to academic language) (Beck, McKeown, & Osmanson 1987; Beck, McKowen, & Kucan, 2008)

a. Tier I: common words, which most children acquire in daily conversations in their first language

b. Tier III: content specific technical words, which may be commonly used or rarely used.

c. Tier II words: two paradigms

i. “. . . words that define written text—but are not so common in everyday conversation” (Beck, et al., 2008, p. 7). More sophisticated and precise than words used in conversation; examples are from well-written children’s lit.

ii. General academic vocabulary refers to the words from the Academic Word List [AWL] (Coxhead, 2000). Those using the AWL for the vocabulary of academic language draw their examples primarily from academic texts (science, math, social studies) taught in school, rather than literary texts taught in school. “These words have strong overlap with our Tier II words. And, of course, for the same reason: Tier Two represents our effort to identify highly useful, though not necessarily high frequency words” (Beck, et al., 2008, p. 14).

1. Word Generation Lists developed by the Strategic Education Research Partnership (SERP, 2011).

2. See examples (Landrum) on last page

d. TPA and Common Core Standards

i. Both paradigms are merged.

ii. Elementary sources often call Tier II vocabulary function words

iii. TPA refers to Tier III as the bricks and Tier II words as the mortar

Examples

|Tier I Words |use, for, shoe, she, yes, quickly, cold, the, etc. |

|Tier III Words |freise, poem, microscope, market share, multiply, melody, etc. |

|Tier II Words |intricate, exquisite, pry, lurched, parched, precarious, subtle, etc. |

|General Academic Vocabulary |analyze, assess, consist, data, evident, indicate, interpret, occur, percent, principle, simulate, theory,|

| |vary, etc. |

2. Genres (K-12 students need to be able to read and write the genres of all content areas)

a. Example: recent research on succeeding by knowing the genre, not the data.

b. Rhetorical context: Audience, purpose, speaker

c. What are the characteristics of various genre structures MS students need to know?

i. Examples: map key; lab report; labeling parts of a _____; musical staff; syntax of a math problem or proof; performance program (and behavior).

ii. Oral: class discussion; presentation; meetings (small group work)

d. When reading and writing are taught in tandem, students’ learning of both grows exponentially.

e. Genres evolve:

i. Use of “I” in primary research

ii. Broadening of argumentative/persuasive discourse

iii. Use of intervention/comparison as opposed to experimental/control

3. Structure/Presentation/Contextualizing information (Expressive language)

a. Teaching Master’s students about writing a thesis:

i. Use of and correct presentation of subheads

ii. Paragraph #1 (purpose and structure)

iii. Guiding question (purpose and presentation)

iv. Chapter I (contextualizing the study)

b. Middle School (ask for examples to model)

c. Discourse markers

i. Phrases that signal what information is being presented

ii. That being said

iii. In conclusion, In summary, First, . . . . Second, . . . . ., Third,. . . ., If/then, Therefore, because, since, as a result, in conclusion, etc.)

iv. Important note: Using discourse markers is not just a way of reading and writing a text. It is a way of organizing thoughts to make ideas as well as text comprehensible.

4. Organization of information (Expressive and receptive language--inclusive list)

a. Chronological

b. General to specific

c. Ordinal (superimposed) First, . . . Second, . . . Third,. . . and so forth

d. Hierarchy Most to least important (or least to most important)

e. Key idea followed by supporting points

f. Visual (left to right)

g. Presentation/placement of information on a given page (especially important in math)

5. Thinking process embedded in general academic vocabulary

a. How to teach it: Explicit instruction, modeling, guided practice and independent practice

b. Sentence frames

c. Cause/effect; If . . ., then; results vs. conclusion; Summarizing info, etc. (Function words)

d. Logic (syllogism and enthymeme)

6. Register/Stance/Code switching

a. Academic register: authoritative, formal, precise, efficient, and abstract. Academic language uses technical words and general academic words

b. Example: teenage boy talk

c. Code switching

What else?

References

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2008). Creating robust vocabulary: Frequently

asked questions and extended examples. New York: Guilford Press.

Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Osmanson, R. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse

vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. G. McKeown and M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bunch, G. C. (2011). Preparing mainstream secondary content-area teachers to facilitate English language

learners’ development of academic language. National Society for the Study f Education, 109(2), 351-383.

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238.

Duff, P. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual

Review of Applied Linguistics, (30), 169-192. doi:10.1017/S0267190510000048

Nagy, W. & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary

as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91-108.

National Research Council. (2010). Language, diversity, school, learning, and closing

achievement gaps: A workshop summary. M. Welch-Ross, Rapporteur. Committee on the Role of Language in School Learning: Implications for closing the achievement gap. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from

Schleppegrell, M. (2009). Language in academic subject areas and classroom instruction:

What is academic language and how can we teach it? Paper prepared for the Workshop on the Role of Language in School Learning: Implications for closing the achievement Gap, October 15-16, Hewlett Foundation, Menlo, Park, CA. Retrieved from cfe/paper_Mary_Schleppegrell.pdf

Schleppegrell, M. & O’Hallaron, C.L. (2011). Teaching academic language in L2 secondary

settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 3-18. doi: 10.1017/S0267190511000067

Snow, C.E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science.

Science, 328, 450-452. doi: 10.1126/science.1182597.

Snow, C.E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D.R. Olson & N.

Torranace (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy. (pp. 112-133). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Strategic Education Research Partnership. (2011). Word Generation Lists.

Zwiers, Jeff. (2007). Teacher practices and perspectives for developing academic language.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93-116.

Strategic Educational Research Partnership. (2011). Word generation. Retrieved from



Townsend, D., Filippini, A., Collins, P., & Biancarosa, G. (2012). Evidence for the importance

of academic word knowledge for the academic achievement of diverse middle school students. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 497-518. doi: 0013-5984/2012/11203-0005.

Works Consulted

Albertson, B.R. (2007). Organization and development features of grade 8 and grade 10 writers:

A descriptive study of Delaware student testing program (DSTP) essays. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(4), p.435-464.

Burke, J. (2004). Learning the language of academic study. Voices in the Middle, 11(4), 37-42.

Christie, F. (1985). Language and schooling. In S. Tuchudi (Ed.) Language, Schooling, and

Society: Proceedings from the International Federation for the Teaching of English Seminar (pp. 21-40). Upper Montclari, NJ: Boynton/Cook.

Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Association. (2010). Common

Core Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects: Appendix A. Retrieved from

Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence,

the optimum age question, and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19.1: 121-9.

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of

Education Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.

Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of

adolescents in middle and high schools: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Graham, S. & Hebert, M.A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A

Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for

Excellent Education.

Graves, M.F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Heller, R. & Greenleaf, C.L. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas. Washington,

DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Kinsella, K. (2005, October). Preparing for effective vocabulary instruction. Aiming high

[Aspirando a lo major] resource, 1-8. Retrieved from docs/ah/AH_kinsella1.pdf

Micciche, L. R. (2004). Making a case for rhetorical grammar. College composition and

Communication, (55) 4, 716-737.

Moje, E.B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent

literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 107-154.

Ranney, S. (2011). Introduction to academic language. Retrieved from



Schleppegrell, M. (2012). Academic language in teaching and learning: Introduction to the

special issue. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 409-418. doi:0013-5984/2012/11203-0001.

Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking

content-are literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.

Smagorinsky, P., Daigle, E. A., O’Donnell-Allen, C., & Bynum, S. (2010). Bullshit in academic writing: A

protocol analysis of a high school senior’s process of interpreting Much ado about nothing. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(4), 368-405.

Snow, C.E., Lawrence, J., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language

among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325-344.

Swanson, A. (1994, November). Register and student teachers. Research Strand Presentation at the National Council of Teachers of English, Orlando, FL.

TPAC. (2011, October). TPA Secondary English–Language Arts Assessment Handbook.

Retrieved from

TPAC (2011, October). Stanford University and Pearson collaborate to provide the Teacher

Performance Assessment (TPA) nationally. Retrieved from

Van Hofwegen, J. & Wolfram, W. (2010). Coming of age in African American English: A

longitudinal study. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14, 427-455. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00452.x

Vygotsky, Lev. (1962). Language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Weaver, C. (2008). Grammar to enhance and enrich your writing. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinneman.

Wilhelm, J.D. (2007). Imagining a new kind of self: Academic language, identity, and content

area learning. Voices from the Middle, 15(1), 44-45.

Wolf, M. (February 17, 2012). Learning to read: Bringing research to the classroom.

Minneapolis, MN. Reading Symposium at Groves Academy

Appendix

Headwords of the Word Families in Coxhead’s Academic Word List

(Note: Coxhead rates the words from 1-10 depending up frequency of use. This list only includes words rated a 1 or 2. I also added words (next list) that were a “3” or higher according to Coxhead, but which I felt were also prominent in academia.)

Achieve Acquire Administrative Affect

Analyse Approach Appropriate area

aspect assess assist assume

authority available benefit bias

category chapter commission community

complex compute concept conclude

conduct consequent consist constitute

construct consume contract create

credit culture data define

derive design distinct distribute

economy element environment equate

establish estimate evaluate evident

export factor feature finance

focus formula function identify

impact income indicate individual

interpret invest involve issue

item journal labour legal

legislate maintain major method

normal obtain occur participate

perceive percent period policy

positive potential previous primary

principle proceed process purchase

range regulate relevant require

research reside resource respond

restrict role sector section

secure seek select significant

similar site source specific

strategy structure survey text

theory tradition transfer vary

Landrum’s additions to Coxhead’s AWL

abstract 6 access 4 adequate 4 aggregate 6

alter 5 alternative 3 ambiguous 8 apparent 4

approximate 4 assemble 10 attribute 4 capacity 5

clarify 8 compensate 3 component 3 comprehensive 7 considerable 3 constant 3 context 8 contrast 4

contribute 3 core 3 correspond 3 criteria 3

cycle 4 deduce 3 deviate 8 differentiate 8

framework 3 hypothesis 4 implement 4 implicate 4

imply 3 impose 4 infer 7 input 6

link 3 locate 3 manipulate 8 negate 3

paradigm 7 parallel 4 predict 4 proportion 3

protocol 9 retain 4 sequence 3 specify 3

subordinate 9 subsequent 3 summary 4 task 3

thesis 7 trend 5 valid 3 virtual 8

whereas 5

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download