How Cognate Strategy Instruction
Promotes Vocabulary for the CCSS
Dana L. Grisham
National University
ACOE 6th Annual English Learner Conference
January 26, 2013
Hayward, CA
Words are Important
It is how we communicate with one
another – orally and in writing
 We learn with, through, and about words
 Highly correlated with reading
comprehension (.6 to .8 correlation)
 Academic language is the key to
achievement

Vocabulary Gap for Diverse
Students
Students who struggle as readers
 Children learning English as a second
language
 Children with special needs

The Gap Widens Over Time
The Matthew Effect (Stanovich, 1986).
The more you know, the more you
grow…
 4th grade slump due in part to increased
vocabulary load of textbooks and
academic subject matter (Chall, 1983)

CCSS, 2010
Necessity of reading “complex texts”
independently
 Increased emphasis on non-fiction texts
 Need for “close reading”
 Need to increase “skill, concentration, and
stamina”
 What can we do to increase the reading
comprehension of more than 5 million
Spanish-speaking ELLs?

Theoretical Framework
English and Spanish cognates share a
common Latin root
 Students (and adults) often fail to recognize
cognates unless they are taught awareness of
the relationship
 Once taught, the transparency of cognate
pairs may enhance bilingual students’ reading
comprehension (August & Shanahan, 2006)
 Research documents the efficacy of Cognate
Strategy Instruction (Lubliner & Grisham,
2012; Moran, 2011)

Language and Academic Language
A “third” language for many! (Zwiers, 2005)
 Book language (CALP) (Cummins, 1979)
 Multiple vs. “Standard” Literacies (Valdez, 2000)
 Specific academic contexts (and accountability)

(Schleppegrell, 2001)

“…a variety or a register of English used in
professional books and characterized by specific
linguistic features associated with academic
disciplines.” (Scarcella, 2003)
Academic Language
Cognates are plentiful in Academic
Language (Coxhead, 2000; Hiebert &
Lubliner, 2011)
 English may share as many as 15,000
cognates with similar orthographic and
phonological features (Nash, 1997)
 Knowledge of cognates may provide
Spanish-speaking bilingual students with
an advantage in learning academic
language (Lubliner & Grisham, 2012)

Language Evolves
Language is dynamic, but rule governed
 Scarcella’s Components

◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Phonological
Lexical
Grammatical
Sociolinguistic
Discourse
A Grammatical Component
 Ordinary
Knowledge of morphemes
entailing semantic, syntactic,
relational, phonological, and
distributional properties;
syntax; knowledge of
grammatical co-occurrence
restrictions, punctuation.

Academic
All of the foregoing plus
knowledge of additioanl
structures (such as
passives, parallel clauses,
conditionals, and
complex clauses)
Example: bacterium,
bacteria
A Phonological Component
Ordinary
Knowledge of everyday
English sounds and the
ways sounds are
combined, stress, and
intonation. Example: ship
v. sheep; sheet v. cheat

Academic
Knowledge of the
phonological features of
academic English,
including stress,
intonation, and sound
patterns. Example:
demography v.
demographic

A Lexical Component

Ordinary
Knowledge of the forms and
meanings of words in
everyday situations;
knowledge of the ways words
are formed with roots and
affixes; parts of speech and
grammatical constraints
Example: find out

Academic
Knowledge of the forms and
meanings of words used
across academic disciplines;
academic roots and affixes;
parts of speech and academic
grammatical constraints.
Example: investigate
A Grammatical Component
 Ordinary
Knowledge of morphemes
entailing semantic, syntactic,
relational, phonological, and
distributional properties;
syntax; knowledge of
grammatical co-occurrence
restrictions, punctuation.

Academic
All of the foregoing plus
knowledge of additioanl
structures (such as
passives, parallel clauses,
conditionals, and
complex clauses)
Example: bacterium,
bacteria
A Sociolinguistic Component

Ordinary
Knowledge that enables one to
understand how sentences
are produced and understood
appropriately, frequently
occurring functions and
genres of everyday situations.
Example: Making statements

Academic
Knowledge of increased
language functions.
Example: Genres,
including scientific
writing
Other “registers”
A Discourse Component
Ordinary
Knowledge of basic
discourse devices in talk
and writing; informal
writing types;
organizational signals
that let talk and writing
flow.

Academic
Knowledge of features of
academic discourse such
as transitions and other
organizational signals to
aid reading, see
relationships; follow
logical lines of thought.

Cognitive Dimensions of Academic
Literacy
Knowledge: declarative, procedural,
conditional
 Higher Order Thinking Skills
 Strategic Component
 Metalinguistic Component

What are Cognates?
Cognates are words that look and/or
sound alike in two languages
(example: operation/operación
(Spanish)
 Research suggests that Spanishspeaking students can be taught to
recognize cognates and use cognate
information to comprehend English
texts (Bravo, Hiebert, & Pearson,
2005; Proctor, Dalton & Grisham,
2007; Lubliner & Grisham, 2012)

Research Question
What is the relationship between cognate
recognition and independent reading by
intermediate-level Spanish-speaking
English Learners at the secondary level?
 In follow on research we will focus on
how easy it is for monolingual teachers to
teach CSI.

Methods



Mixed method study with data collection and
analysis still in progress
Participants: an experienced bilingual
teacher/researcher, two university
researchers, an intact 6th grade class (N=28)
of varying CELDT levels
Focus on science texts with implementation
of Cognate Strategy Instruction (CSI) (Lubliner &
Grisham, 2012) in an urban public middle school
Methods
Observations of the classroom, teacher
and researcher field notes, pre/post
assessments of cognate knowledge
 Interviews of teacher, artifacts from the
classroom
 Quantitative and Qualitative data analysis
with member checking

Assessing Student Learning
Cognates in Isolation
 Cognates in Context
 MAZE (CLOZE) Assessment for
Comprehension
 Think-Alouds for Cognate Use and
Comprehension

Findings from the 2011-2012 Study
Group
Cognate
Recognition
Pre (40)
Cognate
Recognition
Post (40)
Cognates in
Context
Pre (74)
Cognates in
Context
Post (74)
Bilingual
Mean
N
SD
27.93
27
11.93
37.78
27
5.68
27.33
27
15.48
51.22
27
12.45
Mainstream
Mean
N
SD
27.08
12
8.16
26.42
12
9.43
11.00
12
4.31
11.50
12
5.04
 Bilingual Spanish-speaking students in a 6th bilingual class were compared to bilingual Spanishspeaking students in a mainstream class in the same school on two tests of cognate recognition
 Cognates in Isolation (40 matching items)
 Cognates in Context (74 cognates in a 300-word natural science text)
 The bilingual class students received 14 lessons explicitly teaching the cognate strategy from their
normal classroom teacher. No explicit cognate instruction was provided to the mainstream class
Findings from the 2011-2012 Study
ANOVA Table
Cognate Recognition Pre Group
Cognate Recognition Post Group
Cognates in Context Pre Group
Cognates in Context Post Group
** p ≤ .001
df
1
37
38
1
37
38
1
37
38
1
37
38
Mean Sq
5.89
119.91
F
.049
Sig.
.83
1072.31
49.12
21.83
.00**
2216.3
173.89
12.75
.00**
13108.33
116.53
112.49
.00**
 Groups did not differ significantly on the Cognate Recognition Pretest but did differ
significantly on the Cognates in Context Pretest
 Posttest differences on both tests were significant
Findings from the 2011-2012 Study
Measures of Association
Eta
Eta Squared
Cognate Recognition Post * Group
.60
.37
Cognates in Context Post * Group
.86
.75
 Magnitude of differences between groups on posttests was very large (more than .14
large effect)
 Results demonstrated that bilingual Spanish-speaking students who received explicit
cognate instruction identified a much larger number of cognates in isolation and
cognates in context than bilingual Spanish-speaking students who did not receive such
instruction.
Preliminary Findings from the Study
2012-2013



Implementation of 4 of 14 lessons to date
“A huge light bulb goes off!” Cognates
unknown to students prior to CSI
Scaffolding of close reading through CSI
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Science text display with Elmo
Identification of cognates before reading
Reading together with focus on comprehension
Discussion of text
Independent reading with all students as language
resources
Preliminary Findings from the Study
The Cognate Word Wall
 Taking cognates “outside the classroom”

◦ Parents
◦ Other classes
◦ Cognate searches and sticky notes

Empowerment of students
◦ “They are excited!”
◦ “They can now use what they didn’t know
they knew!”
Preliminary Findings from the Study
Transfer to other content areas (e.g.,
history teacher anecdotal evidence)
 Increased focus on words by students
(observed)

◦ Less skipping of words
◦ Less reliance on context
◦ More inquiry: “What does this word mean?”
Discussion & Implications
Bilingual students as language experts—
viewing themselves as competent learners
 CSI approach honors language and culture
of students
 A note about so-called “false cognates”
 Teacher concerns about strengthening
and extending CSI for more transfer,
application, and independence
 CSI and transfer to the “real world”

Implications for CCSS
In the next phase of the study we will be
extending CSI to other middle school science
teachers who will be monolingual-English
speakers
 Assuming that our findings remain positive for
CSI (Lubliner & Grisham, 2012; Moran, 2011),
we would like to begin CSI at the end of third
grade for Spanish-speaking ELLs
 We hope to see the strategy become automatic
as children use it more than one academic year

The Academic Word List
Academic Word List (Averil Coxhead) see at
http://language.massey.ac.nz/staff/awl/
 Up to 70% of academic words may be
Spanish/English cognates
 Translate at BabelFish:
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/?fr=avbbf-xxen

Most Frequent Academic Words
analysis
 approach
 area
 assessment
 assume
 authority
 available
 benefit
 concept
 consistent

constitutional
 context
 contract
 create
 data
 definition
 derived
 distribution
 economic
 environment

Most Frequent Academic Words
established
 estimate
 evidence
 export
 factors
 financial
 formula
 function
 identified
 income

indicate
 individual
 interpretation
 involved
 issues
 labour
 legal
 legislation
 major
 method

Most Frequent Academic Words
occur
 percent
 period
 policy
 principle
 procedure
 process
 required
 research
 response

role
 section
 sector
 significant
 similar
 source
 specific
 structure
 theory
 variables

Examples of Cognates
Analysis (Análisis)
 Authority (Autoridad)
 Concept (Concepto)
 Data (Datos)
 Economic (Económico)

Example of Sixth Grade Science Text with
Find the Cognates
Types of stress
Three different kinds of stress can occur in the crust tension, compression, and shearing. Tension, compression,
and shearing work over millions of years to change the
shape and volume of rock. Stress causes some rocks to
become brittle and snap. Other rocks bend slowly, like
road tar softened by the sun. Figure 2 shows how stress
affects the crust. Most changes in the crust occur so slowly
that they cannot be observed directly. But if you could
speed up time so a billion years passed by in minutes, you
would see the crust bend, stretch, break, tilt, fold, and
slide. The slow shift of earth's plates causes these changes.
Tension: The type of stress called tension pulls on the crust
stretching rock so that it becomes thinner in the middle.
The effect of tension on rock is somewhat like pulling apart
a piece of warm bubble gum. Tension occurs where two
plates are moving apart.
Compression: A type of stress called compression squeezes
rock until it folds or breaks. One plate pushing against
another can compress rock like a giant trash compactor.
Shearing: Stress that pushes a mass of rock in two opposite
directions is called shearing. Shearing can cause rock to
break and slip apart or to change shape.
Contact

Dana L. Grisham, National University
dana.grisham@gmail.com