Running Head: INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
1
The Effects of Rich Vocabulary Instruction and Interactive Word Walls on Students’ Retention
of New Vocabulary
Leigh Ray
East Carolina University
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
Abstract
The purpose of this action research study was to determine if the use of interactive word
walls would help 9th grade students learn and retain new vocabulary. This quasi-experimental
pre/post assessment study utilized an intervention and control group consisting of 25 students in
two different classes. The intervention group used interactive word wall strategies to learn new
vocabulary while the comparison group used flashcards. Results from an independent samples t
test indicate that the intervention group made significantly higher gains in vocabulary
achievement. Student perception of word wall vocabulary instruction was measured with a
survey.
Keywords: interactive word walls, rich vocabulary instruction, word rich environment
2
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
3
The Effects of Rich Vocabulary Instruction and Interactive Word Walls on Students’ Retention
of New Vocabulary
The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of an action research study which
explored the question: Will the use of interactive word walls help 9th grade students retain new
vocabulary knowledge? This is an important question for educators because vocabulary is a
strong indicator of a child’s literacy level and reading comprehension (Blachowicz, Fisher, Ogle,
& Watts, 2006). At a time when a child’s socioeconomic status could indicate a delayed
acquisition of vocabulary (Hart & Risely, 1995) and students are entering college with weaker
vocabularies than in previous years (Manzo, Manzo, & Thomas, 2006), it is essential that
educators keep up to date on the most current and effective vocabulary strategies. The use of an
interactive word wall promotes engaging discussion and higher level thinking about new
vocabulary (Harmon, Wood, & Kiser, 2009). The literature review addresses issues and best
practices in vocabulary instruction to support the action research study.
Literature Review
Vocabulary’s link to comprehension is one of the most studied areas in literacy
education. However, the acquisition of vocabulary or vocabulary instruction itself had been
neglected in the past (Blachowicz et al., 2006). This changed in the 1970’s and 1980’s when it
was noted that children from low socioeconomic families had inadequate vocabulary knowledge
which often was the cause for failure in school. Since this time, vocabulary instruction has been a
focus of educators and researchers (Blachowicz et al., 2006). One of the most common forms of
vocabulary instruction is for the teacher to give a definition of a new word and then use that
word in context in a sentence. While this is an important part of a student understanding a new
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
4
word, there are limitations to these definitions, and students often find it a difficult task to
translate these definitions into their own usage (Scott & Nagey, 1997).
This literature review investigated vocabulary instruction and how new vocabulary can
be taught to best store words into the students’ memory. Many students struggle with learning
ten new words a week for a vocabulary quiz. Students are not putting the new vocabulary into
their speaking vocabulary, and they would not remember the words and definitions on a delayed
quiz. Since it has been shown that an indicator of success in school is a solid vocabulary, it is
important for students to learn new words and be able to use them in the correct context.
Vocabulary Issues
Neuman and Dwyer (2009) define vocabulary as “the words we must know to
communicate effectively: words in speaking (expressive vocabulary) and words in listening
(receptive vocabulary)” (p. 385). Vocabulary is an important component to effective
communication, writing, and reading. The National Assessment Governing Board found,
however, that college bound 18-year olds showed a greater decline over time in vocabulary
knowledge than previous college bound students (Bintz, 2011). Many of these students began
their education with a delayed vocabulary. Hart and Risley (1995) found that students who come
from families that value reading and literature, read to their children, and explain new vocabulary
have a more advanced vocabulary than students who come from a home which values education
less. Blachowicz et al. (2006) also point out that there is a gap in vocabulary knowledge
associated with a low socioeconomic status which begins in preschool and continues throughout
a student’s education. Economically disadvantaged children often are exposed to fewer words at
home and come to school knowing far fewer than the 5,000-10,000 words that their peers already
know.
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
5
Many commercial vocabulary programs have been unsuccessful at meeting the needs of
these students or producing any growth in word knowledge (Blachowicz, Fisher, & Ogle, 2006).
This means it is up to the educator to fill this gap with vocabulary lessons which are engaging,
interesting, and help students maintain the word knowledge in their long-term memory
(Blachowicz et al., 2006). Stebick and Nichols (2014) state that vocabulary knowledge is critical
to reading comprehension. Given that this is the case, it is imperative that teachers possess the
instructional knowledge necessary to build student vocabularies. However, it is indicated that
many teachers are not “confident about best practice in vocabulary instruction and at times don’t
know where to begin to form an instructional emphasis on word learning” (Berne & Blachowicz,
2008, p. 315). This problem can be rectified with the development of word consciousness in a
rich vocabulary environment.
Word Consciousness
Word consciousness can be described as an awareness of word construction and word
meaning, an interest and motivation in new words, and being aware that words have various
meanings in different contexts (Blachowicz et al., 2006). According to Scott and Nagey (2004)
word consciousness can be defined as an “interest and awareness in words” (p. 107). While this
is a simplistic definition, it incorporates different types of knowledge and skills. The authors go
on to describe word consciousness as a metalinguistic awareness which is the ability to reflect
upon and manipulate words. There are three types of metalinguistic awareness. The first is
morphological awareness which is the recognition of how word parts contribute to the overall
meaning of a word. The second is syntactic awareness, or the ability to change the order of
words in a sentence. The third is metasemantic awareness which is the ability to reflect on word
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
6
meanings. This would include a child’s ability to use synonyms, antonyms, and figurative
language.
Word consciousness is important to develop because students “often appear to focus on
only a fragment of a definition, apparently arbitrarily chosen” (Scott & Nagy, 1997, p.188).
When this occurs, meaning can be lost and students may not be able to transfer the word to
different contexts. Creating an atmosphere that promotes word consciousness requires an
environment which is language and word rich (Blachowicz et al., 2006). Fortunately, much
research exists on how to best create and promote a word rich environment.
Word and Vocabulary Rich Environments
Creating a classroom with a word and vocabulary rich environment is worth the effort
and time. Educators should strive for this environment as it gives students the opportunity to
“read, hear, use, and talk about new vocabulary” (Blachowicz et al., 2006, p. 527). This
environment is one where students feel excited about learning new words and actively participate
in the learning process. They engage in both incidental and intentional vocabulary learning and
are motivated to develop new knowledge on their own (Blachowicz et al., 2006). Savino (2011)
states that a rich vocabulary environment is necessary for students to “understand, internalize,
and use words effectively” (p. 446). Students should have meaningful encounters with words, be
encouraged to engage in discussion about the words, and use the words outside of the classroom
setting (McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, 1985). McKeown et al. (1985) support the idea
that greater exposure to words and word meanings leads to a greater understanding of the word.
Oftentimes it takes a student ten to forty encounters with a word to gain the highest level of
understanding (Savino, 2011).
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
7
In a word rich environment, it is important that an educator knows what types of words to
teach. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) offer three tiers of vocabulary: Tier 1 words are
common words that typically do not need to be directly taught, Tier 2 words are those that appear
frequently in texts but may not be a part of a student’s daily vocabulary, and Tier 3 words are
concept specific words that must be directly taught. Tier 2 and 3 words should be the main focus
of classroom teachers’ direct vocabulary instruction. Marzano (2010) identifies 5,162 Tier 2
words that would be considered of importance to a student’s vocabulary.
One of the most common forms of vocabulary instruction is for a teacher to give the
definition of a word and then use that work in a sentence that shows meaning (Scott & Nagy,
1997). While this is useful instruction, it does not meet the demands of a word and vocabulary
rich classroom. It also does not help students to place the word into their long term vocabulary
usage. Blachowicz and Fisher (2004) assert that a strong vocabulary is often considered to be an
indicator of intelligence in society. With this in mind and knowing that students are entering
college with weaker vocabularies than in the past (Bintz, 2011), it becomes even more
imperative that educators not only understand, but are trained in the importance of powerful
vocabulary instruction.
Powerful Vocabulary Instruction
Graves (2007) states that students will learn some 25,000 words by the end of eighth
grade. However, Tuan (2012) references Carter and McCarthy (1998) and states that new words
will be forgotten if they are not practiced and applied and then retained to memory. The task for
educators becomes entrenching new vocabulary, so it becomes a part of students’ everyday
usage. This means that the students have learned the word and can recall and then use the word
for a quiz or in conversation. This occurs through rich and powerful vocabulary instruction
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
8
which motivates students and encourages them to become more independent learners (Stebick &
Nichols, 2014).
Many strategies can be employed to provide rich vocabulary instruction. Students must
be actively engaged when learning meanings of specific words and making connections between
words (Blachowicz et al., 2006). To create active engagement in vocabulary learning it is
important to remember “that effective communication (including speaking, listening, writing,
and reading) is the end goal” (Savino, 2011, p. 448). In order to effectively communicate,
students must store vocabulary in their long-term memories.
There are many ways to make vocabulary acquisition effective and enjoyable for the
student. Blachowicz et al., (2006) state that one of the most powerful ways to help build
students’ independence is to allow them to self-select their own vocabulary words. They report
that eighth grade students were more than capable of selecting appropriate words from
expository texts. Once words have been chosen, there are many ways to differentiate vocabulary
instruction. Manipulatives such as Play-Doh (Stebick & Nichols, 2014), vocabulary games
(Tuan, 2012), word sorts for narrative and expository texts (Bintz, 2011) and vocabulary theater
(Savino, 2011) all can be used to create word consciousness in a rich vocabulary setting. These
vocabulary practices can be described as word play which “helps develop rich vocabularies and
metacognitive practices” (Savino, 2011, p. 449).
Interactive Word Walls
Interactive word walls are another example of a strategy that provides rich and powerful
vocabulary instruction. Interactive word walls are “grounded in research and theory supporting
the use of social interaction, active student engagement, and power of choice in work with older
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
9
students (Harmon, Wood, & Kiser, 2009, p. 58). Interactive word walls can help to build word
consciousness in a student and are part of a print-rich classroom environment (Harmon, Wood,
Hedrick, Vintinner, & Willeford, 2009). According to Harmon, Wood, and Kiser (2009) the
interactive word wall has three purposes in the classroom: a) to help students associate words
with familiar ideas, concepts, and experiences; b) to actively engage students in meaningful
experiences with words; and c) to give students a choice in word choice and activity.
While word walls have been a mainstay in the elementary classroom, they are making
their way into the middle and secondary classroom as well. Interactive word walls can enhance
the classroom environment and influence literacy development (Harmon et al., 2009). The
recommended instructional framework for using Interactive Word Walls includes selecting the
words, introducing the words, making meaningful connections to the words, using the words,
and sharing the word meaning (Harmon, Wood, & Kiser, 2009).
Interactive word wall give educators the opportunity to use the gradual release of
responsibility. Harvey and Goudvis (2007) state that the gradual release of responsibility is a
framework in which a teacher models activities, give an opportunity for guided practice, allow
students to work collaboratively, and then give students opportunity to work independently. This
is important because it gives students the opportunity to practice several times before they are
asked to do a task independently. With the interactive word wall, students learn through
discussion, and they work collaboratively and independently (Harmon, Wood, & Kiser, 2009).
Harmon et al. (2009) found that in using the interactive word wall strategy, students felt
that the use of colors and symbols connected to the word helped them remember the word
meanings. Students also enjoyed using the word walls. On achievement results, students who
used the interactive word walls did not perform any better than students who had not used the
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
10
interactive word wall on an immediate vocabulary assessment. They did, however, perform
better on a delayed vocabulary assessment indicating that the interactive word wall helped the
students place the word meaning into their long-term memories. These students developed a
“more long-term, deeper level of understanding of vocabulary” (Harmon et al., 2009, p. 406).
Interactive word walls can provide students with rich and powerful vocabulary instruction which
helps students place words into their long-term working memories.
The research shows that vocabulary is best learned in a word rich environment that goes
beyond rote memorization of words and definitions. The more interaction a student has with a
new word, the more likely he or she will be to retain the word. The purpose of this paper is to
present an action research study which explored the question: Will the use of interactive word
walls help 9th grade students retain new vocabulary knowledge? The methodological details of
this proposed action research study follow.
Methodology
The research design for this project was quasi-experimental. There were two groups of
students in this design: an intervention class of students who received instruction with interactive
word walls, and a comparison class of students who received traditional vocabulary instruction.
A pre/post assessment was utilized, as well as an effectiveness of vocabulary inventory, and a
researcher’s log. The researcher investigated whether the use of interactive word walls would
increase the frequency of 9th grade students retaining new vocabulary to memory.
The independent variable was vocabulary instruction and was characterized by two
different levels: 1) interactive words walls and 2) traditional vocabulary instruction. The
interactive word wall instruction consisted of students making flashcards for the words, color
coding the cards and writing an explanation about why the color represents the word, drawing a
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
11
symbol to represent the word, and class discussion about the cards and symbols. The flashcards
and symbols were then used to create the word wall. Traditional vocabulary instruction consisted
of making flashcards for the words, writing a sentence using the word, and using the flashcards
to review. These cards were not displayed on the word wall.
The dependent variable, vocabulary acquisition, was operationally defined as the score on
the vocabulary assessment. There was a comparison of grades between the research group and
the control group on an unannounced comprehensive vocabulary assessment which occurred one
week after the last vocabulary lesson. Figure 1 illustrates the quasi experimental nature of the
research design.
Dependent Variable:
Vocabulary acquisition
Intervention Students:
Interactive Word Walls
Comparison Students: Flashcards
and Sentences
1. Pre/post assessment over
selected vocabulary
2. Survey on vocabulary
instruction effectiveness
3. Researcher’s journal
1. Pre/post assessment over
selected vocabulary
Figure 1: Independent Variable: Vocabulary Instruction
Participants and Setting
The participants of this study were all in 9th grade Standard English classes and were
members of the school’s Freshman Academy. The intervention group consisted of the
researcher’s 2nd period class comprised of 18 students with data being used from 13 students who
turned in the parent consent form (see Appendix F). This class represents a diverse range of
students as far as academic ability. One student is ESL and one student has a 504 plan. Four
students are Hispanic, one student is Eastern European, two students are African American, and
11 students are Caucasian. There are 11 males and seven females in the class. The students range
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
12
from the ages of fourteen to sixteen. The class represents the low socioeconomic status of the
school in general which serves 70% free and reduced lunch.
The comparison group consisted of the researcher’s 6th period class of 23 students with
data being used from 12 students. This class has 14 males and 8 females. There is one African
American student, one Hispanic student, and 21 Caucasian students. One student is ESL, two
students have 504 plans and one student has an IEP. One African American student moved
during the course of the class, and his data was discarded from the study. These intervention and
comparison groups are similar in make-up and are both Standard English classes.
The teacher of record for the intervention group and the control group was also the
researcher. She has eleven years of teaching experience all of which have been in the same
school. She has taught English in the school’s Freshman Academy for the last six years and
taught tenth and eleventh grade English in previous years. She has her National Board
Certification in English 9-12 and completed IRB training (see Appendix D).
Setting
The research took place in a rural 9-12 high school in Western North Carolina. The
school serves a wide range of students and reaches from the edge of an urban area to the rural
edge of the county line. The school serves 1,350 students 70% of whom receive free or reduced
lunch. The average class has 22 students. The school was built in the 1970s and before that time
the high school was located in the current middle school. The majority of the students in the
school have parents who also attended the school. Although the school has supportive
administration and instructional coaches, access to supplies and resources can be limited. For
example, the teacher of record does not have enough text books and students have to share or use
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
13
the teacher addition. Many of the books are held together with duct tape and the teacher regularly
has to erase or white out writing because there has been no mention of a new text book adoption.
The research took place in the teacher of record’s Freshman English classroom. Students
sit in desks and there are enough desks for 26 students. The teacher of record is the only teacher
in the intervention and control groups. The teacher of record bought all of the supplies needed
for the interactive word wall intervention including note cards, markers, and crayons.
Intervention
The intervention treatment employed interactive word walls to teach vocabulary. The
intervention began on January 6, 2015 with the pretest and ended on February, 23 2015 with the
post assessment. Students received ten new vocabulary words a week over five weeks which
were chosen from the class reading, Romeo and Juliet (see Appendix A). These words were the
same as the control group. The treatment used was modeled from the Harmon, Wood, Hedrick,
Vintinner, and Williford (2009) study which showed the use of interactive word walls helped
cement new vocabulary into a student’s memory. A timeline of the intervention in Figure 2
outlines the weekly words and events during the study.
January 5-9
Administration of the pre vocabulary assessment to intervention and
comparison group. Administration of the pre effectiveness of
vocabulary instruction inventory to intervention group.
January 13-16
Week one of the intervention using the words: dignity, mutiny, strife,
strive, valiant, forfeit, adversary, shun, portent, tyranny
January 20-23
Week two of the intervention using the words: oppression, purge,
assail, posterity, languish, transparent, obscure, quench, antic, endure
January 26-30
Week three of the intervention using the words: tedious, trifle,
prodigious, spite, consort, cunning, infinite, procure, baleful, virtue
February 2-6
Week four of the intervention using the words: rancor, lamentable,
salutation, bawdy, jaunt, chide, devise, aspire, dexterity, slander
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
14
February 9-13
Week five of the intervention using the words: exile, garish, perjure,
abate, beguile, dismal, enamor, predicament, discord, disperse
February 16
Administration of the post effectiveness of vocabulary instruction
inventory to the intervention group
February 23
Administration of the delayed post assessment to the intervention and
comparison groups.
Figure 2: Timeline of the intervention and the Tier 2 words chosen from Romeo and Juliet.
Each day of the intervention students completed a different part of the vocabulary
strategy for about 15 minutes (see Figure 3). On Mondays students received the new words and
definitions provided by the teacher. They then created a flashcard with the word and an
associated color. The color was based on the meaning of the word and any connotations or
feelings the student associated with the word. The teacher modeled this activity: for instance, the
word precipice might be coded as red because the teacher associates steep ledges with danger.
Students made their own associations and shared those associations with classmates.
On Tuesdays students used a new card and drew a symbol or picture representing the
word and explained this drawing to a partner. On Wednesdays students laid all of their cards on
their desks and participated in a gallery walk of their classmates’ flashcards and symbols. They
discussed which cards and symbols would go on the interactive word wall and shared their
thoughts with each other and the teacher. The teacher facilitated the discussion as students made
suggestions for the word wall. The teacher then collected the flashcards and posted them on the
word wall. The teacher encouraged students to use the word wall for review and referred to the
word wall often during class. On Fridays students took a teacher made vocabulary quiz over the
week’s words which assessed matching the word to the definition and the ability to complete a
sentence using the correct word.
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
15
Monday
The teacher of record introduced the new vocabulary words and reviewed them
with students. Students created a card for each new word and colored the card
based on associations and connotations they felt about the word. For example,
one student coded the word elusive as camouflage because he associated being
elusive with sitting in a tree blind deer hunting.
Tuesday
Students created a second card with a symbol or picture connected to the word.
Wednesday
Students lay their cards on their desks for a gallery walk of classmates work
and came to a consensus about what should go on the word wall.
Thursday
No intervention.
Friday
Students took a weekly quiz over the vocabulary.
Figure 3: Daily intervention events as recorded on a normal five day week.
Figures 4 and 5: Examples of student word cards and accompanying images.
The intervention required the use of 20 notecards per student per week. One card for the
color coded word, and one card for the accompanying symbol. The intervention also required
markers and crayons. The teacher of record and researcher bought all of the necessary supplies
for a cost of about 25 dollars. There was no special training needed for this intervention and the
intervention was modeled from the work of Harmon, Wood, Hedrick, Vintinner, and Williford
(2009). The teacher modeled the intervention for the interactive word wall for the first two weeks
before the students worked and was always available to answer questions or clear up any
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
16
misconceptions. Preparation for the intervention included choosing and defining Tier 2
vocabulary words from Romeo and Juliet and collecting the necessary materials for the
intervention. It also included creating the pre/post assessment and the survey of student
vocabulary learning.
The intervention began on Monday, January 5, 2015 and ran for six and a half weeks.
Five weeks of vocabulary (50 words) were examined over the span of the study. Extra time was
built in to the study to deal with the possibility of snow days. The activities in weeks one and two
were condensed into four days because of missed school due to snow. Approximately one week
after the last vocabulary lesson, the post assessment was given. The assessment used five of the
ten words for each week for a total of 25 words (see Appendix A and B). This assessment
determined whether or not the students retained new vocabulary knowledge over the course of
the study.
Data Sources and Data Collection Procedures
Two sources of quantitative data and one source of qualitative data were collected
throughout the study to ensure a wide range of data was available. The two quantitative sources
were a teacher designed vocabulary pre/post assessment and a teacher designed survey to
measure if students felt the interactive vocabulary word wall was a more effective way to teach
vocabulary as compared to traditional instruction. A researcher’s journal was kept during the
study as a source of qualitative data to record happenings, observations, and reflections about the
intervention.
Quantitative data was collected from a pre assessment given in the first week of the
intervention, and the post assessment given in the seventh week of the intervention. The pre/post
assessment was created by the researcher and modeled the format of a weekly vocabulary quiz.
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
17
The assessment utilized matching a definition to the correct word and choosing the correct word
to complete a sentence (see Appendix B). Data from this source was collected and kept in a
secure spreadsheet with student names removed.
Quantitative data was also collected from a survey of instruction given at the beginning
and end of the study to the intervention group (see Appendix C). Students responded either
positively or negatively to the statements: 1) I learn new vocabulary in this class, 2) I recognize
new vocabulary words in the class readings, 3) I use new vocabulary words in my daily
conversations, 4) The way vocabulary is taught in this class is effective, 5) I use my new
vocabulary in my writing, and 6) I feel confident about knowing vocabulary before I take a quiz.
The results of this survey were charted in a spreadsheet and stored in a secure location.
Qualitative data was collected from the teacher researcher journal. This journal was
utilized in the intervention and comparison groups. The researcher recorded the daily happenings
of the intervention and reflections on how each lesson went. The researcher also recorded
successes, challenges and made notes for the next steps to take throughout the intervention. The
journal used abbreviations of students’ names and was kept as a private document under a secure
password.
Data Analysis
The research was quasi-experimental and utilized pre and post assessments. The
researcher analyzed quantitative data from the pre and post assessments and used the mean
change scores of each group to run an independent samples t-test (see Appendix E). An
independent samples t-test measures the difference between two population averages being
investigated. The t-test was used to measure the difference of scores between the pre vocabulary
assessment and the post vocabulary assessment in the intervention and comparison groups. This
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
18
determined if any gains made by the intervention group were significant enough to be attributed
to the intervention.
Quantitative data was also analyzed from a survey used in the intervention group. The
effectiveness of vocabulary instruction inventory was given to the intervention group at the
beginning and end of the study. This survey was designed to measure if the students felt the
interactive word wall was a more effective way to learn new vocabulary than the teacher’s
traditional way of teaching vocabulary. This survey could not be measured with an independent
samples t-test because it was not given to the comparison group. Therefore, the researcher
charted the results and looked for commonalities and variations between the first and second
surveys.
Qualitative data was analyzed from the researcher’s journal. Throughout the study, notes
were taken and organized in an electronic journal. At the completion of the study the journal was
printed and read. As the researcher completed the first reading, the journal was annotated in the
margins with common ideas, reoccurring themes, and issues that arose during the study. On a
second reading, themes were highlighted and color coded. Three of the themes strongly related to
the research question throughout the study.
Validity and Reliability or Trustworthiness
There were threats to the validity of the study which could have impacted the results of
the study. The first threat was the teacher of record and researcher hosted a student teacher
during the intervention. The researcher attempted to minimize this threat by teaching all of the
vocabulary lessons to the intervention and comparison groups.
The second threat was the possibility of data collector bias. The researcher could view
and record data in a way that unintentionally favors the hypothesis. This researcher guarded
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
19
against this threat by keeping clear records and keeping all inventories and assessments on file in
a secure location. The interactive word wall was always covered when the control group was in
the room.
A third threat was the pre and post assessment were the same and were given to both
classes. The researcher felt there was a minimal threat in giving the same assessment for pre and
post because it was given six and a half weeks apart. One student moved out of the intervention
group and one student moved out and then came back to the control group during the study.
Neither student’s data was used.
Because of the small sample size and the short length of this study, the results are not
generalizable and cannot be transferred to other classrooms. The researcher attempted to
strengthen the validity of the findings by relying on the triangulation of the two quantitative and
one qualitative data sources. Having three data sources allowed the researcher to look for like
themes and patterns throughout the study.
Results
Vocabulary Achievement
After the intervention came to a conclusion, the results of the pre and post assessment on
vocabulary knowledge were analyzed with an independent samples t-test. This determined if any
gain in scores on the post assessment was due to the vocabulary word wall instruction as opposed
to the traditional teaching of vocabulary. The analysis of the mean score data for vocabulary
achievement shows that there was significant difference between the intervention group
(N=13.0) (M=33.3, SD=21.8) and the comparison group (N=12.0) (M=10.5, SD=18.7)
conditions; p=0.01. Because the p value was less than 0.05, gains by the intervention group from
the pre to post assessment could be attributed to the interactive word wall intervention. These
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
20
results indicate that the use of interactive word walls positively impacted students’ vocabulary
knowledge retention.
Vocabulary Survey
The findings of the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction inventory were also analyzed.
This survey was given only to the intervention group to measure if they found the interactive
word wall strategy to be a more effective way of teaching vocabulary. The survey asked students
to respond to six statements with either strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly
agree. Each category was given a value: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4),
and strongly agree (5). These values were used to calculate a pre and post mean score for each
statement.
I learn new vocabulary in this class had a pre intervention mean score of 4.23 and a post
intervention mean score of 4.00. I recognize new vocabulary words in class readings had a pre
intervention mean score of 3.92 and a post intervention mean score of 4.46. I use new vocabulary
words in my daily conversations had a pre intervention mean score of 2.46 and a post
intervention mean score of 2.23. The way vocabulary is taught in this class is effective had a pre
intervention mean score of 4.07 and a post intervention mean score of 3.38. I use my new
vocabulary in my writing had a pre intervention mean score of 1.84 and post intervention mean
score of 3.23. Finally, I feel confident about knowing new vocabulary before a quiz had a pre
intervention mean score of 4.0 and a post intervention mean score of 5.76. The findings are
illustrated on the following graph.
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
21
Pre/Post Means on Effectiveness of Vocabulary
Instruction Survey (Intervention Class)
8
6
4
2
0
I learn new vocab I recognize new
in this class words in readings
Vocabulary
instruction is
effective
pre class mean
I use vocabulary I use vocabulary I feel confident
in my writing in converstation
before a quiz
post class mean
Figure 6: Pre and post findings on the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction survey.
As reported it can be seen that while students’ perception of how they learn and the
effectiveness of vocabulary instruction lessened, they felt far more confident before taking a
quiz. While students reported using the vocabulary slightly less in conversation after the
intervention, the researcher log shows students actively using and engaging with the new
vocabulary. Students indicated that they recognized the vocabulary words in the class reading
and using the vocabulary in writing more often after the interactive word wall intervention.
Overall, the class mean raised from a pre score of 3.42 to a post score of 3.84 signifying that
students generally felt more positive about the vocabulary instruction and how they used then
new vocabulary.
Additional Observations
Throughout the intervention, the researcher kept a journal documenting the daily
happenings, observations, reflections on student learning, and next steps in the process. Through
careful analysis of this journal the researcher found several themes that related to the research
question: Will the use of interactive word walls help 9th grade students acquire new vocabulary
knowledge? These patterns and themes included: Students gradually becoming more
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
22
independently engaged with their work, the importance of student discussion and interaction, and
the value in giving the opportunity for students to share their work.
During the course of the intervention students became more independent in the daily
activities. The researcher utilized the gradual release of responsibility (Pearson & Gallagher,
1983) during this study. At the beginning of the intervention the steps were modeled for students.
For example, according to the researcher journal, in week one of the intervention all steps were
modeled the students. In week three there was a student (L) struggling with what color to code
the word tedious. We talked about the meaning of the word for a moment, and he decided to
color the card gray because he connected tedious with something boring. By week five of the
intervention, the researcher journal shows that students were working and putting in extra effort
without teacher intervention.
Although students worked together during the intervention, the expectation was that they
would produce independent work. After giving the pretest, it was noted in the research journal
that students in the intervention and the control group had room to make tremendous growth.
Modeling, partner work, and individual work helped students make progress and show growth
during the intervention.
A second theme that presented itself was the importance of student academic discussion
and interaction. The researcher journal indicates that discussion about the vocabulary took place
in the intervention class as students shared their choices of color and symbol with each other and
viewed classmates’ work during the gallery walk. Students could be overheard asking, “Why did
you choose black to represent the word bawdy? That doesn’t make sense to me,” and “How does
a crocodile with a knife in its throat represent strife?” This discussion happened naturally without
direction from the researcher and this student interaction was important to the success of the
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
23
study. The control group had almost no interaction or discussion of the vocabulary except to quiz
each other with flash cards.
A third pattern that occurred was the importance of giving students the opportunity to
share their work. The researcher noted that this activity gives students the opportunity to look at
and be thoughtful about classmates’ work which they normally do not have the opportunity to
see. The research journal noted that, “The gallery walk is one of the most important aspects of
the interactive word wall. Students get the opportunity to view their classmates work. This does
not happen as often as it should at the high school level. The social interaction and discussion
was on point and productive.”
During this gallery walk students engaged with one another explaining how the colors
they chose and the symbols they drew connected to the vocabulary words. At times students
seemed hesitant to share their work. One student, early in the intervention, stated that he didn’t
feel his work was good enough to present to the class. Ultimately, this became less of an issue as
students became used to the idea that they would share their work with everyone in the class. M,
a student who was hesitant about the intervention at the beginning, commented that she was
“putting in my best effort this week because it is the last week of the intervention.” The
researcher noticed this with several students the last week of the intervention. By the end of the
intervention students had become more adept at working independently, having academic
discussion, and sharing their work with classmates.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of interactive word walls would
impact 9th grade students gain in their vocabulary knowledge. The researcher anticipated that the
intervention and the control group would both have gains in scores from the pre to post
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
24
assessment as every student had either the intervention instruction or the traditional instruction in
vocabulary. After reading the literature on interactive word walls, Harmon et al. (2009) and
Harmon, Wood, and Kiser (2009), the researcher believed that the intervention group would have
a greater mean gain score than the control group. The results showed that the use of the
interactive word wall and the activities associated with the interactive word wall positively
affected the scores of the intervention group. The activities of color coding a card, creating
symbols and pictures to represent the new word, the gallery walk of student work, and having
academic discussion generated a higher greater mean from the pre to post vocabulary assessment
in the intervention class than the control class.
Quantitative data showed that the use of interactive word walls to teach new vocabulary
positively affected student scores on the post assessment. The two tailed p for the pre/post
assessment show that the intervention had a great effect on students’ vocabulary knowledge and
retention of new vocabulary words. Quantitative data from the perception of vocabulary
instruction survey showed that students felt more prepared for weekly quizzes during the
intervention.
The findings from the study are supported by previous research. Scott and Nagy (1997)
found that definitions of words are relied upon heavily in traditional vocabulary instruction. This
was the case in the researcher’s class where new vocabulary words were given at the beginning
of the week and flashcards were created for practice and drill. This can cause unnecessary
confusion for students as they attempt to use the words in sentences and other contexts as they
may not fully understand the definition or may confuse multiple meanings of the same word
(Scott & Nagy, 1997). This type of learning does not lead to student independence which
Blachowicz, Fisher, and Ogle (2006) state should be a goal of good vocabulary instruction.
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
25
During the intervention the researcher employed the strategy of gradual release of
responsibility to ensure that students gained independence in their vocabulary learning. The
intervention of interactive word walls (Harmon, Wood, & Kiser, 2009) allowed for this strategy
with teacher modeling, students working together, and then students working independently by
the end of the intervention. Blachowicz, Fisher, and Ogle (2006) state that “active engagement
plays and important role in learning the meanings of specific words” (p. 528). They go on to
state that it is important for students to make meaningful connections between the vocabulary
words and concepts. The interactive word wall allowed students to make these connections
between words and concepts.
The research design allowed for both active engagement and meaningful connections
with vocabulary words. Harmon, et al. (2009) assert that using interactive word walls and the
activities associated with the interactive word walls led to a “deeper level of understanding of
vocabulary” (p. 406). They also found that students in their interactive word wall group had
higher posttest scores on the application section of the test than their comparison group. The
strategies in this intervention were based on the Harmon, et al. (2006) model and were adapted to
cater to this study based on findings presented in a design within a previous experiment.
Academic discussion of the vocabulary words and interactive word wall strategies proved
to be an essential part of the intervention. Blachowicz, Fisher, and Ogle (2006) maintain that
students must be in a language and word rich environment which gives them the opportunity to
read, hear, use, and discuss new vocabulary. The interactive word wall activities provided the
intervention group with all of these, providing a vocabulary rich environment that supported their
learning needs.
Limitations
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
26
There were limitations during this study including the sample size of the study, time of
day the two classes met, study length, and schedule interruption. The sample size for this study
was 25 students with 13 students in the intervention group and 12 students in the comparison
group. Both classes had more students present, but these 25 students were the only ones who
brought in the signed consent form and gave their assent for data usage. While positive results
were found in vocabulary acquisition with the use of interactive word walls, it would be
necessary to reproduce the study with a larger sample size to guarantee that the intervention was
the cause of student success.
Another limitation to the study was time of day the two classes met. Both were Standard
English I classes taught by the researcher. The intervention group met early in the morning, from
8:45 until 9:30. The comparison group met from 2:15 until 3:00. This researcher and educator
has noticed that time of day can make a difference in student performance. Students are often
more motivated and prepared at the beginning of the day than they are at the end of the day. This
limitation may have played a role in the results of this study.
This study was presented over the course of six and a half weeks. While the positive
change in the intervention group was encouraging, the study would need to be conducted over a
longer period of time and with a larger sample of students to ensure the results are valid.
The final limitation to this study was interruptions to the schedule. Throughout the course
of the study there were three days lost to testing, four snow days, and several delay and early
release days. This meant that the strategy sometimes had to be taught in a shorter class or that the
sequence of events in a week of strategies had to be condensed to less than five days. The
researcher felt that this did not have a great impact on the outcomes of the study, but it may have
influenced the study.
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
27
Implications for Educators
This study showed positive results using interactive word walls to teach vocabulary. The
study employed the use of using connotations associated with the word to color-code a card,
creating symbols and pictures to represent each word, having a gallery walk of classmates work,
and coming to a consensus about what cards should go on the word wall (Harmon et. al, 2009).
The study also relied on academic discussion generated by the students about the vocabulary
words. Blachowicz, Fisher, and Ogle (2006) state the importance of student discussion about
new vocabulary.
Scott and Nagey (2014) share that the traditional vocabulary instruction of providing
students with dictionary definitions is an insufficient way to teach students new vocabulary.
Educators can look at the results of Harmon et al., (2009) and this study to see the research based
strategy of interactive word walls is more supportive of students learning new vocabulary than
traditional vocabulary lessons.
A student’s vocabulary is an indicator of how he or she will perform in school
(Blachowicz, Fisher, and Ogle, 2006). It is important that educators work to build students’
vocabularies with research based instruction to ensure their success in school.
Future Directions for Research
This study showed positive results using interactive word walls to increase a student’s
vocabulary knowledge; however, further study should be conducted to confirm the results. A
study with more subjects spanning a longer period of time would provide more definitive results.
This study utilized Tier 2 vocabulary words from the play Romeo and Juliet. Further research
could look at the use of interactive word walls in content classes for content specific Tier 3
vocabulary. The researcher was the teacher of record. It would be noteworthy to reproduce the
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
28
study with a researcher who is impartial about the success of the participants of the study.
Although the researcher was impartial about the intervention, there is a desire to want all
students in the classes to be successful.
Reflection
Throughout the conceptualization, planning, implementation, and outcomes of this
research project, I have grown as an educator and a researcher. During the conceptualization
phase of this project, I read deeply the literature involving vocabulary instruction and consulted
with my school’s literacy coach. As my ideas for this project began to solidify, I read more
related literature and realized that the way I taught vocabulary was not effective for most
students. The school I teach in has a low socioeconomic population, which can be an indicator of
a poor vocabulary. I began to understand the importance of effective vocabulary instruction to
increase my student’s word knowledge.
I based my intervention from the work of Harmon et al. (2009). Her research showed
positive results on students’ vocabulary retention, and I wanted to see if I could duplicate those
results. I chose the vocabulary words from Romeo and Juliet because it is a longer piece that
would last the course of the study. I thought it would be beneficial to my students to only have
one work to focus on during the intervention. I designed a pre post assessment to measure
student vocabulary knowledge during the planning stages and created an inventory to measure if
students felt the vocabulary instruction was effective.
I experienced difficulties during the implementation portion of my intervention. Although
I carefully planned the intervention with my school calendar, keeping in mind the time
constraints of due dates for my course, modified school exam schedules, snow days, early release
days, and late start days frustrated my carefully laid plans. I started the implementation of the
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
29
interactive word wall strategies on a modified four day week. I used shortened classes to model
for my intervention group how to do the strategies. I was always available to answer questions
and redirect students who were off task. One thing I wish I could have done during this study is
allow students to choose their own vocabulary words. This is a strategy I have used in the past,
but unfortunately time constraints did not allow for this to happen.
I was very excited to see the outcomes of my research project. Through charting the pre
and post assessments for my intervention and comparison groups, I could see that the
intervention group had much higher scores on the post assessment than the comparison group.
When I entered the difference of scores between the pre and the post assessment in the Del
Speigel spreadsheet, I was shocked by the positive impact the intervention seemed to have. If
these results could be replicated it would show that powerful, interactive vocabulary instruction
is far superior to giving dictionary definitions and having students drill with flashcards.
One concern I have about the implementation of the interactive word wall strategies is
that they took much more class time than I originally anticipated. It was a struggle at times to
have my intervention group complete the strategies and stay on track with my other classes as far
as everyday course work. A member of my English I PLC suggested giving the cards and
symbols as homework assignments for future implementation, but this concerned me because I
feel one of the most important parts of this strategy was the impromptu discussions students had
about the vocabulary, chosen colors, and symbols as they worked. If I use interactive word walls
to teach vocabulary to all of my students, it will need to modified in some way to meet the time
constraints of my 42 minute classes.
I found significant value in the research process and in the knowledge I gained about the
importance of vocabulary during this intervention. My goals for this project were to grow as a
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
30
researcher and to discover if different vocabulary instruction would impact student learning. I
had never conducted research in my classroom before this experience. Reflecting from beginning
to end on this process, I can see that I have grown as a researcher and an educator. The way I
make instructional decisions in my classroom has been impacted by this process. Teachers often
do not have the time to read research about educational practices and often most follow the
educational trends of the school or district. This process has taught me the value in disseminating
research directly to teachers who will use the information to make the best instructional decisions
for their classes. My research will be shared with my PLC and my department, so informed
decisions can be made about vocabulary instruction.
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
31
References
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G. & Kucan, L. (2002) Bringing words to life. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Berne, J. L. & Blochowicz, C. L. (2008). What reading teachers say about vocabulary
instruction: Voices from the classroom. The Reading Teacher 62(4), 314-323.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27699695
Bintz, W. P. (2011). Teaching vocabulary across the curriculum. Middle School Journal 42(4), 4
4-53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23047715
Blachowicz C. L., Fisher, P. J., Ogle, D. & Watts-Taffe S. (2006). Vocabulary: Questions from
the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly 41(4), 524-549. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.41.4.5
Graves, M. F. (2007). Vocabulary instruction in the middle grades. Voices From the Middle
15(1), 13-19.
Harmon, J. M., Wood, K. D., Hedrick, W. B. Vintinner, J., & Willeford, T. (2009). Interactive
word walls: More than just reading on the walls. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
52(5), 398-408. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.52.5.4
Harmon, J. M., Wood, K. D., & Kiser, K. (2009). Promoting vocabulary learning with interactive
word walls. Middle School Journal 30(3). http://www.jstor.org/stable/23044720
Hart, B. & Risely, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore: Brookes.
Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C., & Thomas, M. M. (2006). Rationale for systematic vocabulary
development: Antidote for state mandates. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 48(7),
610-619. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40017627
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. A., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1985). Some effects of the
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
32
nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words.
Reading Research Quarterly 20(5), 522-535. http://www.jstor.org/stable/747940
Marzano, R. J. (2010). Teaching basic and advanced vocabulary: A framework for direct
vocabulary instruction. Boston, ME: Heinle.
Neuman, S. B. & Dweyer, J. (2009). Missing in action: Vocabulary instruction in pre-k. The
Reading Teacher 62(5), 384-392. doi: 10.1598/RT.62.5
Pearson, P. D. & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology 8, 317-344.
Savino, J. A. (2011). The Shakespeare in all of us: A monumental, multitudinous, premeditated
approach to vocabulary instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6), 445453. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41203381
Scott, J. A. & Nagy, W. E. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfamiliar verbs. Reading
Research Quarterly, 32(2), 184-200. http://www.jstor.org/stable/748105
Scott, J. A. & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Developing word consciousness. Essential readings on
vocabulary instruction, 106-117. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/748105
Stebick, D. M., & Nichols, C. (2014). Language of Harry’s wizards: Authentic vocabulary
instruction. New England Reading Association Journal, 49(2), 40-50. Retrieved from:
http://searchproquest.comjpoxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/1541672741
Tuan, L. T. (2012). Vocabulary recollection through games. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 2(2), 257-264. doi: 10.4304/tpls.2.2.257-264
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
Appendix A
Weekly Tier 2 word lists chosen from Romeo and Juliet chosen by the teacher.
Week 1
dignity, mutiny, strife, strive, valiant, forfeit, adversary, shun, portent, tyranny
Week 2
oppression, purge, assail, posterity, languish, transparent, obscure, quench, antic, endure
Week 3
tedious, trifle, prodigious, spite, consort, cunning, infinite, procure, baleful, virtue
Week 4
rancor, lamentable, salutation, bawdy, jaunt, chide, devise, aspire, dexterity, slander
Week 5
exile, garish, perjure, abate, beguile, dismal, enamor, predicament, discord, disperse
Twenty-five words chosen for the delayed, comprehensive vocabulary assessment. (5 words
from each week.)
strife
strive
forfeit
adversary
shun
purge
assail
languish
obscure
quench
prodigious
spite
cunning
procure
baleful
rancor
lamentable
bawdy
jaunt
aspire
perjure
garish
beguile
predicament
discord
33
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
34
Appendix B
Name _____________________________________
Vocabulary Assessment
Match each word to the correct definition.
1. ____ forfeit
a. adj. bright and showy; gaudy
2. ____ strive
b. n. disagreement between people
3. ____ discord
c. adj. remarkably great in extent, size, or degree
4. ____ predicament
d. v. lose or lack vitality; grow weak or feeble
5. ____ procure
e. v. direct one’s hopes toward achieving a goal
6. ____ baleful
f. v. obtain with great care or effort
7. ____ languish
g. n. a difficult, embarrassing, or unpleasant situation
8. ____ obscure
h. n. a desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone
9. ____ spite
i. v. persistently avoid, ignore, or reject
10. ____ garish
j. adj. threatening harm, menacing
11. ____ aspire
k. v. lose or be deprived of as a penalty for wrongdoing
12. ____ prodigious
l. v. make great efforts to achieve something
13. ____ shun
m. adj. not discovered or known about; uncertain
Use each word once in the sentence it best completes.
1. Kayla ___________________________________ to become a well-known Hollywood
actress, and she went to every audition.
2. The team had to _____________________________________ the game when they got a
flat tire on the way to the event and were two hours late.
3. Jasmine and Makayla _______________________________ to be straight A students,
and come to every SMART lunch tutoring.
4. The _______________________________________ storm had dark greenish colored
clouds and high winds.
5. Jerod’s _____________________________________ shirt of orange and pink clashed
with his usual casual style.
6. The ____________________________________ between the two feuding families only
grew after one side was accused of killing the family goat.
7. Justin felt he was in a ______________________________________ when he was
caught cheating and his teacher called home.
8. The man had such a _____________________________________ belly that he could not
bend over to tie his shoes.
9. Dustin felt he was being __________________________________ after a rumor started
that he had pneumonia.
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
35
10. The father went to the drugstore to _____________________________________ the
medicine needed for his sick infant.
11. Maria felt she would ________________________________________ after 12 hours
with nothing to eat.
12. The _____________________________________ movie was difficult find in the video
store.
13. Cindy put Jessie’s shoes in the toilet out of ____________________________________.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Match each word to the correct definition.
1. ____ strife
a. n. angry or bitter disagreement; conflict
2. ____ adversary b. adj. loudly or humorously indecent
3. ____ cunning
c. v. make a concerted or violent attack on
4. ____ purge
d. adj. having skill in deceit or evasion
5. ____ assail
e. v. willfully tell a lie or untruth
6. ____ quench
f. an opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute
7. ____ rancor
g. a short trip or journey for pleasure
8. ____ lamentable h. v. to remove from an area in a violent way
9. ____ bawdy
i. v. to put out or extinguish; to stop something from burning
10. ____ jaunt
j. adj. full or expressing sorrow or grief
11. ____ perjure
k. n. long-standing bitterness or resentfulness
12. ____ beguile
l. v. charm or enchant, sometimes in a deceptive way
Use each word once in the sentence it best completes.
1. Shakespeare often uses ________________________________________ humor to make
his plays funny and appeal to the common people.
2. David tried to __________________________________ his thirst with a soda, but he
found it only made him thirstier.
3. The village was _____________________________________ with missiles during the
attack.
4. Shana’s ______________________________________ on the court was a strong
opponent.
5. The _______________________________________ fox tricked the black bird into
giving up the bread and cheese it had found.
6. We went on a short but relaxing __________________________________ to the
countryside.
7. Mark tried to ___________________________________ Alexis into going on a date, but
she did not fall for his talk of romance.
8. It is against the law to ____________________________________ yourself in front of a
judge after you have been sworn in.
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
9.
36
It was ______________________________________ that the two best friends were torn
apart by a lie and could never trust one another again.
10. Jeni and George felt such ___________________________________ towards each other
after they broke up, they couldn’t even be in the same room with one another.
11. The Pied Piper tried to _____________________________________ the town of rats by
leading them away with a song.
12. Danny was in _______________________________________ with his family after they
forbade him from dating his girlfriend.
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
37
Appendix C
Effectiveness of Vocabulary Instruction Inventory:
Rate each statement 1-5. 5 is strongly agree and 3 is neutral and 1 is strongly disagree.
1
2
3
strongly disagree neutral
disagree
I learn new vocabulary in this class.
I recognize new vocabulary words in
the class readings.
I use new vocabulary words in my daily
conversations.
The way vocabulary is taught in this
class is effective.
I use my new vocabulary in my writing.
I feel confident about knowing
vocabulary before I take a quiz.
4
agree
5
strongly
agree
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
38
Appendix D
EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
University & Medical Center Institutional Review Board Office
4N-70 Brody Medical Sciences Building· Mail Stop 682
600 Moye Boulevard · Greenville, NC 27834
Office 252-744-2914 · Fax 252-744-2284 · www.ecu.edu/irb
Notification of Exempt Certification
From: Social/Behavioral IRB
To:
Leigh Ray
CC:
Elizabeth Swaggerty
Date: 12/9/2014
Re:
UMCIRB 14-002214
RAY: Effects of Interactive Word Walls on Retention of Vocabulary
I am pleased to inform you that your research submission has been certified as
exempt on 12/9/2014. This study is eligible for Exempt Certification under category #1 .
It is your responsibility to ensure that this research is conducted in the manner reported in your
application and/or protocol, as well as being consistent with the ethical principles of the Belmont
Report and your profession.
This research study does not require any additional interaction with the UMCIRB unless there are
proposed changes to this study. Any change, prior to implementing that change, must be submitted
to the UMCIRB for review and approval. The UMCIRB will determine if the change impacts the
eligibility of the research for exempt status. If more substantive review is required, you will be
notified within five business days.
The UMCIRB office will hold your exemption application for a period of five years from the date of this
letter. If you wish to continue this protocol beyond this period, you will need to submit an Exemption
Certification request at least 30 days before the end of the five year period.
The Chairperson (or designee) does not have a potential for conflict of interest on this study.
IRB00000705 East Carolina U IRB #1 (Biomedical) IORG0000418
IRB00003781 East Carolina U IRB #2 (Behavioral/SS) IORG0000418
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
39
Appendix E
Del Speigel Spreadsheet
Value used for Group 1 ----------------->
Value used for Group 2 ----------------->
Independent t-test
Group 1
33.3076923
21.8303482
13
Mean
SD
n
Group 2
10.5
18.7058571
12
Paired t-test
Group 2
N/A
N/A
25
Group
(IV)
DV
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
This speadsheet was prepared by Del Siegle for use in EPSY 341
2
Note: The df for the Unequal Variance Independent t-test is an approximation.
Effect Size
p of F-Max-->
0.61615707
d=
Use Equal Variance
Equal
Unequal
1.12529982 No C
Contr
Variance
Variance
1.04476997 Grou
Contr
Mean diff.
22.8076923
22.8076923
1.21928079 Grou
SE
8.16486734
8.11282121
t-value
2.79339411
2.81131455
df
23
11
two-tailed p
0.01032551
0.00993742
Correlation->
Group 1
N/A
N/A
Mean
SD
n
1
30
6
20
30
26
42
20
72
63
68
8
18
30
4
8
-10
48
0
Mean diff.
SE
t-value
df
two-tailed p
The scores are not paired.
The scores are not paired.
The scores are not paired.
The scores are not paired.
The scores are not paired.
The scores are not paired.
2nd DV if calculating a paired (correlated) t-test
30
6
20
30
26
42
20
72
63
68
8
18
30
4
8
-10
48
0
1
1
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-10
10
30
24
-4
20
-14
20
-10
10
30
24
-4
20
-14
20
40
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
41
Appendix F
Intervention Group Consent Form
Dear Parent/Guardian,
As part of my Masters of Reading Education degree requirements at East Carolina University, I
am planning an educational research project that will help me learn more about interactive word
walls and vocabulary acquisition.
The fundamental goal of this project is to improve the retention of word meanings. I have
investigated an effective instructional practice, using interactive word walls that I will be
implementing during vocabulary instruction in January 2015. I am going to track student
improvement during vocabulary instruction for 5 weeks. Student self-assessment of word
knowledge and vocabulary quizzes will allow me to track student progress.
This project has been approved by my instructor at ECU, Dr. Elizabeth Swaggerty, and the ECU
Institutional Review Board.
I am asking permission to include your child’s progress in my project report. Your child will not
be responsible for “extra” work as a result of this project. The decision to participate or not will
not affect your child’s grade. I plan to share the results of this project with other educators
through presentations and publications to help educators think about how they can improve
vocabulary instruction in their own classrooms. I will use pseudonyms to protect your child’s
identity. The name of our school, your child, or any other identifying information will not be used
in my final report. Please know that participation (agreeing to allow me to include your child’s
data) is entirely voluntary and your child may withdraw from the study at any point without
penalty.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at school at 828- 2324251 or email me at leigh.ray@bcsemail.org. You may also contact my supervising professor at
ECU, Dr. Elizabeth Swaggerty, at swaggertye@ecu.edu, 252-328-4970. If you have questions
about your child’s rights as someone taking part in research, you may call the Office of
Research Integrity & Compliance (ORIC) at 252-744-2914 (days, 8:00 am-5:00 pm). If you
would like to report a complaint or concern about this research study, you may call the Director
of the OHRI, at 252-744-1971.
Please indicate your preference below and return the form by January 9, 2015.
Your Partner in Education,
Leigh Ray
INTERACTIVE WORD WALLS AND WORD RETENTION
42
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------As the parent or guardian of ________________________________________, I grant
permission for Leigh Ray to use my child’s data in the educational research project
described above regarding vocabulary instruction. I voluntarily consent to Leigh Ray
using data gathered about my child in her study. I fully understand that the data will not
affect my child’s grade and will be kept completely confidential.
Signature of Parent/Guardian:______________________________________
Date____________________________
-OR-
As the parent or guardian of _______________________________, I do not grant
permission for my child’s data to be included in the study.
Parent/Guardian: _______________________________________