Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
Study of Vocabulary Strategies to Increase Comprehension for English Language
Learners
Evelyn Hughes
Texas Woman’s University
1
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
2
Abstract
English language learners (ELLs) often struggle to keep up with English speakers (ES) in
school. It seems that the initial vocabulary of high-frequency words that ELLs tend to
acquire does not continue to grow like it should and is not enough to support reading
comprehension as ELLs get older. The assessments that use that first vocabulary as the
indicator that students are on the right track or falling behind are inaccurate. Those
assumptions ignore the necessity to continually gain vocabulary, in large amounts, to
continually increase reading comprehension and be prepared for the requirements of
academic literature and critical thinking that comes in older elementary grades and
beyond. This type of vocabulary growth comes more naturally for ES, as a lifetime of
everyday exposure provides multiple encounters with high- and low-frequency words.
ELLs must be given explicit vocabulary instruction to help close this gap between ES and
ELLs vocabulary acquisition. There are various vocabulary strategies that have been
shown to help in this regard. These strategies include those that increase exposure to
vocabulary and word meaning and those strategies that teach students to infer word
meaning and other lexical content.
Keywords: vocabulary strategies, English language learners, comprehension strategies,
vocabulary meaning, context clues, literacy skills, and vocabulary development
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
3
Study of Vocabulary Strategies to Increase Comprehension for English Language
Learners
Research Questions
Researchers have been studying the importance of vocabulary development for
quite some time. More recently, the need for explicit and direct vocabulary instruction
has become more obvious. Many students have gotten by with whatever vocabulary they
pick up as they go through life and school, relying on implicit instruction and their own
deductions. In fact, a native speaker might be able to get away with this approach. For
English language learners, this could be disastrous. Roessingh and Elgie (2009) have
noted that though “it would seem that for both ELL[s] and…[ES] it is possible to acquire
early literacy skills and concepts with a small vocabulary,…for ELL[s] the consequences
of neglecting vocabulary development in the early stages are not noticed until it may be
too late” (p. 40). When ELLs hit third or fourth grade, the academic language requires a
far more extensive vocabulary than casual vocabulary development will provide. By then,
the chances of acquiring the amount of vocabulary needed are greatly diminished.
Providing explicit and direct vocabulary instruction from the earliest grades would allow
ELLs to expand their vocabulary and increase their ability to succeed.
Knowing that students need purposeful vocabulary instruction leads to my
research questions: Which vocabulary strategies are most effective in increasing reading
comprehension for students who are ELLs? Why is vocabulary acquisition so important
to success in literacy? Explicit and intentional vocabulary instruction is a reliable way to
accomplish vocabulary acquisition. Almost any vocabulary strategies will help, but these
strategies are most effective when the teacher approaches vocabulary as an intentional
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
4
discourse that will scaffold his or her students’ learning and is vital to their future
success. Though vocabulary instruction benefits ELLs and ES alike, the focus of this
research is on ELLs because of their stronger need and greater vulnerability.
Research Process
The research studies used for this synthesis paper were obtained from the Texas
Woman’s Library A-Z databases. I found most of the studies on ERIC, though I also used
three studies that were provided by Dr. Briggs. I did not have a hard time finding studies
to use for this research. The need for more explicit vocabulary instruction has been
studied and reported on enough times to provide plenty of material for my own research.
I used keywords like vocabulary strategies, English language learners, comprehension
strategies, vocabulary meaning, context clues, literacy skills, and vocabulary
development. I did use resources that were quoted in some of the initial studies I had
found. I entered the author and journal of the appropriate source and found at least three
of my sources that way. I sometimes struggled to find newer studies, but in the end, I had
thirteen legitimate sources. I was able to choose the most applicable ones and discard the
rest.
Themes
The overriding theme to all studies was the absolute necessity for explicit,
intentional vocabulary instruction. Since I am looking specifically at vocabulary
strategies that are effective in achieving that vocabulary, and therefore comprehension, I
feel that including that need as a separate theme is too general. Any intentional
vocabulary instruction is going to be preferable to no instruction or only implicit
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
5
vocabulary instruction. With that understanding, I found two groupings or themes of
vocabulary strategies that have proven to be effective: increasing exposure to vocabulary
and word meanings and teaching students to infer word meaning and other lexical
content.
Increasing exposure to vocabulary and word meanings
Increasing the amount of vocabulary and word meanings that ELLs are exposed to
results in increased vocabulary and reading comprehension. Spycher (2009) conducted a
study of kindergarten students who were given explicit vocabulary instruction during a
science unit. This intervention instruction had sixteen vocabulary lessons that included
visual references, realia, cooperative learning, and scaffolding. The teacher used readaloud texts and visual aids to teach and review the twenty vocabulary words. The regular
vocabulary instruction continued for five weeks. The students were tested on science
knowledge and vocabulary before and after the intervention began. The testing revealed
that “intentional vocabulary instruction in science, …[helped the students to learn] more
of the target academic vocabulary than children in the control class, who received
implicit exposure to the vocabulary” (Spycher, 2009, p. 375). More than half the
participants were ELLs and these strategies proved to be effective in increasing their
vocabulary.
Biemiller and Boote (2006) conducted a vocabulary study based on the concern
that “when children continue to acquire less vocabulary while in primary school, it
becomes less likely that they can later catch up. Educators’ chances of successfully
addressing vocabulary differences in school are greatest in the preschool and early
primary years” (p. 45). Biemiller and Boote (2006) also felt that for vocabulary growth to
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
6
make a difference, “an intervention would need to add several hundred root word
meanings per year” (p. 45). This study sought to provide vocabulary growth through
pretesting and repeated oral reading that included vocabulary instruction. The pretesting
proved to be ineffective as a tool, though repeated oral reading, word meaning
explanations and review were effective. There were 112 participants, 50% of which were
ELLs. The results of the study showed a significant increase in vocabulary acquisition for
all the participants, including the ELLs (Biemiller & Boote, 2006).
Zahar, Cobb, and Spada (2001) used word frequency and multiple encounters to
encourage vocabulary growth in ELL. This study was based in a school in Canada, where
most of the students’ first language is French. These 144 seventh-grade students were
exposed to an appropriately leveled text that they were free to study multiple times. They
listened to it and read along as well. The results of this study showed that word frequency
“appears to be three to four times more important for beginners than it is for more
advanced students” (Zahar, et al., 2001, p. 553). In other words, for ELLs, word
frequency is especially important in advancing vocabulary acquisition. As students’
vocabularies grow, the students “seem able to accomplish the same amount of learning in
fewer occurrences” (Zahar et al., 2001, p. 553).
Multimedia tools could also prove to be effective in vocabulary exposure and
instruction. “Multimedia enhancements may provide children with more robust nonverbal
information than that presented in the static pictures in storybooks and allow children to
more effectively use their nonverbal processing system to support their verbal processing
of the storybook content” (Silverman & Hines, 2009, p. 306). In the study by Silverman
and Hines (2009), an intervention was created around read-aloud vocabulary with
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
7
multimedia enhancements. There were eighty-five participants, 32% of which were ELL.
Half of the participants received instruction without multimedia enhancements and the
other half received the multimedia enhancements. The lessons were centered on science
instruction with four 3-week cycles, one cycle for each habitat that the students were
studying (Silverman & Hines, 2009). There were 100 words introduced and studied
through books in the content area topics. Structured lessons reviewed the information
presented and provided scaffolded instruction to ensure understanding of the vocabulary
and the ability to reuse it in different contexts. Videos were chosen to coincide with each
habitat studied and to the chosen vocabulary words.
The results of the Silverman and Hines study showed that English language
learners were the only ones measurably affected by the multimedia enhancements in their
instruction. There was “no effect of the use of multimedia on [ES] children….[but] for
children who experienced the multimedia-enhanced vocabulary intervention, the gap
between [ES] and ELL children in knowledge of words targeted during the intervention
was closed, and the gap in general vocabulary knowledge was narrowed” (Silverman &
Hines, 2009, p. 311). Though the multimedia instruction did not increase the vocabulary
learning of ES, it did “not hinder the vocabulary learning of [ES], who learned words at
the same rate as their peers who were not in the multimedia intervention. Therefore,
multimedia enhancement may be an appropriate way to…meet the needs of ELL[s]”
(Silverman & Hines, 2009, p. 312).
Teaching students to infer word meaning and other lexical content
Several of the studies I researched encouraged instructing students to infer word
meaning and other lexical content in helping to increase ELLs’ vocabulary and
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
8
comprehension. Spycher’s (2009) study, that aimed to increase academic vocabulary in
kindergarteners, involved encouraging the students to move the words to deeper
understanding. The students “were afforded…structured opportunities to intentionally use
new language they had been taught….in supportive and authentic contexts” that allowed
students to better understand the meaning of the vocabulary words they were learning (p.
376).
One of the most helpful studies I read was by Carlo, August, McLaughlin, Snow,
Dressler, Lippman, Lively and White (2004). I found this study quoted in several places
in my research. This study set itself apart by creating an intervention that moved beyond
direct word instruction and scaffolded teaching to actual word-learning strategies like
context, morphology, knowledge of polysemy, spelling, cross-language relationships,
pronunciation, and cognates. This extensive study looked at 254 fifth-graders from four
schools in California, Virginia, and Massachusetts. The intervention instruction was to
last for 15 weeks, covering 10-12 words a week. The results showed that the
intervention groups showed greater gain in the course of the school year than the
comparison group….[and] that a challenging curriculum that focused on teaching
academic words, awareness of polysemy, strategies for inferring word meaning
from context, and tools for analyzing morphological and cross-linguistic aspect of
word meaning did improve the performance of both ELL[s] and [ES] fifth
graders, to equal degrees (p. 196, 203).
The researchers went on to discover that in addition to increased word knowledge,
reading comprehension was also increased in the intervention group.
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
9
Again, I was very impressed by the work done in the study by Carlo et al. The
concept of teaching direct word instruction and strategies to infer word meaning could be
a major difference in the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction. One of those strategies
is the use of context. This can be seen in more than one way. Using context includes
being able to understand the type of text that is being studied and situational details that
might improve comprehension of the text.
Another way that context is taught is through context clues. Context clues are
supposed to help a person identify a word he or she does not know. Many studies have
been done to show that context clues can be effective in defining an unknown word, and
cloze tests are very commonly used to show that effectiveness. Though context clues can
be helpful, Schatz and Baldwin (1986) feel that in research, the effectiveness of context
clues is likely due to the “contrived or unrepresentative passages on which
[they]…base[d] their conclusions about context” (p. 447). In their own study, Schatz and
Baldwin (1986) created a design that tested vocabulary knowledge for unassociated lowfrequency words that occur in common high school texts. The results reflected the
improbability of using word associations to guess at a word’s meaning.
The students did not seem to be able to guess at the meaning of the low-frequency
words in uncontrived passages. The researchers felt they could draw three conclusions:
“Context clues do not reveal the meaning of low-frequency words in naturally occurring
prose,….they appear to be just as likely to result in confusion as in the correct
identification of word meaning, [and] the more information the word contributes to the
passage, the less likely it is that context clues will work” (Schatz & Baldwin, 1986, p.
451). Schatz and Baldwin recommend using a dictionary or glossary as a first choice in
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
10
determining word meaning, rather than a last resort. For ELLs, it seems that the
usefulness of context clues, or lack of it, could be very difficult to explain. Their
understanding of the nuances of the English language would be very unlikely to pick up
on times when context clues would be helpful. Teaching them to use a dictionary, and
even make their own, could help them overcome this difficulty.
New Findings
There are two studies that challenged me. One was the Schatz and Baldwin (1986)
study that questioned the effectiveness of context clues. I have always thought that
context clues could be depended on to help infer the meaning of an unknown word. I
looked over the test passages and words they provided and was surprised to find there
were several in which I was guessing between two options and had no idea from the
context which one was correct. Looking back on my high school education and college
entrance exams, I would say I can remember similar situations of picking between two
options because I could not find the correct answer from context clues alone. For me, this
is very important. I have told my own children to look at the sentence to find the
meaning. I have told them to look at the picture. I wonder how much of a disservice I
have done them by not telling them to look up the definition. With ELLs, I think
promoting the use of dictionaries to discover word meaning could be very effective.
English can be such a difficult language that having a clearly defined answer
could clear away some of the confusion. Of course, there is the issue of multiple,
differing definitions and parts of speech for the same word. This could lead to more
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
11
confusion for an ELLs. Even so, maybe teaching ELLs, and ES, how to find what they
need out of dictionary is just as worthwhile as teaching context clues, if not more so.
I was also impressed with the study by Carlo, August, McLaughlin, Snow,
Dressler, Lippman, Lively, and White (2004). I have not taught my own children some of
the skills suggested by these researchers, but I see great value in doing so. I think that for
ELLs, the tools they promote could be very empowering and help to close the gap
between them and ES. I think the idea of making cross-linguistic connections is obvious,
but I have never heard of it as a tool that could help students who are ELLs. When I took
Spanish in high school and college I remember noting the similarities in vocabulary root
words and pronunciations. I remember finding familiar constructs and being able to
understand what I was reading more quickly because of that. I think that this could be a
useful tool for English language learners as well.
Instructional Implications
The main instructional implication is the absolute necessity to provide intentional
and explicit vocabulary instruction to ELLs and ES. Roessingh and Elgie (2009) insist
that
ELL need to acquire thousands of new words, and these need to be taught
directly in contexts that are meaningful, personally relevant, engaging, and
interconnected by way of loose thematic instruction. All need to engage in
word play; to take risks with language; and to develop discovery,
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
12
curiosity, imagination, and creativity. Small group time and a smaller ratio
of children to adults are needed….[as well as] more talk time…[and] adult
input and direct teaching (p. 41).
Silverman and Hines (2009) state that “when reading storybooks to beginning and nonreaders, teachers should provide children with definitions that are child friendly and
explicit and actively engage children in word analysis. This includes comparing,
contrasting, and connecting word meanings and relating new words to the children’s
background ” (p. 305). Teachers can not settle for reading through a book and not taking
the time to review what was read, what is being learned, and what is not understood. In
addition, the teachers must provide opportunities for the students to reuse those words in
other content activities and increase their exposure to that new vocabulary.
Vocabulary instruction is vital, especially for students who are ELLs. Carlo,
August, McLaughlin, Snow, Dressler, Lippman, et al. (2004) suggest that “teachers
should introduce novel words in the context of engaging texts, design activities such as
Charades [sic] that allow learners to manipulate and analyze word meaning, heighten
attention to words in general with techniques like Word Wizard,…and help children note
how the word meaning varies as a function of context” (p. 203). I have seen teachers find
creative ways to increase vocabulary and make it fun. There is a junior high teacher in the
Glen Rose ISD who has her students create index cards of their vocabulary words. The
cards must also include two synonyms and an illustration of the meaning of the word.
This exercise addresses many learning styles and increases the likelihood of word
meaning retention by a fair degree.
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
13
Conclusion
Implicit and intentional vocabulary instruction is vital for all students. While ES
might be able to get through school with the acquisition of their naturally occurring
vocabulary, ELLs can not do that. Zahar, Cobb, and Spada (2001) assert that ELLs “will
not establish a minimal functional lexicon through the reading they do in school” (p.
559). Regular, concentrated exposure to new words and their meanings is a strategy that
has been shown to help improve ELLs’ vocabulary, and in turn, their comprehension.
Strategies that infer word meaning and help to strengthen a student’s lexicon can be
empowering and enable ELLs, and ES, to “problem-solve” when they encounter new
words. We can not abandon ELLs to their initial vocabulary of high-frequency words.
We must do what we can as teachers to help them to continually increase their
vocabulary to the point that the effort needed to decode words and comprehend texts
lessens and they can succeed even as academic language become harder and more
demanding.
Running Head: STUDY OF VOCABULARY STRATEGIES
14
References
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary
in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44-62.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.44.
Carlo, M., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C., Dressler, C., Lippman, D., Lively, T.,
& White, C. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of
English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading
Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188-215.
Roessingh, H., & Elgie, S. (2009). Early language and literacy development among
young English language learners: Preliminary insights from a longitudinal study.
TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), 24-45.
Schatz, E. K., & Baldwin, R. S. (1986). Context clues are unreliable predictors of word
meanings. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 439-453.
Silverman, R., & Hines, S. (2009). The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the
vocabulary of English-language learners and non-English-language learners in
pre-kindergarten through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology,
101(2), 305-314.
Spycher, P. (2009). Learning academic language through science in two linguistically
diverse kindergarten classes. The Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 359-379.
Zahar, R., Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: effects
of frequency and contextual richness. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4),
541-72.