ANALYSIS OF VOCABULARY PRACTICES IN A TITLE 1 SCHOOL
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Graduate and Professional Studies in Education
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Education
(Language and Literacy)
by
Tawna Turner
SPRING
2014
© 2014
Tawna Turner
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
ANALYSIS OF VOCABULARY PRACTICES IN A TITLE 1 SCHOOL
A Thesis
by
Tawna Turner
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Porfirio Loeza, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Cid Gunston-Parks, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Tawna Turner
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library
and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Albert Lozano, Ph.D.
Graduate and Professional Studies in Education
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
ANALYSIS OF VOCABULARY PRACTICES IN A TITLE 1 SCHOOL
by
Tawna Turner
Statement of Problem
Vocabulary knowledge plays a critical role in reading comprehension and
students’ academic success, but many students start their school careers without
adequate vocabulary knowledge. Schools can play an important role in building
students’ vocabularies, but current primary school instruction is not making a
significant impact on students’ vocabulary growth. The purpose of this study is to
analyze the vocabulary practices in kindergarten through third grade classrooms in a
Title 1 public school to determine the level of systemization and the extent that current
practices align with research.
Sources of Data
Data was gathered through open-ended interviews with a sampling of
kindergarten through third grade teachers. Interviews also included the district coach
assigned to the school and the school principal. Additionally, classroom observations
were conducted following teacher interviews to gain a deeper understanding of
v
specific vocabulary practices. This information was analyzed in conjunction with data
gathered from an extensive review of literature in the field of vocabulary instruction.
Conclusions Reached
Following analysis of the research, the author has concluded that guidance and
direction at the administrative level is critical in establishing effective vocabulary
instruction in the classroom. Vocabulary instruction has not been identified as a high
priority at the school, although teachers and administrators believe vocabulary
knowledge is critical. Without direction from the administrative level, teachers are
doing the best they can. However, they lack training and resources and do not feel they
have enough time in the day. These challenges result in limited vocabulary instruction
that varies between classrooms and is only partially grounded in research.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Porfirio Loeza, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Primary Research Questions............................................................................. 3
Rationale ........................................................................................................... 3
Methodology..................................................................................................... 6
Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 7
Limitations and Delimitations of the Research ................................................ 8
Organization of the Thesis................................................................................ 9
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................... 11
Increasing Vocabulary Knowledge Through Read Alouds ............................ 12
Considerations for Direct and Explicit Instruction ......................................... 17
Incidental Learning of Vocabulary Through Independent Reading ............... 21
Considerations for Word Selection ................................................................ 26
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 31
Research Design ............................................................................................. 31
Sample and Size ............................................................................................. 32
Access and Consents ...................................................................................... 33
Data Collection ............................................................................................... 34
Data Analysis.................................................................................................. 35
vii
4. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ............................................................................... 38
Perceived Importance of Vocabulary Incongruent with Educator
Knowledge ...................................................................................................... 38
Effectiveness of Current Vocabulary Instruction is Unknown by
School Educators ............................................................................................ 43
Challenges to Effective Vocabulary Instruction Stem From Lack of
Administrative Prioritization .......................................................................... 47
Vocabulary Practices Lack Cohesiveness and Systemization ........................ 54
Implications of the Findings Specific to the Research Question .................... 61
5. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS............................................................. 66
Discussion....................................................................................................... 66
Significance .................................................................................................... 68
Implications .................................................................................................... 70
Methodological Issues and Research Limitations .......................................... 72
Areas for Future Research .............................................................................. 74
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 76
Appendix A. Interview Questions for Classroom Teachers ..................................... 78
Appendix B. Interview Questions for District Coach and Principal ........................ 80
References .................................................................................................................. 82
viii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Every year students enter preschool and kindergarten classrooms and begin
their formal education in reading. Teachers provide instruction in a variety of areas
including letter and sound recognition, phonemic awareness, directionality, decoding
and comprehension strategies. Instruction is presented in both whole group and small
group settings with different schools using a variety of curriculums and approaches to
reading instruction. Like many of today’s educators, the majority of this researcher’s
teaching career was spent in urban schools teaching socioeconomically disadvantaged
students—many of whom have limited family support and are learning English as a
second language. Through years of discussing books both in small group and whole
class settings, it has become evident to this researcher that students’ lack of
vocabulary knowledge affects their ability to access and understand text. This
researcher has also noted that low vocabulary knowledge reduces the effectiveness of
reading instruction for beginning readers; even basic letter books or rebus books are
inaccessible to students who do not know the names of the pictures.
Assigned readings and class discussions in graduate courses also highlighted
the importance of vocabulary knowledge and the challenges teachers face in
developing students’ vocabularies. Although children may be in the same class
receiving the same instruction from the same teacher, research has demonstrated a
significant disparity between individual student’s vocabulary knowledge. This might
be expected when English is a second language, but reading ability and socioeconomic
2
status play a large role; sadly, differences in vocabulary knowledge are unlikely to
change once they are established (Beck & McKeown, 2007). Knowing that many so
many students are impacted by these factors and that vocabulary knowledge plays
such a critical role in reading, speaking and writing, this researcher felt there was an
urgent need to learn more about effective instruction and how public schools are
utilizing that knowledge.
As educators work to provide the best reading instruction possible, an
increasing focus on the importance of vocabulary knowledge has caused many
teachers to question if they have the knowledge or resources to provide the necessary
instruction and exposure to vocabulary (Blachowicz, Fisher, Ogle, & Watts-Taffe,
2006). An additional layer of concern is added when teachers are instructing students
with challenges known to impact vocabulary knowledge (low socioeconomic
background, struggling readers, etc.). While there is inherent value in studying
vocabulary instruction, it is not enough. Implementing research-based findings in
actual classrooms is necessary to truly impact teacher instruction and student learning.
This researcher believes there is value in examining current vocabulary practices in K3 classrooms in an operational Title 1 elementary school to determine how vocabulary
instruction is being provided and how purposeful and systematic the implementation
of practices is. Interviews and observations at the school site will provide valuable
insight into the degree and extent that research-based vocabulary practices are
transferred to classrooms.
3
Primary Research Questions
The goal for of this thesis was to answer the following question: How do the
vocabulary practices in a school’s K-3 classrooms align with research on vocabulary
instruction? In order to effectively analyze the practices at the school, the researcher
had to address some secondary questions.
1. How is vocabulary instruction currently being addressed in K-3 classrooms at
the selected school? and
2. What are the research-based components of successful vocabulary instruction?
Rationale
Although the reading process involves many components (decoding, word
recognition, fluency, etc.), ultimately it is about understanding. A research review by
the National Reading Technical Assistance Center (NRTAC, 2010), expanding on the
2000 National Reading Report, stated that students’ ability to understand what they
read has a significant impact on their academic success and plays a critical role in
accessing necessary skills required for 21st century jobs.
Vocabulary knowledge is a significant factor impacting reading
comprehension. Beck and McKeown (2007) stated “A large and rich vocabulary is
strongly related to reading proficiency…. it has long been acknowledged through
correlational and factor‐analytic studies that there is an intimate relation between
vocabulary knowledge and reading competence” (p. 251). A longitudinal study of
students in high poverty schools found that students’ vocabulary skills in the
4
beginning of first grade were significant predictors of later performance in reading
comprehension (Hemphill & Tivnan, 2008).
Research continues, moving beyond correlational data to identify specific
causal links, but it is clear that in order to understand or comprehend text, readers must
understand the words they read. The cumulative number of unknown words a reader
encounters is significant determiner of whether a text is easy or difficult (Stahl, 2003).
This means it is important for readers to have a strong vocabulary base as well as
strategies to help figure out the meaning of new words that come up in reading (Lehr,
Osborn, & Hiebert, 2007). Although a substantial amount of vocabulary can be
learned incidentally from context (Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985), the amount of
reading required is not sufficient for most students. Skilled readers are likely to read
more and their increased volume of words allows them to learn more word meanings.
Less-skilled readers often start with less extensive vocabularies, and because they read
slower, they do not read as many words and gain vocabulary knowledge at a slower
pace. These cycles contribute to increasing the discrepancies in vocabulary
knowledge between students (Stanovich, 1986).
Additional discrepancies in vocabulary knowledge can be linked to students’
socioeconomic backgrounds. This gap in word knowledge starts when children are
toddlers and remains through their school years and even adulthood (Beck, McKeown,
& Kucan, 2013). While there are many factors that contribute to vocabulary
disparities between economically advantaged and disadvantaged learners, Beck and
McKeown (2007) argued that it continues in part because vocabulary instruction has
5
not been a priority in schools. They believe the only way to address the vocabulary
gap evident in students from low- and high-SES backgrounds is to start early and
provide systematic vocabulary instruction.
Because vocabulary is a significant factor in understanding text, schools need a
plan to address vocabulary development and need to train teachers in effective
methods of vocabulary instruction. In their 2001 study, Biemiller & Slonim found
that making an effort to support vocabulary growth in preschool and early primary
years was the simplest means of reducing discrepancies in vocabulary knowledge in
second and third grade. It is not enough for individual teachers to be effective at
vocabulary instruction; schools need a comprehensive, school-wide approach where
an emphasis on vocabulary instruction is consistent throughout all grades (Blachowicz
et al., 2006). This plan is especially critical in the younger grades. According to
Biemiller and Boote (2006), the chances of successfully addressing vocabulary
differences are greatest in preschool and early primary years. Despite the critical need
during this period, the same researchers found current primary school instruction is not
making a significant impact on students’ vocabulary growth.
Given the growing number of students from low-SES backgrounds (up to
23,069,376 students eligible for free and reduced lunch in 2010-2011 school year) and
findings that vocabulary instruction in schools is not meeting student needs, a closer
look into current vocabulary practices is needed (NCES, 2009, 2012). The purpose of
this study is to take an in-depth look at a Title 1 elementary school to determine how
intentional and systematic the vocabulary instruction is for primary grades and the
6
extent that it aligns with research-based effective practices. By gaining a deeper
understanding of how research and practice actually come together in the classroom,
we will be better equipped to address students’ diverse vocabulary needs and can
better prepare them for academic and life success.
Methodology
This study was conducted at an urban Title 1 public elementary school in
Northern California; over 65% of the student population was eligible for free or
reduced lunch and approximately 25% of the student population qualified as English
learners. Data was collected via open-ended interviews and classroom observations.
Teachers interviewed for this study were selected to represent a sample of the school’s
K-3 teaching staff: one teacher from each grade level, representing a range of teaching
experience from 1 to 10 years (10 years was the most experience of any teacher on
staff). All of the K-3 teachers at the site were female, so variation by gender was not
an option. All teachers interviewed were asked a standardized set of questions.
The school principal was also interviewed to provide an administrative
perspective and insight into the school-wide vision for vocabulary practices.
Additionally, the district coach assigned to the school site was interviewed to provide
information on district-related philosophies, goals and requirements related to
vocabulary instruction. The district coach and principal received a modified series of
questions appropriate to their role at the school. All interviews were recorded and
partially transcribed.
7
Classroom observations were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of
vocabulary practices discussed in teacher interviews. The time and length of the
observations varied depending on what was needed to provide the best understanding
of a specific practice. Observation data was captured through anecdotal notes;
additional contact with teachers took place only if clarification was needed following
an observation. Interview transcripts and observation data was analyzed to provide an
overview of the vocabulary practices, perspectives, and challenges within K-3
classrooms.
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this research, the following definitions will be used:
Familiar reading circumstances—text usually encountered in or outside the
classroom in a natural reading setting
Incidental word learning—learning new word meanings through the
conscious or unconscious use of context clues while independently reading or listening
under familiar circumstances
Instructional context—text that is intentionally written to support readers in
figuring out a word’s likely meaning.
Natural context—authentic text a reader encounters naturally that supports
learning new words
Read alouds—an activity where a teacher reads a text aloud to a group of
students usually, in the form of a book
8
Vocabulary instruction—teaching words with the intent to increase student
knowledge of word meanings
Vocabulary knowledge—the meaning of a word as well as how the word fits
in different contexts
Vocabulary practices—the strategies and methods used to provide vocabulary
instruction
Word lists—specific lists of words selected for vocabulary instruction.
Title I school—a school where a minimum of 40% of the students in the
school, or residing in the attendance area served by the school, are from low-income
families.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Research
This study may be limited by the accuracy of the interviews regarding
perspectives and the extent and type of vocabulary instruction currently provided.
Teachers and administrators may have responded based on how they thought they
should answer rather than how they really felt or what they really did in their
classrooms. To address this concern, the purpose of the research was clearly presented
to each individual when they were asked to participate. Also, participants were
guaranteed that no names would be affiliated with any of the information presented in
the findings. This study represents data from one school, so generalizations are
limited by the small sample size.
One delimitation of this study is that it only represents data from one public
elementary school within a school district. The curriculum flexibility within the
9
district as well as mandated instructional guidelines may prevent the results from
being generalized to a larger student population in other schools. Also, the study took
place just prior to the mandated change to California Common Core Standards
effective for the 2014-2015 school year. The implications and effects of implementing
these new standards is unknown and changing conditions within schools may affect
recommendations for future vocabulary practices. Lastly, despite the best efforts of
the researcher, qualitative research involves an element of interpretation and there is a
possibility of misinterpreting data.
Organization of the Thesis
Chapter 1 provided a rationale for the study, an overview of relevant research,
the research questions, and the methodology. The thesis was developed to examine
vocabulary practices in K-3 classrooms in an operating public school and to determine
how research on effective vocabulary instruction is being implemented within those
classrooms. Chapter 1 also identified and defined terms used specifically in the paper
and discussed potential limitations and delimitations of the research.
Chapter 2, the review of current and relevant literature, outlines specific areas
of focus by examining the research of leading experts in the field of reading and
vocabulary instruction. This research provides the basis for the analysis of the
school’s vocabulary practices. Chapter 3 contains a detailed methodology for the
selection of interview subjects, access and permission, how the research was
conducted, and how the data was analyzed. Chapter 4 discusses the research findings
in depth and Chapter 5 discusses the significance of the findings, the implications to
10
the field of education, and recommendations for further research. Chapter 5 also
reviews methodological issues and research limitations.
11
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In order to examine how vocabulary research is impacting classroom
instruction, it is first necessary to review the research. The purpose of this literature
review is to examine research that has been conducted in the area of vocabulary
instruction—specifically focusing on grades K-3. Vocabulary instruction is a
comprehensive field; this review focuses specifically on increasing vocabulary
knowledge through read alouds, considerations for direct and explicit instruction,
incidental learning of vocabulary through independent reading, and considerations for
word selection. Information on these topics came from a variety of sources including
peer-reviewed studies, articles, books, and research handbooks. Primary sources were
used whenever possible; however, secondary sources were used if the original was not
available.
A literature review of vocabulary research by the National Reading Technical
Assistance Center found that, “although there is strong evidence supporting explicit
instruction of vocabulary, a question remains regarding which aspect or model of
instruction is best” (NRTAC, 2010). Although different researchers and experts focus
on specific methods of vocabulary instruction, many agree that one way is not
sufficient and that students need the opportunity to interact with words on a variety of
levels (Silverman, 2007). This review examines several ways to do this and offers
guidance on how educators can provide meaningful vocabulary interactions.
12
Increasing Vocabulary Knowledge Through Read Alouds
Instructional practices and activities vary significantly across grade levels,
school districts, and states. However, the practice of teachers reading to students is
common in many elementary classrooms. This activity, often referred to as a read
aloud is especially popular in primary grades and serves many purposes such as
helping students develop an understanding of story features and text organization,
encouraging a love of reading, allowing teachers to model concepts of print, and
introducing students to a variety of sentence structures. Another benefit of read alouds
is that students are exposed to new or unfamiliar vocabulary words. In fact, according
to Stahl & Stahl (2004), books are the place to find words, and “storybook reading is
the most powerful source of new vocabulary, including those academic words that are
valued in school discourse” (p. 67).
One of the reasons children’s books are recognized as a valuable resource for
vocabulary instruction is the complexity of the language compared to other sources
children are exposed to. Hayes & Ahrens (as cited in Graves, 2009) studied
vocabulary exposure from a variety of sources and examined the number of rare words
found in printed texts, television texts and adult speech. They found that children’s
books ranked higher than children or adult television shows and even above typical
conversation between two adults with college educations. Their findings certainly do
not negate the importance of parents and teachers speaking to children, but they do
establish that reading children’s books aloud is a critical means of introducing children
to new vocabulary.
13
Read alouds provide students with access to text they may not be able to
decode independently and provide an opportunity for teachers to discuss new or
unfamiliar vocabulary in context. Biemiller and Boote (2006) refer to most children in
the primary grades as preliterate, a period when students understand oral language
better than they understand language in print. Most K-2 students are only able to
independently read books with simple text, so they are more likely to encounter new
words in books that are read to them— relying on others for exposure to rich
vocabulary. Although students may not be able to read the words themselves, learning
word meanings through read alouds provides a foundation for when they encounter the
words later in independent reading.
Although some words may be learned from context alone (without any verbal
explanation), providing a direct explanation for selected vocabulary words increases
the likelihood that students will learn word meanings. When teachers stop to give
direct explanations of word meanings, they not only provide specific knowledge of the
word meanings, they also draw attention to new words. When young children are
listening to an oral reading of a story they have a hard time sufficiently isolating a
specific unknown word to ask what it means or to actively attempt to figure out the
meaning on their own (Biemiller & Boote, 2006).
In some cases, children can figure out meanings of unknown words from just
listening to books, but often it takes more than merely reading a book to a group of
students to maximize vocabulary learning. Specific techniques during this time make a
significant impact on student learning and retention of vocabulary words. Factors to be
14
considered in using read alouds as tools for vocabulary learning are as follows:
providing word explanations, the value of repeated readings, post-reading review of
selected words, and additional interaction with words.
In a review of previous studies on the effectiveness of read alouds in teaching
new word meanings, Biemiller and Boote (2006) found that a single reading when the
teacher provided word meaning explanations was more effective than repeated
readings with no word meaning explanations (9% vs 15% average gain). Repeated
readings with word meaning explanations were the most effective with around a 26%
gain in vocabulary knowledge.
Sometimes teachers identify vocabulary words from a selected book and
introduce the words before reading the story so the students will be more aware of the
new vocabulary words when they hear them in context. However, Beck et al. (2013)
recommended that with young children (referring to kindergarten through early second
grade) vocabulary words should not be introduced ahead of time and any vocabulary
activities should take place after the book is read. Their reasoning was that students
have a better chance of initially learning new vocabulary words when they hear them
in the rich context of a story.
Whether word meanings should be taught during the reading or after the
reading is up for debate since studies have shown vocabulary growth with both
methods. Beck and McKeown’s 2007 study provided vocabulary instruction after the
book was read and found that students who received instruction on word meanings
showed significantly more word learning than students who received no instruction.
15
Their rationale for teaching words after the read aloud was twofold. First, they felt
students were able to build initial understanding from hearing the words in context.
Second, they felt that providing vocabulary instruction after reading allowed for
deeper discussions without interfering with the meaning of the story. According to
these authors, when read alouds are used specifically for vocabulary instruction,
student comprehension of the book is secondary to the goal of increasing general
vocabulary knowledge. With that mindset, a brief explanation of a word was only
provided during the reading if it was deemed necessary for general understanding
(Beck & McKeown, 2007).
Biemiller and Boote (2006) agreed that teachers should consider students’
listening experiences when deciding how to provide vocabulary instruction through
read alouds. Prior to conducting their official studies, these authors did a pretest and
found that many students did not like it when the teacher repeatedly interrupted the
story to define words. The researchers concluded that this approach might have a
negative effect on the learning experience. To address this concern, they had the
teachers in their studies read the book straight through on the initial reading.
Biemiller and Boote (2006) conducted two studies using narrative read alouds
in K-2 classrooms. Both studies used pre and post-tests to establish vocabulary
growth and the second study used a delayed post-test to measure word knowledge
retention. Their research supported previous findings that students make more
vocabulary gains when word meanings are taught during read alouds than by just
hearing repeated readings of the same books. Their findings indicated that repeated
16
readings (four vs two) are beneficial in increasing vocabulary knowledge for
kindergarten and first grade students, but not for second graders. They also found it
was more effective for teachers to provide all the definitions (rather than asking for
and confirming student definitions) (Biemiller & Boote, 2006).
Beck et al. (2013) also cautioned against asking students to provide the initial
definitions of target words. They argued that the teacher has chosen the word with the
assumption that most students do not know it, and listening to multiple incorrect
guesses wastes valuable time and has the potential to inadvertently reinforce the
wrong meaning. Beck et al. (2013) provided additional guidance on the type of
definition. They recommended student-friendly definitions (not from a dictionary),
giving the following criteria for a definition “(1) Capture the essence of the word and
how it is typically used and (2) explain the meaning in everyday language” (p. 45).
Biemiller and Boote’s (2006) study found that reviewing the selected
vocabulary words led to significant gains, indicating that after introducing new words
during the story, teachers should go back and read the sentences containing the words
and repeat their explanations. On the final day teachers should review all the targeted
words in the book using in different context sentences and provide students with the
opportunity to provide definitions and get clarification as needed. This approach was
effective for short-term vocabulary gains and students seem to retain this knowledge
or even increase their knowledge weeks later.
Biemiller and Boote (2006) suggested that if teachers used these practices, they
could increase student vocabulary knowledge by 400 words a year. One challenge
17
with these recommendations, however, is the time. While vocabulary knowledge is
important, classroom teachers have a wide range of standards to teach in addition to
district-mandated guidelines, assessments, etc. that may limit time dedicated to read
alouds. The read aloud activities recommended for maximum effectiveness would
require teaching approximately 25 word meanings a week over the course of five days.
Each read-aloud block would entail at least a half-hour, be dedicated to a single book
and focus specifically on vocabulary instruction. Many teachers may not feel they
have the time to commit to this each day.
Considerations for Direct and Explicit Instruction
To some extent, vocabulary instruction within the context of read alouds is a
form of direct instruction, as students are explicitly provided with a definition of each
target word. However, there is evidence that students can achieve increased
vocabulary growth and possibly a deeper understanding of word meanings when they
have additional opportunities (other than hearing word explanations during read-aloud
time) to interact with words (Coyne, McCoach, Loftus, Zipoli, & Kapp, 2009;
Silverman & Crandell, 2010). For this reason, additional methods of instruction are
included in this review. Each of the methods in the Silverman study (2007) was
implemented in conjunction with a read aloud where the teacher provided explanations
of the target words during the reading.
Acting Out and Illustrating Words
A study by Silverman and Crandell (2010) found that students with low
vocabulary knowledge could benefit from using different sensory activities to interact
18
with target words. These researchers found a positive correlation when teachers
provided a visual representation of the word and had the students participate in a
kinesthetic movement associated with the word. Silverman and Crandell’s hypothesis
was that having verbal and nonverbal interactions increased student engagement. This
approach was more powerful when new words were discussed in the context of the
story; kinesthetic interactions later in the day or week did not seem to have a positive
impact. The time and planning necessary to do this during a whole class read aloud,
however, may not be worth it, because the benefits of acting out and illustrating
words was not as significant for students with more developed vocabulary knowledge
(Silverman & Crandell, 2010). If the majority of a class does not have low vocabulary
knowledge, schools should consider this approach for targeted small group vocabulary
instruction.
Using Categorization and Word Association
Another approach to helping students develop a better understanding of
vocabulary is to provide opportunities for students to categorize conceptual
vocabulary. This approach is recommended even in the very young grades (Stahl &
Stahl, 2012). These researchers suggested four parts to a semantic mapping lesson but
cautioned that semantic mapping should be taught in conjunction with a book or
specific content standard so students have something to connect to. Because the goal
is for students to make connections between different words and understand how they
relate to each other, this strategy would be most beneficial for richer vocabulary words
19
with multiple associations (i.e. ‘community’ might work well for this strategy whereas
‘locate’ might not).
Stahl & Stahl’s (2012) four parts include the following: Brainstorming (With
teacher guidance, students brainstorm words they know related to the selected topic.);
Mapping (The teacher works with the class to identify three or four categories that
might encompass the generated word list. The categories and associated words are
mapped on the board.); Reading (Students read or listen to a book on the topic.);
Completing the map (The class revisits the map to make changes or additions based on
the reading).
Beck et al. (2013) also recommended providing students with the opportunity
to make connections or associations between target vocabulary words and words they
already know. In Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction they suggest
that after providing a class with student-friendly definitions of the target words,
teachers should ask a series of questions using this basic format: “Which word goes
with…..” and ask the students to select one of the new words. The guideline for
teachers selecting words for association is that there is a relationship between the two
terms—synonyms will not work because the words are too similar. It is also important
for teachers to ask students to provide the reasoning behind their choice—explaining
their thinking and why they made the association makes for richer learning (Beck et
al., 2013).
20
Applying Words in New Contexts
Although introducing new vocabulary within the context of a book is a
recommended method for vocabulary instruction, students may also benefit from
interacting with the words in new contexts as well. The new contexts could be
provided by the teacher as was the case in the study by Silverman and Crandell
(2010). Their research found that student vocabulary growth was greater when
teachers spent more time using the words in contexts outside of the story. Although
additional time seemed to have positive results, teachers should consider the
vocabulary knowledge of their students when considering this approach. The same
study found that students with higher initial vocabulary knowledge benefited more
from this strategy than students with lower vocabulary knowledge. It is possible that
providing many different contexts for a new word might be confusing for those
students (2010).
Another way for students to interact with target words in new contexts
involves students playing a more participatory role. Stahl (2005) suggested several
ways to do this in a classroom setting. One way was to have the students become the
teachers and create their own sentences using the words in different contexts.
According to Stahl this is only effective if the words are used in meaningful context,
not as filler words (2005). For example, the sentence ‘My mom was indignant,’ does
not give any indication of what indignant might mean. ‘When my mom found out dad
forgot her birthday, she was very indignant’ is much more informative. In order to
ensure students create meaningful sentences, Stahl suggested having the class vote on
21
how well the sentence conveyed the meaning of the word. A related activity would be
having students work in groups to create stories using several of the vocabulary words
(Stahl, 2005).
Phonological Representations
While most of the methods suggested for vocabulary instruction involve
students hearing and speaking new vocabulary words, emergent and beginning readers
may benefit from seeing new vocabulary words in writing and focusing on the
phonological elements. Biemiller and Boote’s 2006 study of K-2 students found that
first graders made the largest gains in the study and the only instructional difference
was that the first grade students read the new vocabulary daily from a chart. While
this is not conclusive evidence, the researchers did recommend that reading
vocabulary words might be helpful for some students. The results of Silverman’s
2007 research also supported introducing a phonological element to vocabulary
instruction. In this study, the researcher found that anchoring the instruction to
letter/sound relationships and spelling features was effective for kindergarten or
beginning readers.
Incidental Learning of Vocabulary Through Independent Reading
As previously discussed, targeted vocabulary instruction is increasingly
recognized (and recommended) as a viable method of building students’ language.
However, it is not the only way children learn new words. Due to the vast number of
words students will need to know in order to be successful in school, educators have
22
also directed their focus to another method of vocabulary acquisition: incidental
learning from independent reading.
Obtaining viable research on incidental word learning can be difficult due to
challenges with methodology. If the goal is to ascertain what students could learn in a
natural setting, the act of pretesting targeted vocabulary words may alter the
experience (alerting students to the words they will be assessed on). Additionally, if
studies use unnaturally informative text selected specifically for context, the results
will not accurately reflect the type of text students would typically encounter in their
natural reading environment.
A study of eighth grade students by Nagy et al. (1985) attempted to mitigate
these challenges and provided insight into how much vocabulary growth could
actually be attributed to incidental learning through independent reading. The results
of their study show students can use context in natural text to learn new words—
sometimes after only one exposure to a new or unfamiliar word. However, the
vocabulary growth is small, and significant benefits occur only when (a) students read
substantial amounts of text, and (b) the text they read contains an appropriate ratio of
known to unknown words.
The necessity of substantial reading is due to the low probability of learning
unknown words from context. On average, students will learn the meanings of
approximately 15 of every 100 unknown words they encounter in natural reading
(Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999). This estimated ratio came from a meta-analysis of
20 incidental word learning experiments performed by these researchers. It is difficult
23
to extrapolate how many new words meanings could result because word knowledge
differs drastically for every individual. However, it is clear that when students read
more they increase their odds of encountering unknown words and consequently, the
likelihood of learning the meanings of those words.
Swanborn and de Glopper (1999) found when students encounter too many
unknown words it lowers the chance they will be able to learn meaning from context.
Specifically the researchers found that, “if the density of unknown words in a text is
low, for example 1 word on every 150 words, the probability of learning a word will
be about .30, 1 unknown word on every 75 will yield .14, 1 unknown word on every
ten words gives .07” (p. 275). Again, because vocabulary knowledge varies
significantly from each student, it is difficult for teachers to provide students with
books containing optimal ratios of known to unknown words. These findings indicate
that students with lower vocabularies will not see substantial benefits in vocabulary
growth from reading books significantly above their reading level.
The power of incidental learning from context is that it provides an alternative
means of increasing student vocabulary growth outside of direct instruction, which
requires class time, resources and teacher preparation. Vocabulary growth from
independent reading has the potential to occur at any time and in any place where
students are reading. Given the vast number of words students must learn and the
limited amount of time available for vocabulary instruction in the average school day,
this benefit could be significant. In comparing incidental learning to direct instruction,
24
Nagy et al. (1985) acknowledged that direct instruction is more efficient, but that “the
strength of learning from context lies in its long-term, cumulative effects” (p. 252).
The two requirements (substantial reading and an appropriate ratio of known to
unknown words) might be met easily by average or above average readers who enjoy
reading and have wide access to appropriate text. For struggling readers, however, it
is more of a challenge. Struggling readers typically read less, are more likely to read
books with simple, familiar words and are focused primarily on decoding text. These
factors limit the effectiveness of wide reading approach for those students. Wide
reading is also difficult for students whose access to books is limited by
socioeconomic or situational challenges (limited books available in the home, no
access to a library, etc.).
In the second edition of Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary
Instruction, Beck et al. (2013) specifically cautioned against teachers relying on wide
reading for vocabulary instruction. They argued that because of the disadvantage to
struggling readers, this approach has the potential to broaden the gap between
individual student’s vocabulary knowledge. According to Beck et al., struggling
readers have a harder time knowing when they do not understand what a word means
and are also not as skilled at using context to accurately determine meanings for
unfamiliar words. For these reasons, teachers who rely heavily on wide reading for
student vocabulary gains may not be addressing the vocabulary deficits of students
with the greatest need (2013).
25
Knowing that students have the potential to increase their vocabulary
knowledge through independent reading, educators should encourage students to read
extensively (Pressley, 2001). Additionally, Swanborn and de Glopper’s meta-analysis
(1999) showed evidence that students can improve their incidental word learning
skills. Their analysis indicated that fourth grade students could begin to derive and
retain word meanings from context and that 11th graders were four times as likely as
4th graders to learn a word from context. If students can get better at learning from
context, they would likely benefit from instruction in this area. In fact, Nagy and
Anderson argued that any approach to vocabulary instruction should provide some
ways to lessons to improve children’s ability to learn new words on their own (1984).
Instruction in morphemic analysis (the study of affixes and roots) is one way teachers
can help students increase their independent word-learning skills. Although this is a
rich and comprehensive area of research, most of the studies surrounding this area of
instruction have been conducted in the middle grades (Mountain, 2005). Because the
focus for this paper is K-3, morphemic analysis is not included in this review of
literature, although Mountain suggested the methods used for older students could be
effectively adapted to primary grades. Additional support for teaching young students
word learning strategies comes from The California Department of Education
Common Core standards, which included word analysis as a language standard
starting in kindergarten: K.L.4: “Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and
multiple-meaning words and phrases based on kindergarten reading and content”
(California Department of Education, 2013). The standard is explained in more detail
26
in K.L.4b: “Use the most frequently occurring inflections and affixes (e.g., -ed, -s, re-,
un-, pre-, -ful, -less) as a clue to the meaning of an unknown word.” Further
exploration and study of morphemic analysis in primary grades is recommended as
more research becomes available.
Considerations for Word Selection
If educators choose direct instruction as a means of increasing student
vocabulary, they must decide which approach will be most beneficial; a similar
decision must occur when selecting which words to teach. A study by Nagy and
Anderson (1984) estimated that printed English text in schools contained
approximately 88,533 word families. This large number of words students are likely
to encounter is daunting given that students only learn an average of 2,500 root word
meanings during the primary grades (Biemiller & Boote, 2006). Due to limited hours
in a school day (with numerous district and state mandated standards to cover within
that time) and wide variability in individual student’s vocabulary, it is crucial for
educators to be purposeful in their selection of words for instruction.
The basic tenets of word selection are fairly straightforward: identify and teach
words that students do not know and will need to know in order to understand reading
material encountered during the school year. Identifying what those words are,
however, is more challenging and researchers differ on the best approach—with two
general philosophies emerging. One philosophy favors individual teachers looking at
upcoming reading material and using their best judgment combined with a set of
general guidelines to select the most appropriate words for instruction (Beck et al.,
27
2013). The other approach is to choose from a list of words that have been compiled
by different methods sources such as frequency of word occurrence (Graves, 2009) or
the general developmental sequence of word learning (Biemiller, 2005).
Beck et al. (2013) advocated for teachers using their best judgment and
knowledge of student needs to select the vocabulary words they will use for
instruction. Specifically, the authors recommend selecting Tier Two words from text
the students will be reading as part of the class. This tiered word system is a general
approach for organizing words into three categories. According to Beck et al., Tier
One words are words that are commonly found in oral language and thus not a priority
for instruction. Tier Two includes words that are found primarily in written language
and likely to be found across many disciplines. Tier Three includes words that are
associated primarily with a specific field of study (i.e. Cretaceous) or that are
extremely rare.
Beck et al. (2013) set out additional criteria to help teachers correctly select
Tier Two words for instruction. Teachers should consider words in terms of how they
relate to students’ existing conceptual understandings—selecting words that relate to
concepts students already have a general understanding of, but that involve a more
specific or precise application. When students can relate new vocabulary to existing
knowledge they are better able to build connections between words. Instructional
potential was another criteria guiding Tier Two selection; teachers should select words
that have nuanced meanings which vary depending on the context they are used in.
By choosing words with several shades of meaning, teachers provide students with the
28
opportunity to interact with the words in a variety of contexts and to apply that
knowledge in reading. Two other considerations for teachers: (a) don’t chose a word
if you can’t explain what it means in words the students understand, and (b) use your
knowledge of your students to choose words that they will find interesting and be able
to relate to their lives (Beck et al., 2013).
Words lists are another possibility for teachers to use in selecting vocabulary
words for instruction. Graves (2009) suggested a list titled The First 4,000 Words,
which he compiled in conjunction with two colleagues. Essentially the list is the 4,000
most frequent word families listed in the order of frequency. Graves and his
colleagues have used that list as the basis of a web-based vocabulary program
available for purchase, but if educators are interested in using the list as resource for
vocabulary instruction, it is available to the public via the product website. The list is
available in two formats; the first is simply the list of the 4,000 most frequent word
families (referred to as the 4KW Source List). The second format is the same list, but
sequenced by frequency within the following categories: target words, function words,
proper nouns and the 100 most frequent words
(http://www.sewardreadingresources.com/fourkw.html).
Biemiller (2012) suggested another option for teachers who want to use a word
list to guide vocabulary instruction. He has compiled a list of “words worth teaching:”
1,600 high priority words for grades K-2 and 2,900 high priority words for grades 3-6.
His method of selecting words was based not on frequency like Graves, but on the
belief that children learn word meanings in a general sequence and would benefit from
29
being taught words based on that sequence. Three thousand root word meanings were
tested on a sample group of students at the end of second grade; words were
considered high priority if they were known by 40%-79% of students. Biemiller also
used a rating system for another 3,000 word meanings and the results of both methods
were combined to arrive at the 1,600 words. A similar approach was used for the
upper elementary list. The actual lists can be found in his book, the Words Worth
Teaching (2009).
There are benefits and challenges with either approach to words selection.
Teachers selecting Tier Two words from class reading selections utilizes the teacher’s
knowledge of their students interests, existing conceptual understandings and allows
words to be introduced in natural context. However, when words are chosen in this
fashion some key words might be missed either because they were not in the texts or
the teacher didn’t identify them as important. Also, it would be difficult to know
which words students in a particular grade level have been introduced to, since the
words were selected by individual teachers with different student needs and varying
levels of expertise in correctly identifying Tier Two Words.
Using words lists to guide instruction is more systematic and makes it easier to
track which words students have been taught. However, because vocabulary
knowledge varies significantly between individuals, a generic word list may not
provide the most relevant words for a specific group of students or for the words they
will encounter in class reading material. Another caution with this approach is in the
strength of the word list. Graves list of 4,000 words is based on frequency, but Nagy
30
and Anderson (1984) cautions against depending to heavily on frequency studies
because they are generated from large samples of text, but may not accurately reflect
targeted reading in specific content areas.
31
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze educator perspectives and
practices related to vocabulary at a Title 1 elementary school to determine how
intentional and systematic the vocabulary instruction is. Specifically this study
focuses on grades K-3 and examines the extent that the school’s vocabulary practices
align with research findings on effective vocabulary practices. In an effort to address
the primary research question, a detailed review of literature related to effective
vocabulary instruction was conducted and presented in Chapter 2. The purpose of
Chapter 3 is to provide detailed information regarding the methodology used for this
study. By gaining a deeper understanding of how research and practice come together
in the classroom, schools, credential programs and other related stakeholders in
education will be better equipped to better prepare students for success in school as
well as life.
Research Design
This research study was qualitative in nature. Data was collected via openended interviews from selected staff members and from observations conducted in
selected classrooms. The data was collected in an effort to gain insight into the
current vocabulary practices in K-3 classrooms at the school site as well as the
educator’s perspectives, attitudes and perceived challenges regarding vocabulary
instruction.
32
Sample and Size
This study was conducted at an urban Title 1 public elementary school in
Northern California. The school serves approximately 416 students with 56% of the
student population eligible for free or reduced lunch and 25% of the student
population qualifying as English learners (School Principal, personal communication,
March 26, 2014). This study was specifically focused on vocabulary practices on
grades K-3 so teachers interviewed for this study were selected to represent a sample
of the school’s K-3 teaching staff. One teacher was chosen from each grade level (K3). At the time the data was collected, the site had three kindergarten classes, three
first grade classes, three second grade classes and four third grade classes. The
teachers selected for interviews and observations represented a range of teaching
experience from 1 to 10 years (10 years was the most experience of any teacher on
staff). The kindergarten teacher was in her 10th year, the first grade teacher was in her
4th year, the second grade teacher was in her 6th year and the third grade teacher was in
her 1st year. All of the K-3 teachers at the site were female, so variation by gender
was not an option. In addition to interviews, classroom observations were also
conducted in one class at each grade level K-3. Observations were conducted on
specific vocabulary practices mentioned in teacher interviews and were only
conducted in the classrooms those teachers.
The sample also included an interview with the school principal to provide an
administrative perspective and insight into the school-wide vision for vocabulary
practices. Additionally, the district coach assigned to the school site was interviewed
33
to provide information on district-related philosophies, goals and supports related to
vocabulary instruction. He also provided insight into K-3 vocabulary practices at the
site through his capacity an induction coach for several teachers on the 2-3 team and
his interaction with teachers as the site coach. His specific focus was math, but he was
the only district coach assigned to the school site and the primary means of district
support. The district coach and principal received a modified series of questions
appropriate to their role at the school. The sampling procedure for this study resulted
in an interview sample that included four classroom teachers and two educators with
an administrative role at the school; four observations were also conducted of each of
the four teachers interviewed.
Access and Consents
Permission to conduct the study was initially obtained from the school
principal. She gave her consent but requested a brief written description of the study,
which was submitted to the superintendent over the school. The superintendent
granted permission for both the interviews and classroom observations. After
obtaining permission from school administration, the researcher contacted the
educators selected for interviewing via email and asked if they would be willing to
participate in a study on K-3 vocabulary practices at the school site. The email gave a
brief overview of the purpose of the interview, the estimated length of time required
(30 minutes) and how the data would be used. Once the educators agreed to
participate, they were asked to provide some dates and times they were available. All
34
interviews were conducted at the school site in a space where only the researcher and
interviewee were present.
Research subjects received the interview questions via email and were given
the option of reviewing them prior to the interview. Each educator received and
signed an informed consent form before the interview began. The consent form
explained the purpose of the study, a brief description of what participation would
entail and the measures of confidentiality. Teacher consent forms detailed that they
would allow the researcher to perform 1-2 classroom observations of specific
vocabulary practices. Prior to the interview, participants were asked if they objected
to the interview being audio recorded; all participants agreed to be recorded.
Interviews and observations were conducted by this researcher. Interviews were
conducted after school and lasted between 25 and 35 minutes.
Data Collection
Data was collected via open-ended, one-on-one interviews and observations of
classroom vocabulary practices. Prior to each interview, participants were informed
that the researcher was only interested their existing knowledge and experience; there
were no ‘right answers.’ All teachers interviewed were asked a standardized set of
questions. The questions used during the interview were generated after reviewing
research and literature related to vocabulary instruction. The last question in each
interview was formulated to give participants the option of sharing anything not
covered in the previous questions. Follow up questions were asked to gain
clarification on participant responses or gain further information. All interviews were
35
digitally recorded with an audio recorder and partially transcribed. Additionally the
researcher printed out the interview questions and took notes during the interview.
Interview questions are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B.
Once all the interviews were completed, classroom observations of specific
vocabulary practices were scheduled with each teacher. These observations were
conducted to gain a deeper understanding of vocabulary practices discussed in teacher
interviews. In an attempt to gather accurate data, teachers were verbally informed the
purpose of observations was to gain additional insight into the vocabulary practices in
their classrooms—the researcher was interested in what a vocabulary practice
typically looked like. The time and length of the each observation varied from 10-30
minutes depending on what was needed to provide the best understanding of a specific
practice. Observation data was captured through anecdotal notes; additional contact
with teachers took place only if clarification was needed following an observation.
One observation was conducted in each classroom with a total of four observations.
Three different vocabulary practices were observed. Interviews and observations were
conducted within a 10-week period.
Data Analysis
Interview recordings and notes from interviews and observations were
examined to provide a comprehensive look at the vocabulary practices, educator
perspectives, and challenges within K-3 classrooms at the school site. Specifically
research findings were analyzed to answer the secondary research question: How is
vocabulary instruction currently being addressed in K-3 classrooms at the school site?
36
Interview and observation notes were reviewed to identify the type and frequency of
vocabulary practices in K-3 classes at the school as well as educator attitudes and level
of knowledge and familiarity with effective practices.
Because information regarding vocabulary practices was critical to answering
primary and secondary research questions, interview notes for specific vocabulary
practices were coded. Four vocabulary practices were selected based information
gathered through the review of literature and recurring references in multiple
interviews. Four specific practices were identified: vocabulary instruction through
read alouds, teaching strategies to help students figure out word meanings
independently, explicit vocabulary instruction, and vocabulary instruction through
guided reading. Each of these topics was assigned a different color and the researcher
went through interview notes and highlighted any reference to topic in the
corresponding color. Coded sections of teacher responses were then analyzed in
relation to the review of literature and results were discussed in Chapter 4 of this
paper. Although teachers were asked specifically about many of these practices in the
interview, relevant information also came up as the result of other questions and was
included in coding.
This researcher reviewed the notes and recordings to qualitatively identify
common themes among all participants as well as within teacher and administrator
subgroups. The main areas identified in the review of literature were specifically
focused on in analysis and were used to answer the primary research question: How do
the school’s current vocabulary practices align with research on vocabulary
37
instruction? Information was gathered from a variety of sources: teachers (from
multiple grade levels and with varying years of experience), the school administrator,
district coach and classroom observations. The variety of data sources allowed for
triangulation and provided an overview of K-3 vocabulary practices at the school.
38
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Chapter 3 provided the methodology used to conduct the study. Chapter 4 will
report the results of the research comprising both educator interviews and teacher
observations. Interviews with school personnel provided valuable information
regarding educator attitudes and knowledge related to vocabulary and vocabulary
instruction. Interviews also supplied information on how the school and district were
structured with regard to goals, support, and classroom expectations. It became
increasingly apparent from these conversations and subsequent observations that
vocabulary instruction in schools is a complex topic. Spending time with educators
who are doing this work on a daily basis provided a valuable perspective regarding
many of the issues and challenges that affect vocabulary instruction in the classroom.
A comprehensive review and examination of the data resulted in the
identification of four key assertions that are set forth in this chapter. For each
assertion, this researcher used interview responses and data collected from observing
teachers to provide a detailed explanation and supporting evidence. An analysis of
each assertion is also provided by this researcher. The findings and analysis reported
in this chapter seek to address the primary research question: How do the vocabulary
practices in a school’s K-3 classrooms align with research on vocabulary instruction?
Perceived Importance of Vocabulary Incongruent with Educator Knowledge
Vocabulary instruction at this school is mitigated by teachers' lack of
knowledge and training, though educators feel vocabulary plays an important role in
39
students’ lives. When asked to share their thoughts on vocabulary and vocabulary
instruction, teachers and administrators clearly stated their belief in its importance.
They spoke of its significance as it relates to reading and other content areas within the
academic setting as well as its potential to influence other spheres of life. However,
despite a collective belief in the importance of vocabulary and vocabulary instruction,
educators characterized their own knowledge of effective vocabulary practices as little
to none.
Educators with an administrative role spoke about the role of vocabulary from
a theoretical perspective, while teachers spoke of vocabulary in terms of its day-to-day
impact on their students. The district coach saw vocabulary as a social justice issue,
with schooling being a critical means of opening doors for underserved populations
and allowing students access to the language of power. The school principal saw
vocabulary as an issue of equity. She said that multiple and varied life experiences
provide an opportunity to develop and expand vocabulary, and students living in
poverty do not have access to the same experiences as students from higher
socioeconomic levels. In her opinion, this inequity starts before students come to
school and lack of vocabulary development limits students’ access to education. She
also said that school should play a big part in building kids’ vocabulary and that
vocabulary needs to be a priority in schools.
Teachers spoke of vocabulary more specifically, in terms of how vocabulary
knowledge affected their students in the classroom and in their students’ daily lives.
The first grade teacher said she felt like many things go over her students’ heads
40
because students are unfamiliar with certain words or are confused by context-specific
word meanings. First, second and third grade teachers all discussed the importance of
vocabulary knowledge in terms of reading. When first grade students are reading read
on grade-level they have moved beyond simple, repetitive text and are becoming
independent readers. The first grade teacher said at that point vocabulary plays a huge
role in text comprehension, and she believes students lose a big part of the overall
meaning of text when they do not understand individual word meanings. The second
grade teacher shared a similar belief, positing that what students do or do not know in
terms of vocabulary impacts comprehension; in her opinion, limited vocabulary also
affects students’ ability to decode new words and their overall reading. The third
grade teacher said she believed lack of vocabulary knowledge also affects students’
desire to read for pleasure.
Vocabulary knowledge influences areas outside of reading as well according to
the third grade teacher; she noticed a challenge when teaching new material (teachers
at this school use the California State Content Standards as the basis for instruction).
She stated that students who have not been exposed to very many words often struggle
to understand new standards-based material because they do not understand the
vocabulary in the units. She said an additional challenge arises when it is time for
assessments. Many of the third grade assessments at the school mirror the format of
the state tests (California Standards Tests), requiring students to read passages and
then correctly answer multiple-choice questions. The third grade teacher believes
many of her students understand the standard (class activities, discussions and
41
formative assessments during a unit provide information on student understanding) but
are unable to demonstrate their knowledge on the assessment; students cannot access
the text due to vocabulary limitations. In these cases, she said the students, “almost
don’t stand a chance.”
The teacher who saw the least impact in the classroom was at the kindergarten
level. She said that although she felt the role of vocabulary was “very, very
important” and many of her students’ knowledge was extremely low, she felt it
impacted students less when they were young. Kindergarten is a foundation for
academic education and in her opinion, vocabulary will become more important as
students get older and the curriculum becomes more difficult.
Despite strong beliefs in the importance of vocabulary and vocabulary
instruction, educators at this school site (from administrators to classroom teachers)
felt they lacked knowledge and training on effective vocabulary practices. This lack
of knowledge was present at the administrative level with the principal characterizing
her own level of knowledge regarding effective vocabulary practices as a 1 (on scale
of 1-10 with 10 being phenomenal). In her words, “It’s just not something I thought
about, even as a classroom teacher.” The district coach who had also served recently
as an elementary principal said he felt like he was “pretty solid” when he taught 4th6th grade in a dual immersion program, but said he is “definitely not an expert in
coaching vocabulary strategies, especially in kindergarten and first grade.”
The teaching staff also expressed an overall lack of expertise in the area of
effective vocabulary practices. The kindergarten teacher characterized her knowledge
42
as “a work in progress” stating that she felt more confident early in her career teaching
fourth graders, but since she has been teaching kindergarten and first grade the past
five years at this school she is not as well-versed. When the first grade teacher was
asked to characterize her knowledge of effective practices she was very candid. “I
have none, probably I got that in school, but that was a long times ago.” She said, “I
really feel like I know nothing about vocabulary instruction to be honest.” The second
grade teacher also referenced instruction from previous schooling saying she learned a
little about vocabulary practices in her teacher credential program, but it was “just part
of the curriculum.” She said the main way she taught vocabulary as a student teacher
was using a language arts curriculum, which provided a list of vocabulary words for
each unit and a series of activities that involved students interacting with the words.
She said there was usually a curriculum-provided vocabulary assessment at the end of
a unit. “When I came to [this district] I thought, ‘How do I teach vocabulary?’ and
there was no real answer.” The third grade teacher said her level of knowledge was
“not that good--not horrible, but not that good.”
Finding from these interviews represent a situation that could be characterized
as high will with low skill. Educators at this school believe strongly that vocabulary
knowledge plays a critical role in academic and life success and see education as an
important factor in building students’ knowledge. However, educators do not know
how to effectively teach vocabulary themselves. These findings indicate that while
belief and interest in vocabulary are a good foundation for building knowledge, they
do not necessarily translate to training and instruction for school educators.
43
Hemphill and Tivnan’s 2008 study of students in high poverty schools found
that “children’s vocabulary skills at the beginning of first grade made a critical
contribution to later achievement in reading comprehension” (p. 444). The researchers
also concluded that strong general literacy instruction (not specific to vocabulary) did
not change the reality that beginning vocabulary knowledge plays a critical role in
students’ reading growth. Given the importance of vocabulary, especially in the early
years, it is critical that administrators and teachers in primary grades translate their
belief in vocabulary into improving actual instruction.
Several of the teachers mentioned training in their credential programs or some
exposure to vocabulary instruction through a language arts curriculum during student
teaching, but there was little reference to recent training or resources once they were
actually teaching. Educators’ lack of knowledge at this school supports some
researchers’ beliefs regarding theory and practice. Blachowicz et al. (2006) said that
many diligent, motivated teachers are lacking the knowledge of how to provide
effective vocabulary instruction. Based on findings from this study, training in that
area may have to come from an outside source as neither the principal nor the school’s
district coach expressed confidence in their own knowledge of vocabulary instruction.
Effectiveness of Current Vocabulary Instruction is Unknown by School
Educators
Responses indicated educators either did not know if vocabulary instruction
was meeting student needs or did not think it was. Many educators said they did not
know how to evaluate the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction without specific
44
data. The following interview questions were asked to elicit discussion and insight
regarding the effectiveness of the vocabulary instruction currently provided at the
school site: How effectively is the vocabulary instruction meeting student needs [your
students’ needs]? What would need to happen to better meet their needs?
The third grade teacher said she thinks the school’s current vocabulary
instruction is insufficient saying, “It’s not— it’s not meeting their needs.” She spoke
of the large number of words her students do not know (words she felt they needed to
be successful in third grade) and said that when she does try and teach specific
vocabulary words, her criteria for selection is fairly random since it is hard to know
where to start. She said the concern with the large deficit in student vocabulary
knowledge was shared by the rest of the teachers on the third grade team. The first
grade teacher had a similar perception regarding the effectiveness of her instruction.
When asked her opinion of how effectively current vocabulary instruction is meeting
her students’ needs she responded simply, “I don’t feel like it is.” She said she does
not know the right way to teach vocabulary, the best time in the day to teach it, or how
vocabulary instruction should differ in a small group versus whole class.
Other educators at the school looked to data to establish the level of
effectiveness but were unaware of any assessments to measure vocabulary knowledge
and were thus unsure of how effective their instruction was. The district coach who
had primarily worked with second and third grade teachers at the site said the only
measure for vocabulary knowledge he knew of was the word analysis strand on the
California Standards Test (CST), which had been relatively high at the school. Using
45
that strand he said, “I guess by that measure they’re doing well.” However, he
acknowledged this data was “super general” and then referenced a qualitative measure
(his observations and work with teachers at the site saying), “I personally haven’t seen
a lot of explicit instruction. That does concern me.”
The second grade teacher said she did not know how effective the vocabulary
instruction, stating “we have no kind of assessment.” The only assessment she could
think of that was relevant to vocabulary was the district-mandated reading assessment
given three times a year at the site. The reading assessment consists of students
previewing and reading a teacher-selected text and responding to several open-ended
comprehension prompts and questions. The assessment is used to identify a student’s
reading level and as well as specific areas of instruction for each student; the teacher
suggested that identifying a student’s reading level had some relevance to vocabulary,
but she had no idea if the words she teaches actually stick. The principal had a similar
response. “I don’t know [how effectively the vocabulary instruction is meeting
students’ needs] because we are doing a little here and there but there is no real
measure.” She said without a means of measuring vocabulary knowledge there is no
clear way to know if there is a challenge. She said, “Teachers respond well to low
data and the potential impact,” suggesting that it would be difficult to motivate
teachers to focus on vocabulary instruction when there was no quantitative data to
indicate a need for change. The kindergarten teacher did not reference any data or
assessment tools, simply responding, “I hope it is. I hope it is effective.”
46
An increased emphasis on state testing over the years has motivated many
schools to perform detailed analysis of quantitative assessment data; an emphasis on
assessments and data is evident at this site. School and district administrators have
worked to establish a ‘culture of data’ where district-mandated assessments, teacher
performance data and CST test results are analyzed in detail and instructional
decisions are based on data findings. The leadership team meets over the summer to
look at the data analysis and selects two to three school goals; these goals guide
decisions around professional development, budget, and administrative observation
focuses for the year.
Assessments and data analysis provide an objective means of identifying
challenge areas and can lead to improved instruction, targeted teacher development,
and additional educational resources. However, data collection is dependent on
having quality measurement tools and the resources to administer the assessments with
fidelity. Some areas, such as vocabulary knowledge, are difficult to assess and
monitor, so while there are measurement tools available, the administration of these
tests school wide would be extremely time consuming (most are done one-on-one) and
is not realistic given the constraints of time and money within public elementary
schools.
Without quantifiable data to analyze, educators at this school are unsure how to
gauge the effectiveness of the vocabulary instruction they provide. Despite working
with students every day throughout the school year, many of the educators interviewed
were unable to offer any assessment on whether student needs were being met in
47
vocabulary instruction without being able to reference specific assessment data. These
findings highlight a challenge with relying primarily on quantifiable data to provide
direction and focus within schools. In the words attributed to Einstein, “Everything
that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot
necessarily be counted.” Educators at this site rely on quantifiable data to evaluate
effectiveness of instruction and make decisions, but specific quantifiable data on
student vocabulary knowledge and growth (an area that site educators believe is
critical) is not available. In cases like this where the customary means of evaluating
effectiveness of current practices is not feasible, it would be beneficial to establish
alternative means of evaluation that teachers and administrators will accept.
Challenges to Effective Vocabulary Instruction Stem From Lack of
Administrative Prioritization
Teachers at this school site adhere to district-mandated instructional guidelines
for how to utilize instructional minutes. The teachers look to site and district
administrators to provide guidance regarding classroom instruction blocks as well as
training and resources to facilitate those blocks of instruction. Because vocabulary
instruction has not been identified as a priority at either the school or the district level,
instruction blocks are filled with other things and teachers are unable to allocate time
or resources to vocabulary instruction.
Although individual schools within this district have autonomy in many sitespecific areas (hiring, professional development, purchasing of instructional materials,
extra-curricular opportunities, etc.), the district provides a set of ‘Instructional
48
Guidelines’ or IGs all schools in the district are expected to adhere to in classrooms.
Instructional content is based primarily on the California State Content Standards but
is delivered through district Instructional Guidelines, which delineate the structure,
frequency, and duration of different activities that support student mastery of
standards. Examples of Instructional Guidelines include guided reading (small group
differentiated reading instruction), phonics instruction (K-2), writing and reading
mini-lessons, writer’s workshop, independent center time, calendar math, etc. The
minutes prescribed for these instructional guidelines fill the majority of the day
outside of recesses, lunch and art/P.E. Additionally, the district provides training and
recommendations for resources to support the implementation of these Instructional
Guidelines.
Currently there are no district IGs specific to vocabulary instruction so teachers
feel they do not have the training, resources, or the time in the day to provide adequate
instruction in this area. The second grade teacher said,
It’s not an [Instructional Guideline] in our district so…. it’s not one of the
things I have to do as part of my day. It’s one of the things I know I should be
doing and I try to do it best I can but with the IGs that we have and trying to
get through every single thing every day and do it well it’s hard to fit that in—
that one more extra thing.
She said prior to coming to the school she had only taught vocabulary as part
of a scripted reading curriculum which the current district did not use. So when she
49
came to [this district] she asked, “’How do we teach vocabulary?’ and there wasn’t
really an answer.”
The first grade teacher shared similar concerns. She said one of the main
challenges to providing vocabulary instruction was not having enough time in the day.
“I feel like there’s so many things that we need to do, so many different various
factors we have to hit on like IGs….” She also said that lack of knowledge played a
big role because she had no idea how to teach vocabulary. The kindergarten teacher
said she had learned some strategies for teaching vocabulary as part of [Project
GLAD, Guided Language Acquisition Design] training, but that there was not enough
time to plan and implement those strategies given the district guidelines around
instructional blocks. “There has to be changes within the organization—changes in
the IGs or something.” The first grade teacher also mentioned the GLAD strategies as
a means of providing instruction, but said she considered them to be in the beginning
phases because teachers were trying to figure out how to incorporate the strategies
with all of the other IGs. Most of the kindergarten and first grade teachers at the site
attending GLAD training in the fall. The third grade teacher interviewed for this study
participated in GLAD training the previous year; however, she was the only member
of the 2/3 team who had attended GLAD training.
While there are no instructional guidelines specific to vocabulary instruction,
some IGs have the potential to incorporate vocabulary instruction or practice using
vocabulary words. The district coach said one of his roles was to provide support with
Instructional Guidelines and sometimes those IGs have a vocabulary focus. Examples
50
included center workstations on suffixes and prefixes (aligned with second and third
grade language arts standards) and guided reading. One component of the guided
reading instructional guideline is the introduction of a new book with teachers
selecting and introducing several new vocabulary terms. Teachers also referenced
guided reading as an Instructional Guideline with ties to vocabulary. The first grade
teacher said, “I think a component of guided reading is vocabulary instruction,” and
the second grade teacher said word work was part of guided reading and she had
inferred that, “vocabulary can be considered word work to some extent, so vocabulary
does come up in that.” She was not sure how effective that instruction was because
every group gets different words and word selection is totally up to teachers, but she
did feel like some vocabulary instruction came through guided reading. She also
referenced reading mini-lessons as an IG that sometimes involved vocabulary
instruction. She said this happened if she was teaching a California State Content
Standard related to vocabulary such as prefixes or suffixes or if she had to teach
specific vocabulary in order for students to access a specific standard (for example if
she was teaching the standard on identifying character traits she would first have to
teach the students the meaning of specific words like timid, assertive, etc.).
Regarding additional direction from the district on vocabulary instruction in
schools, the district coach said there was some discussion at the district level about an
explicit way to teach vocabulary. However, when asked if anyone at the school site
knew anything about the direction the district was going he said it was not being
discussed or talked about with schools or large groups of educators in the district, but
51
that it was being introduced at new teacher training and to individual educators if they
showed an interest it.
It’s getting rolled out the way that things often get rolled out in [the district].
“It’s more programmatic for [the district] than for [this school] but it’s new
teacher training, it’s lead retreat if you choose to go to that session, it’s an
email or two and then it’s if a teacher really wants to take it on or if a coach
feels like, or a principal says ‘we really want to do this,’ then that’s where a
coach will step in and try to help, but that hasn’t been the focus here.
He said access to vocabulary resources at the district level would come
primarily if teachers or school sites requested it, but in general, the resources were not
being utilized by schools.
They’re all there if you were to look. They’re all there, but it seems to me in
my experience other than like some real go-getter teachers who go out and just
have the time or the initiative to go out and do that it comes through [school
sites] requesting, expressing a need and a coach saying yeah sure I can help
with that.
He said in general he thought this particular school site asked for a lot less
coaching support and district resources than other schools—that the resources were
there, but not asked for a lot. However, regarding vocabulary instruction, he said that
the school had been focused on other things like checking for understanding and
supporting Hispanic students. “I think that there’s just other focuses here, that’s been
my impression, like it just isn’t the focus, and I don’t know if it needs to be.”
52
The principal said to her knowledge the district did not have any guidelines
around vocabulary instruction and that lack of resources and guidance were two of the
main challenges with providing vocabulary instruction at this school site. She also said
there were so many things to get better at and that vocabulary instruction had not been
a focus at the school. When asked about her role in guiding vocabulary instruction at
the site level she said, “I honestly I haven’t had a really big role…. I have to make
decisions about what my focus is going to be and it just has not been one of the things
we decided to focus on at our school.” She stated she did not feel bad about not
focusing on vocabulary instruction despite her belief that “schools should play a big
part in building up students’ vocabulary.” She said the school is a newer school (in its
fifth year) and she has been more focused on setting the foundation. In past years she
has worked with the school leadership team to select areas of focus such as site
culture, collaboration, classroom learning environment, and academic discourse; she
said vocabulary did not match with those areas. “We do a really great job at focusing
in on things, but sometimes that can hinder us from getting really good at other
things.” In an ideal world she said she would know herself what best practices were
for teaching vocabulary for students at different levels and would provide help for
teachers. Although that was not currently the case, she did acknowledge that at some
point the school would look closely at expanding vocabulary instruction.
Teachers’ comments indicate they look to the principal to provide guidance on
what they should focus on in their classrooms and they have not felt that vocabulary
was currently a focus. The first grade teacher said that in kindergarten and first grade
53
she felt like she was focusing on decoding and if she needed to put more focus on
vocabulary that would come from administrators. “If this is a focus that we should be
focusing on then it would come from [the principal] and she would provide
professional development opportunities for us to better understand what we should be
doing in our classroom.” The second grade teacher said she was not sure if the
administrator had a role in guiding vocabulary instruction and was not sure it was part
of the principal’s job description. The teacher felt the principal had more of a big
picture role. The kindergarten teacher said vocabulary is not one of the school goals,
but she knows that the administrator thinks that it is very important because she
invested so much money for the K/1 team to go to GLAD and learn those strategies.
The first grade teacher stated a similar opinion, saying sending teachers to GLAD
training showed the school was starting to recognize students definitely need more
vocabulary instruction.
This study showed the district’s guidelines play a significant role in structuring
teachers’ days at this school and provide cohesion across the classrooms. On the local
level, teachers are aware of what the school administration has chosen to focus on and
are making instructional decisions based on identified goals. Having a focused
direction at the district and school level provides many benefits for teachers and
students: common goals, smoother transitions across grade levels, ability to share
resources, a sense of unity between staff and students, etc.
Another benefit of having strong district and local leadership is that it is easier
to effect widespread change. In the event that vocabulary instruction is identified as a
54
focus at the district or school level, the structure is in place to provide materials,
guidance and professional development for teachers. Educator attitudes play a role in
the success of school goals, and teachers at this school are interested in learning more
about vocabulary instruction and willing and eager to follow leadership directives.
The district coach said it would be unlikely for the district to mandate a
specific focus like vocabulary instruction at one school site; district involvement
would be much more likely to come if the school requested support in that area.
Given the principal’s comments, “I think at some point, as time goes by, it will be
something that we say hey, we need to take a look at this, we need to think about
specific ways that we can expand you know our students’ vocabulary,” it is unclear
when the school is likely to select that focus internally and request support from the
district. Until that happens, vocabulary instruction will continue to be a challenge at
the school. Despite teachers’ interest in providing better instruction, they do not know
what to do nor do they feel like they have the time in the day to teach vocabulary.
Even if individual teachers became highly effective at vocabulary instruction, research
indicates it would not be enough; schools need a consistent school-wide approach that
reaches across all the teachers and grade levels (Blachowicz et al., 2006).
Vocabulary Practices Lack Cohesiveness and Systemization
Teachers at this site identified several ways they provide vocabulary
instruction, but the techniques were not employed the same way between classes or
with the same frequency. The application of these practices was left up to individual
teachers and often the teachers did not have training or knowledge on how to
55
implement the methods they used. In most cases, teachers did not have a clear
understanding about how vocabulary was being taught in other classrooms at their
school.
The use of read alouds was one example of a common vocabulary practice at
the school that was being implemented differently in different classrooms. Although
this practice was mentioned by multiple teachers, techniques varied from teacher to
teacher. Sometimes teachers addressed specific vocabulary words as they occurred in
the read aloud while other times teachers wrote the words on the board and addressed
the words prior to reading. Sometimes teachers provided a definition for the students,
while at other times teachers guided the class in making predictions and did not define
the words. The kindergarten teacher discussed unfamiliar vocabulary as it came up in
the text saying that if there is “vocabulary they don’t know I kind of just explain it on
the spot… it’s not a big ol’ lesson or anything like that.” However, when asked
specifically about using read alouds as a means of providing vocabulary instruction
she said, “we don’t really have too much time for read alouds right now” indicating
that vocabulary instruction through this method did not often occur. The first grade
teacher described her vocabulary instruction during read alouds as “in passing.” She
does not look through the books ahead of time to identify vocabulary words, but when
she comes to a word she thinks the students might not know, she will pause and say
“this word means this.”
The third grade teacher also addressed vocabulary words as they came up in
the read aloud but she asked the students to make predictions about definitions. She
56
said she will get to a word and say “Hey hold up. What does that word mean? …and
we’ll usually try to figure it out with context and then I’ll take a few kids’ responses
and then we’ll clarify what it means and then move on.” Although she said she
clarifies the meaning before moving on, she also said the quality of definitions she
provides is not always the best. “For the most part it’s kind of…I don’t want to say
fly by the seat of my pants…here’s the best definition I have for it, it’s not even
necessarily the best or most kid friendly definition of the word.” She acknowledged
that she is new to teaching and does the best she can, but occasionally is not sure she
says the words correctly.
The second grade teacher said her approach to vocabulary instruction through
read alouds varied. If she felt the students needed to understand the meaning of the
word to understand the main idea of the text then the definition needed to be written
out explicitly. In those cases, she would write the word and definition on the board,
draw a picture and talk about the word as a class prior to reading. If she thought the
word might be unfamiliar to the students but was not integral to understanding the
text, then that would be “more of a discussion.” In those cases, she comes to a
potentially unknown word and asks the students what they think the word might mean,
“introducing context clues right rather than explicitly saying this is exactly what this
means— here’s the definition. It’s more of a ‘I wonder what [the author] means….’”
She said they might look at pictures and read the sentence again to try and figure it out
as a class, but she does not tell them the meaning. “That’s something that we can skim
over.” In reference to her approach to teaching vocabulary through read alouds, she
57
gave a caveat saying. “That’s my thought, it’s not like I’ve been told this is how to do
it.”
Three of the teachers mentioned the Instructional Guideline of guided reading
as a way they provide vocabulary instruction in their classrooms, but the depth of
instruction varied. The first grade teacher said in guided reading she previews the new
book she is introducing to the group of students, identifies words the students might
not understand the meaning of and provides those meanings as part of the book
introduction. The second grade teacher also said she introduces vocabulary words
before each new book in guided reading but said she does not know the best way to do
it. “This year is different. I’ve been every year kind of modifying it and trying to
figure out what is best practice.” Her current approach was the result of a recent
GLAD training where for each new word she tries to have the students “read it, write
it, speak it, think it.” Observation of this practice showed the teacher consistently
wrote the word and definition on the board and had the students repeat it. Sometimes
she had the students try and use context to figure out the word before providing the
definition, other times she told them the meaning. Usually each student in the group
copied the identified vocabulary words and teacher-provided definitions into a spiral
notebook and briefly discussed the words. The teacher said she comes up with word
definitions on her own or if she wants something more technical, she might Google it
and try to make the definition more kid friendly. One time she associated a physical
motion with the focus word and had the students make the same movement.
58
The third grade teacher said she writes new words on the board before starting
a new book, has the students repeat the words and orally provides a definition of what
the words mean. Unlike the second grade teacher, she did not mention having the
students write the word or definition or discuss it in the group. These examples
demonstrate the varied methods of introducing vocabulary words within one practice.
The second grade teacher voiced her concern regarding the impact this practice had in
improving students’ overall vocabulary knowledge. She said each small group of
students gets a different set of vocabulary words based on the book they are reading
and what teachers think those students might not know. This narrow exposure might
not provide students with the breadth of vocabulary words they need to be successful
in that grade level.
Additional vocabulary practices varied from teacher to teacher. The third
grade teacher said prior to teaching a new unit she tries to frontload vocabulary
instruction for some of her English learners. She does this by pulling them to the back
table in the morning and explicitly teaching vocabulary words that will come up in the
unit. Prior to an upcoming unit on Ceasar Chavez, the teacher called four students to
the back and explicitly taught eight previously identified words. The teacher had a
separate piece of paper for each word that included the spelling, definition, relevant
pictures and a sentence using the focus word. In each case the teacher said the word
out load, had the students repeat it, read the definition and then had the students
interact with the word in a variety of ways. Sometimes students were asked to provide
a definition in their own words, sometimes they were asked to come up with a
59
sentence using the word and other times the teacher asked a related question that
prompted discussion; the students spent 2-3 minutes on each word. The third grade
teacher was the only teacher that mentioned this vocabulary practice.
The kindergarten, first and second grade teachers said a primary way they
provided explicit instruction in vocabulary was through the use of the GLAD strategy
referred to as the Cognitive Content Dictionary (CCD) or signal word. According to
the teachers, when this practice is done with fidelity it involves several components
and takes place over two days; however, not all teachers utilize all of the components.
The first day the teacher identifies the target word, writes it on chart paper, asks
students for predictions about what the word means and how they arrived at the
prediction, and teaches the students a simple definition along with a hand motion.
That word then becomes the signal word and the teacher uses it throughout the week
during transitions (every time the teacher says the word the students repeat it, say the
simple definition and make the motion before transitioning to the next activity). The
second day the teacher returns to the chart paper, provides the final meaning and a
sketch and has the students use the word in a sentence (possibly using sentence frames
to guide meaningful usage). The teachers only referenced this practice specific to
social studies units; the frequency and actual implementation varied between teachers.
Although teachers described vocabulary practices they used in their
classrooms, they did not know if or how the same practices were used school wide.
When specifically asked what vocabulary instruction looked like in other classrooms
at the school, teachers expressed uncertainty. The kindergarten and first grade
60
teachers said they knew other teachers in their grade level were teaching the same
vocabulary words for the current social studies unit, but other than that they did not
know what vocabulary instruction looked like outside of their class. The first grade
teacher said she knew everyone was doing guided reading and assumed teachers were
picking vocabulary words to teach. The third grade teacher said she did not know
what was happening in other classes, but she thought her third grade team was trying
to hit vocabulary hard in guided reading. The second grade teacher said she has given
vocabulary lesson plans to other team members, but she was not sure how closely they
were following them.
The lack of school-wide systemization and cohesiveness regarding vocabulary
instruction is not surprising given that vocabulary has not been a priority at either the
district or the school level. However, the lack of uniform vocabulary instruction is
concerning given Beck and McKeown’s belief that the most effective way to address
the vocabulary gap evident in students from low-and high-SES backgrounds is for
schools to provide early systematic vocabulary instruction early (2007). Systematic
vocabulary instruction would involve several components. One, students within the
same grade level would receive similar vocabulary instruction regardless of what class
they were in; for this to happen, teachers would need to receive the same training and
have some measure of accountability regarding implementation. Based on interviews,
this training and expectation is a priority for district-identified Instructional
Guidelines, so the structure is in place if the district were to realign the Guidelines.
61
Another element of systemization would be continuity of effective instruction
between grade levels. If teachers were utilizing the same basic tenets of effective
vocabulary instruction in each grade, teachers would not have to spend the time
establishing routines and expectations because students would already be familiar with
them from previous years. Systemization in word selection is another possibility for
the school to consider. All teachers at the site should use the same considerations for
word selection within grade levels and across grades. Several options were identified
from reviewing the literature. Possibilities include the tier system developed by Beck
et al. (2013) with a primary focus on Tier Two words that are domain general; word
lists based on frequency Graves (2009); or Biemiller’s list of “word worth teaching”
based on his theory and research regarding the a general sequence of words most
beneficial to word learning (2009, 2012) .
These are just some of the considerations for developing a comprehensive,
systematic approach to vocabulary instruction. Current educator attitudes indicate
high interest in developing this area of instruction and a strong belief in the
importance of teaching vocabulary. The district coach indicated resources and support
are available upon request from the district office so if the school decided to make
vocabulary instruction a priority, they could look to the district for guidance in
developing a cohesive, school-wide approach.
Implications of the Findings Specific to the Research Question
Despite the lack of a school-wide plan, some vocabulary instruction is taking
place. Interviews with educators and observations of vocabulary practices provided
62
information that was then analyzed to help answer the primary research question: How
do the vocabulary practices in a school’s K-3 classrooms align with research on
vocabulary instruction?
Research indicates that read alouds are a powerful means of exposing students
to new vocabulary—including academic words critical to classroom discussions (Stahl
& Stahl, 2004). According to teachers interviewed at the school, this critical
vocabulary practice does happen regularly in most of their classrooms. The district
coach concurred saying, “I’ve seen at [this school] that teachers have held on to their
read alouds, which I think is great in the competing minutes game.” He said in the
past when he suggested cutting read alouds to implement more math he got a lot of
push back. “I would say [these] teachers are jealous of their read alouds.”
Biemiller and Boote (2006) found that young children have difficulty isolating
unknown words when listening to a story, so teachers need to take on the role of
identifying unknown words. Teachers at this school stop and explain words while
they are reading aloud to their students, which demonstrates another element of read
alouds supported by research. One area not in line with research is the method some
teachers are using to teach new vocabulary. Second and third grade teachers said they
often stop at new words in a book and ask their students to predict word meanings;
research suggests this is not effective instruction. Beck et al. (2013) argued that
students often give the wrong meaning of words, which can be confusing and waste
time.
63
While frequent read alouds with teacher explanations of new words is a
valuable means of vocabulary instruction, this practice would be more effective
through the use of repeated readings, reviewing selected words when the book is done
and providing students with additional opportunities to interact with focus words.
Vocabulary instruction prior to read alouds is not as effective as providing instruction
during or after. Biemiller and Boote’s 2006 study found that repeated readings (four vs
two) can help increase vocabulary knowledge for kindergarten and first grade
students, a practice not happening in those grades at the school. In the same study, the
researchers found positive results when teachers reread the sentences containing the
focus words and repeated the explanations after the story was done. Students would
also benefit if teachers reviewed the target words on another day using the words in a
different context and encouraging students to ask questions and explain the word
meanings.
Word selection is another key factor in effective vocabulary instruction; there
is evidence that some teachers are following research-based guidelines while others
are not. The kindergarten teacher said a few of the words selected for explicit
instruction could be used across the curriculum but they were mostly content specific.
The second grade teacher said she thinks the words she chooses are sometimes Tier
Two and sometimes Tier Three, and the third grade teacher said she is aware of tiered
words, but gets confused about what the tiers represent. Teacher responses indicate
some knowledge of Beck et al.’s (2013) tiering system, but teachers are not always
following the researchers’ recommendation to choose Tier Two words likely to be
64
found across many disciplines. Observation and interviews with the second and third
grade teachers showed they try to provide vocabulary explanations using words the
students understand and all teachers indicated they use their knowledge of their
students to identify focus words— both considerations for word selection suggested by
Beck et al. (2013). None of the teachers indicated any knowledge of word lists as a
resource for selecting vocabulary, although several teachers indicated a desire for a list
of words that were important to learn in each grade level.
Two other areas of consideration are word learning strategies and explicit
instruction. Second and third grade teachers at this school said they address word
learning strategies by teaching students how to use context clues and affixes. The
1985 study by Nagy et al. showed students can use context to learn new words but
significant benefits occur only when students read a lot and have a limited number of
unknown words in the text. It is unclear if teacher at this school are promoting wide
reading of appropriate text to provide students with the opportunity to apply word
learning strategies and reap the benefits. Some elements of explicit instruction are
apparent in the school’s current vocabulary practices while others are not. The
Cognitive Content Dictionary (CCD) is used by teachers in several grades at the
school and incorporates sensory activities like acting out and using illustrations—two
techniques that Silverman and Crandell (2010) found to positively affect vocabulary
learning. Stahl (2005) suggested students’ vocabulary knowledge would increase if
they created their own sentences using the focus words. This activity is also a
component of the Cognitive Content Dictionary activity; GLAD training encourages
65
the use of sentence frames to support students in using the words in a meaningful way.
This practice is also supported by Stahl’s research. Unfortunately, all the components
of the CCD do not happen at the school due to time constraints, and some teachers are
not using this practice. Stahl and Stahl (2012) recommended the use of semantic
mapping in as an effective component with explicit instruction, which does not seem
to be used at this school.
66
Chapter 5
FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Chapter 4 presented four key assertions supported by data that was collected
by this researcher. This data was collected via interviews with K-3 teachers and
administrators at a Title 1 public elementary school. Additional data was collected by
observing specific vocabulary practices referenced in teacher interviews. Research
findings for each assertion were analyzed with regard to larger implications—taking
into account information from the review of literature. This analysis attempted to
address the primary research question: How do the vocabulary practices in a school’s
K-3 classrooms align with research on vocabulary instruction?
Chapter 5 provides the opportunity to discuss the significance of these findings
from an education perspective. The goal is to provide insight into how this study
supports and extends existing research in the field of vocabulary instruction. The
insights and observations of educators directly involved in addressing students’
vocabulary needs provided valuable information about the challenges facing public
educators. In addition to discussing the implications of this research, Chapter 5 will
address methodological issues and research limitations present in this study. This
chapter will also identify areas for further research and provide concluding statements
for the study.
Discussion
The focus for this thesis originated from the researcher’s experiences as a
primary grade teacher as well as knowledge gained during the course of literacy-
67
related graduate studies. Course readings and discussions highlighted the implications
of vocabulary knowledge in multiple aspects of education and increased this
researcher’s awareness of how vocabulary knowledge was affecting students in the
classroom. The combination of these factors made this researcher want to improve
vocabulary instruction in her own class and question the extent that research-based
methods were being used in public elementary schools. This paper provided the
opportunity to address these areas of interest through an extensive review of current
literature on effective vocabulary instruction and by conducting qualitative research at
a public elementary school.
Initially this researcher expected the literature review would provide clear
descriptions of vocabulary practices guaranteed to result in significant increases in
student vocabulary knowledge. In reality, the topics of vocabulary and vocabulary
instruction are multifaceted and despite an increase in studies in more recent years,
researchers are still working on identifying the most effective practices. Although the
review of literature was not as definitive as expected, it did identify several
considerations and practices that have shown positive results in vocabulary growth for
students in primary grades.
Interviews and observations at the school provided a detailed picture of
educator perspectives regarding vocabulary knowledge and current vocabulary
practices. The researcher assumed that teachers with more experience would have the
most insight on how vocabulary affects students and have the greatest knowledge
about vocabulary practices. It was surprising to hear a first-year teacher sharing
68
thoughtful, detailed observations about how lack of vocabulary knowledge was
affecting her students’ school experiences. It was also surprising that the teacher who
demonstrated the greatest knowledge of research-based practices was not the most
experienced teacher, but the teacher who was in her sixth year.
Every person interviewed communicated a powerful belief in the importance
of vocabulary knowledge and a strong desire to learn more about instruction.
However, these individual beliefs and interests have not been enough to make
vocabulary instruction a priority at either the district or school level. The lack of focus
from the top was evident in the teachers’ marginal knowledge of how to teach
vocabulary, the limited time devoted to vocabulary instruction, and the lack of
consistent practices. Public schools today are faced with numerous challenges and
must be selective in deciding how to allocate time and resources. However,
vocabulary research and practice cannot come together in classrooms unless district
and school administrators identify vocabulary instruction as priority, provide teachers
with the necessary training and set aside time in the day for teachers to implement
vocabulary practices.
Significance
With vocabulary knowledge impacting so many aspects of students’ academic
success and consequently their ability to compete for jobs, it is critical for public
schools to provide quality vocabulary instruction. Research findings from this study
indicate that public school administrators and K-3 teachers alike have limited
knowledge of effective vocabulary instruction and are not providing students with
69
consistent, systematic instruction in the classroom. Although individual teachers are
implementing some practices to support vocabulary growth, they have received
minimal training in vocabulary instruction and the resulting execution is only partially
supported by research.
Ultimately education research proves its value only if it transcends paper and
effects change; despite the growing body of research on effective vocabulary
practices, this study showed that if school or district administrators do not make
vocabulary instruction a priority, teachers do not have the knowledge, resources or
time in the day to provide effective instruction. Although teachers may believe in the
importance of vocabulary and recognize their own lack of knowledge on how to
provide needed instruction, they require support and impetus from the top to begin
making changes.
Given the need for administrative focus and support, is significant to note how
public schools identify areas of focus. The school in this study relied primarily on
quantifiable data to make decisions regarding instructional priorities. If that is the
case at other schools, vocabulary instruction may not be flagged as a priority because
assessment challenges make it difficult to obtain specific data indicating a need.
Findings from this study are especially relevant given the new standards California
schools are adopting next year. Three of the six College and Career Readiness Anchor
Standards for language fall under the category Vocabulary Acquisition and Use
(California Department of Education, 2013).
70
Implications
Researchers are continuously working to identify effective methods to increase
vocabulary knowledge. This research is critical if educators are to help students
access the large number of vocabulary words they need to be successful in school and
beyond. Identifying effective vocabulary practices, however, is only half the battle—
those practices need to find their way into the classroom to have real impact. The
increasing emphasis on vocabulary can be particularly frustrating to educators as it
highlights the discrepancy between what they know they should do and what they are
able to do. The results from this study support Blachowicz’ assertion that many
teachers have begun to question their ability to provide students with adequate
vocabulary instruction (2006). It was clear from teacher interviews that K-3 teachers
had little knowledge of how to teach vocabulary and recognized the need for training
and resources.
The teachers’ lack of knowledge and training is concerning given Biemiller
and Slonim’s conclusion that the simplest way to reduce discrepancies in vocabulary
knowledge is by supporting vocabulary growth in preschool and early primary years
(2001). The findings from this study revealed that lack of training and education was
not a result of teacher indifference, but a combination of many factors: other priorities
taking precedence, too many things to cover in the day, lack of guidance from
administration, etc. If teachers do not know how to teach vocabulary and are not
required to do so, it is not surprising that current primary school instruction is not
71
making a significant impact on students’ vocabulary growth (Biemiller & Boote,
2006).
The challenges associated with assessing vocabulary knowledge have
additional implications for the field. Improvements in technology have allowed
schools to run detailed analyses of student data, and many schools rely on this data to
identify instructional priorities. While a data-driven approach to decision making has
many benefits, it also has limitations. Because vocabulary knowledge plays such big
role in many aspects of academics, it is possible academic challenges are
misidentified. For example, test results may indicate low scores in solving word
problems or summarizing non-fiction text when the actual problem may be rooted in
low vocabulary knowledge. Unfortunately is difficult to assess vocabulary
discretely—especially on a large scale. For this reason, schools may not recognize the
need for better vocabulary instruction.
Findings in this study demonstrated this specific challenge. Educators at this
site all believed vocabulary knowledge played a critical role in students’ lives. What
they needed was data showing their students had vocabulary deficits. Without access
to this data, administrators did not have a compelling reason to prioritize vocabulary
instruction over the many other issues affecting the students. If educators are not
aware there is a problem, they will not take the necessary steps to develop a plan to
provide effective vocabulary instruction. While this study was small in scale, it
identifies a possible reason that primary school attendance is not making a significant
impact on vocabulary growth.
72
It is also important to recognize the critical role school and district
administrators play in fostering vocabulary instruction. Teachers in this study were
motivated to meet school goals and dedicated to implementing the Instructional
Guidelines from their district. They looked to the district and the principal to identify
instructional priorities and provide the necessary training. Vocabulary instruction had
not been identified as a school or district goal and analysis of the research findings
indicated that without guidance from school or district administration, vocabulary
instruction within classrooms was infrequent, inconsistent and not aligned with the
research on effective practices. These findings support the need for school leadership
to implement a systematic, school-wide approach to effective vocabulary instruction.
Methodological Issues and Research Limitations
Despite best efforts to obtain accurate, unbiased data, there were some
challenges identified in the review the literature as well as methodological issues in
this study. During the review of literature it became clear that it is difficult to quantify
vocabulary knowledge (there is debate among researchers as to what it means to
‘know a word’) and vocabulary assessments vary across different studies.
Additionally, vocabulary growth happens slowly, so definitive results do not always
come within the time frame given for a study. Studies using pre and post tests to
assess knowledge gains for specific vocabulary words have challenges because the
initial assessment allows students to identify which words are important to learn.
Establishing general vocabulary growth is also difficult because it is hard to assess
accurately the vast number of vocabulary words in the English language. Therefore,
73
the findings set out in Chapter 2 represent best efforts to accommodate for these
issues.
Data was collected from educator interviews and classroom observations.
Although participants were informed that all of the information would be kept
confidential and the researcher was interested only in their existing knowledge and
experience, it was not possible to control for truthfulness in interview responses.
Additionally teachers were informed that the purpose of observations was to gain
further insight into the vocabulary practices that were currently taking place in their
classrooms. However, it is possible that teachers modified vocabulary practices
because they knew they were being observed; observation data might not be
representative of what typically happened in the classrooms.
Additionally, observations had to be conducted within the perimeters of the
school calendar, regular school hours, and classroom and observer schedules. These
constraints limited the researcher’s ability to observe all the practices teachers
mentioned in their interviews. Scheduling challenges also impacted which practices
could be observed, requiring the researcher to be selective about the practices that
would provide the most valuable information for the purposes of the study.
Conducting multiple observations of vocabulary practices across the grade levels
could have provided a more complete picture to support participant interviews.
The findings from this study provided valuable insight regarding K-3
vocabulary practices in Title 1 schools, but as with any research, there were inherent
limitations. One limitation was the size of the study. The number of participants was
74
limited due to considerations of time and money, resulting in a small sample size. In
addition to a small sample size, research was conducted at one elementary school
making it difficult to generalize the findings; it is possible that the findings at this
school are not representative of other Title 1 schools with different demographics.
Another potential limitation was the length of time the school had been in operation.
The principal stated that the school was in its fifth year and that priorities in the early
years were specific to building a school community. While the information from this
study is still significant, vocabulary practices at newer schools may not be
representative of vocabulary practices at more established schools.
In an effort to gain a broader picture of specific practices, the selected teachers
were asked questions to solicit information regarding vocabulary practices in other
classrooms at the schools. However, teachers had limited knowledge of their
colleagues’ vocabulary instruction. Although the lack of knowledge regarding
vocabulary practices employed in other classroom was valuable in addressing the
research question, it did not provide the researcher with comprehensive information
regarding other teachers and grade levels at the school. Lastly, California schools will
be moving to a new set of instructional standards effective next year. The implications
and effects of implementing these new standards is unknown.
Areas for Future Research
The findings from this study were significant and added to the body of
knowledge on challenges with providing effective vocabulary instruction in public
schools. However, the inherent limitations and size of the study require additional
75
research before definitive recommendations can be made on a larger scale. Expanding
the sample size to include more schools and more educators within those schools
would increase the validity and reliability of these findings. Expanding the study
would also show if the same challenges are present in schools with different
socioeconomic and language demographics.
According to the principal, one of the reasons vocabulary was not a priority at
the school was that they were still working through the challenges of being a newer
school. It would be interesting to find out this is true of all newer schools and if more
established schools have more developed vocabulary programs. This information
would provide insight as to how long it might take a new school to arrive at a place
where vocabulary instruction can be prioritized without comprising other areas.
Examining effective measures of vocabulary knowledge would be another area
for additional research. If schools are relying on data to make instructional decisions,
it is be important to identify a viable means of measuring students’ vocabulary
knowledge on a wide scale. One final recommendation for further research is to
identify schools that are providing systematic, research-based vocabulary instruction
and examine the elements of their programs. Questions to consider include How did
the program develop? How has it changed over time? What are key components for
successful implementation? What are the challenges? How is student growth
measured? Hopefully additional research will help identify ways schools can
effectively address students’ diverse vocabulary needs.
76
Conclusion
The goal of this study was to ascertain the degree that K-3 teachers at a public
school were using research-based methods for vocabulary instruction. In order to
answer that question it was necessary to first review relevant literature on the topic to
identify effective methods of vocabulary instruction. The literature review revealed
that vocabulary knowledge is not easy to define or measure, and while there is not yet
a conclusive list of effective practices, there are practices that have shown positive
results in students’ vocabulary growth. These findings were used to help create the
interview questions for the study and were also used in reviewing and analyzing
results of interviews and observations.
Data collection came from interviews with K-3 teachers at a Title 1 public
school, the district coach assigned to the school, and the school principal. Additional
data on vocabulary practices came through observing the teachers implementing
specific practices in their classrooms. Data from all sources was compiled and
analyzed in Chapter 4, resulting in four key findings:
1. Perceived importance of vocabulary incongruent with educator knowledge
2.
Effectiveness of current vocabulary instruction is unknown by school
educators
3. Challenges to effective vocabulary instruction stem from lack of
administrative prioritization
4. Vocabulary practices lack cohesiveness and systemization
77
Supporting evidence was provided for each assertion as well as additional
analysis regarding the significance of the assertion. Chapter 4 also included a
discussion specifically addressing the primary research question: How do the
vocabulary practices in a school’s K-3 classrooms align with research on vocabulary
instruction? Chapter 5 discussed the significance of the findings, addressed
methodological issues and research limitations, identified areas for further research,
and examined implications for education.
Ultimately the study found that although teachers and administrators believed
vocabulary knowledge was critical, structural and procedural challenges at the school
and district level prevented vocabulary instruction from being identified as a priority.
Because vocabulary instruction was not a focus at the school or district level, there
was no school vocabulary plan. Teachers provided vocabulary instruction based on
their individual knowledge and experience, but lacked the training to provide researchbased instruction. Additionally teachers did not feel the guidelines set by the district
allowed time for consistent vocabulary instruction. These findings indicate a need for
further research on the issues preventing school administrators from prioritizing
vocabulary and creating a systematic program of research-based instruction in schools.
78
APPENDIX A
Interview Questions for Classroom Teachers
79
Interview Questions for Classroom Teachers
1. Tell me your thoughts about the role of vocabulary in your students’ lives.
2. Tell me your thoughts on the role of vocabulary instruction in schools.
3. How would you characterize your own level of knowledge about effective
vocabulary practices?
4. Could you explain all the ways you currently provide vocabulary instruction in
your classroom? (If you had your own class at this school in grades K-3 last
year, you may include those experiences as well.)
5. I am going to name some vocabulary practices and I would like you to tell me
what you know about them and what they look like in your class if you use
them.

Vocabulary instruction through read alouds

Teaching strategies to help students figure out word meanings
independently

Explicit vocabulary instruction

Word lists to identify vocabulary words
6. How effectively is the vocabulary instruction meeting your students’ needs?
What would need to happen to better meet their vocabulary needs?
7. What does vocabulary instruction look like in other grades or classrooms at
your school?
8. What would you say is your school administrator’s role in guiding vocabulary
instruction?
9. What do you feel are the challenges with providing vocabulary instruction for
your students?
10. How interested are you in learning more about vocabulary instruction? What
would you be most interested in learning?
11. Is there anything else related to vocabulary you would like to add that you
have not had the opportunity to share?
80
APPENDIX B
Interview Questions for District Coach and Principal
81
Interview Questions for District Coach and Principal
1. Tell me your thoughts about the role vocabulary plays in students’ lives.
2. Tell me your thoughts on the role of vocabulary instruction in schools.
3. How would you characterize your own level of knowledge about effective
vocabulary practices?
4. Could you describe all the ways teachers currently provide vocabulary
instruction at this school site?
5. I am going to name some vocabulary practices and I would like you to tell me
what you know about them and what they look like at this school site if they
are used.

Vocabulary instruction through read alouds

Teaching strategies to help students figure out word meanings
independently

Explicit vocabulary instruction

Word lists to identify vocabulary words
6. What would you say is your current role in guiding vocabulary instruction at
this school site? Ideally, what would you like to see your role be?
7. How effectively is the vocabulary instruction meeting student needs at this
school? What would need to happen to better meet their needs?
8. What do you feel are the challenges with providing vocabulary instruction for
these students?
9. Are you interested in learning more about vocabulary instruction? If yes, what
would you be interested in learning?
10. Is there anything else related to vocabulary you would like to add that you
have not had the opportunity to share?
82
REFERENCES
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children's oral
vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. Elementary School
Journal, 107, 251-271. doi: 10.1086/511706
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust
vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in vocabulary development: Implications for
choosing words for primary grade vocabulary instruction. In E. H. Hiebert &
M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to
practice (pp. 223–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Biemiller, A. (2009). Words worth teaching. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Biemiller, A. (2012). Teaching vocabulary in the primary grades. In E. J. Kame’enui
& J. F. Baumann (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 3450). New York: The Guilford Press.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning
vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 4462. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.44
Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in
normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of
vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498–520.
Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Fisher, P. J. L., Ogle, D., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2006). Vocabulary:
Questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 524-539.
83
California Department of Education. (2013). California Common Core STATE
STANDARDS: English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies,
Science, and Technical Subjects. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/finalelaccssstandards.pdf
Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli Jr., R, & Kapp, S. (2009). Direct
vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Teaching for breadth versus depth. The
Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 1-18. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/598840
Graves, M. F. (2009). Teaching individual words: One size does not fit all. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Hemphill, L., & Tivnan, T. (2008). The importance of early vocabulary for literacy
achievement in high-poverty schools. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 13, 426-451. doi: 10.1080/10824660802427710
Lehr, F., Osborn, J., & Hiebert, E. H. (2007). Research-based practices in early
reading series: A focus on vocabulary. Retrieved from
http://vineproject.ucsc.edu/resources/A%20Focus%20on%20Vocabulary%20P
REL.pdf
Mountain, L. (2005). Rooting out meaning: More morphemic analysis for primary
pupils. The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 742–749.
Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school
English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 304-330. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/747823
84
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context.
Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233-253. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/747758
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Number and percentage of public
school students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, by state: 2000-01,
2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08: Table 42. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_042.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Number and percent of students in
city, suburban, town, and rural regular public elementary and secondary
schools with membership who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, by
state or jurisdiction: School year 2010–11: Table 7. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/pesschools10/tables/table_07.asp
National Reading Technical Assistance Center. (2010). A research synthesis: A review
of the current research on vocabulary instruction. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/rmcfinal1.pdf
Pressley, M. (2001). Comprehension instruction: What makes sense now, what might
make sense soon. Reading Online, 5(2). Retrieved from
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/pressley/
Silverman, R. (2007). A comparison of three methods of vocabulary instruction during
read‐alouds in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 97-113.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/525549
85
Silverman, R., & Crandell, J. D. (2010). Vocabulary practices in prekindergarten and
kindergarten classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 318-340
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27822890
Stahl, S. A. (2003). Vocabulary and readability: How knowing word meanings affects
comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(3). 241-247.
doi:10.1097/00011363-200307000-00009. Retrieved from
http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Depts/SPED/Forms/Kens%20Readings/Vocabulary/
Vocab%20&%20readability%20Stahl%202003.pdf
Stahl, S. A. (2005). Four problems with teaching word meanings and what to do to
make vocabulary an integral part of instruction. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L.
Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to
practice (pp. 95-114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stahl, S. A., & Stahl, K. D. (2004). Word wizards all!: Teaching word meanings in
preschool and primary education. In J. F. Baumann & E. B. Kame’enui (Eds.),
Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 59-78). New York: Guilford
Press.
Stahl, K. A. D., & Stahl, S. A. (2012). Young word wizards! Fostering vocabulary
development in preschool and primary education. In J. Baumann & E.
Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 72-92).
New York: Guilford Press.
86
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4),
360–407. Retrieved from
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u81/Stanovich__1986_.pdf
Swanborn, M. S., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 261-285. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170540