英语词汇教学现状

Teaching Vocabulary To Advanced Students: A

Lexical Approach

by Solange Moras, Sao Carlos, Brazil, July 2001

1.ADVANCED STUDENTS AND THEIR NEEDS

Advanced learners can generally communicate well, having learnt all the basic structures of the language. However, they need to broaden their vocabulary to express themselves more clearly and appropriately in a wide range of situations.

Students might even have a receptive knowledge of a wider range of vocabulary, which means they can recognise the item and recognise its meaning. Nevertheless, their productive use of a wide range of vocabulary is normally limited, and this is one of the areas that need greater attention. At this stage we are concerned not only with students understanding the meaning of words, but also being able to use them appropriately, taking into account factors such as oral / written use of the language; degree of formality, style and others, which we are going to detail in Part 2.

2.THE TEACHING OF VOCABULARY

Traditionally, the teaching of vocabulary above elementary levels was mostly incidental, limited to presenting new items as they appeared in reading or sometimes listening texts. This indirect teaching of vocabulary assumes that vocabulary expansion will happen through the practice of other language skills, which has been proved not enough to ensure vocabulary expansion.

Nowadays it is widely accepted that vocabulary teaching should be part of the syllabus, and taught in a well-planned and regular basis. Some authors, led by Lewis (1993) argue that vocabulary should be at the centre of language teaching, because

‘language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar’. We are going to discuss aspects of the ‘Lexical approach’ in Part 2.

There are several aspects of lexis that need to be taken into account when teaching vocabulary. The list below is based on the work of Gairns and Redman (1986):

·Boundaries between conceptual meaning: knowing not only what lexis refers to, but also where the boundaries are that separate it from words of related

meaning (e.g. cup, mug, bowl).

·Polysemy: distinguishing between the various meaning of a single word form with several but closely related meanings (head: of a person, of a pin, of an

organisation).

·Homonymy: distinguishing between the various meaning of a single word form which has several meanings which are NOT closely related ( e.g. a file:

used to put papers in or a tool).

·Homophyny:understanding words that have the same pronunciation but different spellings and meanings (e.g.flour, flower).

·Synonymy: distinguishing between the different shades of meaning that synonymous words have (e.g. extend, increase, expand).

·Affective meaning: distinguishing between the attitudinal and emotional factors (denotation and connotation), which depend on the speakers attitude or the situation. Socio-cultural associations of lexical items is another important

factor.

·Style, register, dialect: Being able to distinguish between different levels of formality, the effect of different contexts and topics, as well as differences in

geographical variation.

·Translation: awareness of certain differences and similarities between the native and the foreign language (e.g. false cognates).

·Chunks of language: multi-word verbs, idioms, strong and weak collocations, lexical phrases.

·Grammar of vocabulary: learning the rules that enable students to build up different forms of the word or even different words from that word (e.g. sleep, slept, sleeping; able, unable; disability).

·Pronunciation: ability to recognise and reproduce items in speech.

The implication of the aspects just mentioned in teaching is that the goals of vocabulary teaching must be more than simply covering a certain number of words on a word list. We must use teaching techniques that can help realise this global concept of what it means to know a lexical item. And we must also go beyond that, giving learner opportunities to use the items learnt and also helping them to use effective written storage systems.

2.1.MEMORY AND STORAGE SYSTEMS

Understanding how our memory works might help us create more effective ways to teach vocabulary. Research in the area, cited by Gairns (1986) offers us some insights into this process.

It seems that learning new items involve storing them first in our short-term memory, and afterwards in long-term memory. We do not control this process consciously but there seems to be some important clues to consider. First, retention in short-term memory is not effective if the number of chunks of information exceeds seven. Therefore, this suggests that in a given class we should not aim at teaching more than this number. However, our long-term memory can hold any amount of information.

Research also suggests that our ‘mental lexicon’ is highly organised and efficient, an d that semantic related items are stored together. Word frequency is another factor that affects storage, as the most frequently used items are easier to retrieve. We can use this information to attempt to facilitate the learning process, by grouping items of vocabulary in semantic fields, such as topics (e.g. types of fruit).

Oxford (1990) suggests memory strategies to aid learning, and these can be divided into:

·creating mental linkages: grouping, associating, placing new words into a context;

·applying images and sounds: using imagery, semantic mapping, using keywords and representing sounds in memory;

·reviewing well, in a structured way;

·employing action: physical response or sensation, using mechanical techniques.

The techniques just mentioned can be used to greater advantage if we can diagnose learning style preferences (visual, aural, kinesthetic, tactile) and make students aware of different memory strategies.

Meaningful tasks however seem to offer the best answer to vocabulary learning, as they rely on students’ experiences and reality to facilitate learning. More meaningful tasks also require learners to analyse and process language more deeply, which should help them retain information in long-term memory.

Forgetting seems to be an inevitable process, unless learners regularly use items they have learnt. Therefore, recycling is vital, and ideally it should happen one or two days after the initial input. After that, weekly or monthly tests can check on previously taught items.

The way students store the items learned can also contribute to their success or failure in retrieving them when needed. Most learners simply list the items learnt in chronological order, indicating meaning with translation. This system is far from helpful, as items are de-contextualised, encouraging students to over generalise usage of them. It does not allow for additions and refinements nor indicates pronunciation.

Teachers can encourage learners to use other methods, using topics and categories to organise a notebook, binder or index cards. Meaning should be stored using English as much as possible, and also giving indication for pronunciation. Diagrams and word trees can also be used within this topic/categories organisation. The class as a whole can keep a vocabulary box with cards, which can be used for revision/recycling regularly.

Organising this kind of storage system is time-consuming and might not appeal to every learner. Therefore adapting their chronological lists to include headings for topics and a more complete definition of meaning would already be a step forward. 2.2.DEALING WITH MEANING

In my opinion the most important aspect of vocabulary teaching for advanced learners is to foster learner independence so that learners will be able to deal with new lexis and expand their vocabulary beyond the end of the course. Therefore guided discovery, contextual guesswork and using dictionaries should be the main ways to deal with discovering meaning.

Guided discovery involve asking questions or offering examples that guide students to guess meanings correctly. In this way learners get involved in a process of semantic processing that helps learning and retention.

Contextual guesswork means making use of the context in which the word appears to derive an idea of its meaning, or in some cases, guess from the word itself, as in words of Latin origin. Knowledge of word formation, e.g. prefixes and suffixes, can also help guide students to discover meaning. Teachers can help students with specific techniques and practice in contextual guesswork, for example, the understanding of discourse markers and identifying the function of the word in the sentence (e.g. verb, adjective, noun). The latter is also very useful when using dictionaries.

Students should start using EFL dictionaries as early as possible, from Intermediate upwards. With adequate training, dictionaries are an invaluable tool for learners, giving them independence from the teacher. As well as understanding meaning, students are able to check pronunciation, the grammar of the word (e.g. verb patterns, verb forms, plurality, comparatives, etc.), different spelling (American versus British), style and register, as well as examples that illustrate usage.

https://www.360docs.net/doc/4e890265.html,ING LANGUAGE

Another strategy for advanced learners is to turn their receptive vocabulary items into productive ones. In order to do that, we need to refine their understanding of the item, exploring boundaries between conceptual meaning, polysemy, synonymy, style, register, possible collocations, etc., so that students are able to use the item accurately.

We must take into account that a lexical item is most likely to be learned when a learner feels a personal need to know it, or when there is a need to express something to accomplish the learner’s own purposes. Therefore, it means that the decision to incorporate a word in ones productive vocabulary is entirely personal and varies according to each student’s motivation and needs.

Logically, production will depend on motivation, and this is what teachers should aim at promoting, based on their awareness of students needs and preferences. Task-based learning should help teachers to provide authentic, meaningful tasks in which students engage to achieve a concrete output, using appropriate language for the context.

2.4.THE LEXICAL APPROACH

We could not talk about vocabulary teaching nowadays without mentioning Lewis (1993), whose controversial, thought-provoking ideas have been shaking the ELT world since its publication. We do not intend to offer a complete review of his work, but rather mention some of his contributions that in our opinion can be readily used in the classroom.

His most important contribution was to highlight the importance of vocabulary as being basic to communication. We do agree that if learners do not recognise the meaning of keywords they will be unable to participate in the conversation, even if they know the morphology and syntax. On the other hand, we believe that grammar is equally important in teaching, and therefore in our opinion, it is not the case to substitute grammar teaching with vocabulary teaching, but that both should be present in teaching a foreign language.

Lewis himself insists that his lexical approach is not simply a shift of emphasis from grammar to vocabulary teaching, as ‘language consists not of traditional grammar and vocabulary, but often of multi-word prefabricated chunks’(Lewis, 1997). Chunks include collocations, fixed and semi-fixed expressions and idioms, and according to him, occupy a crucial role in facilitating language production, being the key to fluency.

An explanation for native speakers’ fluency is that vocabulary is not stored only as individual words, but also as parts of phrases and larger chunks, which can be retrieved from memory as a whole, reducing processing difficulties. On the other hand,

learners who only learn individual words will need a lot more time and effort to express themselves.

Consequently, it is essential to make students aware of chunks, giving them opportunities to identify, organise and record these. Identifying chunks is not always easy, and at least in the beginning, students need a lot of guidance.

Hill (1999) explains that most learners with ‘good vocabularies’ have problems with fluency because their ‘collocational competence’ is very limited, and that, especially from Intermediate level, we should aim at increasing their collocational competence with the vocabulary they have already got. For Advance learners he also suggests building on what they already know, using better strategies and increasing the number of items they meet outside the classroom.

The idea of what it is to ‘know’ a word is also enriched with the collocational component. According to Lewis (1993) ‘being able to use a word involves mastering its collocational range and restrictions on that range’. I can say that using all the opportunities to teach chunks rather than isolated words is a feasible idea that has been working well in my classes, and which is fortunately coming up in new coursebooks we are using. However, both teachers and learners need awareness raising activities to be able to identify multi-word chunks.

Apart from identifying chunks, it is important to establish clear ways of organising and recording vocabulary. According to Lewis (1993), ‘language should be recorded together which characteristically occurs together’, which means not in a linear, alphabetical order, but in collocation tables, mind-maps, word trees, for example. He also suggests the recording of whole sentences, to help contextualization, and that storage of items is highly personal, depending on each student’s needs.

We have already mentioned the use of dictionaries as a way to discover meaning and foster learner independence. Lewis extends the use of dictionaries to focus on word grammar and collocation range, although most dictionaries are rather limited in these.

Lewis also defends the use of ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ material from the early stages of learning, be cause ‘acquisition is facilitated by material which is only partly understood’ (Lewis, 1993, p. 186). Although he does not supply evidence for this, I agree that students need to be given tasks they can accomplish without understanding everything from a given text, because this is what they will need as users of the language. He also suggests that it is better to work intensively with short extracts of authentic material, so they are not too daunting for students and can be explored for collocations.

Finally, the Lexical Approach and Task-Based Learning have some common principles, which have been influencing foreign language teaching. Both approaches regard intensive, roughly-tuned input as essential for acquisition, and maintain that

successful communication is more important than the production of accurate sentences. We certainly agree with these principles and have tried to use them in our class.

3.RATIONALE OF THE LESSON

We believe that the Lexical Approach has much to offer in the area of vocabulary teaching, and therefore we have tried to plan a lesson that is based on its main concepts, specially exploring the use of collocations.

3.1 CHOICE OF MATERIAL

As both the Task-based and the Lexical approach suggest, we wanted to use authentic material to expose our students to rich, contextualised, naturally-occurring language.

For the topic of holidays we chose a big number of holiday brochures (about twenty five) and read them through, trying to notice recurrent patterns of lexis. Confirming what Hill (1999) affirmed, this analysis showed us a large number of collocations, specially adjective + noun ones, and that some were extremely common, such as golden sandy beaches, rolling countryside and others.

We did not want to overload students with much reading, which would detract them from the main task of working with vocabulary, and therefore we selected twenty-one short yet meaningful extracts in which common collocations appeared.

3.2. NOTICING COLLOCATIONS AND DEALING WITH MEANING

Although the extracts are authentic, we do not think students will have many problems in understanding most of the collocations, as they contain vocabulary which they probably know receptively. This again should confirm the idea that students know individual words but lack collocational competence.

We are going to work as a whole class in step 5 to make students aware of the collocations we will be focusing on, and hopefully this will enable students to find other collocations. Regular awareness raising activities like this should help students improve their collocational competence, and even fluency, as discussed in part 2.4. For the few words that we predict students will not fully understand meaning of, or are not sure how they are pronounced, we are going to ask them to look these up in monolingual dictionaries. As we said in part 2.2., dictionaries are a vital tool for Advanced learners, and so is contextual guesswork, which we are going to encourage before they look the words up. We are also going to ask students to notice examples given in the dictionary, observing and recording other possible collocations of the words, as suggested by Lewis.

We have also taken into account the importance of recording the vocabulary observed during the class. The list that students will produce in step 9, to prepare for the final task, is also a way of recording vocabulary in an organised, personalised and meaningful way, as suggested by Lewis in part 2.4.

3.3. GROUP WORK

Working in groups help fostering learning independence, and specially in vocabulary work, learners can exchange knowledge, asking others to explain unknown items.

We also hope that group work will be a motivating factor, as students talk about places they have been on holiday to, trying to remember details together, exchanging impressions and even good memories!

3.4. CHOICE OF TASK

As we said earlier in part 2.3, we find it vital that students are given opportunities to use the language they are learning in a realistic context. Therefore, we have devised the final task to meet this principle.

Writing a leaflet is a possible task in the Cambridge Certificate of Advanced English, which these students are preparing for. It is also a relevant, real life task that we expect will interest students. I always like to mention that the standard of leaflets written in English in Brazil is very poor, and that they could do a much better job. We expect that this writing should also enable students to use the vocabulary they have studied in a realistic context, and that they could be motivated to learn even more vocabulary they feel they need to accomplish the task.

The completion of the final task for homework will also help to reinforce and revise the vocabulary learnt, giving students a better chance to store the items in their

long-term memory, as we mentioned in part 2.1.

We are going to explain what the final task will be right after step 3, in which they should notice what kind of text the extracts come from. By doing this we want to motivate students to do the enabling tasks, mainly to show them the need to learn new vocabulary.

As this is a borrowed group, it might be the case the students are not yet familiar with the leaflet format, in which case more input would be necessary before the conclusion of the final task.

If students are really interested in the task, this could be transformed into a project, involving research and the production of a leaflet or web page in the multi-media centre.

References

Allen, V. (1983) Techniques in teaching vocabulary. OUP.

Gairns, R. Redman, S.(1986) Working with words. CUP.

Hill, J. (1999) ‘Collocational competence’ English Teaching Professional, 11, pp. 3-6.

Lewis, M. (1993) The lexical approach. LTP.

Lewis, M. (1997) Implementing the lexical approach. LTP

Oxford, R.(1990) Language learning strategies. Newbury House.

Richards, J. (1985) The context of language teaching. CUP.

Scrivener, J. (1994) Learning teaching. Heinemann.

Thornbury, S. (1998) ‘The lexical approach: a journey without maps’. MET, 7 (4), pp. 7-13

Willis, J. (1996) A framework for task-based learning. Longman.

NMSA Research Summary Vocabulary Teaching and Learning Across

Disciplines (August 2008)

PDF Version

Middle level educators understand that vocabulary is at the heart of general language development and conceptual learning and is, therefore, a critical aspect of curricular programs in all disciplines at the middle school level. The extensive research base on vocabulary learning and teaching provides us with important guidelines that inform instruction (Harmon, Wood, & Hedrick, in press). In this research summary, we highlight relevant studies that support several key understandings of vocabulary learning and teaching. The following are six key understandings for all teachers across age levels and content areas.

?Word knowledge is important for learning.

?Word knowledge is complex.

?Metacognition is an important aspect of vocabulary learning.

?Effective vocabulary instruction moves beyond the definitional level of word meanings.

?Vocabulary learning occurs implicitly in classrooms across disciplines.

?Vocabulary learning occurs through direct instruction.

Word knowledge is important for learning

Educators understand the importance of vocabulary, and few, if any, would omit vocabulary from their instruction. We know that a large vocabulary is an asset to readers; those who know many words are more likely to comprehend what they read. In fact, we have known for many decades that vocabulary size is a strong predictor of reading comprehension (Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Davis, 1944; Singer, 1965). However, the relationship between word knowledge and reading comprehension is complex and not easily described as one causing the other (Pearson, Heibert, & Kamil, 2007). Teaching unfamiliar words before students encounter them in a passage does not necessarily guarantee comprehension. Nonetheless, research indicates that there is a strong, positive, reciprocal relationship between word knowledge and reading comprehension (Baumann, Kame'enui, & Ash, 2003; National Reading Panel, 2000; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). That

is, vocabulary knowledge enables students to comprehend what they read, and the act of reading itself provides the opportunity for students to encounter and learn new words. Furthermore, the more words students know, the more likely they are to learn new words easily (Shefelbine, 1990). Conversely, students with limited vocabularies tend to read less and, therefore, have fewer exposures to new words in running text (Stanovich, 1986). Tremendous differences in word knowledge exist among students—differences that begin to appear at very young ages (Hart & Risley, 1995) and continue to impact learning as students move through school.

Word knowledge is complex

The nature of vocabulary learning and acquisition is complex and involves several processes that can inform instruction. Nagy and Scott (2000) described five noteworthy components of word knowledge. First, they pointed out that word learning is incremental—that is, we learn word meanings gradually and internalize deeper meanings through successive encounters in a variety of contexts and through active engagement with the words. For example, the average tenth grader is likely to have a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of the term atom compared to the knowledge of an average fourth grader, who still has a more simplistic understanding of the term. We also know words at varying levels of familiarity from no knowledge to some knowledge to a complete and thorough knowledge, which serves us especially well in speaking and writing (Beck, Perfitti, & McKeown, 1982; Dale, 1965). It may be that, for some words, students may only need to have a general understanding of a term to keep comprehension intact. For other words, a deeper understanding may be necessary for students to successfully comprehend a passage.

Another aspect of word knowledge is the presence of polysemous or multiple meaning words. Many words have different meanings depending upon the context in which they are used. This is especially evident in the various content areas such as mathematics, where polysemous word meanings differ greatly from the common usage of words (Durkin & Shire, 1991; Wood & Harmon, 2008; Rubenstein & Thompson, 2002). For example, a common word such as table represents an entirely different meaning in science texts when authors discuss the Periodic Table.

A third aspect of word knowledge described by Nagy and Scott (2000) is the different types of knowledge involved in knowing a word. The types of knowledge include the use of words in oral and written language, correct grammar usage of words or syntactical knowledge, semantic understandings such as appropriate synonyms and antonyms, and even morphological understandings that involve correct usage of prefixes and suffixes. Surprisingly, more than 60% of words encountered in academic texts can be taught morphologically (Nagy & Anderson, 1984). In particular, Milligan and Ruff (1990), in their analysis of social studies textbooks used from elementary through high school, found that approximately 71% of the glossary terms contained affixes and roots that could be directly taught.

A fourth aspect of word knowledge is the notion that learning a word meaning is inextricably related to knowledge of other related words. We do not learn word meanings in isolation; we learn word meanings in relation to other words and concepts. For example, knowing the concept of rectangle involves knowing about polygons, quadrilaterals, right angles, squares, and other related concepts. Finally, Nagy and Scott (2000) noted that word knowledge differs according to

the type of word. Knowing the meaning of prepositions (e.g., if, under, around) differs greatly from knowing the meaning of specific science terminology, such as nucleus, proton, and neutron.

Metacognition is an important aspect of vocabulary learning

Middle level students need to engage in metacognitive thinking about what they do and do not understand as they encounter unfamiliar vocabulary. With regard to word learning, metacognition goes beyond encounters with unknown words to include a more expanded awareness of vocabulary that enables learners to continually build and increase their vocabularies (Stahl & Nagy, 2006). According to Stahl and Nagy, word awareness is a critical aspect of a comprehensive vocabulary program and consists of two components: (1) the "generative" aspect of word learning that involves developing word consciousness, and (2) the acquisition of sufficient independent word learning strategies that are useful in learning words across a variety of texts and disciplines.

Described by Anderson and Nagy (1992) as an awareness and interest in word meanings, word consciousness allows learners to develop an appreciation of the power of words, an understanding of the importance of word choice, and an awareness of the differences between spoken and written language (Graves, 2006). Word consciousness is especially important for English language learners, who must be critically aware of figurative language, such as idioms, which makes word learning more challenging.

Teaching students independent word learning strategies is critical for supporting vocabulary growth and development. Given the thousands of words students must learn to handle academic demands (Nagy & Anderson, 1984), direct instruction of vocabulary alone cannot shoulder the responsibility for increasing vocabulary knowledge. In fact, in their study of students in grades six through nine, Nagy and Anderson estimated that students in these grades may be exposed to 3,000 to 4,000 unfamiliar words while reading close to one million words in context during an academic school year (roughly 20 minutes per day). These numbers indicate that students also need to acquire word learning strategies for helping themselves figure out the meanings of words on their own (Graves, 2006). Two major independent word learning strategies are the use of context and morphology clues. While studies on the use of context clues as an independent and versatile strategy for word learning have been somewhat limited, and some even cautionary about the limitations of naturally occurring contexts (Baldwin & Schatz, 1985; Schatz & Baldwin, 1986), there is sufficient evidence to support instruction in context clues for helping middle grades students infer word meanings (Buikema & Graves, 1993; Jenkins, Matlock, & Slocum, 1989; Kuhn & Stahl, 1998; Patberg, Graves, & Stibbe, 1984). Other studies provide evidence that fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students can be taught to use morphological elements (i.e., prefixes, suffixes, roots) to infer word meanings in running text (Graves & Hammond, 1980; Wysocki & Jenkins, 1987).

Effective vocabulary instruction moves beyond the definitional level of word meanings

While the use of a dictionary for word learning is actually another independent word learning strategy, the ubiquitous practice of using dictionary definitions as an instructional technique has received much attention by researchers. The findings clearly indicate the limitations of this practice.

Because definitions provide only a superficial level of word knowledge and rarely show students how to use the words, vocabulary instruction must move beyond the definitional level of word meanings. Miller and Gildea (1987) discussed the difficulties students have with using dictionary definitions to understand word meanings. They observed that their fifth and sixth grade participants searched for familiar ideas in the definitions and used that information to write their own sentences. For example, one student wrote, "I was meticulous about falling off the cliff" after reading the following definition for meticulous: "very careful or too particular about small details" (p. 99). The student focused on the phrase "very careful" and used that information for writing the sentence. Miller and Gildea found the same limitations when students were given an illustrative sentence containing a targeted word and were then asked to use that information to write a sentence. For example, for the illustrative sentence "The king's brother tried to usurp the throne," one student wrote, "The blue chair was usurped from the room" (p. 98). In this case, the student substituted the concept of "take" in the new sentence. From these observations, Miller and Gildea argued that students learn words in what they call "intelligible contexts" where students perceive a need to know a word meaning and are motivated to pursue understanding.

Scott and Nagy (1997) found that using dictionaries as a source of word meanings was problematic for the fourth and sixth grade students in the study, especially in terms of correct usage. Similar to Miller and Gildea's (1987) observation, students made what Scott and Nagy call "fragment selection errors," using only familiar parts of the definition to determine word meaning. In conclusion, instruction that uses definitions alone is not likely to impact comprehension (Baumann et al., 2003).

Vocabulary learning occurs implicitly in classrooms across disciplines

Vocabulary learning also occurs implicitly in language arts classrooms as well as content area classrooms, especially with regard to incidental word learning through context. Research studies have shown that upper grade students across ability levels can acquire vocabulary incidentally through reading and listening (Nagy & Herman, 1987; Sternberg, 1987). Nagy and Herman found that new words representing known concepts were more easily learned incidentally during independent reading than words that were more conceptually difficult. In another study, Swanburn and de Glopper (1999) found that middle level and secondary readers acquire partial understanding of approximately 15% of the unfamiliar words they encounter while reading. These studies support wide reading as an important component in a comprehensive vocabulary program. Reading widely and frequently is not only related to school achievement but also to increased vocabulary acquisition. In their study on the amount of time students spend reading, Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988) found a positive correlation between the amount of time fifth grade students spend reading and their reading achievement scores on a standardized reading test. Students with scores at the 98th percentile on the test read approximately 5 million words per year, while those students scoring at the 50th percentile read approximately 600,000 words per year.

Vocabulary learning occurs through direct instruction

A comprehensive, research-based program for supporting vocabulary learning includes the previously discussed topics of instruction on independent word learning strategies, an emphasis on

word consciousness, and the importance of wide reading. Direct instruction of specifically targeted words is also a critical component of an effective vocabulary program and has a solid research base. The well-known and widely accepted research of Beck, McKeown, and their colleagues (Beck, Perfitti, & McKeown, 1982; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Perfitti, 1983; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, 1985) with upper elementary and middle grades students has shown that effective vocabulary instruction places an emphasis on the semantic relationship among words. In these studies, instruction moved beyond the definitional level to include activities for presenting words in semantic categories, using words in meaningful sentence contexts, and applying words in new contexts. Beck, McKeown, and their colleagues concluded that both word learning and comprehension were positively impacted by instruction that focused on the semantic relatedness of words; highlighted words central to passage understanding; and provided students with frequent, meaningful encounters with the words.

There are other studies on vocabulary instruction that focus on specific techniques for supporting word learning with young adolescents. For example, the keyword method, a mnemonic device, has a solid research base documenting its effectiveness for helping students remember word meanings (Levin, Levin, Glasman, & Nordwall, 1992; Pressley, Levine, & McDaniel, 1987; Pressley, Ross, Levin, & Ghatala, 1984). Studies also demonstrate that semantic maps to help students visualize the relationship among words are effective in promoting word learning (Johnson, Toms-Bronowski, & Pittelman, 1982 and Johnson, Pittelman, Toms-Bronowski, & Levin, 1984 as cited in Baumann et al., 2003). In addition, categorizing techniques, such as the Concept of Definition Map (Schwartz & Raphael 1985), as well as self-selection activities where students select words to learn (Ruddell & Shearer, 2002), are worthwhile teaching strategies for supporting vocabulary learning.

Conclusion

This brief summary of vocabulary research highlights six basic key understandings that middle grades teachers in all content areas can use to inform their instruction. The research base on vocabulary is extensive and provides us with the direction we need to make critical decisions about how to help all students learn the vocabulary they need to acquire conceptual knowledge in the various subject matter disciplines.

References

Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1992). The vocabulary conundrum. The American Educator, 16, 14–18, 44–47.

Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285–303.

Baldwin, R. S., & Schatz, E. L. (1985). Context clues are ineffective with low frequency words in naturally occurring prose. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Issues in literacy: A research perspective: Thirty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (Vol. 34, pp. 132–135). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

Baumann, J. F., Kame'enui, E. J., & Ash, G. E. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire Redux. In D. L. J. Flood, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 752–785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506–521.

Buikema, J., & Graves, M. (1993). Teaching students to use context cues to infer word meanings. Journal of Reading, 36, 450–457.

Dale, E. (1965). Vocabulary measurement: Techniques and major findings. Elementary English, 42, 82–88.

Davis, F. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 9,

185–197.

Durkin, K., & Shire, B. (1991). Primary school children's interpretations of lexical ambiguity in mathematical descriptions. Journal of Research in Reading, 14(1), 46–55.

Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Graves, M. F., & Hammond, H. K. (1980). A validated procedure for teaching prefixes and its effect on students' ability to assign meaning to novel words. In M. L. Kamil & A. J. Moe (Eds.), Perspectives on reading research and instruction: Twenty-ninth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (Vol. 29, pp. 184–188). Washington, DC: National Reading Conference.

Harmon, J. M., Wood, K. W., & Hedrick, W. B. (in press). Vocabulary instruction in middle and secondary content classrooms: Understandings and directions from research. In A. Farstrup & J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday lives of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Jenkins, J. R., Matlock, B., & Slocum, T. A. (1989). Two approaches to vocabulary instruction: The teaching of individual word meanings and practice in deriving word meanings from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 215–235.

Kuhn, M., & Stahl, S. (1998). Teaching children to learn word meanings from context: A synthesis and some questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 119–138.

Levin, J. R., Levin, M. E., Glasman, L. D., & Nordwall, M. B. (1992). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: Additional effectiveness evidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17,

156–174.

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1983). The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 3–18.

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 522–535.

Miller, G. A., & Gildea, P.M. (1987). How children learn words. Scientific American, 257(3), 94–99.

Milligan, J. L., & Ruff, T. P. (1990). A linguistic approach to social studies vocabulary development. The Social Studies, 81, 218–220.

Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.

Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Nist, S. L., & Olejnik, S. (1995). The role of context and dictionary definitions on varying levels of word knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2), 172–193.

Pany, D., Jenkins, J. R., & Schreck, J. (1982). Vocabulary instruction: Effects on word knowledge and reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 5, 202–215.

Patberg, J. P., Graves, M. F., & Stibbe, M. A. (1984). Effects of active teaching and practice in facilitating students' use of context clues. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds), Changing perspectives on research in reading language processing and instruction. Thirty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (Vol. 33, pp. 146–151). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2007) Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 282–296.

Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1987). Remembering versus inferring what a word means: Mnemonic and contextual approaches. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 107–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., Ross, K. A., Levin, J. R., & Ghatala, E. S. (1984). The role of strategy utility knowledge in children's strategy decision making. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 491–504.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Rubenstein, R. N., & Thompson, D. R. (2002). Understanding and supporting children's mathematical vocabulary development. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(2), 107–112.

Ruddell, M. R. & Shearer, B. A. (2002). "Extraordinary," "tremendous," "exhilarating," "magnificent": Middle school at-risk students become avid word learners with the Vocabulary Self-Collection Strategy (VSS). Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45, 352–363.

Schatz, E. K., & Baldwin, R. S. (1986). Context clues are unreliable predictors of word meanings. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 439–453.

Schwartz R. M., & Raphael., T. E. (1985). Instruction in the concept of definition as a basic for vocabulary acquisition. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), I ssues in literacy: A research perspective: Thirty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (Vol. 34, pp. 116–123). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

Scott, J. A., & Nagy, W. E. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfamiliar words. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 184–200.

Shefelbine, J. (1990). Student factors related to variability in learning word meanings from context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 71–97.

Singer, H. A. (1965). A developmental model of speed of reading in grades 3 through 6. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 29–49.

Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W.E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned in context. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Swanburn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A

meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 261–285.

Wood, K. W., & Harmon, J. M. (2008). The "absolutes" of vocabulary knowledge: What research says about vocabulary development. Middle Ground, 12(1), 29–31.

Wysocki, K., & Jenkins, J. R. (1987). Deriving word meanings through morphological generalization. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 66–81.

Annotated References

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford.

This book expounds on the authors' concept of "robust" vocabulary instruction, advocating a teaching and learning process that provides students with meaningful, multiple exposures to words encouraging them to think and talk about words and their uses, share their understandings with others, and relate their vocabulary knowledge to overall comprehension. They frame their chapters with the premise that word knowledge falls along a continuum from a little or no knowledge to a qualitative dimension with a rich, deep, often metaphorical level of understanding. They give numerous illustrations through dialogue and examples of problems with prevalent practices, such as providing only dictionary definitions or rote memorization, and, instead, tell how to develop student-friendly explanations of word meanings, use deductive questioning, paraphrase information to aid in comprehension, and assess students' conceptual word knowledge. The authors recommend an instructional sequence appropriate for all grade levels from the primary, intermediate, middle, and high school level and for all disciplines.

Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Fisher, P. J. L., & Ogle, D. (2006). Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 524–539.

This article begins with a historical perspective on vocabulary knowledge and instruction and then goes to the field to pose questions teachers have about vocabulary teaching and learning. The article concludes with recommendations for moving ahead as a community of researchers and teachers interested in this most important topic. One of the many significant findings of this article, as well as the one on assessment by Pearson described next, is that we have had little change related to vocabulary development in classroom practice or in our commercial programs over the past several years. The authors back up the questions teachers have about vocabulary with evidence from the professional literature. The questions asked by teachers include issues such as determining which words to teach, approaches for assisting ELL students, bridging the early

learning vocabulary gap, how technology can be used effectively, and what we know about how to assess students' vocabulary knowledge.

Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, E. H. & Kamil, M. L. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 282–296.

The major premise of this "theory and research into practice" contribution is that educators' vocabulary measures are inadequate and not sufficiently sensitive in illustrating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and general measures of comprehension. The authors address three questions: What do our current and past vocabulary assessments measure? What could they measure? What research needs to be done to ensure that our methods of teaching, learning, and assessing vocabulary knowledge are valid? They conclude that much research is yet to be undertaken in the area of vocabulary assessment. Among the many research questions identified, is the need to differentiate the type of vocabulary instruction required by various text genres given that we typically present vocabulary instructional principles holistically. Since our assessment of vocabulary knowledge has not changed dramatically through the decades, the authors also suggest that computerized assessment of vocabulary knowledge be implemented to determine students' understanding of specific domains of interest (from common morphemes to terms for a particular discipline).

Recommended Resources

Allen, J. (1999). Words, words, words: Teaching vocabulary in grades 4–12. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Allen, J. (2007). Inside words: Tools for teaching academic vocabulary Grades 4–12. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Blachowicz, B., & Fisher, P.J. (2006). Teaching vocabulary in all classrooms (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2006). Vocabulary handbook. Berkeley, CA: Consortium on Reading Excellence.

Fry, E. B. (2004). The vocabulary teachers book of lists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Tompkins, G. E., & Blanchfield, C. (2004). Teaching vocabulary: 50 creative ways, Grades 4–12. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Authors

Janis M. Harmon is a professor in the Department of Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her scholarly interests include vocabulary teaching and learning and adolescent literacy. She is currently a co-editor of Voices from the Middle, the middle level journal of the National Council of Teachers of English.

Karen D. Wood is a professor and graduate reading program coordinator at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her scholarly interests are primarily in adolescent literacy research and instruction. She has been the editor of the Research into Practice column for Middle School Journal and is the author of numerous books and articles on comprehension, struggling readers, content area literacy, and vocabulary instruction.

Effective Strategies for Teaching Vocabulary

Tweet

Because vocabulary knowledge is critical to reading comprehension, it is important that those working with young readers help foster their development of a large “word bank” and effective vocabulary learning strategies. There are several effective explicit (intentional, planned instruction) and implicit (spontaneous instruction as a child comes to new words in a text) strategies that adults can employ with readers of any age.

Explicit Vocabulary Instruction

Pre-teaching Vocabulary Words