Occasionally, I post valuable summaries of evidence-based teaching strategies—i.e., what the research says works. I can post these summaries because they are either government-funded projects or have Creative Commons licenses.
As relates to vocabulary instruction, one thing that the research makes clear is that all teachers across the curriculum must teach and foster vocabulary skills. In reality, this fact is common sense because content-area vocabulary is an essential component of learning the content, and all teachers want their students to learn the content.
Most teachers grasp how critical the content-area vocabulary is across the curriculum. However, many teachers still need to develop a better teaching-vocabulary mindset. If teachers want to be highly effective at teaching vocabulary across the curriculum, they need to have a strong teaching-vocabulary mindset. With vocabulary instruction, more than most topics, if teachers don’t engage with it and present it with passion and purpose, it falls flat. It’s important to note that we want to do this while we are teaching the content and while we are moving forward in the content.
Although “the research” may not induce a passion for vocabulary instruction, it does create a purpose that may light the flame of passion. Furthermore, research summaries always approach the topic in many different ways, which provides a foundation for thinking about vocabulary across the curriculum.
Do you need to get results teaching writing? If so, please check out Pattern Based Writing: Quick & Easy Essay on the homepage!
I removed a few sections that explained the researchers’ processes, but I didn’t edit paragraphs or words. I link to the full report below. Even if you only skim and scan this research, you will gain valuable insights into how to more effectively teach vocabulary and vocabulary skills.
A Review of the Current Research on Vocabulary Instruction: A Research Synthesis (2010)
The National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) identified vocabulary as one of five major components of reading. Its importance to overall school success and more specifically to reading comprehension is widely documented (Baker, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1998; Anderson & Nagy, 1991). The National Reading Panel (NRP) stated that vocabulary plays an important role both in learning to read and in comprehending text: readers cannot understand text without knowing what most of the words mean. “Teaching vocabulary will not guarantee success in reading, just as learning to read words will not guarantee success in reading. However, lacking either adequate word identification skills or adequate vocabulary will ensure failure” (Biemiller, 2005).
Vocabulary is generically defined as the knowledge of words and word meanings. More specifically, we use vocabulary to refer to the kind of words that students must know to read increasingly demanding text with comprehension (Kamil & Hiebert, 2005). It is something that expands and deepens over time.
The NRP’s synthesis of vocabulary research identified eight findings that provide a scientifically based foundation for the design of rich, multifaceted vocabulary instruction. The findings are:
• Provide direct instruction of vocabulary words for a specific text. Anderson and Nagy (1991) pointed out “there are precise words children may need to know in order to comprehend particular lessons or subject matter.”
• Repetition and multiple exposures to vocabulary items are important. Stahl (2005) cautioned against “mere repetition or drill of the word,” emphasizing that vocabulary instruction should provide students with opportunities to encounter words repeatedly and in a variety of contexts.
• Vocabulary words should be those that the learner will find useful in many contexts. Instruction of high-frequency words known and used by mature language users can add productively to an individual’s language ability (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). Research suggests that vocabulary learning follows a developmental trajectory (Biemiller, 2001).
• Vocabulary tasks should be restructured as necessary. “Once students know what is expected of them in a vocabulary task, they often learn rapidly” (Kamil, 2004).
• Vocabulary learning is effective when it entails active engagement that goes beyond definitional knowledge. Stahl and Kapinus (2001) stated, “When children ‘know’ a word, they not only know the word’s definition and its logical relationship with other words, they also know how the word functions in different contexts.”
• Computer technology can be used effectively to help teach vocabulary. Encouragement exists but relatively few specific instructional applications can be gleaned from the research (NICHD, 2000).
• Vocabulary can be acquired through incidental learning. Reading volume is very important in terms of long-term vocabulary development (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998). In later work, Cunningham (2005) further recommended structured read-alouds, discussion sessions and independent reading experiences at school and home to encourage vocabulary growth in students.
• Dependence on a single vocabulary instruction method will not result in optimal learning (NICHD, 2000).
Stahl (2005) stated, “Vocabulary knowledge is knowledge; the knowledge of a word not only implies a definition, but also implies how that word fits into the world.” Consequently, researchers and practitioners alike seek to identify, clarify, and understand what it means for students “to know what a word means.” The sheer complexity of vocabulary acquisition, as evidenced by reviewing critical components such as receptive vocabulary versus productive vocabulary, oral vocabulary versus print vocabulary, and breadth of vocabulary versus depth of vocabulary (Kamil & Hiebert, 2005) raise questions worthy of further research. Other factors such as variations in students’ vocabulary size (Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Nagy, 2005), levels of word knowledge (Dale, 1965; Graves & Watts-Taffe, 2002), as well as which words are taught (Beck et al., 2002; Biemiller, 2005) and how word knowledge is measured (Biemiller, 2005) must all be considered in shaping our understanding of vocabulary acquisition.
The studies examined in the NRP Report (NICHD, 2000) suggested that vocabulary instruction does lead to gains in comprehension, but methods must be appropriate to the reader’s age and ability. The importance of vocabulary to success in reading is well known, but there continues to be little research that conclusively identifies the best methods or combinations of methods of vocabulary instruction.
This publication reviews the most recent research on vocabulary acquisition and instructional practices since the release of the National Reading Panel’s report.
It’s a foundation, a framework, and a methodology for teaching writing! Please check out Pattern Based Writing: Quick & Easy Essay on the homepage to learn more!
Results
This synthesis indicates convergence on the following research themes:
a) frequency of exposure to targeted vocabulary augments children’s understanding of word meanings and their use of targeted words
b) explicit instruction increases word learning
c) language engagement through dialogue and/or questioning strategies during a read-aloud enhances word knowledge.
Frequency of Exposure to Targeted Vocabulary Words
Higher frequency of exposure to targeted vocabulary words will increase the likelihood that young children will understand and remember the meanings of new words and use them more frequently.
In a multiple study research design, Biemiller and Boote (2006) found that repeated reading of a storybook resulted in greater average gains in word knowledge by young children. The researchers found that students made an average gain of 12% compared with the control group (children who only heard the story read once), as measured by a vocabulary test that assessed the meaning of words within context.
These results duplicate findings by Coyne, Simmons, Kame`enui, and Stoolmiller (2004), who researched how instructional time should be allocated to meet the intensive needs of children at-risk for reading difficulties. Although rereading stories and text demand additional instructional time, the increase in word learning for at-risk children makes rereading an effective use of time. A study by Justice, Meier, and Walpole (2005) that investigated the effectiveness of rereading text to enhance word learning also provided evidence of the positive impact of exposure to targeted words through repeated readings.
Another study, of third graders, found that semantic and lexical knowledge accrues over time. Greater gains were made in semantic (meaning-based) knowledge when students had greater frequency of exposure to the targeted words. The authors found a more gradual effect on lexical knowledge (McGregor, Sheng, & Ball, 2007).
Nation, Snowling, and Clarke (2006) studied a group of eight- and nine-year-olds to determine individual differences in vocabulary acquisition in children who have impaired reading comprehension. The findings indicate that poor comprehenders needed as many trials as the control group (children without comprehension deficits) to learn the phonological form of four nonsense words. It was learning the meaning, or definitions, of the “words” that clearly separated the children who struggled with comprehending text from those who did not have comprehension difficulties. The findings indicate that the source of poor comprehenders’ difficulties with lexical learning may be rooted in semantic, rather than phonological, learning differences.
Explicit Instruction of Targeted Vocabulary Words
Explicit instruction of words and their meanings increases the likelihood that young children will understand and remember the meanings of new words.
Biemiller and Boote (2006) found that while rereading stories improved students’ understanding of word meanings by 12%, an additional 10% gain occurred when word explanations were taught directly during the reading of the storybook. Biemiller and Boote suggest that teachers introduce more rather than fewer word meanings during read-alouds, stating that increasing the oral vocabulary of K–2 students by 400 word meanings per year is a reasonable goal. A similar study in Ipswich, England (Cain, 2007), with third grade students, investigated whether or not the use of word explanations (definitions) facilitated students’ word learning. The investigator found that although students made gains when explanations were provided for unfamiliar words, they made the greatest increases when they explained their own definitions of the targeted words.
Although there is strong evidence supporting explicit instruction of vocabulary, a question remains regarding which aspect or model of instruction is best. Investigating approaches to explicit vocabulary instruction, Nash and Snowling (2006) found that using a contextual approach to instruction provided greater vocabulary gains compared with lessons that emphasized learning word definitions. Their findings also indicated that recalling the pronunciation of the unfamiliar words proved more difficult than learning their definitions.
Silverman and Hines (2009) also focused on which instructional methods work best in building word knowledge for pre-school to second-grade students. They investigated the use of multimedia to enhance read-alouds and vocabulary instruction for English language learners (ELL) and English speaking students. This study had two interventions: one with multimedia, the other without. In both conditions, the teachers used a scripted lesson on habitats using both narrative and informational texts. The intervention took place over four three-week cycles, one cycle for each habitat studied. Students were introduced to the books in the same order and eight words per book were chosen as the target words. The multimedia condition included four videos, one for each habitat. Students were shown video clips after reading to facilitate their review of all of the words taught. Findings indicated that the use of multimedia provided no statistically significant difference for English speaking students. The use of multimedia for English language learners, however, was significant. Data indicate that the gap between English learning and English speaking students was narrowed not only for the targeted vocabulary words but for general vocabulary knowledge as well.
Questioning and Language Engagement
Questioning and language engagement enhance students’ word knowledge. Children are more likely to learn the meaning of the new words when teachers highlight targeted vocabulary through questioning or comments. To eliminate the possibility of prior learning, Ard and Beverly (2004) used researcher-developed “storybooks” to introduce nonsense words to children. The researchers found that children’s understanding and memory of the “words” increased when teachers asked questions and made comments clarifying the meaning of the new “words.”
Also studying the effects of teacher questioning, Blewitt, Rump, Shealy, and Cook (2009) conducted two experiments: one to assess the effect of low- and high-demand questions on word learning during storybook reading; the other to address the value of scaffolding questioning as students become more familiar with words. They found that preschoolers made greater gains in word learning when questions were scaffolded, that is, when teachers initially asked low-demand questions and gradually increased the complexity of the questions to the high-demand level.
Considering language engagement, Connor, Morrison and Slominski (2006) studied the language interaction between teachers and students during typical preschool emergent literacy activities such as alphabet recognition, letter-word association, and vocabulary games. They found a substantial variance in time spent on emergent literacy activities (from four to 90 minutes; from half-day to full day sessions; and from two to five days per week). They also found that classrooms ranged from language-centered environments (where children were immersed in oral language, reading, and writing experiences) to environments where children engaged in predominantly non-literacy learning activities. An interesting related finding was that children experience very different learning opportunities even when they are classmates in the same learning environment. This suggests the importance of considering background knowledge and experience on learning outcomes.
In a multi-focused experimental study, Coyne, McCoach, and Kapp (2007) extended word learning beyond the storybook reading session for kindergarten students. Children were divided into three groups, each receiving a different instructional approach to learning new words. One group was given the opportunity to learn the targeted words through interactive experiences that extended beyond just listening to the oral reading of the text. The investigators found that vocabulary instruction should include teacher-student dialogue and interactive activities that target the new words. The data indicated minimal word learning through incidental exposure of the words (reading the story without direct instruction) and only partial knowledge of the targeted vocabulary when word definitions were embedded during the story reading. Extending word knowledge through dialogue and interactive experiences produced a statistically significant difference and, based on assessment data, children maintained word knowledge for six to eight weeks after instruction.
Similar findings were reported by Leung (2008), who conducted a study of preschoolers’ knowledge of scientific vocabulary. Results indicated the greatest gains in word knowledge were made when an interactive approach was used. First, teachers engaged students in dialogue during an interactive read-aloud of informational picture books. Vocabulary and concepts were reinforced through student retellings and a hands-on activity that related to the targeted words and meanings.
Pattern Based Writing: Quick & Easy Essay is the fastest, most effective way to teach students organized multi-paragraph writing… Guaranteed!
Conclusions
Vocabulary instruction is a crucial component of reading instruction. The goal of vocabulary instruction is to help students learn the meanings of many words so they can communicate effectively and achieve academically. Effective vocabulary instruction requires educators to intentionally provide many rich, robust opportunities for students to learn words, related concepts, and their meanings. Students need strong instructional opportunities to build their personal warehouse of words, to develop deep levels of word knowledge, and acquire a toolbox of strategies that aids their independent word acquisition.
This review of current vocabulary research confirms the benefits of explicit teaching over implicit teaching in promoting vocabulary development. Results from this review suggest that effective and efficient research-based methods are available when selecting a particular instructional approach. The findings also suggest several instructional implications for promoting word knowledge:
• Frequent exposure to targeted vocabulary words. Biemiller and Boote (2006) found that repeated reading of a storybook resulted in greater average gains in word knowledge for young children.
• Explicit instruction of targeted vocabulary words. Biemiller and Boote (2006) also found that word explanations taught directly during the reading of a storybook enhanced children’s understanding of word meanings. Nash and Snowling (2006) found that using a contextual approach to instruction produced greater vocabulary gains than lessons that emphasized learning word definitions.
• Questioning and language engagement. Scaffolding questions, that is, moving from low-demand questions to high-demand questions, promotes greater gains in word learning (Blewitt, Rump, Shealy, & Cook, 2009). Vocabulary instruction should include teacher-student activities and interactive activities that target new words (Coyne, McCoach & Kapp, 2007).
In summary, active vocabulary instruction should permeate a classroom and contain rich and interesting information. Vocabulary instruction should cover many words that have been skillfully and carefully chosen to reduce vocabulary gaps and improve students’ abilities to apply word knowledge to the task of comprehension.
References
Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Anderson, R., and W. Nagy. 1991.Word meanings. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P.D. Pearson, (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2, pp. 690–724. New York: Longman.
Ard, L., & Beverly, B. (2004, September 1). Preschool word learning during joint book reading: Effect of adult questions and comments. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 26(1), 17–28. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ722299). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
Baker, S., Simmons, D., & Kame’enui, E. (1998). Vocabulary acquisition: Synthesis of the research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life. New York: Guilford. Biemiller, A. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential. The American Educator, 25(1), 24–28.
Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in vocabulary development: Implications for choosing words for primary grade vocabulary instruction. In E. H. Hiebert and M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 223–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved August 18, 2009, from PsycINFO database.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006, February 1). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44–62. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ734337). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
Blewitt, P., Rump, K., Shealy, S., & Cook, S. (2009, May 1). Shared book reading: When and how questions affect young children’s word learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 294–304. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ835037). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
Cain, K. (2007, November 1). Deriving word meanings from context: Does explanation facilitate contextual analysis? Journal of Research in Reading, 30(4), 347–359. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ778837). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
Connor, C., Morrison, F., & Slominski, L. (2006, November 1). Preschool instruction and children’s emergent literacy growth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 665–689. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ746473). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
Cooper, H. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications, 1994.
Coyne, M., McCoach, D., & Kapp, S. (2007, March 1). Vocabulary intervention for kindergarten students: Comparing extended instruction to embedded instruction and incidental exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 74–88. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ786232). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
Coyne, M., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Stoolmiller, M. (2004, September 1). Teaching vocabulary during shared storybook readings: An examination of differential effects. Exceptionality, 12(3), 145–162. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ682910). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
Cunningham, A. E. (2005). Vocabulary growth through independent reading and reading aloud to children. In E. H. Hiebert and M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1998). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945.
Dale, E. (1965). Vocabulary measurement: Techniques and major findings. Elementary English, 42, 895–901.
Graves, M. F., & Watts-Taffe, S. M. (2002). The place of word consciousness in a research-based vocabulary program. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 140–165). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Justice, L., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005, January 1). Learning new words from storybooks: An efficacy study with at-risk kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(1), 17–32. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ741266). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
Kamil, M. L. (2004). Vocabulary and comprehension instruction: Summary and implications of the National Reading Panel findings. In P. McCardle and V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Do you teach beginning writers or struggling writers? If you do, be sure to check out Pattern Based Writing: Quick & Easy Essay on the homepage! It is the fastest, most effective way to teach students organized multi-paragraph writing… Guaranteed!
Kamil, M., & Hiebert, E. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary: Perspectives and persistent issues. In E. H. Hiebert and M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved August 18, 2009, from PsycINFO database.
Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Students’ perceptions of instruction in inclusion classrooms: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, Vol. 66.
Leung, C. (2008, March 1). Preschoolers’ acquisition of scientific vocabulary through repeated read-aloud events, retellings, and hands-on science activities. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 165–193. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ790593). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
McGregor, K., Sheng, L., & Ball, T. (2007, October 1). Complexities of expressive word learning over time. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(4), 353–364. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ776268). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
Nagy,W. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive. In E. H. Hiebert and M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 27–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved August 18, 2009, from PsycINFO database.
Nash, H., & Snowling, M. (2006, May 1). Teaching new words to children with poor existing vocabulary knowledge: A controlled evaluation of the definition and context methods. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 41(3), 335–354. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ747456). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
Nation, K., Snowling, M., & Clarke, P. (2007, June). Dissecting the relationship between language skills and learning to read: Semantic and phonological contributions to new vocabulary learning in children with poor reading comprehension. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 9(2), 131–139.
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 (NIH Publication No. 00-4769).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L. (2008, February 1). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 175–191. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ787151). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
Silverman, R., & Hines, S. (2009, May 1). The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the vocabulary of English-language learners and non-English-language learners in pre-kindergarten through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 305–314. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ835042) Retrieved August 18, 2009, from ERIC database.
Stahl, S. (2005). Four problems with teaching word meanings (and what to do to make vocabulary an integral part of instruction). In E. H. Hiebert and M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 95–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved August 18, 2009, from PsycINFO database.
Stahl, S. A., & Kapinus, B. (2001).Word power: What every educator needs to know about teaching vocabulary. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.
White, H. (1994). Scientific communication and literature retrieval. The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 41–55). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from PsycINFO database.
The document was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-08-CO-0123 with RMC Research Corporation. This document was compiled, written, and edited by Shari Butler, Kelsi Urrutia, Anneta Buenger, Nina Gonzalez, Marla Hunt, and Corinne Eisenhart. Developed by the National Reading Technical Assistance Center, RMC Research Corporation
