literacyismymission.weebly.comliteracyismymission.weebly.com/.../denny_action_rese… · Web viewThe purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to determine the impact of “Quiz

Running Head: WHAT EFFECT DOES THE “QUIZ ME CARD” STRATEGY HAVE ON STUDENTS’ SCIENCE VOCABULARY ACHIEVEMENT?

What effect does the “Quiz Me Card” strategy have on students’ science vocabulary achievement?

Sonya Denny

East Carolina University

WHAT EFFECT DOES THE QUIZ ME CARD STRATEGY HAVE ON SCIENCE VOCABULARY ACHIEVEMENT?

Abstract

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to determine the impact of “Quiz Me Cards”

on vocabulary knowledge and applied student effort in learning vocabulary from content. For

four weeks, the control group (n=21) used traditional classroom practices for vocabulary and the

intervention group (n=20) integrated the “Quiz Me Cards” strategy. Using an independent

sample t-test of equal variance, pretest and posttest data from the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale

(p=0.315) indicated no significant difference between the control and intervention groups. Three-

sample t-tests were performed from a survey; vocabulary importance (p= 0.82), time studying

(p=0.33) and words used in conversation (p=.001) indicated no significance.

Keyword: quiz me card strategy, vocabulary instruction, academic vocabulary

2


What effect does the “Quiz Me Card” Strategy have on science vocabulary achievement?

Increasing amounts of research suggest that teachers are not concentrating on vocabulary

instruction as much as students require for mastery. In the context of middle school instruction,

understanding science academic vocabulary is critical to the comprehension of science non-

fiction text. Proficient readers and struggling readers alike have problems reading non-fiction

text more than fiction texts. New vocabulary is not fully mastered until the learner has had

multiple exposures. The “Quiz Me Card” strategy creates purposeful repetition, exposure and

rehearsal for mastery (Fisher & Frey, 2012). The strategy requires students to comprehend the

knowledge of the vocabulary word to the point when questioned by teachers, the students

indicates vocabulary comprehension. The entire process offers vocabulary exposure and

repetition aiding vocabulary mastery. Using the Common Core Standards of North Carolina

(2012) as a guide, students should be able to read, write, and speak about science topics using

their academic vocabulary. This paper presents the results of an action research study that

investigated the following research question: What effect does the “Quiz Me Card” Strategy

have on eighth grade students’ science vocabulary? The literature supporting this question

follows.

Literature Review

Vocabulary instruction in the last decade has entered the spotlight as a hot educational

topic, mainly due to assessment requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and

Reading First. The Reading First legislates “vocabulary as the ‘pillars’ of the curriculum and

must be assessed in schools receiving Reading First funding” (Berne & Blachowicz, 2008).

Students’ performance on standardized test indicates they are not meeting the guidelines

3


established by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) standards. It has been well documented by

researchers that low socioeconomic students have a large gap in their vocabulary knowledge

starting school (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001; Graves, Brunetti, & Slater 1982). The

relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading achievement illustrates that there is a

strong correlation (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Low socioeconomic students start school

behind their peers, but the gap continues to widen without direct and individualized instruction.

Kelley, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Faller’s (2010), article state students are entering classrooms across

America as struggling readers. Research conducted in an urban middle school found students

who struggle with comprehension are likely to have trouble with academic vocabulary because

of the sophistication of the language. Many of these struggling students can read and have good

foundations for reading word by word, but lack the skills in comprehending text. Lesaux and

Kieffer (2010) called these students “word callers” (p. 5). These “word callers” are described as

students who read fluently without understanding what they read. In other words, reading the

words correctly does not mean the student comprehends the text.

Students who are struggling readers begin to resist reading and many become non-readers

(Blintz, 2011). Many struggling readers come from low-income families and homes where

English is the second language. White and Kim (2009) state the literacy gap is rooted in the

child’s early experiences at home and at school. Hart and Risley (1995) found children from low

social economic backgrounds enter kindergarten with a vocabulary of about 3,000 words,

compared to children from middle class families who enter with a vocabulary of 20,000 words.

The larger vocabulary impacts students’ learning and influenced their educational careers. The

study demonstrated that parents who have a larger vocabulary base tend to talk more in the

presence of the child and initiated conversations with their children. The advanced exposure of

4


vocabulary words and usage allows students to indirectly pick up a larger vocabulary. For

example, parents with a higher educational background might say, “Whew, it is sweltering

outside!” rather than it is hot outside. A science teacher uses more science words around her

children. For example, her four year old can accurately explain why leaves fall from deciduous

trees in the fall, using the term chlorophyll. The exposure and repetition of vocabulary is

fundamental in allowing students to comprehend word meanings. A student raised in a household

where conversations do not occur or where more advanced terminology is not used, limits

students’ exposure, reflecting in small vocabulary bases when students begin school. (Kieffer

(2008). Nakamoto, Lindsey,and Manis (2007) reported students with limited vocabulary and

reading skills fall further behind as they move through school and the gap widens. This research

must be considered important and becomes an ethical issue for teachers to incorporate authentic

vocabulary instruction into daily lessons.

Academic Vocabulary Instruction Concerns

Manzo, Manzo, and Thomas (2006) suggested there is a decline in the vocabulary levels

of college-bound students. Therefore, the students who are lacking a rich, academic vocabulary

background tend to remain behind on standardized test (Kelley, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Faller’s,

2010). Although research is clearly showing gaps in our students’ vocabulary performance, it

seems the focus for language arts teachers, as well as all content teachers, has been on literary

analysis versus direct vocabulary instruction on comprehension strategies (Scott, Jamieson-Noel,

and Asselin, 2003). Philips, Foote, and Harper (2008) reported, after observing teachers of

varying levels of experience, a failure to stimulate and engage students during vocabulary

instruction. The researchers interviewed teachers to ask why they taught vocabulary by defining

words as the main vocabulary strategy. Teachers responded it would allow them to cover more

5


content. (Philip et al., 2008) suggest, “time is actually wasted when students are not actively and

mentally engaged in language” (p. 63).

Many researchers have varying views as to which systematic approach for vocabulary

instructional should be used in order to ameliorate reading instruction. Berne and Blachowicz

(2008) conducted a survey of reading teachers asking teachers to share their concerns about

teaching vocabulary, their current practices, and resources supporting their vocabulary

instruction. The results indicated a wide range of strategies used by teachers without common

direction of vocabulary instruction. Vocabulary instruction ranging from no instruction,

systematic instruction, to research based strategies were indicated. Teachers reported a lack of

confidence in their practices of teaching vocabulary. The study found most teachers agreed that

word analysis is one of the best ways to increase vocabulary. Word analysis allows a student to

solve a word’s meaning by understanding root word parts with known prefixes or suffixes.

Teachers in all areas of content, as well as the reading teacher, can easily incorporate this

strategy.

Berne and Blachowicz (2008) found teachers could create a word rich environment by

exposing students to new vocabulary through read-alouds. During the process of reading

difficult text, the teachers enable lower-ability readers to hear the vocabulary as the teacher

reads. Senechal and Cornell (1993) found kindergarten students were exposed to new

vocabulary words through read aloud were more likely to use the words during the process of

retelling the story. Stahl, Rickek and Vandevier (1991) reported similar results with middle

school students after having repeated exposure to vocabulary during oral reading by the teacher.

Moreover, The Berne and Blachowicz (2008) study found teachers agreed word play and games

contributed to student retention and vocabulary growth. The last result of the study mentioned

6


word walls, classroom talk, and integration with content area studies as strategies that enhanced

vocabulary knowledge. All of the strategies mentioned appear to continue to implicate students’

need for vocabulary exposure, repetition, and authentic situations during the instructional time in

order to provide elevated vocabulary exposure.

Academic Vocabulary Word Selection

Flanigan and Greenwood (2007) stated that, “All words are not created equal” (p.228). Their

research reported teachers teach vocabulary words with the same approach. The most common

approach observed throughout was the process of defining vocabulary, and then using the words

in sentences. The progression of the lesson was always the same. Students completed the task

of defining the words and then using them in sentences before the lesson. They called this the

“one size fits all” treatment (Flanigan & Greenwood, 2007). To help teachers think more

systematically about vocabulary instruction, researchers designed ways of sorting vocabulary

into organized and categorized groups. Flanigan and Greenwood (2007) found the most

effective sorting of groups of vocabulary from Beck, McKeown, and Kucan’s (2002) with the

three tier systems. The Tier One vocabulary doesn’t require instructional time since they are very

common words such as friend, table, or run. The Tier two vocabulary are “high-frequency, high

utility” words such as redundant, scathing, hypothesis, and justify, which also support the

understanding of Tier Three vocabulary. Tier Three words are vocabulary words specific for

content in different curriculum areas such as ecosystem, peninsula, or isotope in science.

Flanigan and Greenwood (2007) adapted (Beck et al., 2002) Tier 3 categorizing into a

framework of four levels. Level one-vocabulary words are critical to the success of students’

comprehension and therefore need more in-depth coverage. Level two, called “Foot in the Door”

words, must be presented at the beginning of lesson but can be done without the in-depth

7


coverage. Level three vocabularies are “Critical after words”. These words should be addressed

after reading passages. These words typically don’t need to be understood to get the “gist” of

the passage. The vocabulary word meaning is defined within reading passage. If the word will

be visible in other texts or in real life situations, it would be classified as Level three. Level four

words are words, which should not be taught, such as gym, mustache, or baby. Students will

most likely already know these words and take time away from other academic words with

purposeful instruction. Using this approach requires teachers to keep the goal of their lesson in

mind while examining the vocabulary to design instruction. The level one words should be

taught in a fifteen to twenty minute activity before reading. Level two words are mentioned very

briefly. After the lesson or reading of the text, teachers use the instruction to complete activities

to have more “in-depth coverage” of the words. Level Four vocabulary words are not taught.

Dalton and Grisham (2011) also believe a systematic approach of actively teaching vocabulary,

whether directly or indirectly, will help to build students vocabulary. Approaches suggest wide

reading, teaching word’s morphology, and promotion of active learning through technology will

increase motivation and aid in the process of narrowing the gap between low-income or English

as a second language (ESL) learners and their peers. The common theme between vocabulary

word selections simply expresses teachers must systematically select vocabulary words based on

their lessons and goals of the lesson. Time can be wasted on vocabulary words students are

naturally exposed, which is (Beck et al., 2002) Tier One vocabulary words and Flanigan and

Greenwood’s (2007) Level four words. Flanigan and Greenwood, (2007) suggest to split Tier

two and Tier three words for the scaffolding before instruction and then more in-depth teaching

for words selected as Level three vocabulary (Beck et al., 2002). No matter what the tier, time

spent by the instructor analyzing and planning vocabulary instruction is needed in all classrooms.

8


Planning lessons, using research-based strategies to offer students exposure, authentic situations

and repetition of vocabulary words is necessary for student literacy growth. For the purpose of

this research, the focus will on (Beck et al., 2002) Tier Three vocabulary. The selection of

vocabulary words will be the critical after reading words indicated by Flanigan and Greenwood,

(2007). Using an adaption to Fisher and Frey’s (2012) “Quiz Me vocabulary card” strategy,

students will likely increase the depth of students’ metacognitive thinking and academic

vocabulary usage.

Quiz Me Vocabulary Card Strategy

The “Quiz Me vocabulary card” strategy mentioned in Fisher and Frey’s 2012 Improving

Adolescent Literacy; Content Area Strategies at Work text suggests meaningful repetition of

vocabulary and meaningful interaction with the words that enhance student learning. The process

of having five cardstock cards constructed in the size of one inch by three inches, hole punched,

and connected with the keychain ring is used to place student’s five vocabulary words on one

side of each card. The other side has five lines for teachers’ signatures. When a student

approaches a teacher, the student must explain the assignment and then request of the teacher to

“Quiz” them on the word. If the student correctly responds to the questioning of the teacher, the

teacher signs the back of the card. A total of five teacher signatures are required on each card,

one per word. This interaction opportunity provides the student with repetition, rehearsal, and a

way for the students to interact with teachers and other adults around the school.

The incorporation of the “Quiz Me vocabulary card” strategy with eighth graders, would

require students to conduct presentations in front of peers. Students do not have a fear of

presenting to teachers, but getting up in front of a classroom of peers is intimidating. The

rehearsal and preparation time to speak or present to the entire class is time consuming. With

9


this in mind, this adaptive use of the “Quiz Me Card” vocabulary strategy adds classmates

interacting with vocabulary and the English Language Common Core Standards into the process.

The Common Core Standards (CCS), emphasize reading, writing and speaking about content

knowledge. What better way to stress academic vocabulary than for students to master their

knowledge of academic vocabulary words using writing, reading and speaking in five different

types of interactions?

The population of students used in the research for this study attends a Title 1 school. In

order for a school to qualify for Title I funds, forty percent or more of the population lives in

poverty. As Kieffer (2008), research indicates students living in poverty with lower vocabulary

language at kindergarten will have a larger deficit by fifth grade. Title 1 schools are supported

with extra government funding to add and close the gap of students who are not exposed to the

same background of student not living in poverty. Typically science academic vocabulary words

are not used in conversation in students’ homes where households are classified as poor. In order

for students to have in-depth conversations, the students must grasp the meaning of the

vocabulary words in many different contexts and parents must be knowledgeable of the words in

order for the conversation to occur. Kelley, Lesaux, Keiffer, and Faller (2010) state “instead of

using dictionaries as the sole source for word information, allow students to hear and practice

using the target words in many contexts, in their speech and writing, so that they can grapple

with shades of meaning and better understand all the ways that the words can be used.” (p.9) The

interacting and learning in depth meaning of targeted academic vocabulary are critical after

reading words by Flanigan and Greenwood, (2007) will be depth over breadth philosophy

Kelley, Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, (2010). These critical after words must be thoroughly covered

with repetition, exposure, and though students writing. They suggest students using vocabulary

10


in their writing have a sound understanding of the word’s meaning. Writing offers students the

ability to see what they know and what they don’t know. Writing forces the student to recognize

exactly what is known or not known on a subject matter. Students must be able to formulate

what they don’t know in order to pose questions. In the adapted “Quiz Me vocabulary cards

strategy, allowing students to write and interact with peers via Edmodo, Google docs, Google

Hangout, texting, and Gaggle email will enable them to better prepare for the final performance

of carrying on a conversation with a teacher or adult in school dealing with the science academic

vocabulary.

Methodology

A quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test design was applied to determine if students’

vocabulary knowledge would increase by comparing two unique approaches of teaching

academic vocabulary. The independent variable was the instructional approach of vocabulary

instruction: The “Quiz Me Card” strategy with conversations and technology compared to

traditional vocabulary instruction. The dependent variable was the group’s vocabulary

acquisition score using “Vocabulary Knowledge Scale”(VKS). The Vocabulary Knowledge

Scale (VKS) created by (Wesche and Paribakht, 1996) is an instrument used to assess students’

vocabulary knowledge. A pre-test/post-test using (VKS) and a vocabulary survey were

administered before the unit of study began to both the control and intervention groups.

When teaching vocabulary with the traditional classroom approach, students build their

knowledge of the words through classroom labs, reading assignments, using of the words in

writing reflections, and class discussions. In the adaptive “Quiz Me Card” strategy, students were

asked to have conversations about assigned words with classmates using any form of technology

available to understand the vocabulary and finally to have conversations with teachers and adults

11


in the building. Total interaction of five new vocabulary words per week per student. Every class

period had ten minutes of time dedicated for student/teacher interaction with academic

vocabulary. Both classes were engaged in labs, which required reflections and teacher guidance,

but the intervention group documented their interactions daily with a total of twenty-five

vocabulary interactions per week.

Students in two very similar groupings and levels of ability of students were selected.

Both groups had students who were not proficient in reading and struggle in the Science

academically classroom as reported by the EXPLORE test, taken in the beginning of the

academic school year and science teacher nine week grades.

The intervention of an adapted “Quiz Me Cards” strategy was implemented daily for four

weeks, ten to fifteen minutes per day. Prior to beginning the intervention, students were surveyed

and asked to indicate their vocabulary knowledge using the VKS instrument.

A class Google Docs was created for all students to see the vocabulary words assigned and any

extra instructions from the teacher. Students created another Goggle Doc document for

documentation of any chats, which occurred. Students were placed in chat groups based on

reading levels. Five groups of no more than four members per group were created. Students were

still allowed to communicate with other group members by texting or chatting as long as the

proof was added to the individual Google Docs shared with teacher. The students were engaged

in regular science activities for the remaining time period. Index cards were used to capture the

teacher’s signature below the word used in conversation. Students turned in completed cards as

tasks were completed.

Students worked on assignments in class and out due to the technology integration. The

students provided evidence of interacting with assigned vocabulary words, five times per word,

12


which is a total of twenty-five interactions per week. Ten of the twenty-five interactions included

a conversation using and fielding questions about the vocabulary word/meaning. An adult, such

as a parent, counselor, or a teacher had to be involved in the conversation with the student for at

least one conversation per word. Students documented via Google docs document their

interactions of vocabulary words with peers and teachers. The documented interactions were

shared via Google Docs with teacher and on index cards with vocabulary words and signatures

of participants in the conversation. Students in the intervention class had ten minutes per day

during scheduled class day in a school computer lab to record and have conversations with peers.

If the lab was unavailable, student conducted conversations with peers and participated in teacher

group conversations.

Students in their Google docs documented weekly the number of correct uses of the

academic vocabulary words. The teacher monitored students’ progress daily efforts suggesting

and correcting conversation. Each week students labeled the week and the vocabulary words they

were assigned. Students’ interactions were documented for each vocabulary word through the

group chats on individual Google Docs documents. Each interaction required five different

interactions consisting of a variety of writing, reading, and speaking. The students at the end of

the four weeks took a posttest, which was the same pre-test using Vocabulary Knowledge Scale

(Wesche & Paribakht, 1996).

The control classroom continued as normal instruction including lab, lectures, and

writing assignments. Students were exposed to the vocabulary naturally during the flow of the

lessons. The requirement of using the words in conversation with peer or teachers were not

required but could occur as students asked questions or probed for more understanding.

Participants and Setting

13


The research was conducted in rural piedmont area of North Carolina in a school where

seventy percent of the four hundred and thirty-one students are on free and reduced lunch. The

school has been in operation for twenty-three years and recently been classified as a Title 1

School. A seasoned teacher with twenty-two years of experience taught both the intervention and

control classes. The classroom receiving the intervention is composed of the following: 1

classroom teacher, and 25 students including 17 girls and 8 boys, 15 African American, 6

Hispanic, 3 Caucasian, 1 Multi-Racial, 3 students receiving ESL services, and no students

receiving exceptional children’s services. My control classroom consists of the following: 1

classroom teacher, 27 students including 15 girls and 12 boys, 17 African American, 2 Hispanic,

7 Caucasian, 1 Multi-Racial, 2 students receiving ESL services, 0 student receiving Exceptional

Children’s services.

Validity and Reliability or Trustworthiness

There were several threats to the validity and reliability of this study. Students were not

randomly assigned, but were set before the year began, which would be a selection threat. The

researcher compared students’ standardized test scores along with students’ grades from their

previous science class. The control class and intervention groups’ composition were similar in

students’ academic makeup, gender, ethnicity, and background. Having two very similar groups

helped to assure the results would be valid.

Additionally, the teacher rapport or lack of rapport with students could possibly harm the

validity when students are expected to do more work than other classes. Students in middle

school are always looking for way to complete assignments fasters and knowing they are doing

more than the other students could potentially be a problem. Students must be agreeable to try

something new, or out of the normal routine.

14


The teacher comfort with teaching a new strategy compared to lab inquiry infusions of

the control classroom was a threat to the validity. The ability to foresee problems was not

available with the “Quiz Me” strategy where as with twenty-two years of teaching experience the

teacher was better able to adjust to students’ needs in the control classroom.

As with any study, the threat of mortality or having students leave the school system is

definitely a possibility. Middle school students are always changing, and over the course of the

year and they should naturally mature. Using the control group as a comparison, day-to-day

discoveries of changes will be placed in a journal-type log.

The last threat would be the amount of information the students remembers for the pre-

test when it is administered since the pre-test and post test will be the same document. As part of

the “Vocabulary Knowledge Scale”(VKS) scale students could increase one point higher if they

remembered the words from the previous quiz (Wesche and Paribakht, 1996). Since the

intervention was over a six weeks time span, the probability of remembering the words were

high.

Data Sources and Data Collection Procedures

As part of the quasi-experimental pre-test post-test design, the “Vocabulary Knowledge

Scale”(VKS) instrument was used to measure students’ vocabulary knowledge of both the

control and intervention groups (Wesche and Paribakht, 1996). (See Appendix A). The VKS

instrument required students to identify each word by the following categories:

1. The student has never seen or heard the word.

2. The student has seen/heard the word, but had no clue to the meaning.

3. The student has seen and thinks the word mean…(writes the meaning).

4. The student understands the word and gives their definition or translation of the word.

15


5. The student uses the word in a sentence.

Students were given the task of defining nineteen academic vocabulary words using the VKS

instrument from the unit on microbiology- Agent of Diseases. All words were specifically Tier 3

words or academic vocabulary specifically needed for 8.L.1 - Understand the hazards caused by

agents of disease that effect living organisms from the Common Core Essential Standards of

North Carolina’s science curriculum. The VKS assessment was given as the pretest and posttest.

The pretest was administered in the middle of January before the unit was taught in early

February. The unit of study was completed with the use of “Quiz Me Cards” in the intervention

classroom and regular instruction in the control class of students with the same academic

background. The post-test was taken in early March. The scores from the pretest were collected

and analyzed at the conclusion of the research study in order to see if the adapted “Quiz Me

Card” strategy had an impact on vocabulary acquisition.

Students completed a pre-test post-test adapted vocabulary survey from Wauwatosa

School District in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin’s World Language Vocabulary survey. (See Appendix

B) The survey’s questions were indicators as to ways students study vocabulary as well as how

much time students spent studying. The survey was administered in middle of January and at the

completion of the research study the first of March. Three responses from the survey were

analyzed to determine if the amount of time spent studying vocabulary, importance of

vocabulary acquisition to science grade, and if student used vocabulary in conversation had an

impact on vocabulary acquisition.

The final assessment instrument for the action research was a researcher log documenting

observations, anecdotal notes, and reflections during the implementation of the “Quiz Me Card”

strategy. The teacher was the same for both the intervention and the control group. The log was

16


used to determine if commonalities among the students were evident and any indications of

impact of the intervention.

Data Analysis

At the conclusion of the study, a comprehensive analysis of the VKS pretest/posttest,

adapted vocabulary survey from Wauwatosa School District survey, and the researchers log was

conducted to determine impact on students’ vocabulary knowledge. Since the VKS test and

survey were conducted with a pretest/ posttest, Dr. Del Siegle’s t-test of inferential statistics was

used to determine significance between the means of intervention and control groups. The

probability of the outcome or level of significance, where data (p <.05) was accepted as a

common value. Using Dr. Del Siegle’s spreadsheet, the difference of pretest and posttest results

was entered labeled as intervention group (1) and control group (2). The t-test results were used

to compare the mean gain score of both groups of students on both the VKS test and survey

questions directly linked to insight of the results. The researcher log was used to analyze further

the results. Patterns and changes noted of students’ responses to the test and survey.

Results

The Vocabulary Knowledge Scale assessment was conducted with the intervention group

(n=20) and control group (n=21) before the intervention and after the four-week period of

instruction. (See Table 1) The difference of the pre-test /post-test scores were used in Dr. Del

Siegle’s t-test of inferential statistics. The intervention group average or mean score was 13.05

with a standard deviation of 7.59. The Cohen effect size was 0.301 and the degree of freedom

was 39. The control group means was 10.76 with a standard deviation of 6.81. Using equal

variance, the t-value was 1.02 and the two-tailed p=0.315 was calculated. The p value must be

less than .05 to show significance. Therefore the pretest and posttest scores for the Vocabulary

17


Knowledge Scale assessment from the control group and intervention group were not

significantly different statistically. According to Cohen, an effect size of 0.2 indicates small

effect and 0.5 is medium effect, therefore the adapted “Quiz Me Card” strategy was considered

to have a small effect on students’ growth.

Table 1:Test Group Mean Mean

DifferenceStandard Deviation

t-value df Two-tailed p

P of F Max

Cohen Effect Size d=

VKS Intervention 13.05 2.29 7.59 1.02 39 .315 .634 .301VKS Control 10.76 6.81Table 1 reflects the results of the VKS assessment using Dr. Del Siegle’s t-test of inferential statistics.

Table 2, 3 and 4 are question items from the Wauwatosa School District in Wauwatosa,

Wisconsin’s World Language Vocabulary adapted survey with items directly related to

researchers results.

Table 2: Measures Group Mean Mean


t-value

df Two-tailed p

P of F Max


Survey #1VocabularyImportance

Intervention 0.2 -0.038 0.41 -0.23 39 .82 0.072 0.093

Survey #1VocabularyImportance

Control 0.24 0.62

The adapted survey assessment was conducted with the intervention group (n=20) and

control group (n=21) before the intervention and after the four-week period of instruction. (See

Table 2) The difference of the pre-test /post-test scores of question item number one were placed

in Dr. Del Siegle’s t-test of inferential statistics. The question required the students to answer

how important vocabulary knowledge is to their science grade before and after the treatment.

18


The intervention group average or mean score was 0.2 with a standard deviation of 0.41. The

Cohen effect size was 0.093 and the degree of freedom was 39. The control group means was

0.24 with a standard deviation of 0.62. Using equal variance, the t-value was -0.23 and the two-

tailed p=0.82 was calculated. The p value must be less than .05 to show significance. Therefore

the pretest and posttest scores for the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale assessment from the control

group and intervention group were not significantly different statistically. According to Cohen,

an effect size 0.8 is a large effect; therefore the amount of vocabulary knowledge was considered

to have a large effect on students’ grades.

Table 3:Measures Group Mean Mean


t-value df Two-tailed p

P of F Max


Survey #2VocabularyStudy Time

Intervention 13.25 6.96 20.02 0.996 39 .326 0.390 0.34

Survey #2VocabularyStudy Time

Control 6.289 24.43



Table 2) The difference of the pre-test /post-test scores for question number two were placed in

Dr. Del Siegle’s t-test of inferential statistics. The question required the students to answer how

many minutes of time were devoted weekly to vocabulary studying. The intervention group

average or mean score of 13.25 with a standard deviation of 20.02. The Cohen effect size was

0.34 and the degree of freedom was 39. The control group means was 6.289 with a standard

deviation of 24.43. Using equal variance, the t-value was 0.996 and the two-tailed p=0.326 was

calculated. The p value must be less than .05 to show significance. Therefore the pretest and

posttest scores for the survey question number two from the control group and intervention group

19


were not significantly different statistically. According to Cohen, an effect size of 0.2 indicates

small effect and 0.5 is medium effect, therefore the amount of studying was considered to have a

small effect on students’ answer choices.

Table 4:

Measures Group Mean MeanDifference

Standard Deviation

t-value

df Two-tailed p

P of F Max


Survey #7VocabularyConversations

Intervention 0.55 0.45 0.5104 3.45 19 .001 0.023 0.890

Survey #7VocabularyConversations

Control .095 0.300



Table 2) The difference of the pre-test /post-test scores for question number seven were placed in

Dr. Del Siegle’s t-test of inferential statistics. The question required the students to answer if

they used their vocabulary words in conversations with peers or family members to study. The

intervention group average or mean score of 0.55 with a standard deviation of 0.51. The Cohen

effect size was 0.89 and the degree of freedom was 19. The control group means was 0.095 with

a standard deviation of 0.300. Using equal variance, the t-value was 3.496 and the two-tailed

p=0.0016 was calculated. The p value must be less than .05 to show significance. Therefore the

pretest and posttest scores for the survey question of number seven from the control group and

intervention group was significantly different statistically.

Researcher Log

With the use of the researcher’s log the researcher was able to use the log to reflect on

instructional practices and needs of students. The documentation provided a qualitative analysis

of the intervention, which ensured validity and reliability of the results. A major theme of how to

20


have a conversation with group members on the computer using slow computers with out of date

software emerged early in the research. Teacher modeling of chat conversations was the

beginning focus and constantly monitoring of student documentation led to many re-teaching

sessions. Whole group modeling to individual groups clustered by reading ability were

established. Expectations of students’ responsibility were discussed almost daily throughout the

process. One on one help was available in class and out with the class chat and Google Docs

documents. The documentation of students’ conversations allowed the researcher to have access

to student vocabulary knowledge. Re-teaching occurred when students had difficulty with

vocabulary words by allowing students to see the words within text and simple educational

videos from BrainPOP website or The Discovery Education website. The scaffolding of

background knowledge and reinforcement ensured students’ needs were met with appropriate

instruction.

Discussion/Conclusion

In summary, most researchers tend to agree that students from low-income families and

those students where English is the second language enter school behind their peers and never

really catch up. Researchers believe a systematic approach should be applied to teaching

vocabulary directly and indirectly in a variety of methods to meet the needs of our failing

students (Kelley, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Faller’s, 2010). Kelly et al. (2010) agreed vocabulary

instruction alone would not raise test scores; instead, a balanced approach of reading, writing and

speaking is needed during instruction to increase vocabulary skills.

Incorporating the adapted “Quiz Me Card” strategy was an attempt to determine if direct

vocabulary instruction of writing, reading, and speaking through conversations integrated with

technology would increase students’ science vocabulary comprehension. The anticipated

21


outcome was that students in the intervention group would have more growth on the Vocabulary

Knowledge Scale assessment, (VKS) than the control group (Wesche & Paribakht, 1996). After

the four-week intervention period, t-test results from the VKS instruments pretest/ posttest

changed score exposed a small impact for the intervention group identified with the Cohen effect

(d=0.34). This finding supports the current research of using a systematic approach to teach

vocabulary. However the sample size for this data is too small to be conclusive. Repeated trials

would be necessary as well as larger sampling size to have reliable data.

The survey question examining the amount of time students studied indicated a small

effect on the results (d=0.348). The intervention and control group of students characteristically

do not engage in homework at home. During the school day students have a set time to work on

and receive help with academic assignments. Therefore any change in the amount of time

students are engaged in meaningful exposure of vocabulary offers a positive outcome. Richek,

(2005) research identifies Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, (2002) direct quote “Direct instruction in

word meaning is effective, can make a significant difference in a student’s overall vocabulary,

and is critical for those students who do not read extensively” (p.55). Ninety percent of the

students involved in the study do not read extensively or value doing homework.

Students change score of the use of conversations to study vocabulary indicated a large

impact based on the t-test result of (d=0.890). Students’ time using conversations increased

because of the intervention. The process of using conversations to deepen understanding through

written conversations was not an easy task. Students struggled with learning the science

academic vocabulary and with the process of having a conversation. Students’ lack of

understanding was very evident in the conversations copied to their documented Google docs.

The process included more than rote memorization or declarative knowledge (Fisher & Frey,

22


2012). It includes activated prior knowledge of a topic as well as making connections to the

topic and the ability to determine what information is missing.

Students were provided with an opportunity to have a balanced approach of peer/teacher

interactions, in addition to using technology as well as final performance. The amount of

repeated interaction with peers and the academic vocabulary allowed the students’ to discover

multiple meanings and true comprehension. There was no hiding from what is known or

comprehended when a student writes to learn. Mitchell (1996) sums writing to learn “is a tool we

can use to see how students are thinking about and understanding what they are doing and

learning in the classroom” (p.93). Student progress or lack of progress of vocabulary knowledge

was evident.

Limitations

Even though small growth was visible, the amount of growth expected was not achieved.

The diversity of ability levels created problems with groups having conversations. Students

ranged from above grade level reading, which is above eighth grade to reading on a third grade

level. Compounding the problem of abilities was the amount of time available for teaching the

class. Students’ schedules were set for Monday, Wednesday, and every other Friday for eighty

minutes, meaning two or three times a week. The students were unable to maintain their work

with the long periods in between classes, so the executive decision was made to have them

everyday for forty minutes. Therefore, the students had to come to class after an elective class,

settle down, spend ten minutes on the intervention of conducting vocabulary chats and the

remaining time was used for instruction. Science labs were very hard to complete in short time

spans. Students did not get the same amount of instructional time or teacher directed lessons as

23


the control class. Therefore, the benchmark test documented that the control class were more

prepared for the benchmark test dealing with vocabulary.

Students in both classes struggled with the academic vocabulary. Even though the disease

prevention unit had a higher chance of recognition in homes, the process of having to think about

what students understood was a struggle throughout conversational chats. Vocabulary

engagement and confidence in other classmate’ understanding was another struggle. Some

students could engage in conversations, but were limited writers, especially my English as

second language learners. Other students were struggling with simply pronunciations of

vocabulary.

One limitation to this research’s approach was having computer access and updated

software. Many minutes were wasted while waiting for the computer to log student in and

websites to load. Students were easily distracted if they were sitting waiting for their computers

to load or send conversation. The computers were older, but had the capability of upgrading.

Originally, wifi or wireless computers were going to be used in stations throughout, however this

did not occur because of funding. Another limitation is student’s lack of knowledge on the

computers. Students were aware of searching the web and texting, but understanding word

processing programs and multimedia programs were not widely known. Time was lost to

teaching of the applications rather than the “Quiz Card” strategy.

The ideas behind the chats were to have students cooperatively working to deepen

comprehension of the academic vocabulary word. A key point was the acknowledgement of

students when they would figure out they needed more instruction. Questioning ideas and

thinking meta-cognitively about the vocabulary was a novel process for many. Research

indicates students do not think about what they are reading and therefore do not comprehend as

24


they read (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007). However if they formulate questions while reading, then

discovering the answer will hold more value as well as retention. “Studies show that words

should be processed deeply and repeatedly by students” (Richek, 2005, p.55). Teaching students

to question their vocabulary understanding, while students did not easily accept sharing their lack

of knowledge with peers created many hassles. The average middle school student is more

conscientious of peer’s perceptions, therefore causing students to hold back and not share their

knowledge.

Implication for Educators

Clearly the research presented agrees with current research in the importance of direct

vocabulary instruction as a critical part of an academic teachers responsibility. Students must go

beyond the literal definition and find connections and deeper understanding. This does not seem

to occur naturally therefore as educators we must introduce students to ways to deepen

understanding of academic vocabulary. The depth over breadth philosophy has been supported

throughout the research (Kelley, Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, (2010). Allowing students to go beyond

the dictionary’s surface meaning appears throughout the research. Words should be dissected and

viewed in many situations for the full understanding. “Observing students’ use of words in

discussion, in lesson, and in writing is a mean of evaluating their vocabulary usage in the most

authentic way” (Morrow, Gambrell & Gambrell, 2011, p.239). Students who are exposed to

vocabulary through meaningful text and repetition of exposure are more likely to retain the word

meaning. As teachers, whatever the approach, vocabulary instruction is needed for all students.

Vocabulary instruction where students are looking for deeper meaning with whatever the

approach will produce positive outcomes. Aiding students with ways to practice the vocabulary

in authentic situations will result with vocabulary acquisition.

25


Reflections

The action research process, including the IRB approval and training, has made a lasting

mark on me with the colossal amount time a researcher must spend in creating, researching, and

validating results. The entire course has by far been the toughest to complete by incorporating all

the knowledge acquired from all the other classes in the MAEd graduate courses and then to

apply the knowledge in my research product. But I would guess that is the meaning behind the

entire class. As a teacher, I have the same goals for my students that they can acquire knowledge

throughout the year and by the end see the way all the units of study are interconnected.

Throughout the process, my goal as a learner was to find the magic needed to help my

students succeed in reading. What I discovered during this process is that learning will occur

when my students are actively engaged, reading, writing, and speaking about science topics.

Along the way, yes I will need to push them to think for themselves. This was very evident in

one of my student’s comments. One student at the end of the intervention right after the post

survey was completed, said, “Mrs. Denny, are we going to stop doing the words?” I laughed and

responded, “No”. She continued to say she liked having conversations and didn’t want our class

to stop. To appreciate this comment you would need to know the background of the entire

process. In short, this student gave me the biggest obstacle of completing assignments. Everyday,

I entered battle with her to get her seated, logged on to the computer and the Goggle site. I even

put the task over to her teammates who wanted to strangle her because she could not follow the

task or have the conversations. She literally was lost most days. Finally with two weeks left of

the intervention, the miracle of allowing her to use her cells phone/iPod for chatting made the

difference. She made up two weeks of work in one night! However she could not complete the

26


task typing on the computer. Nor does this mean her work was accurate, but the actual process

of having a conversation and saving, was finally accepted and understood.

As a science teacher, I loved the experimentation part of the lab and the ability to have

the concrete numbers to back up the results. The relief of knowing I didn’t waste my students’

time with the process and seeing the growth of those actively involved was worth the work. As a

seasoned educator, I’ve always searched scholarly journals for ideas and ways to improve my

instructional approach of educating my students. If in a lesson, a sectioned didn’t go well, I

would adapt or change to benefit my students. The action research process goes way beyond the

activities alone and forced me to seek the literature. Learning from others research and

supporting or not the research with quantitative experimentation has changed the way I will

teach. Using the data driven facts to proceed or change the course of my instruction is now how I

will plan and execute every lesson.

27


References

Baumann, J. F. (2009). Intensity in Vocabulary Instruction and Effects on Reading Comprehension. Topics In Language Disorders, 29(4), 312-328.

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

Berne, J. I., & Blachowicz, C. Z. (2008). What reading teachers say about vocabulary instruction: Voices from the classroom. Reading Teacher, 62(4), 314-323.

Bintz, W. P. (2011). Teaching Vocabulary Across the Curriculum. Middle School Journal, 42(4), 44-53.

Dalton, B. and Grisham, D. L. (2011), eVoc Strategies: 10 Ways to Use Technology to Build Vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 64: 306–317. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.5.1

DeVries, B. A. (2012). Vocabulary assessment as predictor of literacy skills. New England Reading Association Journal, 47(2), 4-9.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Improving adolescent literacy, content area strategies at work. (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Flanigan, K., and S. Greenwood. 2007. Effective content vocabulary instruction in the middle: Matching students, purposes, words, and strategies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 51 (3): 226–38.

Graves, M.F. (2006). Vocabulary learning and instruction. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Graves, M.F., Brunetti, G.J., & Slater, W.H. (1982). The reading vocabularies of primary grade children of varying geographic and social backgrounds. In J.A. Niles & L.A. Harris (Eds.), New inquiries in reading research and instruction (31st yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 99–104). Rochester, NY:National Reading Conference.

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

Kelley, J. G., Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., & Faller, S. (2010). Effective Academic Vocabulary Instruction in the Urban Middle School. Reading Teacher, 64(1), 5-14. doi:10.1598/RT.64.1.1

Kieffer, M.J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Initial English proficiency, concentrated poverty, and the reading growth of language minority learners in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 851–868. doi:10.1037/0022- 0663.100.4.851

28


Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C., & Thomas, M. M. (2006). Rationale for systematic vocabulary development: Antidote for state mandates. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(7), 610-619. doi:10.1598/JAAL.49.7.6

Marzano, R. J. (2012). A Comprehensive Approach to Vocabulary Instruction. Voices From The Middle, 20(1), 31-35.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works, research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Ascd.

Mitchell, D. (1996, September). Writing to learn across the curriculum and the English teacher. English Journal, 85, 93-97.

Morrow, L. M., Gambrell, L. B., & Gambrell, F. (2011). Best practices in literacy instruction, fourth edition. (4th Edition ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K., & Manis, F. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of English language learners’ word decoding and reading comprehension. Reading & Writing, 20(7), 691-719. doi:10.1007/s11145-006-9045-7

Phillips, D., Foote, C. J., & Harper, L. J. (2008). Strategies for effective vocabulary instruction. Reading Improvement, 45(2), 62-68.

Richek, M.A. (2005). Words are wonderful: Interactive times efficient strategies to teach meaning vocabulary. The Reading Teacher. 58, 414-423.

Scott, J.A., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Asselin, M. (2003). Vocabulary instruction throughout the day in twenty-three Canadian upper-elementary classrooms. The Elementary School Journal,103(3), 269–283. doi:10.1086/499726

Sénéchal, M., & Cornell, E.H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 360–374. doi:10.2307/747933

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Stahl, K., & Bravo, M. A. (2010). Contemporary Classroom Vocabulary Assessment for Content Areas. Reading Teacher, 63(7), 566-578.

Stahl, S.A., Richek, M.A., & Vandevier, R.J. (1991). Learning meaning vocabulary through listening: A sixth-grade replication. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction (40th yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 185–192). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

29


Appendix A

1. Pre/Post Test:

Pretest of Academic Vocabulary Words using theThe Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS)

Wesche and Paribakht (1996)

Directions: You will be given a list of academic vocabulary words for our upcoming unit of study. For each word, use the list of question below to attempt to share your word knowledge. Don’t worry if you do not understand the words. This assessments is a guiding document for Mrs. Denny to match her instructions to you personal understanding of each word. You have the class period time to complete this assessment.

1. I don't remember having seen this word before. (1 point)2. I have seen this word before, but I don't think I know what it means. (2 points)3. I have seen this word before, and I think it means __________. (Synonym or translation; 3

points)4. I know this word. It means _______. (Synonym or translation; 4 points)5. I can use this word in a sentence: ___________. (If you do this section, please also do

category 4; 5 points).

Words in Agent of Disease Unit:

Virus Host DecomposerAntibodies Fungi ParasitesBacteria Archaea immunizedMicrobes Disinfected ContagiousImmunodeficiency Protist ProkaryotePathology Influenza PandemicDysentery

Words in Hydrology Unit:Aquifer Permeability ImpermeablePorosity Salinity HydrospherepH Dissolved Oxygen Turbiditybio-indicators estuaries Nutrientswatersheds Terrestrial aquatic

30


Appendix BVocabulary Survey-

Vocabulary Survey – adapted from http://www.wauwatosa.k12.wi.us/schools/high/west/WorldLanguageVocabularySurvey.cfm

Science Vocabulary Survey:

1. * How important is your understanding of vocabulary to the grade you earn in Science?

Very important/moderately important/ of no importance

2. * How many minutes do you study your vocabulary each week on average? Please give

answer in minutes total per week in science class only.

3. * Do you use any online resources provided by the textbook/teacher to study

vocabulary?(1 required)

yes no

4. * Do you use flashcards/foldables? (1 required)

yes no

5. * Do you practice writing your vocabulary words in your reflections? (1 required)

yes no

6. * If you answered yes , explain then explain how this helps or does not help you master the vocabulary words.

(1 required)

yes no

7. * Do you practice saying your vocabulary words aloud/ or try using them in your conversations at home?

(1 required)

yes no

8. * Do you use pictures to help you study the vocabulary? (1 required)

yes no

31


9. * Do you use any sources to hear the correct pronunciation of the words? Recordings? Native speakers?

(1 required)

yes no

10. * What works best for you to learn vocabulary? Please include additional activities that aren't listed as well.

11. * WHAT method used helps you to learn VOCABULARY in CLASS?

Which activities in class do you think help you the most? Be specific.

YOUR SUCCESS12. * What grade do you usually receive on your science vocabulary on quizzes and test?

13. * What sections on vocabulary quizzes do you find the most difficult (matching, multiple

choice, fill in the blank)?

14. * Why are these the most difficult?

32


33

Documents

literacyismymission.weebly.comliteracyismymission.weebly.com/.../denny_action_rese… · Web viewThe purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to determine the impact of “Quiz