1  

THE ACQUISITION OF SCIENCE VOCABULARY: A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO CONTENT AREA LITERACY

A thesis presented by

Lisha Cabral

to The School of Education

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

In the field of

Education

College of Professional Studies Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts

March 16, 2015

       

   

2  

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 2  List of Figures ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.  

Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... 4  Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 5  

Chapter I: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6  Statement of the Problem  ...............................................................................................................  6  Justification for the Research Problem  ..........................................................................................  9  Deficiencies in the Evidence  ..........................................................................................................  10  Relating the Discussion to Audiences  ...........................................................................................  11  Significance of the Research Problem: Implications of Poor Comprehension  .............................  12  Research Questions  .......................................................................................................................  16  Theoretical Framework  ................................................................................................................  16  

Chapter II: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 20  Scarborough’s Reading Rope Model of Reading  ..........................................................................  20  Conceptual nature of domain specific science vocabulary  ...........................................................  22  Extent of necessary vocabulary  ....................................................................................................  23  Need for strategies  ........................................................................................................................  24  

Chapter III: Research Design .................................................................................................... 26  Introduction  ..................................................................................................................................  26  Research questions  .......................................................................................................................  26  Purpose Statement  ........................................................................................................................  27  Positionality Statement  .................................................................................................................  27  Research Design  ...........................................................................................................................  28  Research Tradition  .......................................................................................................................  29  Participants  ..................................................................................................................................  30  Data Collection  .............................................................................................................................  35  Data Storage  .................................................................................................................................  41  Data Analysis  ................................................................................................................................  43  Trustworthiness  ............................................................................................................................  49  Limitations  ...................................................................................................................................  51  

Chapter IV: Report of Research Findings ................................................................................ 52  Research Questions  .......................................................................................................................  52  Teacher Assessment (Pre and Post Tests)  .....................................................................................  53  Student Assessment #1, Multiple-Choice Vocabulary Assessment  ...............................................  54  Student Assessment #2, Nonsense Word Completion  ...................................................................  60  

First Cycle Coding - Grade Four ................................................................................................ 68  First Cycle Coding - Grade Five ................................................................................................. 75  Second Cycle Coding - Grade Four ............................................................................................ 88  Second Cycle Coding - Grade Five ............................................................................................. 97  

Additional Data  ..........................................................................................................................  108  Grade Level Focus Groups  .........................................................................................................  108  

Growth/Achievement ................................................................................................................. 118  

       

   

3  

Difficulties/Challenges ............................................................................................................... 122  Fidelity/strategies ....................................................................................................................... 124  

Individual Teacher Interviews  ....................................................................................................  126  Growth/Achievement ................................................................................................................. 133  Difficulties/Challenges ............................................................................................................... 136  Fidelity/Strategies ...................................................................................................................... 138  

Chapter V: Discussion of Research Findings ......................................................................... 140  Introduction  ................................................................................................................................  140  Findings  ......................................................................................................................................  142  

Finding A: Fidelity and collaboration ...................................................................................... 144  Finding B: Strategic approaches .............................................................................................. 147  Finding C: Conceptual understandings ................................................................................... 149  Finding D: Student and teacher engagement .......................................................................... 151  

Implications for practice  .............................................................................................................  153  Recommendations  ......................................................................................................................  155  Further Research  ........................................................................................................................  159  Conclusion  ..................................................................................................................................  163  Action  .........................................................................................................................................  163  

References .................................................................................................................................. 165  Appendix A – Grade 4 cumulative assessment, lessons 1-5 ................................................................. 171  

Appendix B – Grade 5 cumulative assessment, lessons 1-5 ................................................................. 173  

Appendix C – Nonsense words for grades four and five assessments ................................................ 177  

Appendix D – Multiple-choice assessment for grade four ................................................................... 178  

Appendix E – Multiple-choice assessment for grade five .................................................................... 182  

Appendix F – Grade Four Student Assessment Questions by Type ................................................... 186  

Appendix G – Grade Five Student Assessment Questions by Type ................................................... 191  

Appendix H – Nonsense word assessment for grade four ................................................................... 196  

Appendix I – Nonsense word assessment for grade five ...................................................................... 200  

Appendix J – Focus Group Questions ................................................................................................... 204  

Appendix K – Individual Interview Questions ..................................................................................... 205  

Appendix L – Answer keys for multiple-choice assessments (Grades four and five) ....................... 206  

Appendix M – Answer keys for nonsense word assessments (First cycle coding for grades four and five) ........................................................................................................................................................... 207  

Appendix N – Nonsense word assessment cycle one coding for all grade four classes ..................... 208  

Appendix O – Nonsense word assessment cycle one coding for all grade five classes ...................... 213  

Appendix P – Updated nonsense word assessment after cycle TWO coding for all grade four classes ................................................................................................................................................................... 218  

Appendix Q – Updated nonsense word assessment after cycle TWO coding for all grade five classes ................................................................................................................................................................... 223

       

   

4  

Dedication  It is with utmost humility that I complete this journey since it would have never been possible

without my support network. I thank my advisers and mentors, Dr. Conn, Dr. Huizenga, Dr.

Green, and Dr. Keough for their guidance and support. I am also thankful to Mom C, my Maine

family and L3 for your love and encouragement. When it comes to my parents, Janice and

Dennis Brightman, words cannot express my love and admiration for you. Literally and

figuratively, I am who I am and I accomplish what I do because of you. Emma and Cody, you

are my reason for being. I appreciate all of your patience during this process. You are a daily

blessing in my life. The rest of my gratitude, and all of my heart, belong to Billy. You have been

my partner on many paths, and we have just completed another one…together. I wouldn’t have it

any other way.

       

   

5  

Abstract  Accessing vocabulary in the content areas requires different approaches than in the typical

English Language Arts classroom. In the sciences, there are at least three characteristics that

create the necessity to approach vocabulary differently; the novelty of the concepts the

vocabulary represents to students, the inordinate amount of new words encountered in the

sciences, and the lack of explicit vocabulary acquisition instruction provided by science teachers.

If students were able to leverage their understanding of words and word meanings and improve

their automaticity of understanding the morphology of words, they may be able to improve their

overall comprehension of text as well as concepts. The Matthew Effect and the Reciprocal

Model both underscore the causal nature of the vocabulary-reading comprehension relationship.

They also support the sense of immediacy necessary to keep children from falling further and

further behind their peers. It is possible, even at the intermediate level, to enhance a student’s

reading comprehension skills and content area conceptual understandings through direct

vocabulary study. This study documents the benefits of using Greek and Latin word parts in ELA

to acquire vocabulary and understand new concepts in science in grade four and five classes.

Students who participated in direct, explicit instruction of Greek and Latin word parts

outperformed students who did not in identifying unfamiliar science concepts that utilized those

word parts. Students indicated conceptual understanding of the scientific concept behind a

nonsense word due to their familiarity with a science-related morpheme, thus indicting an

opportunity to help students better understand new, content area vocabulary as well as the

concepts represented by that vocabulary.

KEY WORDS: vocabulary, science, conceptual understandings, morphology, literacy

       

   

6  

Chapter  I:  Introduction  

“Vocabulary is the glue that holds stories, ideas, and content together…making comprehension accessible for the child” (Rupley, Logan, and Nichols 1998/1999).

Statement of the Problem  

An increasing number of secondary students are entering high school unable to read at

grade level. In today’s easily accessible, information-rich global society, these students must be

able to understand and synthesize information from complex nonfiction texts much more quickly

and critically than ever before. With the release of the Common Core State Standards and the

subsequent Massachusetts Curriculum Framework Standards, it is clear that a significantly

greater focus has been placed on the importance of close reading of content area informational

text. Unfortunately, content area teachers, particularly at the secondary level, are traditionally ill-

prepared to assist students in utilizing literacy skills in their classrooms to acquire new

vocabulary and comprehend text and rarely teach these strategies explicitly in the context of their

subject matter.

Topic. The English language is comprised of several components. One of these is the

phoneme. A phoneme is the smallest unit of a language. An example would be the sound /p/ in

the word “pot.” A grapheme is a unit of a written system of language such as the letter “p.”

When phonemes are represented graphically, through graphemes, they develop meaning. The

smallest possible unit of meaning in a word or speech is a morpheme. Examples of morphemes

would be “pot” and “s” in the word “pots.” The morpheme “pot” identifies the cooking

implement while the morpheme “s” gives the meaning of plurality.

The most common form of intervention for struggling readers has traditionally been

phonemic in nature. Children work on mastering the sounds of letters, blends, etc. This is

       

   

7  

essential for successful reading. If a child does not have mastery of automaticity when decoding

text, they will expend far too much cognitive effort “sounding out” the letters and words making

it impossible to focus on the meaning of the words and text. However, once students have

mastered reading with fluency (speed, accuracy, and prosody), they may continue to experience

difficulty understanding the text they read. This is particularly common at the intermediate level

(grades four to five).

At this level, their cognitive effort may be compromised by an inordinate amount of

concentration on or misunderstanding of the morphemes. Therefore, a morphological approach,

or an explicit study of the smallest meaningful parts of words, may be beneficial in creating

“fluency” in their understanding of words. Accessing domain-specific vocabulary in the content

areas may require an even more concentrated approach since the vocabulary, again, most

prevalently at the intermediate level, becomes much more abstract and provides far less context

clues in the text to assist in decoding the meaning.

Problem statement. Accessing vocabulary in the content areas requires different

approaches than in the typical English Language Arts classroom. In addition, these approaches

will vary based on the unique complexities of each content area. In the sciences, there are at least

three characteristics that create the necessity to approach vocabulary differently. First, scientific

terminology is almost always used to identify concepts that are entirely new phenomena to

students and they are difficult to define with a synonym or comparative idea. Second, there is an

inordinate amount of vocabulary necessary in the study of science. It is most comparable to

learning a foreign language. Finally, the strategies that would perhaps be the most beneficial in

helping students to acquire new vocabulary are traditionally only taught explicitly by the English

       

   

8  

Language Arts teachers, and children do not tend to transfer these skills from one domain to

another on their own.

Science teachers report that they do not have the explicit understanding of the

fundamentals of literacy to assist students in acquiring the skills needed to compensate for a lack

of understanding when it comes to acquiring new vocabulary. There is little collaborative time

provided for teachers of English Language Arts and other content areas such as science to meet

and share their strategies for teaching vocabulary and other skills. In addition, they are largely

unaware of the strategies and terminology of their colleagues. Therefore, they are unable to make

explicit connections for the children based on what they may have learned as a strategy in

another class to transfer that knowledge in other content areas or from year to year. If teachers

used a coordinated system for introducing and reinforcing vocabulary across content areas and

across years, and if they worked collaboratively to reinforce not only this range of vocabulary

but the strategies used to understand the words and text they were reading, then students would

be able to leverage their understanding of words and word meanings and be able to improve their

automaticity of understanding the morphology of words and improving their overall

comprehension of text as well as concepts.

This indicates an “Action-Knowledge Conflict” as defined by Jacobs (2011). While

content area teachers understand the importance of students’ deep knowledge of domain-specific

vocabulary, they do not have the capacity to lead them through a morphological study of the

words and their word parts in order to increase their background knowledge and conceptual

understandings. This creates a “gap” and “prevent(s) individuals from behaving in professional

situations as they might wish otherwise” (Jacobs, 2011). This study documents the benefits of

using a coordinated study of morphology in vocabulary acquisition in grade four and five

       

   

9  

classes. It will describe how students who participated in direct, explicit instruction of Greek and

Latin word parts outperformed students who did not in identifying unfamiliar science concepts

that utilized those word parts. Students indicated conceptual understanding of the scientific

concept behind a nonsense word due to their familiarity with a science-related morpheme, thus

indicting an opportunity to help students better understand new, content area vocabulary as well

as the concepts represented by that vocabulary.

Justification for the Research Problem  

The first difficulty noted facing science teachers is the conceptual nature of the

vocabulary their students need to acquire. Unlike English Language Arts teachers, the

professionals who teach other content areas do not tend to incorporate a great deal of reading and

writing as part of their regular instruction. Mastery of conceptual understandings and reasoning

skills are best represented through these means, but content area teachers do not tend to use

language as a means of capacity building for their students (IES, 2008). For this reason, it is

difficult to accurately assess the extent of a student’s understanding. According to Halliday

(1993), measuring a student’s understanding of the “jargon” of science can be a challenge since

“making meaning is an internal function” and is best demonstrated through language (Cruz,

2012). If a student does not have the appropriate vocabulary to articulate their thoughts and

ideas, those thoughts and ideas are meaningless. Students need academic terminology and

experience with science vocabulary in order to effectively communicate about science (Lee and

Fradd, 1996; Lemke, 1990).

The second challenge to the acquisition of scientific vocabulary is the sheer mass of the

words necessary to ensure comprehension. Students will encounter over 180,000 words in

       

   

10  

course-related texts (Rasinski, 2008). According to James Wandersee (1985), “there are more

new words introduced in a beginning biology course than in the first-year study of a foreign

language.” Most science teachers do not have a systematic or multi-dimensional approach to

teaching such a vast amount of necessary words that will make them meaningful to their students

and to the concepts they will need to understand.

Finally, while content area teachers tend to realize the significance of knowing specific

vocabulary for their subject area, most fail to employ effective means and strategies to guarantee

their students’ understandings. It would be helpful for teachers, particularly science teachers, to

better understand language acquisition pedagogy as well as the application of scientific terms to

the context of the topics being taught (Carrier, 2005). While content area teachers are showing

more interest in incorporating literacy skills in their lessons, most do not have the skill set

necessary for doing this (D’Arcangelo, 2002). Incorporating targeted strategies for acquiring

scientific terminology will help to improve reading comprehension and conceptual

understanding. Teachers need to be provided with the appropriate supports necessary to help

them have a better understanding of word study and strategies for implementation (Bloodgood

and Pacifici, 2004).

Deficiencies in the Evidence  

The deficiencies in the research relate directly to the nature of acquiring vocabulary in the

content areas other than English Language Arts. There are many activities and strategies

available for the English teacher. However, many “experts” tend to recommend the use of these

same strategies in the other content areas and they are not always applicable. For example, dense,

non-fiction text such as a scientific article rarely provides context clues for the reader as in a

       

   

11  

work of literature. Therefore, simply providing these suggestions to science teachers will not

only be futile and ineffective, but they will be frustrating to both the teacher and the student who

attempts to utilize them. More specific information regarding the unique challenges in learning

science vocabulary, specifically the conceptual nature of the terms, the management of the

volume of words, and the strategies most applicable to scientific text, is needed to provide the

proper support for these teachers and their students.

Relating the Discussion to Audiences  

Content area teachers have expressed frustration in the way that traditional English

Language Arts teachers have suggested they approach content area literacy (Siebert and Draper,

2008). This study took into account the specific differences in approaching literacy, specifically

vocabulary acquisition, in the content areas. In particular, it focused on how this works in a

science classroom. This can be applied to other content areas in the sense that it will become

necessary to research the specific needs and challenges of each subject before implementing

strategies that may have traditionally worked in other fields. It also cannot be assumed that

teachers who are highly qualified in their content areas have the necessary pedagogy and

capacity necessary to help their students access the language needed for comprehension.

Providing this support can be beneficial to both students and educators.

For the intermediate school where this study took place, it is possible that the specific

methods used may suggest similar success in other subjects if the same care is given to research

the compatibility of the strategies, the content matter, and the nature of the subject. This could

potentially affect the way that students learn (and understand) not only the content, but the

concepts.

       

   

12  

Significance of the Research Problem: Implications of Poor Comprehension  

When considering science skills in particular, the Massachusetts Comprehensive

Assessment System (MCAS) scores show a lower level of proficiency and slower rate of gains,

particularly in middle school than other content areas. At the state level, students perform

considerably lower on the science MCAS than on English Language Arts or mathematics.

The implications of poor comprehension have an even greater effect on students who are

preparing for college and career readiness. For over 50 years, ACT has been reporting on student

readiness for post-graduate studies. In 2012, it was reported that only “67% of all ACT-tested

high school graduates met the English College Readiness Benchmark.” Just over 50% met the

Reading Benchmark, less than 50% met the Mathematics Benchmark, and “just under 1 in 3,” or

a mere “31% met the College Readiness Benchmark in Science” (ACT, 2012).

According to a study conducted by Achieve, Inc., students have not been appropriately or

sufficiently prepared for either college or career after high school. In college, 42% of instructors

said that their students are “not adequately prepared…for the expectations of college classes and

are struggling or having to take remedial courses to catch up” (2005). In the same study,

employers estimated that “39% of recent high school graduates…are unprepared for the

expectations they face at entry-level jobs…(and) 45% are not adequately prepared for the skills

and abilities they need to advance beyond entry level” (2005). While slightly under half of the

students polled felt that their high school education did not prepare them well for skills such as

research and effective communication, a full “51% felt there were gaps in their preparation in

science” (2005). These figures only considered the students who graduated from high school.

Many others never made it that far.

       

   

13  

In 2004, the Carnegie Corporation sponsored the Reading Next report. In it, authors, Gina

Biancarosa and Catherine E. Snow illustrate societal implications of lacking literacy

competency. For example, every day, close to 7,000 students drop out of high school (Biancarosa

and Snow, 2006). It is widely accepted that the majority of these students leave high school

because they cannot keep up with the literacy skills required to be successful. In fact, 70% of the

students entering grade 9 are reading below grade level (Biancarosa and Snow, 2004). This is

particularly concerning considering that the lowest 25% of the students in grade 9 are twenty

more times as likely to drop out of high school than their high performing peers (Carnvale,

2001). While “the 25 fastest growing professions have far greater than average literacy

demands…the 25 fastest declining professions have lower than average literacy demands”

(Barton, 2000). This, of course, leads to higher unemployment as “the demand for unskilled

labor decreases” (OECD, 2000).

Finally, as Massachusetts has adopted a new set of Massachusetts Curriculum

Frameworks for English Language Arts and Literacy, incorporating the Common Core State

Standards, there is a higher level of accountability for alignment. The standards include Literacy

in the Sciences and Technical Subjects. This was not always explicitly measured. According to

the National Science Education Standards, scientific literacy has many degrees and forms, but

included in the definition is being able to “display scientific literacy in many ways including

using technical terms or applying scientific concepts and processes” (National Academy of

Sciences, 1996).

In the English Language Arts and Literacy Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks

adopted in March 2011, students in grades 9 and 10 are expected to “determine the meaning of

symbols, key terms, and other domain-specific words and phrases as they are used in a specific

       

   

14  

scientific or technological context” (MA DESE, 2011). As stated previously, direct instruction of

isolated and arbitrary terms is not effective. The new standards reflect this as well by adding that

students must also be able to “analyze the structure of the relationships among concepts in a text,

including the relationships among key terms” (MA DESE, 2011). This reflects the complexities

of vocabulary acquisition as well as its close relationship to understanding related text. Meeting

these standards will be essential at the local level in order to meet accountability standards.

Indeed, as the framework represents the standards of college and career readiness, all learners

must meet them for future success.

This focus on the importance of content area literacy in science is reflected in the most

recent versions of national and state science standards as well. In April 2013, an effort made by

several partnering states in collaboration with the National Research Council (NRC), the

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the American Association for the Advancement

of Science (AAAS), and others resulted in the release of the national Next Generation Science

Standards (NGSS) (Achieve, 2013). During a thorough review that will continue until an

anticipated completion in the 2015-2016 school year, the Massachusetts Department of

Elementary and Secondary Education released a draft revision of the NGSS in January 2014

(MA DESE, 2014).

Both of these documents focus on the ELA standards in relation to mastering the science

concepts and content. In fact, both the NGSS and the Massachusetts draft include “Connections”

boxes in every domain and grade level. These boxes indicate both the Mathematics and ELA

Common Core State Standards that are most closely related to and support the acquisition of the

science standards noted. This further reinforces the interdependent relationship between ELA

and science.

       

   

15  

The relationships and convergences among ELA and science as well as mathematics are

graphically represented in Figure 1.1. Tina Cheung of Stanford University provides an

explanation of this diagram. In it, Cheung states that the capacity that indicates students must

“demonstrate independence in reading complex texts, and writing and speaking about them” is a

summary of essential integrated ELA skills. Among these are skills that “attend to the language

demands expected from students” such as “comprehend and evaluate complex texts,…construct

effective arguments, and convey…information… discern a speaker’s key points, request

clarification, and ask relevant questions…build on others’ ideas, articulate their own ideas, and

confirm they have been understood… demonstrate command of standard English and acquire

and use a wide-ranging vocabulary” (Cheung, 2013).

Figure 1.1: Relationships and convergences in content area standards (2013).

       

   

16  

Research Questions  1. A. How do students apply their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts

in ELA to acquiring vocabulary and understanding new concepts in science?

B. What contributes to student application of morphological strategies learned in ELA to

their study of vocabulary in science?

2. A. To what extent do students utilize their understanding of morphemes to decode and

comprehend or conceptualize unfamiliar scientific vocabulary?

B. How do students hypothesize the meaning of nonsense scientific vocabulary

utilizing their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts?

Theoretical Framework  

There is a large body of research that supports the link between vocabulary and reading

comprehension (Chall and Jacobs, 2003; Beck, McKeown, and Omanson, 1987; Stahl and

Fairbanks, 1986; Graves, 1986; Nagy, 1988; Anderson and Freebody, 1981; NRP, 2000; Sinatra,

Berg, and Dunn, 1985; Baumann, Kame’enui, and Ash, 2003; Hiebert and Kamil, 2005;

Mezynski, 1983). While the evidence shows that the relationship is correlational, researchers

differ on whether the relationship is causational. However, Keith Stanovich (1986) highlighted

that researchers were beginning to examine these relationships differently. They began to

understand that the relationship between vocabulary development and reading ability might be

one of reciprocal causation. In the case of vocabulary acquisition, it was presented that

vocabulary ability is a determinant of reading ability (Stahl, 1983; McKeown, et al, 1983). Other

researchers also concluded that extensive reading has a significant influence on vocabulary

(Nagy, Herman, and Anderson, 1985).

       

   

17  

The Matthew Effect. Keith Stanovich presented the idea of reciprocal causation under

the examination of the Matthew Effect (1986). Originally coined in sociology by Robert K.

Merton in 1968, the Matthew Effect references the Biblical quote that is loosely translated to,

“the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” and represents the cumulative advantage

phenomenon.

In the case of reading, as students successfully access the vocabulary needed to aid their

comprehension, this improves their understanding of text. They receive more positive feedback,

find pleasure in it, and continue to read more and more. This increases the amount of language

they are exposed to, and they acquire a richer vocabulary. As they gain a much broader exposure

to vocabulary, they become “richer.”

Conversely, the student who does not have easy access to text meets frustration. They do

not have a positive experience accessing vocabulary and do not understand the text. They fall

behind, become disengaged, and tend to read far less. This limits their opportunities to increase

their vocabulary and improve their reading skills. If they do not have the appropriate vocabulary

necessary to understand the text, they are likely to receive negative or even no feedback, which

in turn creates distaste for further reading. As they continue to avoid reading, they decrease their

access to varied text and their opportunity to learn vocabulary, becoming “poorer.”

This phenomenon is exacerbated as students enter intermediate school and are exposed to

increasingly more complex text with a decrease in the scaffolding and supports needed to access

that text, particularly in the content areas outside of English Language Arts, such as science. If

students do not receive the supports and structures they need to understand more difficult

vocabulary, the chances that their comprehension of expositional text will improve are

significantly minimized.

       

   

18  

Reciprocal Model. The seminal text in examining the relationship between vocabulary

and instruction was written by Anderson and Freebody in 1981. They suggested three models

through which to frame the correlation. The first is the Instrumentalist Model. This theory asserts

that having a larger knowledge of vocabulary increases understanding of text, or “knowing the

words enables text comprehension.” If this is accurate, it can be hypothesized that teaching more

vocabulary words would have a direct effect, or causation, on successful comprehension. The

second theory is the Knowledge Model. This acknowledges the role of yet a third variable:

background knowledge. Therefore, having an understanding of the subject matter facilitates

comprehension of the text. The vocabulary that the individual has mastered is “merely the

exposed tip of the conceptual iceberg.” The third model is called Aptitude. This posits that

subjects with a large vocabulary “possess superior mental agility,” giving them a natural capacity

for text comprehension.

Many researchers, including Anderson and Freeman, assert that the true model of the

vocabulary-comprehension may not be only one of these models at the exclusion of the other

two, but instead some combination of them. “No serious scholar in reading or related fields

adheres to any one of these positions” (Anderson and Freebody, 1981). Subsequent theories in

various combinations thus were presented from researchers such as Karen Mezynski (1983) and

Stephen Stahl (1991).

However, in 2005, William Nagy most recently suggested, similar to the Matthew Effect,

that the causal relationship between vocabulary and comprehension was more bidirectional in

nature. He suggested the Reciprocal Model. “Having a big vocabulary does contribute to being a

better reader. But being a good reader also contributes to having a better vocabulary.” He further

recommends creating a comprehensive literacy program with distinct characteristics. These

       

   

19  

include “teaching individual words; extensive exposure to rich language (both oral and written);

and building generative word knowledge” (Nagy, 2005).

The Matthew Effect and the Reciprocal Model both underscore the causal nature of the

vocabulary-reading comprehension relationship. They also support the sense of immediacy

necessary to keep children from falling further and further behind their peers. It is possible, even

at the intermediate level, to enhance a student’s reading comprehension skills through direct

vocabulary study. However, this must not result merely in a drilled practice of isolated word

banks. Determining which strategies are the most effective will be essential. This necessitates

careful consideration of the content area to be analyzed as well as the nature and context of the

instruction.

       

   

20  

Chapter II: Literature Review

It is clear that many studies and researchers have concluded that vocabulary is directly

connected to comprehension. It is further evident that explicit strategies regarding language

acquisition, particularly in content areas like science, would be the key in getting students to

understand and better articulate scientific concepts. However, the research is inconclusive about

what specific strategy or strategies are the most effective in creating this increase in vocabulary

and comprehension (NICHHD, 2000; Biancarosa and Snow, 2004). Most researchers would also

agree that vocabulary instruction alone is not sufficient (Graves, 1986; Beck, Mckeown, and

Kucan, 2002; Mezynski, 1983; Stahl, 1991), which makes the strategies used that much more

important to carefully consider and further research.

Scarborough’s Reading Rope Model of Reading  

A commonly used model of reading today is Scarborough’s Reading Rope (2001) (Figure

2.1). This visual representation of the multi-faceted nature of reading separates word recognition

and language comprehension. Phonological awareness, decoding (and encoding, or spelling), and

sight recognition are parts of “word recognition.” “Language comprehension” is made up of

background knowledge, vocabulary knowledge, language structures, verbal reasoning, and

literacy knowledge. The individual strands combine under the two broader strands, which then

become intertwined to represent the skill of reading. Under this model, vocabulary is represented

as a necessary component for comprehension.

       

   

21  

Figure 2.1: Scarborough’s Reading Rope (2001).

In 2000, the National Reading Panel published its report “Teaching Children to Read.” In

it, the NRP identified five components that are essential for students learning to read effectively

(NICHHD, 2000). Three of these components, phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency (which

would be represented under “word recognition” in Scarborough’s Rope) have long been

considered “mastered” in the primary grades. Vocabulary and reading comprehension, the

remaining two components, have been seen as ongoing throughout a child’s academic career.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. In fact, there is an increasing population of

students that cannot effectively access complex text in the intermediate grades and subsequently

into high school. Further, it is becoming increasingly clear that the way to approach vocabulary

and comprehension are different depending on the specific content area.

       

   

22  

Reading comprehension, the pinnacle of the five components is inextricably linked to

vocabulary acquisition. Many researchers and studies have supported the connection between

vocabulary and reading comprehension (Chall and Jacobs, 2003; Beck, McKeown, and

Omanson, 1987; Stahl and Fairbanks, 1986; Graves, 1986; Nagy, 1988; Anderson and Freebody,

1981; NICHHD, 2000; Sinatra, Berg, and Dunn, 1985; Baumann, Kame’enui, and Ash, 2003;

Hiebert and Kamil, 2005; Mezynski, 1983). Domain-specific vocabulary is essential when

studying any subject matter, and “reading vocabulary is crucial to the comprehension process of

a skilled reader” (NICHHD, 2000). For this reason, it is important to explore the best means of

acquiring both fundamental and complex vocabulary in the content areas.

While vocabulary acquisition is critical to effective comprehension in all areas, this is

particularly true in the content areas such as science. This text is largely expositional, there are

few context clues to develop meaning, the terms are conceptually vs. semantically-based, the

language of the discipline is growing at an exponential rate, and content area teachers are

traditionally not experienced at providing strategies for decoding complex terms. For students

who already have difficulty accessing this type of text, this deficit puts them at a distinct

disadvantage for performing independent tasks and succeeding in the sciences.

Conceptual nature of domain specific science vocabulary  

Content area vocabulary is largely conceptual in nature vs. semantic. A reading teacher

can make clear connections via a student’s common understanding of other vocabulary words

(i.e.: “melancholy” means very sad), and the student can make the link to prior knowledge or

experience of sadness. However, for a science teacher attempting to make a similar connection

(i.e.: “photosynthesis”), it would be very difficult. There is an underlying concept which the

       

   

23  

student has not yet mastered. This makes the learning of this vocabulary a far more complex

endeavor.

The study of Greek and Latin word parts is particularly significant in the acquisition of

science terms and concepts. Much of the new vocabulary that students will encounter, especially

in science, will be based on Greek and Latin (Partnership for Reading, 2001). Students can gain

far better understandings of science concepts if they already have a conceptual understanding of

the roots of the terms (Aaron, Joshi, and Quatroche, 2008).

Extent of necessary vocabulary  

In order for a student to comprehend the material they are reading, they must have an

understanding of 90 to 95 percent of the words in the text (Hirsch, 2003). With the increasing

rigor of the texts students are expected to read, they will need to learn 2,000 to 3,000 new words

per year in order to understand them (Beck, McKeown & Kucan, 2002). However, the average

student can learn approximately 400 words per year through direct instruction (Beck, McKeown

& Kucan, 2002). Teachers in subjects with a constantly growing and evolving pool of knowledge

and language, like science, must use a different approach.

There are approximately 1.2 to 2 million words in the English language, and technology

is adding at least 20,000 words to that list each year. Even though a student will be expected to

learn up to 3,000 words each year just to maintain grade level vocabulary, they can only master

8-10 per week through direct instruction (Beck, McKeown, and Kucan, 2002). This will not be

sufficient. However, if students study the morphology of words instead of isolated vocabulary,

they can increase the number of words they learn exponentially. Even learning the more common

affixes and bases can assist students in understanding many new words (Partnership for Reading,

       

   

24  

2001). Of English words with more than one syllable, 90% are Latin based, and most of the

remaining 10% are Greek based (Rasinski, 2008). From one Latin root, a student can decode or

generate five to twenty other words (Rasinski, 2008). This will help them to access the words

(more than 180,000) that they will encounter in school texts.

Need for strategies  

In June 2012, Massachusetts adopted a new set of English Language Arts Curriculum

Frameworks based on the Common Core State Standards. Included in it are standards for

Literacy in the Technical Subjects. The standards illustrate the need for students to be able to

successfully read scientific and technical texts. They must be able to “read complex

informational texts in these fields with independence and confidence because the vast majority of

reading in college and workforce training programs will be sophisticated nonfiction” (MA

DESE, 2012). Beyond simply memorizing new terms, “the vocabulary standards focus on

understanding words and phrases, their relationships, and their nuances, and on acquiring new

vocabulary, primarily general academic and domain-specific words and phrases” (MA DESE,

2012).

In the primary grades, teachers focus on foundational reading skills because students are

“learning to read.” Beginning in the fourth and fifth grades, the emphasis in literacy is now

“reading to learn” by providing the strategies that help them learn to access text and appreciate

author craft. Traditionally, both the “learning to read” and “reading to learn” strategies have

focused on the use of narrative and fictional text. Content area text, however, is expositional in

nature. Students have had far less experience decoding the vocabulary and making meaning of

dense expositional text by the time they enter high school. Just at the time when explicit reading

       

   

25  

instruction ends, students are being asked to engage with far more rigorous text. Strategies that

students had been encouraged to use in the past, such as utilizing context clues, will not be as

helpful. Most of this text makes little use of cues in context.

Science teachers have not traditionally embraced teaching literacy strategies. However, in

order for students to be critical readers of complex expositional scientific text, they will need

explicit strategies for accessing the language in order to better comprehend the content, and they

will not be able to rely on the most common strategies used when they learned to read. Since

researchers have also determined that there is not one strategy that best meets this need

(NICHHD, 2001; Biancarosa and Snow, 2004), it is important to investigate elements that may

prove successful.

       

   

26  

Chapter III: Research Design

Introduction  

Accessing vocabulary in the content areas requires different approaches than in the

typical English Language Arts classroom. In the sciences, there are at least three characteristics

that create the necessity to approach vocabulary differently: the novelty of the concepts the

vocabulary represents to students, the inordinate amount of new words encountered in the

sciences, and the lack of explicit vocabulary acquisition instruction provided by science teachers.

If students were able to leverage their understanding of words and word meanings and improve

their automaticity of understanding the morphology of words, they may be able to improve their

overall comprehension of text as well as concepts. The Matthew Effect and the Reciprocal

Model both underscore the causal nature of the vocabulary-reading comprehension relationship.

They also support the sense of immediacy necessary to keep children from falling further and

further behind their peers. It is possible, even at the intermediate level, to enhance a student’s

reading comprehension skills through direct vocabulary study.

Research questions  1. A. How do students apply their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts

in ELA to acquiring vocabulary and understanding new concepts in science?

B. What contributes to student application of morphological strategies learned in ELA to

their study of vocabulary in science?

2. A. To what extent do students utilize their understanding of morphemes to decode and

comprehend or conceptualize unfamiliar scientific vocabulary?

B. How do students hypothesize the meaning of nonsense scientific vocabulary

utilizing their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts?

       

   

27  

Purpose Statement  

The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to discover whether the use of

morphology skills was transferred and utilized in the understanding of science terms and

concepts by fourth and fifth grade students at a suburban Massachusetts intermediate school to

improve their comprehension. Morphology skills were generally defined as combining and/or

substituting known Greek and Latin affixes explicitly taught in the English Language Arts

classes in unfamiliar or even nonsense patterns to create meaning or a reasonable hypothesis of

meaning.

Positionality Statement  

As a former high school English teacher, I have an interest in language and linguistics. I

have not taught a science course, but I have an appreciation of the fact that it is a conceptual and

inquiry-based subject, and one in which ideas, procedures, and processes must be articulated

clearly and succinctly. In order to do this, it is important to have a firm grasp of the language

required to be accurate and direct.

I have observed many science colleagues and protégés, and I have found that there is a

lack of direct vocabulary instruction that is meaningful and effective, and there is a lack of

appreciation for indirect vocabulary study altogether. While I may be biased in the belief that

better instruction will enhance student understanding of the overall concepts, I did not have a

bias as to which strategy or strategies would be most successful, particularly in a science setting.

In practice, a morphological approach has been helpful to students in accessing a broad range of

vocabulary words in my English courses. However, I am well aware that strategies do not always

transfer well across content areas. While I have an interest in evaluating the effectiveness of the

       

   

28  

specific strategies utilized in a science class, I did not have a bias in terms of whether these

strategies will be as successful as they are in an English classroom or whether a particular

strategy is more effective than any other. Therefore, this limited my potential bias as to whether

the study of Greek and Latin word parts was or was not a successful strategy in assisting

comprehension of science concepts in this content area.

I acknowledge, however, that there may be some level of bias in other areas, but suggest

that this was beneficial to the research. Due to the focus of my education, my extensive

experience as a high school English teacher, and my background as a professional development

provider of PK-12 teachers, I brought a lens to the study that was useful. This study was

designed to determine if students were applying their morphological skills to their understanding

of science. Since this was determined to be the case, it was further necessary to determine to

what extent this was happening and to what level of comprehension the students had mastered a

vocabulary word. My understanding of both the content area and pedagogy was helpful in

determining that the students showed conceptual understanding and that the strategies used by

the classroom teachers were influential in this understanding taking place.

Further, having been a classroom teacher for twenty years, and having previously taught

in the district in which the study took place (though no longer employed there), there was a sense

from teachers that I understood their challenges and choices. It helped to “enhance the rapport

and dialogue” with the teachers (Ponterotto, 2005).

Research Design  

This research was designed as a basic qualitative study (Merriam, 1998). The research

interest was in “understanding the experience” (Merriam, 2009) of the participants, or, in this

       

   

29  

case, whether students made use of the language skills learned and utilized in their English

Language Arts classes to make sense of the language they encountered in science class.

According to Merriam (2009), “Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the

meaning people have constructed, that is, how people make sense of their world and the

experience they have in the world.” In order to know if the strategies used in the English

Language Arts classes had implications beyond that subject area, it was necessary to determine

to what extent and to what level of success students had transferred this skill.

The paradigm of the study is “constructivism/interpretivism” as described by Ponterotto

(2005). From a constructivist perspective, reality is “subjective and influenced by the context of

the situation, namely the individual’s experience and perceptions, the social environment, and

the interaction between the individual and the researcher” (Ponterotto, 2005). Rich, thick

description was necessary in order to provide legitimacy to the study. The analysis is so

contextually specific, that another researcher may interpret it otherwise. This is especially true if

there is a desire to replicate the study in other school districts, different grade levels, or systems

with varying demographic populations.

Epistemologically, it is the intention of the study that “through intense interaction and

dialogue, both the participant and the researcher will reach deeper insights (hermeneutical

discovery)” of the experiences of the teachers and the students (Ponterotto, 2005). This can then

be useful in determining whether the use of the Greek and Latin word parts should or should not

be continued with or without modifications in the ongoing vocabulary instruction of the English

Language Arts classes.

Research Tradition  

       

   

30  

The study was conducted as a General Inductive Analysis. There was not one specific

theory or hypothesis being investigated in this study; rather, the intended outcome was “the

development of categories into a model or framework that summarizes the raw data and conveys

key themes and processes,” making decisions about the most important information, and even

taking into account the possibility of unplanned outcomes (Thomas, 2006).

This study aimed to determine whether or not students transferred their skills from one

area to another and what result this had on their comprehension. Using general inductive analysis

“provide(d) a simple, straightforward approach for deriving findings linked to focused evaluation

questions” (Thomas, 2006).

Participants  

The population of the sample included approximately 400 grade four and five students at

a suburban Massachusetts intermediate school and their teachers. The students ranged in age

from eight to eleven and included both boys and girls. This study employed purposeful selection

of participants (Maxwell, 2005). Also referred to as “purposeful sampling” (Patton, 1990) and

“criterion-based selection” (LeCompte and Preissle, 1993), Maxwell defines this as “a strategy in

which particular, settings, persons, or activities are selected deliberately in order to provide

information that can’t be gotten well from other choices” (2005).

In this case, the unique transition from “learning to read” to “reading to learn” that

converges with the reduction in targeted reading skills provided in class and the separation of

teachers for different content areas made the intermediate grades particularly appropriate for this

study. Maxwell quotes Weiss (1994) as adding that the sample (in this case, the teachers), is

more accurately coined a “panel,” because they are “people who are uniquely able to be

       

   

31  

informative because they are expert in an area or were privileged to witness an event” (Maxwell,

2005). The participating teachers, and indeed the students, reported on what they witnessed

themselves. This information was augmented with archival assessment information provided by

one of the teachers and the results of two student assessments created by the researcher.

Recruitment and access. Permission to conduct the study was secured, in writing, from

the Superintendent of the school district after a public presentation was made to the full School

Committee. Participants were fourth and fifth grade students and their teachers in the

intermediate school. Parents and teachers received a full briefing, in writing and orally, of the

scope and purpose of the study as well as a specific description of all of the data that would be

collected. In addition, two informational sessions were also be offered outside of regular school

hours (directly after school and again in the evening) and on school grounds for any parents

and/or teachers who wanted to meet in person and ask questions or secure clarification before

consenting to participate.

Students were only be asked to participate if their teacher explicitly taught vocabulary

throughout the year, provided pre and post assessments for these units, and agreed to administer

the study assessments of unfamiliar science vocabulary and nonsense science vocabulary (these

assessments had no impact whatsoever on student grades for this class).

The only reason for student exclusion, other than not being enrolled in one of these

classes, was if the student and/or parent/guardian declined participation. In this case there were

no consequence, and the child simply continued with their regularly scheduled school activities.

Students were not be identified by ethnicity/race, socio-economic level, literacy level or health.

The study did not include any non-English speaking students, parents, or teachers, as there were

       

   

32  

currently none identified at this school. All teachers who met the above criteria who elected to

participate were included.

The particular intermediate school chosen for participation, referred to as the Billings

Intermediate School, was selected because of their recent adoption of a morphological approach

to vocabulary instruction. Each teacher had been teaching the same grade level for several years.

In addition to their current experience using the new approach to vocabulary, they had historical

data that they could reference to reflect on any changes in student behavior and/or achievement

when compared to vocabulary study without this direct instructional approach.

Billings Intermediate is part of the Brighton-Cabot Regional School District. The sending

communities are both suburban, middle class towns that are comparable in land area and

demographics. The population of the two towns was approximately 9,076 and 10,623 and over

95% white as of 2009. The median household income for these communities as of 2011 was

$79,293 and $86,514 (Advameg, Inc.). The regional school district population as of 2013 was

3,055 with 493 of these students attending the Billings Intermediate School in grades four and

five. The number of students in the school who are designated as having Limited English

Proficiency, low income, or special needs is comparable to the other schools in the district, but

both the school and district are below the Massachusetts average for these indicators (MA DESE,

2014). There were no students at this school identified as ELL during this study.

As stated previously, Billings Intermediate serves all students in the district in grades four

and five. There are ten teachers for each grade level, not including special education teachers or

specialists. The ten classroom teachers work in paired teams and teach the same students. One

teacher is responsible for math and science and their partner colleague teaches English Language

       

   

33  

Arts and social studies. For purposes of this study, all classroom and special education teachers

were asked to participate since half of the classroom teachers teach ELA and half teach science.

The special education teachers work with students in both of these areas, they are present in most

classrooms while lessons are being conducted, and they teach small groups of students as well.

Each of these professionals observed students working with the vocabulary words addressed in

the study and had insights into their level of usage, understanding, and/or skill transference.

At the conclusion of the study, teachers who took part received a $10 gift card to Barnes

and Noble Booksellers. Students with permission who took part in the study received a small

school supply item (pencil, pen, eraser, etc.) As the school has been identified as a “latex-free

zone,” none of the supplies provided contained latex or latex products.

Protection of human subjects. The researcher presented and explained, in detail, the

roles of the students and teachers as well as the assessment information that would be collected

to the teaching staff who then explained this information, in grade appropriate language, to their

students. This way, the teachers all received the same information at the same time, and the

students had this information relayed to them by a familiar adult in their regular classroom

setting. Students had the opportunity to present any questions either orally or in writing and have

them answered to their satisfaction before participating. No students exercised this option.

Only teachers who agreed, in writing, to participate, and only students who assented and

whose parents did not elect to opt out, in writing, for their children to participate were be asked

to take part in the study. All participants were reminded of their right to withdraw at any time

during the course of the study and no data was used to identify individual students or teachers.

All names, including that of the school and district, remained anonymous as are not necessary to

publish for the scope of this study.

       

   

34  

A gatekeeper at the intermediate school provided information regarding the names of

students, their parents, and their addresses to the researcher. This information was used only for

disseminating the above information about the study to parents and informing them of the

informational sessions that were provided and their right to opt out of participation.

Confidentiality was maintained and all contact information was returned to the gatekeeper at the

conclusion of the study.

While careful note-taking was done during all interviews, any that were conducted in

person were recorded and transcribed. All participants were asked for permission before a

recording device was used. The recording was done for the purpose of transcription. A

professional transcriptionist was hired for each recording. The interviewer and the subjects, to

ensure accuracy in language, context, and intention, were then provided with full, unedited

copies of the transcripts and asked to comment or correct as necessary. None of the participants

made a correction, nor did anyone contest any of the content or context. A reputable,

professional transcription service was employed to maintain subject confidentiality (Rev.com).

All recordings will be destroyed at the conclusion of the successful defense of the study.

Losses of confidentiality of student scores or teacher interviews were the only risks

associated with this study. However, student scores of the researcher-administered assessments

did not impact their class score or average in any way. Also, the researcher identified classes and

students by number only in the coding process, and only the researcher has the key to which

numbers are assigned to each class. The key will be destroyed once the defense is complete, and

no student names or unique identifying details were included in the final product. Therefore, the

risk to students was minimal.

       

   

35  

The teacher interviews were conducted both in small groups (focus groups) and

individually. Teachers could elect to participate in either or both of these forums. The study

focused on student use of internalized strategy transfer as well as individual strategies used by

teachers and not on the ability or teaching competency of the teachers. Also, no teacher names or

unique identifying details were included in the study. Therefore, the risk to teachers was also

minimal.

Data Collection  

Data was collected through published assessments, two researcher-developed student

assessments, teacher focus groups, and teacher leader interviews. The results of this research are

a combination of the data collected and an analysis based on the research questions that focus on

meaning and understanding.

Collection: Teacher assessments. The instruments used in this study included published

assessments as well as researcher-developed tools for students to complete. The published

assessments include the activities that teachers administered this year from the text Growing

Your Vocabulary: Learning from Latin and Greek Roots A and B (Moliken,ed, 2008) published

by Prestwick House. The ELA Curriculum Leader shared the pre- and post- test scores for

students in two representative classrooms in grade five. This was in the form of the cumulative

reviews that are presented at the conclusion of every five units of study for grade four (Appendix

A) and grade five (Appendix B). Two of these five-unit assessments were provided for review

and comparison. This text was purchased and added to the ELA curriculum at Billings

Intermediate during the 2012-2013 school year. Students in grades four through twelve currently

use this vertical program for vocabulary instruction. The scores are counted as part of the

       

   

36  

students’ ELA grades for each quarter. These assessments are provided in Appendix B. The

results of this archival data were reviewed without student names for purposes of anonymity. For

this review, it was not necessary to know the identity of each child, so this information was

eliminated, and only the data was used for comparative purposes.

Collection: Researcher assessments. In order to determine if the students were

transferring their understanding of the vocabulary word parts they learned in ELA to their

science classes, the researcher developed two instruments to measure their level of conceptual

understanding of science terms. These term prompts included (1) words with word parts that the

students have learned as part of an explicit vocabulary unit in ELA and also as part of their

science curriculum, (2) words with word parts that the students have learned as part of an explicit

vocabulary unit in ELA but not part of their science curriculum, and (3) words with word parts

that the students have not learned as part of an explicit vocabulary unit in ELA but were part of

their science curriculum.

The purpose for the different categories of words and word parts was to determine a

possible causal factor in the event that students showed a greater or lesser level of understanding

depending on whether the Greek and Latin word parts were part of the student’s explicit

vocabulary program.

This study utilized prompts that focused on the highest levels of intellectual processes as

noted in the updated version of the taxonomy as well as the “hierarchical arrangement of

cognitive processes” postulated by Herbert Klausmeier (Frayer, Fredrick, and Klausmeier, 1969).

The first assessment was a multiple-choice questionnaire (found in Appendix D for grade

four and Appendix E for grade five). Each question on this measure was generated from

prototypes developed specifically for measuring student conceptual understanding (Frayer,

       

   

37  

Ghatala, & Klausmeier, 1972, Frayer, Fredrick, Klausmeier, 1969). The questions provided

further scaffolding to more specifically gauge the level of the students’ concept mastery based on

the research done at the University of Wisconsin resulting in “A Schema for Testing the Level of

Concept Mastery” (Frayer, Fredrick, Klausmeier, 1969).

Questions on the first probe of science vocabulary were constructed with the

understandings defined by Frayer, Fredrick, and Klausmeier (1969) to include concept instances

which were comprised of attributes which were relevant or irrelevant to the concept, non-

examples lacking one or more of these characteristics, concepts that had names and could be

defined “structurally, semantically, operationally, or axiomatically,” and concept instances that

were related to supraordinate, coordinate, and subordinate concepts. A breakdown of the type of

each question is found charted in Appendix F for grade four and G for grade five.

It has widely been recognized that the hierarchy of intellectual behaviors developed by

Benjamin Bloom and a team of educators in 1956 represents a scale that classifies the cognitive

domains important in acquiring knowledge. They are organized from the lowest order processes

to the highest: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation

(Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956). While it was originally hypothesized that the “lower” levels were

necessary to be mastered before moving on to the “higher” levels, this study focused on the more

recently accepted understanding that more than one cognitive process may be employed on a

particular task. In addition, the higher levels of cognitive processes were the focus of the student

prompts in order to identify true understanding of the concepts behind the words.

In 2001, the taxonomy was updated to reflect the skills necessary for success in the 21st

century. The terms for each of the processes were adapted to the verb form vs. the noun form,

and the highest two levels of the cognitive domain were inverted. In order of hierarchy, these

       

   

38  

processes are now: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and

Creating (Anderson and Kathwohl, 2001). Whenever possible, the command verbs representing

the higher demands of cognitive domain were utilized in the assessments.

“A Schema for Testing the Level of Concept Mastery” (Frayer, Fredrick, Klausmeier,

1969) also identified two types of assessment items; Selection Items and Production Items. The

Selection Items require students to choose an answer based on a bank of selections provided.

This is the type of question that was used in the first researcher assessment. Five options were

provided for students for each answer bank. The Production Items prompt students to produce or

create their own responses and are more open-ended. The researcher found that the Production

Items better incorporated the language of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and

offered the opportunity to show further levels of student competency and mastery. This was the

type of prompt that was used in the second assessment, the nonsense word questionnaire to

decrease the potential that students would choose an answer randomly based on a pool of

suggested responses. The assessments also contained the command verbs and prompts that were

most representative of the Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom & Krathwohl,

1956).

The nonsense word assessment provided a series of compound words that students had no

prior experience reading or hearing. One part of the word was a morpheme that was part of their

ELA curriculum, their science curriculum, or both their ELA and science curricula. These

morphemes were chosen carefully from the curriculum guides provided by the ELA Curriculum

Leader and the science Curriculum Leader. A word part was chosen if it was a Greek or Latin

root, if it was part of a word that was in the written curriculum for ELA, science, or both, and if

it was a science-related concept. Only morphemes that met all three criteria were considered.

       

   

39  

(Again, the complete bank of word parts chosen is in Appendix C). The other half of the

nonsense compound word was a simple word with which they were familiar (ie: book, pants).

Students were informed that they are working with nonsense words. They were then prompted to

provide a written description of the word and a drawing to represent the word pictorially. The

prompts were organized so that students could show their ability to apply their understanding of

morphemes and their uses in constructing new words to make meaning of familiar, unfamiliar, or

nonsense science terms. The nonsense word assessments are found in Appendix H for grade four

and Appendix I for grade five.

These tools were vetted and reviewed by educational colleagues outside of the Brighton-

Cabot Regional School District. Teachers of both fourth and fifth grade students were asked to

review the content of the assessment and comment on whether they considered it

developmentally appropriate for their students. They were further requested to note whether they

found the tool to be an accurate assessment of student understanding of the concepts. In both

cases, each teacher (four in total) agreed that the assessment was appropriate for the research

purposes and age/grade level of the target population.

The researcher-created assessments were administered by the science teachers in the

science classes during their regularly scheduled period and took no longer than 60 minutes to

complete. All science teachers were given instructions for the administration of the assessments

so that they were distributed and collected using the same procedure, including the directions to

the students. Having the students complete the assessments in the science classroom with their

science teachers eliminated their perception that this was an ELA task. It was also the intention

that students felt at ease due to the fact that they were participating in their regularly scheduled

class with a familiar adult. The assessments were also examined to see if students utilized any

       

   

40  

written note-taking or test-taking strategies or provided indications that they were reflecting,

metacognitively, on the skills they used to determine the meanings of the words or word parts

they were presented with in the instruments.

Collection: Teacher focus groups and interviews. The researcher developed teacher

focus group questions (Appendix J) and teacher leader (Curriculum Leader) interview questions

(Appendix K), which were used during each session. Focus group and interview protocols were

closely followed, and confidentiality was respected in all cases.

There were four Focus Groups; one for the grade four ELA teachers and special

educators working in these classes, one for the grade four science teachers and special educators

working in these classes, and two grade five groups of the same subjects. The reason for

separating the two content areas was so that the pedagogy used in each domain was not

suggested upon the other. For example, a coordinated scope and sequence of Greek and Latin

word parts was adopted in the ELA department. It is important to know whether or not this was

being used, to what extent, and with fidelity to the program or not in the science classes. If the

science teachers were not present when the ELA teachers discuss these procedures and strategies,

yet they are able to discuss them on their own, then the researcher could be more confident that

they were, in fact, utilizing these practices. This is the same reason the grade four and grade five

teachers participated in separate groups. These units of study were part of the required

curriculum. Interviewing the teachers separately provided a more accurate assessment of the

fidelity of the program in each grade, and teachers in one grade level or content area were not

able to influence the answers of the other grade level or content area.

The focus groups were conducted in main areas of the building. These common areas

provided a comfortable amount of space, were familiar to the participants, and were convenient

       

   

41  

for them to attend. The meetings took place during their regularly scheduled common planning

time. This was at the preference of the teachers and their building administrator. The groups

were designed to last for approximately 45 minutes; however, the interviewer left the group with

the opportunity for contact should they think of ancillary information or examples that they

wanted to share after the meeting. None of the participants exercised this option.

Individual teacher interviews were conducted with teacher leaders, called Curriculum

Leaders, in this district. Each of the content area team representatives (math/science and

ELA/social studies) has a peer leader for curriculum and assessment purposes. These Curriculum

Leaders run grade level meetings and attend district curriculum meetings regularly. They not

only had the experience of using these tools in the classroom, but they had the ability to

comment on which teachers were also using them and the level of success or challenge that they

were experiencing as well as the results of the classroom assessments for their students. In

addition, they participated in “learning walks” throughout the building, and directly observed the

practices in their colleagues’ classrooms.

All teachers also had the option of participating in an individual interview. Individual

interviews were approximately 40 minutes. The interviews took place in the teacher’s classroom

for the convenience of the teacher. This was during their preparatory period during the school

day. The intent was to make the setting and time most convenient for the subject. Interviews

were also available for individual teachers in the event they did not feel comfortable speaking in

a group setting and preferred to meet individually for any reason. Again, no teachers took

advantage of this option.

Data Storage  

       

   

42  

The researcher stored the data in hard copy and, where appropriate, electronically on a

home computer and flash drive. All information, including the key to individual assessment

scores and all transcripts, will be destroyed upon successful defense. All letters submitted to opt

out of participation will be kept in original hardcopy for three years, at which time the

documents will be destroyed.

Only the researcher and confidential transcriptionist have access to the audio recordings.

All participants were asked for permission before a recording device was used. The recording

was done for the purposes of transcription only and were in the form of an MP3 file recorded on

an iPhone 4 utilizing the Rev Voice Recorder: Audio Transcription app. This file was sent to Rev

Transcription Service. This company was selected due to their 98% accuracy rate and

commitment to confidentiality. The files were transmitted utilizing 128-bit SSL encryption for

security. The final transcription was in Microsoft Word format. All recordings will be destroyed

upon successful defense to maintain subject confidentiality.

Loss of confidentiality of student scores or teacher interviews was the only risk

associated with this study. However, student scores of the researcher-administered assessments

did not impact their class score or average in any way. Also, the researcher identified students by

number only and only the researcher has the key to which number was assigned to each student.

The key will be destroyed once the study is complete and no student names or unique identifying

details were included in the study. Therefore, the risk to students was minimal.

The teacher interviews were conducted both in small groups (focus groups) and

individually. Teachers were able to elect to participate in either or both of these forums. The

study focused on student use of internalized strategy transfer and not on the ability or teaching

       

   

43  

capacity of the teachers. Also, no teacher names or unique identifying details were included in

the study. Therefore, the risk to teachers was also minimal.

Data Analysis  

As Creswell states, the researcher in a basic qualitative analysis, “collects qualitative

data, analyzes it for themes and perspectives, and reports 4-5 themes” (2009). This was the case

in this inductive study.

Analysis: Teacher assessments. Students were already given unit activities and

assessments throughout the school year in their ELA classes as part of the vocabulary

curriculum. The Curriculum Leader for ELA, a grade five teacher, compiled longitudinal data of

the Cumulative Review assessments provided in the vocabulary text, Growing Your Vocabulary:

Learning from Latin and Greek Roots for two grade five classes. This data was analyzed to see

how the students performed in each set of five units in comparison to one another. Specific focus

was directed to whether the students showed significant improvement from pre to post

assessments, but also if they showed improvement from one pre-test to the next. This suggested

an increase in their overall word attack skills for unknown words.

Analysis: Researcher assessments. An important component of the researcher

assessment tool was its ability to determine not only whether a student could define a particular

word, rather, whether or not they had mastery of the concept behind the word. For this reason,

the assessment was developed using “A Schema for Testing the Level of Concept Mastery”

(Frayer, Fredrick, Klausmeier, 1969).

Questions on the first probe of science vocabulary were constructed with the

understandings defined by Frayer, Fredrick, and Klausmeier (1969):

       

   

44  

• concept instances are comprised of attributes which are relevant or irrelevant to the

concept

• non-examples lack one or more of these characteristics

• concepts have names and can be defined “structurally, semantically, operationally, or

axiomatically

• concept instances may be related to supraordinate, coordinate, and subordinate concepts

These considerations were used in the construction of the questions for the first, multiple-

choice assessment and also for the coding interpretation of the second, nonsense word

assessment. The first was not coded due to the fact that there was only one correct answer for

each prompt, the key of which is provided in Appendix L for both grade four and grade five. The

nonsense word tool went through first cycle and second cycle coding. There was a key for

assessing the clearly correct and clearly incorrect responses in the first cycle (Appendix M for

grades four and five). Second cycle coding was completed for further clarification of the student

responses that were “unclear” after the first cycle coding.

For both assessments, data was collected by individual class and also by the entire grade

levels (grade four and grade five). This was done by reviewing the number of correct vs.

incorrect responses on the multiple-choice assessment, and for the nonsense words, it was a

collection of the number of responses clearly correct, clearly incorrect, incomplete/missing, or

unclear (and therefore in need of further review in second cycle coding). Results were

represented in a chart as well as a bar graph for a more visual representation. Again, this was

completed for each of the two researcher created student assessments. There was an additional

chart and bar graph to represent the updated results after second cycle coding of the nonsense

words instrument.

       

   

45  

Analysis: Teacher focus groups and interviews. Teacher interviews were conducted

individually and in focus groups. The four focus groups were made up of grade 4 ELA teachers

and special educators, grade 4 science teachers and special educators, grade 5 ELA teachers and

special educators, and grade 5 science teachers and educators. Individual interviews were

conducted with the math/science Curriculum Leader and the English/social studies Curriculum

Leader. The questions were open-ended in nature so as to not bias the teacher responses in any

way (again, questions are located in Appendices H and I). Throughout the course of the study,

the teachers were not necessarily working together to provide instruction and administer

assessments. Each teacher was practicing within his or her own classroom. Therefore, the focus

group format will allow the “group members to respond to each other’s points, agreeing,

disagreeing, or modifying in any way they choose,” at the end of which, “the researcher will

encourage the group to come to a conclusion” about the students’ performances and use of

morphological understandings and transference (Rubin and Rubin, 2012).

Interviewer strategies were utilized to minimize focus group flaws. For example, all

responses were correlated with collected data where applicable to avoid the possibility that a

teacher or teachers may “make up answers” to avoid embarrassment or the perception that they

may be portrayed negatively for something done (or not done) in their class (Krueger and Casey,

2009). It was also be necessary for the interviewer to carefully “serve as a leveling force” in

moderating the focus group so that no “individuals c(ould) influence results” by dominating the

conversation (Krueger and Casey, 2009).

Responsive interviewing was utilized so that it would be possible to “elicit…examples,

narratives, histories, stories, and explanations, grounding answers firmly in the experiences of

the interviewees” (Rubin and Rubin, 2012) regarding student interaction with science terms in

       

   

46  

direct relation to using affixes to derive meaning. In this forum, teachers were able to share

historical information possibly not observed in the classroom. Utilizing responsive interviewing

allowed the research design to “evolve throughout the study” and for the interviewer to “hear

what (wa)s said and change direction to catch a wisp of insight, track down a new theme, or

refocus the broader questions” of the interview (Rubin and Rubin, 2012). When it was perceived

that an interview subject may not be comfortable sharing an answer in the focus group or

individual interview, an e-mail communication would have been used to follow-up so that the

interviewer may “respectfully listen to what (the subject) has to say” in a less public or direct

atmosphere (Rubin and Rubin, 2012). While this remained an option available for clarification,

its use did not become necessary.

There were two purposes for the questions that subjects were asked. First, the fidelity to

the vocabulary program could vary by teacher and team. In order to get an accurate

understanding of the influence or lack of influence that this approach had on the student’s

capacity to transfer their morphological understanding to a different content area, it first needed

to be clearly understood just how much of the program had been used and to what extent of

explicitness and mastery.

The first round of questions was to establish the type of vocabulary instruction that was

used during the school year, as well as to what extent it had been used. While these questions

were asked in the focus groups, they were repeated in the individual interviews. This was to

account for the possibility that individual teachers may have felt uncomfortable discussing their

level of fidelity to the school’s adopted program in front of their peers. It was also important to

determine whether the Curriculum Leaders’ expectations and understanding of what teachers

were doing in class was congruent with what the teachers reported.

       

   

47  

The next set of questions focused on the teachers’ observations of their students’ level of

vocabulary growth, achievement, difficulty, and challenges for both the aggregate of their classes

and the disaggregate of the student subgroups including students identified as having special

needs, low income, or levels of disengagement. It also included any examples that they could

provide of any transference of morphological skills during the year that they may have observed.

It was critical that the researcher was not influenced by “background and experiences,”

and therefore avoided “selective perception” in the analysis of participant responses (Krueger

and Casey, 2009). One way to avoid this was to use “verifiable analysis (Krueger and Casey).

The researcher utilized transcripts and provided oral verification of important takeaways.

Through this means, other reviewers should be able to come to the same understandings upon

review of the data. The Classic Approach of analysis was the strategy used to systematically

break down the information provided in the focus groups and the interviews. The main questions

were ordered with the responses of each group or individual. In this way, it was possible to

“identify themes and categorize results” (Krueger and Casey, 2009).

While some note taking was done during all focus groups and interviews, all that were

conducted in person were recorded and transcribed. All participants were asked for permission

before a recording device was used. The recording was done for the purposes of transcription and

was in the form of an MP3 file recorded on an iPhone 4 utilizing the Rev Voice Recorder: Audio

Transcription app. This file was sent to Rev Transcription Service. This company was selected

due to their 98% accuracy rate and commitment to confidentiality. The files were transmitted

utilizing 128-bit SSL encryption for security. The final transcription was in Microsoft Word

format.

       

   

48  

The interviewer and the subjects, to insure accuracy in language, context, and intention,

then reviewed the transcripts. Stakeholder checks “enhance the credibility of findings” (Thomas,

2006). Participants were provided with copies of their focus group and/or individual interview

transcripts and had the opportunity to “immediately correct errors of fact or challenge

interpretations” (Thomas, 2006)

Analysis: Coding. The researcher corrected both of the researcher-created student

assessment tools utilizing the answer keys. Only the second assessment, the nonsense word tool,

needed to be coded. The prompts were purposefully created as Production Items (Frayer,

Fredrick, Klausmeier, 1969). These allowed for the students to provide answers that did not rely

on any suggested prompts. Therefore, the answer key for first cycle coding was not able to

provide clarification on any unclear responses. Therefore, second cycle coding was needed. The

first cycle coding was Descriptive Coding as it “leads primarily to a categorized inventory,

tabular account, summary, or index of the data’s contents” (Saldaña, 2013). In order to be

accurately represented, great care was taken that the description was factual and contained rich

detail.

The second cycle coding was needed for discovery or clear understanding of the potential

complexities, so second cycle Pattern Coding was done for further “classifying, prioritizing,

integrating, synthesizing, abstracting, conceptualizing, and theory building” (Saldaña, 2013). All

of the passages that were coded with the same short noun phrases to indicate topics were taken

from the text and reclassified and reorganized based on a further analysis in order to make

meaning form the text. The Pattern Coding was used “as a stimulus to develop a statement that

describes a major theme, a pattern of action, a network of interrelationships, or a theoretical

construct from the data” (Saldaña, 2013).

       

   

49  

A professional transcription was completed at the conclusion of every focus group and

interview. These documents were read thoroughly, and an initial, Descriptive Coding was

completed. It was the intention that the codes indicate any findings, and that these findings

would “display multiple perspectives from individuals and be supported by diverse quotations

and specific evidence” (Creswell, 2009). As final interpretations, lessons, theories, or new

questions emerged, they were reported with rich descriptive detail (Creswell, 2009). Second

cycle pattern coding was used for the focus groups and interviews as well to determine themes in

their answers, anecdotes, and examples.

In the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm, different determinations may be made from

the same data. However, while there may be “multiple meanings of a phenomena in the minds of

people who experience it as well as multiple interpretations of the data” (Ponterotto, 2005), there

can be description that is detailed and rich enough to create a clear understanding of one

interpretation with evidence that is credible enough to substantiate the resulting theory and/or

consensus.

Trustworthiness  

I was conscious that, while I was not able to fully eliminate all biases, I must “take care

to identify and monitor” what they were throughout the course of the study (Merriam, 2009). It

was important that the experience of the participant vs. the researcher came through. Therefore,

the study needed to focus on the “emic” (universal) vs. the “etic” (unique to individual)

perspective.

Due to the researcher role as “participant” in this study, care was taken so that the

participants did not believe they sensed bias. Some of the teachers in the study were former

       

   

50  

colleagues, and it was important that they understood that there was no hypothesis or theory

being tested in this study; rather, it was the objective of the researcher to see if there was or was

not transference of using morphology as a strategy from one content area to another and whether

this increased student comprehension of concepts or not. Due to the researcher as participant

model, it was necessary to assure teachers that there was no vested interest in the results either

way so as not to skew the data collected.

There were specific strategies employed to increase the validity of the study. First, I

triangulated collected data by “converging several sources of data or perspectives from

participants” (Creswell 2009). This data included documents, interviews, and focus groups.

Second, follow-up interviews or “member checking” was utilized to guarantee the

accuracy of transcription and maintenance of the intentions of the participant responses. Also

referred to as “respondent validation” (Maxwell, 2005), this not only allowed me to be sure I did

not misinterpret a participant’s responses, but it also helped me to identify and address any biases

that I may have had as well.

Third, if there was an indication that my background as an English teacher would bring

bias to particular findings, this would have been acknowledged and described clearly. Also, if

any negative or contrary findings were revealed during the course of the study, they too would

have been shared and explained. In addition, if there were an opportunity for peer debriefing, this

would have been embraced and utilized.

Finally, a “stakeholder check” was completed (Thomas, 2006). All subjects were invited

to read, comment on, and/or correct the summary of the focus group/interview in which they

participated.

       

   

51  

Limitations  

Generalizability is not a typical feature of qualitative studies. However, there were

characteristics that may be considered generalizable in this study. First was the fact that “there is

no obvious reason not to believe that the results apply more generally” (Maxwell, 2005). In this

case, there were specific findings or themes that are certainly replicable to students of the same

age and grade in other school systems or even to students of different ages or grades within this

same school system.

A second consideration was that “the generalizability of qualitative studies is usually not

based on explicit sampling of some defined population to which the results can be extended, but

on the development of a theory that can be extended to other cases” (Maxwell, 2005). While the

students in this study were purposefully chosen to represent students who are now “reading to

learn” vs. “learning to read,” there may be different developmental ages and grades at which this

occurs elsewhere, thus allowing for more generalizability in that context.

Additionally, the communities in which this study took place have a largely

homogeneous student population. While the root of this study involves language, there are no

students currently identified in Billings Intermediate as Limited English Proficiency, and the

low-income rate, while present, is extremely low compared to the Massachusetts rate. This limits

the understanding of the transferability of this study to students in schools that are diverse and

include a higher Limited English Proficiency population. Since this study focused on language

acquisition, it may have specific implications of usefulness with these populations in particular,

so this is an area that should be investigated more fully.

       

   

52  

Chapter IV: Report of Research Findings The purpose of this study was to examine the potential effect that a morphological

approach to vocabulary acquisition may or may not have on the conceptual understanding of

scientific terminology. In addition, the extent to which a student may use the word attack

strategy of disaggregating known Greek and Latin word parts to identify the meaning of

unknown (or nonsense) content words in science was also an area of focus.

Research Questions  1. A. How do students apply their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts

in ELA to acquiring vocabulary and understanding new concepts in science?

B. What contributes to student application of morphological strategies learned in ELA to

their study of vocabulary in science?

2. A. To what extent do students utilize their understanding of morphemes to decode and

comprehend or conceptualize unfamiliar scientific vocabulary?

B. How do students hypothesize the meaning of nonsense scientific vocabulary

utilizing their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts?

A total of eighteen classroom teachers (nine from grade four and nine from grade five),

four special education teachers, and 397 students (201 in grade four and 196 in grade 5)

participated. The data collected centered around five main components. These consisted of one

teacher assessment and two student assessments created by the researcher as well as teacher

focus groups by grade level and content area and individual interviews with the Mathematics and

English Language Arts Curriculum Leaders.

       

   

53  

Teachers in this school work in partner teams. One teacher in each pair is responsible for

teaching math and science and the other teaches ELA and social studies. Therefore, teacher

“teams” report scores as each partner shares the same set of students. One grade four classroom

teacher and one grade five classroom teacher declined participation in the study. Both of these

teachers were ELA/social studies teachers. Because the student assessments were administered

during the students’ regularly scheduled science classes, the lack of this teacher participation had

no effect. Also, since they each have a “partner” teacher that shares the responsibility of teaching

the same students, this did not affect whether any of the classes could take part in the study or

not. The entire school is made up of grade four and grade five only, and every student was

invited to participate. A total of 31 students in grades 4 and 5 did not participate in the study

either through parent exclusion or self-exclusion. These students were not penalized in any way

and continued with regularly scheduled classwork. This resulted in a total sample size of 397

students taking part in the study (201 in grade four and 196 in grade five).

Teacher Assessment (Pre and Post Tests)   The vocabulary series that is being used in grades four through twelve is Growing Your

Vocabulary: Learning from Greek and Latin Roots (A and B) by Prestwick House (Moliken, Ed.,

2008). In it, there is an aligned scope and sequence of word parts, and there are a series of units

that teachers generally take about two weeks to complete. At the end of five units, there is a

cumulative, multiple-choice assessment. The teachers at Billings Intermediate administer this as

a summative measure at the end of the set of each five units (approximately ten weeks of

instruction). In addition, the ELA Curriculum Leader administered this assessment as a pre-test

as well as a post-test to document the achievement and growth of her students. She maintained

       

   

54  

this data this year for the two classes that she teaches with her partner colleague (n=44). At the

time of this study, the classes had completed two, five-unit cumulative assessments. She

presented this archival information for these classes for review without student names on them.

The results for the two classes (44 students):

• Pre-test #1: 53.3% to Post-test #1: 80.5%

• Pre-test #2: 62.3% to Post-test #2: 80.6%

While the post-test scores remained almost identical, the pre-test scores increased 9%

from the first pre-test to the second pre-test.

Student Assessment #1, Multiple-Choice Vocabulary Assessment   The first student assessment was designed to measure each child’s demonstration of

comprehension of vocabulary words containing Greek and Latin word parts that were part of

their grade level curricula. This included three types of vocabulary words: words that were part

of their English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum, words that were part of the science

curriculum, and words that they would have encountered in both the ELA and science curricula.

The Curriculum Leader for English Language Arts (ELA) and the Curriculum Leader for

Science provided the vocabulary words that they confirmed were the mandatory list of words in

each subject for grades four and five. All words chosen for Vocabulary Assessment #1 were

taken from these lists. Only words that contained a Greek or Latin root were selected. Each was

then identified as “ELA only,” “Science only,” or “Both ELA and Science,” depending on where

they were found in the two content area curricula.

This assessment was given to each of the five teachers in grade four and the five teachers

in grade five that are responsible for teaching math and science. After collecting student

       

   

55  

exemption forms from those students whose parents waived them from participation, the teachers

asked which students did not want to participate. These students were excluded from the study as

well. In addition, if a child began the assessment and at any point identified that they did not

want to continue, they were told they could stop, and they did so without penalty. Any “blank”

answers on the assessment were identified as such and did not count as a “correct” or “incorrect”

response. Most students, however, completed the full assessment.

The science teachers administered the Vocabulary Assessment #1 in their regularly

scheduled science classes. Each of these teachers repeated this administration with the students

in their “partner teacher’s” class. These are students that they are responsible for teaching math

and science to as well. These were collected by the classroom teachers and labeled by grade level

and teacher team.

The assessment prompts were designed specifically to measure students’ conceptual

understanding vs. their rote memory of the word and/or its definition. This was done by crafting

the questions in accordance with the research in “A Schema for Testing the Level of Concept

Mastery.” by Frayer, Fredrick, and Klausmeier (1969). Each question and set of answer choices

was created utilizing one of the models presented in this research to insure the most reliable

measure of conceptual understanding. These included attributes which are relevant or irrelevant

to the concept, non-examples lacking one or more of the conceptual characteristics, defining

concepts “structurally, semantically, operationally, or axiomatically,” and relating choices to

“supraordinate, coordinate, and subordinate concepts” (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier,

1969).

       

   

56  

Every question on the assessment was created using these characteristics, and there were

an equal number of questions representing each as well. Figures 4.1 (grade four) and 4.2 (grade

five) provide examples of questions from the assessment that show each of these characteristics.

Figure 4.1. Examples of questions and the conceptual indicators they represent for grade four.

Grade 4

Attributes are relevant or irrelevant to the concept

A vertebrate is: A. An animal that has gills B. An animal that has no backbone C. An animal that has claws D. An animal that has a backbone E. An animal that has lungs

Non-examples lacking one or more of the conceptual characteristics

Which of the following is NOT an example of something thermal?

A. An ice cube B. The sun C. A fire D. A heated oven E. A lit match

Defining concepts “structurally, semantically, operationally, or axiomatically”

Dehydrate means: A. To lose or remove water B. To do something every year C. To be easily heard D. To measure something E. To move water in a container

Relating choices to “supraordinate, coordinate, and subordinate concepts”

Choose the sport that is aquatic: A. Baseball B. Swimming C. Soccer D. Football E. Basketball

       

   

57  

Figure 4.2. Examples of questions and the conceptual indicators they represent for grade five.

Grade 5

Attributes are relevant or irrelevant to the concept

Meat-eating animal usually have: A. Soft fur and tails B. Small teeth and tails C. Scales and fins D. Large teeth and claws E. Small eyes and no claws

Non-examples lacking one or more of the conceptual characteristics

Which of the following would NOT be eaten by an herbivore: A. Apple B. Hamburger C. Carrot D. Lettuce E. Peanuts

Defining concepts “structurally, semantically, operationally, or axiomatically”

The process in which plants take in light, carbon dioxide, and water to produce sugar and oxygen is:

A. Photosynthesis B. Chlorophyll C. Cell respiration D. Transpiration E. Adaptation

Relating choices to “supraordinate, coordinate, and subordinate concepts”

Which of the following is NOT a word that has to do with family or family members?

A. Maternal B. Paternal C. Thermal D. Matriarch E. Fraternal

Student answers were recorded and organized by question, subject (ELA, science, or

ELA and science), class, and grade. The grade four and grade five assessments both had twenty

questions. Each prompt provided five options from which students chose their answer. There

were three types of responses recorded: correct, incorrect, or no response (left blank). In all of

grade four, the number of correct responses overall ranged from 73.5% to 81.3%, representing a

standard deviation of 3.7%. In grade 5, the correct responses in all classes were between 78.9%

       

   

58  

and 84.7%, with a standard deviation of 2.2%. A complete distribution of the responses by

teacher team and grade is provided in Figures 4.3 and 4.4.

Figure 4.3. Totals of correct and incorrect responses, including standard deviation, for Student

Assessment #1 in each teaching team in grade four.

Grade 4 Totals – Student Assessment #1 by percent

Team Correct response

Incorrect response

No response Total responses (n)

Team 4A 81.32 18.68 0.00 760

Team 4B 79.88 19.63 0.49 820

Team 4C 75.00 25.00 0.00 780

Team 4D 73.49 25.35 1.16 860

Team 4E 73.50 25.13 1.37 800

AVERAGES 76.60 22.76

Standard deviation

3.70 3.31

       

   

59  

Figure 4.4. Totals of correct and incorrect responses, including standard deviation, for student

assessment #1 in each teaching team in grade five.

Grade 5 Totals – Student Assessment #1 by percent

Team Correct response

Incorrect response

No response Total responses (n)

Team 5A 78.90 21.10 0.00 740

Team 5B 83.10 16.90 0.00 720

Team 5C 84.70 14.30 1.00 860

Team 5D 81.67 17.90 0.43 840

Team 5E 83.00 16.20 0.80 760

AVERAGES 82.27 17.28

Standard deviation

2.17 2.51

Calculations for correct and incorrect responses were also completed by content area.

Each vocabulary word represented in the assessment was associated with the students’ ELA

curriculum or science curriculum. A third category was created for words that appeared in both

their ELA and science curricula. These totals are represented in Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5. The percentage of correct responses for words taken from each content area curricula.

Grade 4 Grade 5

ELA 81% ELA 81%

Science 67% Science 83%

ELA and science 83% ELA and science 83%

       

   

60  

Student Assessment #2, Nonsense Word Completion

The researcher also created the second assessment administered to students in their

science classes. This instrument was designed to measure students’ use of their skills in decoding

unfamiliar words by presenting them with nonsense words. This eliminated the variable that a

child may have been exposed to the word outside of school and might know the definition for

that reason. Each of the nonsense words was a compound word that contained a word part of

Greek or Latin origin that the students had studied in ELA, science, or both their ELA and

science classes and a common word part with which students would have familiarity (such as

“house” or “pencil”).

This tool was intended to measure students’ use of their understanding of the Greek and

Latin word parts to comprehend the concepts presented in the nonsense word. This was also

intended to identify whether students were able to transfer their understanding of the word part(s)

to new and unfamiliar words in order to decipher the concept or meaning of the word. This was

achieved by asking students to write a definition of the word in addition to creating a picture of

the concept represented. Soliciting responses in this open-ended manner represented the

Production vs. Selection method of choosing answers that has been identified as the more

accurate method of identifying true conceptual understanding (Frederick, Frayer, and

Klausmeier, 1969).

Further research by Dorothy Frayer and her colleagues at the University of Wisconsin

supports the connection between a students’ representation of a word in multiple forms and their

understanding of the concept behind the word using another means of communicating that

understanding (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969). This led to the development of the

Frayer Model. This is a graphic organizer that prompts students to define the vocabulary word in

       

   

61  

their own terms as well as list characteristics, examples, and non-examples of the word. Many

practitioners have expanded this to include pictorial representations of a student’s understanding

of the word, particularly if the child has difficulty with written expression.

While all of the words of Student Assessment #2, which was called “That’s Nonsense!”

were, in fact, nonsense words, they were compound words made up of a simple word that does

exist and a Greek or Latin root that also exists. Each root chosen was one that was part of the

children’s ELA curriculum, science curriculum, or word parts that they had been exposed to in

both their ELA and science curricula in the current school year.

The science teacher of each teacher-team in both grades four and five also administered

this assessment. It was important that this be given during the students’ regularly scheduled

science class. The research question attempted to assess to what extent children would use their

understanding of morphemes to identify the meaning of unknown words. Since many of the

morphemes they would encounter were taught to them in their ELA class, it was important to see

if they would transfer their understanding of the word part learned in ELA to their science class

and a science-related term.

Teachers were given the option of which day of the week to complete the assessments

within a one-week window. Again, parents were allowed to exempt students from participation,

and the children were given the opportunity to exclude themselves if they did not wish to

complete the assessment without penalty. Teachers were also given the instruction to allow any

student to stop at any time or to leave prompts blank if they were struggling, just as they had

with the first assessment. Again, most students completed the task. In addition, several teachers

anecdotally shared in the focus groups conducted later that the students had described the

Nonsense Word Completion assessment as “fun.”

       

   

62  

First cycle coding for nonsense word assessment. Due to the fact that the answers were

open-ended, two levels of coding were used to analyze the results. The first was simple

descriptive coding to determine one of four possible responses in order to categorize the results

(Saldaña, 2009). This level of coding primarily considered the student’s written description in an

attempt to match it with the key word or words identified in the answer key created by the

researcher prior to the administration of the assessment. Student pictures were also used in

instances when the written description may have been unclear but the picture was very clear (ie:

unmistakable picture of the sun for “solar”). The designations for each answer included:

1. A missing or incomplete response. This was issued when both response boxes (written

explanation and drawing prompt) were left blank or an instance where such little was

recorded in one or both boxes that it was indecipherable. The symbol for this was “O.”

2. A clearly correct answer. This designation was issued only when a descriptive response

identified the exact wording or nearly the exact wording as the researcher answer key.

This answer key was created by utilizing the Greek or Latin word part of the nonsense

word only. No credit was given or taken away for any other part of the word. The symbol

for this type of response was “✓.” The complete answer key was created using the

definitions provided by the curricula and teaching materials given to the researcher by the

Curriculum Leaders, and, therefore, the definitions used for teaching the students. The

key for the first round coding is located in Appendix M.

3. A clearly incorrect answer. This score was assigned when a student had a clear

misunderstanding of the prompt. Common misunderstood answers were compiled based

on potentially misleading cues in the nonsense words. (ie: answers regarding “x-rays” for

words with “exo” in them.) These cues were not based on Greek or Latin roots that

       

   

63  

students would have encountered in either their ELA or science classes. Therefore, these

responses were considered incorrect. In addition, answers that merely re-stated the Greek

or Latin word part with no further clarification in the description or the picture provided

was also considered incorrect (ie: Hydrocar = “a car that is hydro” or “a hydro car”). The

symbol for this was “X.”

4. An answer that required further consideration or was unclear. This type of student

response did not use the exact wording on the answer key. There was also no clear

misunderstanding of the meaning indicated. In these instances, the researcher determined

that these responses required a second level of coding, including a close review of the

student picture drawn for interpretation. The symbol for this was “?”.

Figure 4.6 illustrates the examples of each type of student response that resulted in one of

the three descriptive codes (clearly correct, clearly incorrect, or unclear) for grade four, and

Figure 4.7 shows the same information for grade five. The only other indicator would be “O” for

a blank response box.

       

   

64  

Figure 4.6: Sample student responses for grade four first cycle, descriptive coding.

Grade 4 sample answers

Nonsense word

Correct key word(s) (per answer key)

Student description response Code assigned

aquaskates water “Shoes that let me skate on the water.”

✓

thermoshoes heat, temperature “Shoes that heat themselves.” ✓ invertebracow backbone “Cow can be inverted.” X

terrahouse earth, soil, or land “House full of terror.” X solarexplorer sun Someone who explores solar

panels.

?

astropants star Pants for an astronaut. ?

Figure 4.7: Sample student responses for grade five first cycle, descriptive coding.

Grade 5 sample answers

Nonsense word

Correct key word(s) (per answer key)

Student description response Code assigned

florabook flower “A book about flowers.” ✓ trifeet three “Someone with three feet.” ✓ visiphone see, sight “Phone with a Visa card in it.” X

matricake eats “A cake in three pieces.” X

unistar one, single “Only star in a galaxy.” ?

respihelmet breathing, air “Helmet with a gas mask.” ?

The results for the first cycle descriptive coding for grades four and five are represented

in the following Figures 4.8 - 4.11.

Figures 4.8 and 4.9: First cycle descriptive coding results for all of grade four for each question

of the assessment based on the four possible answers of unclear, clearly correct, clearly incorrect,

       

   

65  

incomplete/missing. For each question listed, the subject(s) in which it appears in the curricula is

listed. (The results for each individual grade four class can be found in Appendix N).

Figure 4.8 Grade four first cycle descriptive coding results by assessment question.

GRADE 4

Code/Totals

QUES/SUBJECT ? √ X O Total ques Ques 1 ELA 11 172 10 1 194 Ques 2 Science 31 20 122 21 194 Ques 3 Both 58 92 41 3 194 Ques 4 ELA 18 82 87 7 194 Ques 5 Science 12 92 79 11 194 Ques 6 Both 20 136 33 5 194 Ques 7 ELA 134 13 40 7 194 Ques 8 Science 48 5 128 13 194 Ques 9 Both 136 16 30 12 194 Ques 10 ELA 48 48 86 12 194 Ques 11 Science 98 63 28 5 194 Ques 12 Both 114 41 33 6 194 Ques 13 ELA 16 29 136 13 194 TOTALS 744 809 853 116 2406

       

   

66  

Figure 4.9 Grade four first cycle descriptive coding results by assessment question (bar).

Figures 4.10 and 4.11: First cycle descriptive coding results for all of grade five for each

question of the assessment based on the four possible answers of unclear, clearly correct, clearly

incorrect, incomplete/missing. For each question listed, the subject(s) in which it appears in the

curricula is listed. (The results for each individual grade five class can be found in Appendix O).

0  20  40  60  80  100  120  140  160  180  200  

?   √   X   O  

       

   

67  

Figure 4.10 Grade five first cycle descriptive coding results by assessment question.

GRADE 5 Code/Totals

? √ X O Total ques Ques 1 ELA 5 168 19 1 193 Ques 2 Science 72 66 48 7 193 Ques 3 Both 81 59 35 18 193 Ques 4 ELA 1 176 11 5 193 Ques 5 Science 54 128 8 3 193 Ques 6 Both 14 54 99 26 193 Ques 7 ELA 24 123 39 7 193 Ques 8 Science 77 69 33 14 193 Ques 9 Both 47 72 46 28 193 Ques 10 ELA 19 34 113 27 193 Ques 11 Science 37 31 117 8 193 Ques 12 Both 36 97 50 10 193 Ques 13 ELA 16 161 10 6 193 TOTALS 483 1238 628 160 2349

Figure 4.11 Grade five first cycle descriptive coding results by assessment question (bar).

0  

20  

40  

60  

80  

100  

120  

140  

160  

180  

200  

?   √   X   O  

       

   

68  

A qualitative analysis at the first level of coding of each question for grade four and grade

five is provided below. This analysis will only consider responses that were clearly correct and

clearly incorrect. The second cycle coding will address answers that required a further

consideration. Incomplete or blank boxes were simply marked as such. Next to each word

prompt will be the ratio of correct to incorrect responses (also available previously in Figure 4.8

for grade four and Figure 4.10 for grade five) followed by a description of the most common

answers for each. Again, the number of responses that required second level coding is not

included here.

Grade Four  

1. “aquaskates” (172/10): This nonsense word included the morpheme “aqua” which

was identified as a word part the students learned in ELA. It required the word “water” as part of

the answer. The vast majority of responses (89%*) were clearly correct, most varying only on

what the skate’s relationship was to water. For example, “roller skates that work on water,”

skates that help you under water,” skates made out of water,” skateboard with water in it,” skates

that float on water,” skates that can go in (or “under” or “on” or “through”) water were all

accepted as correct. There were a small number of incorrect responses that described skates as

the color aqua or aquamarine. One response described a “person laying on a box with skates on

both.”

*Any categories reflecting 50% or higher of the responses for a single prompt will be noted by

total and/or percentage in this first cycle description.

2. “exorain” (20/122): This nonsense word included the morpheme “exo” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in science. It required the word “outside” as part of

       

   

69  

the answer. Most students applied this word part incorrectly (63%). However, correct answers

included “the outside of a rain drop,” “rain outside,” “water on the outside of the drop,” “rain

with a hard shell on the outside,” or “rain with the middle on the outside.” Incorrect responses

mostly centered on the misunderstanding that it was related to an x-ray. These answers included

several repeats of “see through rain,” “rain you can see in,” or “invisible rain.” Another cluster

of misunderstandings had to do with viewing the root as “x” or as a negative or opposite such as

“no more rain,” “rain that does not hit the ground,” “rain going up,” “raining on the inside,” or

“rain that never ends.” Other responses considered incorrect included “an exercise machine that

rains,” “steaming hot (or “dry”) rain,” “something that makes rain,” “strong rain,” or “ something

wide.” There were a small number of responses that simply restated the prompt; “it is exo rain.”

This is also the prompt that most students chose to leave blank (21).

3. “moneymeter” (92/41): This nonsense word included the morpheme “meter” which

was identified as a word part the students learned in both ELA and science. It required the

word(s) “measure” (or ”how much” or “counts”) as part of the answer. Correct responses

included “something that counts your money,” “a machine that measures money,” “something

that tells how much money you have.” Incorrect answers included confusion with the meter that

is used at car spaces or an ATM. For example, “meter for your car,” “meter that you put money

into and take money out of,” “machine that throws out money,” or “money dispenser.” Other

incorrect responses were “money that fell from the sky,” “someone meeting money,” and

“money making machine.”

4. “hydrocar” (82/87): This nonsense word included the morpheme “hydro” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in ELA. It required the word “water” as part of the

answer. Correct responses provided many variations on the possible meaning, but they all

       

   

70  

included water. Examples are “car that is pushed by water,” “car that runs on water,” “car that

drives on (or “under”) water,” “car that gives water,” “car made out of water,” “car that needs

water,” “car that waters the grass when you drive over it,” and “waterproof car.” One

misconception may have come from the students hearing about “hydraulic power.” While this

could have been considered for further review, as there is a potential relationship, it was

concluded that this was more sophisticated than students at this age would understand. It was

therefore determined that the relationship was purely a matter of a word part sounding “familiar”

rather than any indication the children were aware of the nature of water in a “hydraulic” system.

None of the pictures indicated differently. Therefore, responses that referred to speed, power, or

lift were considered incorrect. These included “power/turbo car,” “car that can go 3,000 miles an

hour,” “car that goes up and down,” “fast car,” “car that flies,” and “car with flames.” Other

incorrect answers were “car with dog shapes,” “car with pictures on it,” and “car that drives by

itself.”

5. “invertebracow” (92/79): This nonsense word included the morpheme “invertebra”

which was identified as a word part the students learned in science. It required the words “no

backbone” as part of the answer. Almost all correct responses simply stated that “the cow has no

backbone” or their pictures depicted an action that indicated such. An example is “the cow is on

the ground because he has no backbone.” If students responded that the cow “has a backbone,”

this was considered incorrect. Even though they were able to recall the relationship to backbone,

it was clearly the opposite of the conceptual meaning. Several incorrect answers had to do with

the misconceptions of inversion or conversion. These included “the cow can be turned upside

down,” “an inverted cow,” “cow can turn inside out,” “cow that can change to other animals,”

“cow that can go on land and water,” or “ cow that can twist.” Another confusion included

       

   

71  

vibration such as “a cow that vibrates” or “cow that vibrates and can invert in the dirt to hide.”

Other less recognizable errors included “an insect cow,” “a cow that can move on its own,” “cow

with a horn,” “mad cow,” and “a machine that has one hook.” This prompt also provided the

most entertaining (though still incorrect) responses (and pictures) when considering they were

provided by 8 and 9 year old children. These included “a cow with purple milk,” “a cow with

lasers,” “a cow that can ride a skateboard,” one eyebrow that is really long,” “a cow with a butt

for a face and a face for a butt,” and “a cow that says ‘invertebracow’ when it goes to the

bathroom.”

6. “thermoshoes” (136/33): This nonsense word included the morpheme “thermo” which

was identified as a word part the students learned in both ELA and science. It required the word

“heat/warmth” or “temperature” as part of the answer. Seventy percent of the concepts were

accepted as correct, and these included “shoes that have a temperature,” “shoes that give off

heat,” “shoes that are warm,” “shoes that keep your feet warm,” and “shoes that can measure

temperature.” The response “toasty warm clothes” was also accepted. While it referred to clothes

vs. shoes, it captured the salient part of the answer, which was the referent to “thermo.” Incorrect

responses varied and did not indicate a clear relationship between them. These included “shoes

that are (or “have”) a thermos,” “shoes that resist the rain,” “shoes with springs,” “a star

shower,” “going fast like the wind,” “shoes that shoot out candy,” shoes that keep feet cold,” and

“shoes that glow in the dark.”

7. “astropants” (13/40): This nonsense word included the morpheme “astro” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in ELA. It required the word “star(s)” as part of the

answer. This prompt was one of four that had 50% or more responses that required second cycle

coding for answers because they were neither clearly correct or clearly incorrect, therefore

       

   

72  

necessitating further review (134 or 69% of responses). Correct answers were “stars with pants,”

“star pants,” “pants made out of stars,” and “pants with stars on them.” Incorrect responses

included “pants that fill up by pulling a cord,” “pants that go on by themselves,” “warm fuzzy

pants,” “pants that get bigger,” “people go on earth,” and “pants that fit.” There were no

immediately recognizable relationships between these answers. Again, over one hundred more

responses needed further analysis.

8. “millistars” (5/128): This nonsense word included the morpheme “milli” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in science. It required the word “thousands” as part

of the answer. There were very few clearly correct answers (5). These were repeats of “1,000

stars” or “1/1000 of a star.” The incorrect answers were mainly the confusion with “million”

such as “a million stars” or “millions of stars.” Other incorrect quantities such as “ten stars,”

“100 stars,” or “many stars” were also not considered correct. The second common conceptual

misunderstanding was regarding size, specifically a small size. While an argument could be

made that this may come from an understanding of “milli” as 1/1000, it was determined, even

with a further analysis in second level coding, that there would not be enough information

provided in this assessment to determine that it was truly an understanding of “thousands.”

Therefore, answers such as “tiny, “small,” “mini” stars as well as “tiny, faded stars” were

considered incorrect. Finally, other, more unrelated (to one another) incorrect answers included

“stars in the military,” “stars that shine bright,” “stars that come in the daytime,” “stars in the

Milky Way,” “stars up in the sky,” “stars all named ‘milli’,” “people on a TV show,” and “a star

that you draw.” The total number of incorrect responses was 66%.

9. symmetrishapes” (16/30): This nonsense word included the morpheme “symmetri”

which was identified as a word part the students learned in both ELA and science. It required the

       

   

73  

word “same” or “similar” as part of the answer. This prompt had the most responses that

required further analysis (136). In other words, seventy percent of the students in grade 4

provided an answer that was not clearly correct or incorrect (based on the identified key words in

the answer key) and potentially provided more information in their drawing or contextually that

would give a better indication of whether it should be regarded as correct or incorrect. Again,

further description of this will be provided in the second level coding for this item. Clearly

correct responses included “shapes that have sides that are the same,” “same shapes but different

colors,” and “shapes that are exactly alike” (or “similar”). Clearly incorrect answers included

“not same shapes,” “weird shapes,” “stars you can trace,” and “shapes that are 3D.” Other

answers referenced “symmetry,” but did so incorrectly such as “shapes that never have a line of

symmetry” or “shapes with lines of symmetry” (accompanied by a drawing of an asymmetrical

shape.

10. “lunafood” (48/86): This nonsense word included the morpheme “luna” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in ELA. It required the word “moon” as part of the

answer. There were many variations of the definition, but that were all clearly correct in terms of

the morpheme. These included “food that is little moons,” “food on (or “from”) the moon,” “get

food from there and bring it back” (accompanied with a drawing of a crescent moon), “food

shaped like the moon,” “food for the moon,” and “food that grows on the moon.” There were

some clearly incorrect answers that came from a misunderstanding and identified the root as

“tuna” vs. “luna.” Far more incorrect answers were varied and seemingly unrelated to one

another. These were “food that people eat,” “food that makes you feel smart,” “food from a

store,” “small portions of food,” “plastic food used for pranks,” “sun made of food,” “bat food,”

“food that glows,” “when you eat breakfast for lunch,” “smelly food from a week ago,” “food

       

   

74  

that’s not good,” “small food,” “food made by Luna (person),” “the carpet company that sells

food,” “stars that are food,” and “food that cats and dogs eat.” A small number of students also

incorrectly answered “food that makes you crazy” or “food that makes you loony.” Again, while

there may be some understanding of the root here (from “lunatic”), it was determined to be too

much of a leap in the analysis to conclude it may be related to the concept of “luna,” and the

remaining evidence to review would not be enough to make such a conclusion. Therefore, these

responses were also considered incorrect.

11. “amphibicat” (63/28): This nonsense word included the morpheme “amphibi” which

was identified as a word part the students learned in science. It required the words “both” or

“water and land” as part of the answer. Half of student answers to this prompt required second

cycle coding (98). Most of the remaining responses were correct. These included many

repetitions of variations such as “cat that eats on land and water” and that “can breathe on land

and swim in the water.” Answers that were considered clearly incorrect were “cat that goes

wild,” “an animal,” “big construction machine,” “cat with weird features,” “cat with big ears,” “a

small cat,” “a cat on the rug,” “cat that can sing the ABCs,” “cat that’s invincible,” and “cat that

eats plants.”

12. “solarexplorer” (41/33): This nonsense word included the morpheme “solar” which

was identified as a word part the students learned in both ELA and science. It required the word

“sun” as part of the answer. Again, this was one of the four prompts providing the most need for

a second cycle coding as 59% of the answers needed further review. There were not many

variations on the clearly correct answers. They varied only as much as “sun explorer,” “person

who explores the sun,” and “only person to touch the sun and not die.” The clearly incorrect

       

   

75  

answers included “an expert explorer,” “explorer on the moon,” solar that explores,” “people that

explore stuff,” and “someone who explores space” (combined with a drawing of the moon).

13. “terrahouse” (29/136): This nonsense word included the morpheme “terra” which

was identified as a word part the students learned in ELA. It required the word “earth,” or

“soil/land/dirt” as part of the answer. Correct answers included “a house under the earth,” a

house in terrain” (with a drawing labeled with “grass” and “dirt”), “house in the ground,” and “a

house made of mud and dirt.” In terms of incorrect answers, this was the prompt that reflected

the largest number of clearly incorrect responses (70%). The vast majority of these came from

the misconception that “terra” referred to “terror” (one that the researcher concludes may

distinctively be a “Boston-area” error). Examples of this varied a great deal, but all represented

the same idea. These include “a house that tortures people,” “a house of terra” (accompanied by

a picture of a house with a thought bubble that said “Boo!”), “a haunted house,” and many other

varieties of “terrifying/spooky/creepy/scary house.” Some other, unrelated answers that were

also incorrect included “a humongous house,” “a house that grows each month,” “a house that

looks like a crown,” “a flying house,” “a house in the air,” “a very large house,” “a house in

space,” and “a house so big that a Terranasaurus (sic) can fit in it.”

Grade Five  

1. “florabook” (168/19): This nonsense word included the morpheme “flora” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in ELA. It required the word “flower” or “plants”

as part of the answer. Most students answered this prompt similarly and correctly (87%). The

most common responses were “a book about flowers” (or “plants”) and “a book that has flowers

in it.” Other students identified the word as “a book shaped like a flower,” “flowers with books

       

   

76  

for petals,” “and “a book on plants to help with research.” A few children misidentified the

prefix and answered, “in Florida reading a book,” “a floor with a book on it” (or “under” it), or

“step on a very hard book.” These answers were clearly incorrect. Other responses that were

wrong included “a nice made book,” “me reading a book,” “an open book,” and “a dictionary.”

2. “biohouse” (66/48): This nonsense word included the morpheme “bio” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in science. It required the word “life” as part of the

answer. Responses that were clearly correct each identified a house differently, but they all

correctly referred to the key words in identifying the concept in question. Answers included

variations such as “a house of living organisms,” “house full of life,” “house with living things,”

“where one lives,” “house that looks alive,” “house that is a living thing,” and “house that is

made of living things.” This prompt required the second coding review of several student

answers (72) because of all the references to words containing “bio.” The pictures will need to be

analyzed for further information. However, there were some answers that were clearly incorrect.

These included those that showed student misconceptions such as “two houses” or “two houses

that look the same.” This is a result of the confusion with “bi,” meaning “two.” One answer that

several students shared was “the study of a house” or “to study a house.” The children utilized

the “ology” part of the word “biology” for this misconception. Other answers included, “a foto of

a house,” “buying a house,” “a house of maps,” “solar panels on a roof,” “a cold house,” “a

house of famous people,” “a big house,” and “house of one type of person.”

3. “omnicolors” (59/35): This nonsense word included the morpheme “omni” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in both ELA and science. It required the word “all”

(or “many/multiple”) as part of the answer. Correct answers included a clear indication that there

was “many” of something or referred to “all” of something. The most common answers were

       

   

77  

“many colors,” “all different colors,” “all of the colors,” or “color that’s made up of many

colors.” However, many students made a clear error in their attempt to apply this morpheme.

Clearly they remembered the words “omnivore” and “herbivore” as each of them attempted to

define the word as something that “eats.” This was confusion between “omni” and “vore,”

meaning “one who eats.” Answers that reflected this misunderstanding were “a color that eats

plants and animals,” “meat colored,” “colors that look like food,” “paint that is alive and likes to

eat things,” “colors for dinosaurs,” and “colors that eat meat.”

4. “trifeet” (176/11): This nonsense word included the morpheme “tri” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in ELA. It required the word “three” as part of the

answer. The majority of students defined this nonsense word with a correct representation of the

morpheme (91%). The key word was “three,” but students offered many creative variations that

were all correct. These included “three feet,” “three legs and three feet,” “a monster with three

feet,” “three feet together,” “three-toed feet,” and “shoes for people with three feet.” Still others

referred to the measurement as with “one yard, or three feet” and “a yardstick that is three feet

long.” Answers that were not accepted as correct did not specify “three” such as “a tree feet,”

“my brother has tiny feet,” “two feet,” “tires with feet,” and “a lot of feet” (with a picture

representing five feet).

5. “electrodog” (128/8): This nonsense word included the morpheme “electro” which

was identified as a word part the students learned in science. It required the word(s) “electric” or

“electricity” as part of the answer. Such responses included “dog that has electrical energy,”

“dog that gives off electricity,” “dog getting zapped by electric fence,” “it runs on electricity,”

“dog creates electricity,” “dog with electric touch,” “dog that uses electricity,” “dog with electric

powers,” “dog with electricity coursing through its system,” and “dog created by electricity.”

       

   

78  

There were only eight students whose answers were clearly incorrect. These included the most

common answer, which was “fast dog,” and one that was “dog that goes up and down non-stop

for an hour.”

6. “respihelmet” (54/99): This nonsense word included the morpheme “respi” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in both ELA and science. It required the word(s)

“breathe” or “air” as part of the answer. As seen in other prompts, the children had many

different ideas of what this nonsense word represented; however, they all clearly indicated the

correct concept of the morpheme. Examples were “a helmet with holes in it to get air in,”

“helmet I can breathe in,” “helmet that can breathe oxygen,” “helmet that lets you breathe

underwater,” and “helmet with air coming out.” Over half of the answers given were clearly

incorrect (51%). Most of these did not have a clear connection or indication of what the

misconception may have been. These include “a helmet that helps if you are hurt,” “a phone

helmet,” “helmet with a defibrillator attached,” “helmet with more padding,” “helmet that

expired,” “helmet inside the body,” “helmet that has respect,” “iron helmet,” and “snake helmet.”

Other clearly incorrect answers described the helmet as “old and dirty,” “new,” “reassembled,”

“protective,” “foam,” and “spiked.” Three students had answers that resembled a possible

confusion with “perspiration.” These were “a sweating helmet,” “a helmet that soaks up sweat,”

and “absorbs sweat.” Two other students included “recipe” in their answers, thus indicating

another misunderstanding when they pronounced the morpheme of this “word.”

7. “unistar” (123/39): This nonsense word included the morpheme “uni” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in ELA. It required the word(s) “one” or “single” as

part of the answer. Most students provided clearly correct responses for this prompt (64%).

There were many answers that were similar such as “one star,” “one whole star,” “one star made

       

   

79  

up of many stars,” and “one star in the sky.” There were others that demonstrated understanding

of the concept as well, but worded their descriptions a little differently. These included “a one

pointed star,” “star with one dot,” “stars that are together as one,” “one star that’s different,”

“someone looking at one star,” and “more than three stars coming together as one whole.”

Students who produced clearly incorrect answers seemed to understand that the concept involved

quantity, but they provided the wrong amount with answers such as “three stars or more,”

“double stars,” “star with three sides,” “group of stars,” and “lots of stars.” The remainder of the

answers that were incorrect were not seemingly related to one another. These were “a type of

star,” “star with units,” “a rockin rock star,” “an underground star,” “small star,” “stars that are

getting bigger,” and “stars that are singing.”

8. “visiphone” (69/33): This nonsense word included the morpheme “visi” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in science. It required the word “see” (or “sight” or

“look”) as part of the answer. The most common clearly correct answer was a variant of “phone

that you can see other people when you call them” or “see the people while you talk to them.”

Other answers described the phone itself such as “phone with a clear case so you can see what’s

inside,” “phone with really big numbers so everyone can see it,” “seeable phone,” and “see

through phone.” Finally, other answers that were correct included what the phone could do,

including “phone that makes you see invisible things,” “phone that helps you see,” and “phone

that sees.” While the definitions varied, they were all correct because they contained the key

word(s) indicating conceptual understanding of “visi.” Among the clearly incorrect answers were

“a news phone,” “a phone you can visit places with,” “phone with a visor,” “new brand of

phone,” “phone you can’t see,” and “a photo of a phone.” A small number of students’ answers

       

   

80  

incorrectly made reference to the credit card. These included “a phone with a Visa card on it” or

“a card phone.”

9. “chocolovore” (72/46): This nonsense word included the morpheme “vore” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in both ELA and science. It required the words

“one that eats” (or “feeds”) as part of the answer. All of the correct answers were variations of

something eating chocolate. Such definitions included “a living thing that only eats chocolate,”

“chocolate that only eats chocolate,” “chocolate eater,” and “dinosaur that only eats chocolate

bars.” Answers that were clearly incorrect were “a new chocolate brand,” “chocolate that speaks

a different language,” “chocolate lava,” “a cereal,” “a chocolate flower,” “chocolate animals,” “a

variety of chocolates,” and “a new flavor of chocolate.” Only a couple of students confused the

root as used in other words and answered, “a chocolate omnivore” and “chocolate shaped like a

carnivore,” and these were also incorrect.

10. “matricake” (34/113): This nonsense word included the morpheme “matri” which

was identified as a word part the students learned in ELA. It required the word “mother” as part

of the answer. While all of the clearly correct answers supplied by students incorporated the

word “mother,” there were many different phrasings. Among them were “a mother who eats

cake,” “a birthday cake for mom,” “momma cake,” “cake made of your mom,” “cake in the

shape of a mom,” “cake only made for mothers,” “a motherly cake,” “my mom made cakes,” and

“a cake that is the mother of two cupcakes.” However, most students (59%) answered this

prompt incorrectly. The more common misconceptions were those by students who confused

“matri” with meaning “mattress,” “mat,” “wedding” (matrimony), and “three” (tri). This was

evident in definitions such as “mattress cake,” “three layer cake,” “three cakes,” and “wedding

cake.” Other students had many different interpretations and provided incorrect answers. In fact,

       

   

81  

this prompt provided more varied answers that were incorrect and seemingly unrelated to any

other. These responses included “cake that tells time,” “cake in a lot of different pieces,” “cake

that is happy,” “symmetrical cake,” “mature cake,” “maze made out of cake,” “soft cake,” “cake

that plugs in,” “math cake,” “metric cake,” “complicated cake,” “crazy cake,” “cake that is first

to eat,” “really big cake,” “elephant cake,” “robot cake,” “money cakes,” “king and queen

cakes,” “father cake,” and “an oven that makes cakes.”

11. “photofood” (31/117): This nonsense word included the morpheme “photo” which

was identified as a word part the students learned in science. It required the word “light” as part

of the answer. While most students incorrectly identified this morpheme, the ones that were

correct did focus on the definition of “light.” There were many variations of the definition

considering the addition of “food,” but they were all clearly correct. These included “food that

absorbs light,” “food that grows from sunlight,” “light is food for plants,” “light food,” “the light

is in my food,” “a bologna sandwich made of light,” “food you make using light,” “a food for

light,” “food with light on it,” “an apple that likes sunlight,” “and “an apple giving off light.”

Again, most students (61%) misidentified this morpheme’s concept. Of the clearly incorrect

answers, all but one included the words “photograph,” “picture,” or “camera,” but gave no

indication of the understanding of “light.” Such answers included “food that can take a picture,”

“food and a camera,” “I took a photo of my food,” “camera made out of food,” “food you can eat

by looking at it in a photograph,” and “app to take pictures of food.” The only other clearly

incorrect answer was “changing food.”

12. “subdirt” (97/50): This nonsense word included the morpheme “sub” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in both ELA and science. It required the word

“under” (or “below”) as part of the answer. Half of the students (50%) correctly identified this

       

   

82  

morpheme’s concept in first cycle coding. Those responses that were accepted as clearly correct

included “something under the dirt,” “a sub under dirt,” “the layer of dirt under the first layer,”

“dirt that’s below the surface,” “dirt below water,” “underneath dirt,” and “an x-ray drawing of

dirt under topsoil.” There were also clearly incorrect answers. There was some indication that

students were making reference to the word “substitute” in answers such as “fake dirt,” and back

up dirt.” However, these did not indicate a clear understanding of the concept of “sub.” Other

clearly incorrect answers included “holographic dirt,” “dirt going back into the hole,” “subway

dirt,” “dirt that looks like from ages ago,” “twice as much dirt,” “person that’s a little bit dirty,”

“a sub full of dirt” (with a picture of a “submarine” sandwich roll), “extra dirt,” “a dirt

submarine,” and “dirt above the dirt’s crust.

13. “duoflag” (161/10): This nonsense word included the morpheme “duo” which was

identified as a word part the students learned in ELA. It required the word “two” or “double” as

part of the answer. Most students responded to this prompt by correctly identifying the concept

(83%). The clearly correct answers all contained the word “two,” but with differing definitions

when combined with into the compound “duoflag.” These correct answers were many repeats of

“picture of two flags,” “two flags connected,” “a flag with two countries,” “two flags on one

stick” (or “pole”), “a flag with two sides,” “two flags having a fight,” “two flags put into one,”

and “two flags stuck together.” The few clearly incorrect answers included “six flags,” “a game

like capture the flag,” “I had a duel to capture the flag,” “re-do flag,” “flag of dough” (with a

picture depicting a flag and the word “Pillsbury” written on it), and “a flag that makes pimples

go away.”

Second cycle coding for nonsense word assessment. The second cycle coding consisted

of pattern coding. This was done to further “classify” and “synthesize” student responses

       

   

83  

(Saldana, 2009). The second cycle coding was only used for those responses identified as

“unclear” in the first cycle coding to determine whether they would ultimately be classified as

correct or incorrect responses. However, in addition to further determining whether the unclear

responses were “correct” or “incorrect,” some of the patterns were also used to gain further

insight into the levels of student conceptual understanding.

Some student responses were more straightforward than others. Examples below show

answers provided by students that were all identified as “unclear” in the first round coding. The

second round coding took into account the student’s drawing as well as the context of their

descriptive sentence.

As the research of Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier indicated, a student’s level of

conceptual understanding can be measured most accurately with assessments that provided

information other than a simple definition of the vocabulary word, such as with the Frayer Model

(1969). Their research posits that student understanding can best be measured through other

prompts. Again, these include attributes relevant to the concept, attributes irrelevant to the

concept, non-examples, names that can be defined structurally, semantically, operationally, or

axiomatically, and concepts related to the supraordinate, coordinate, and/or subordinate

(Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969).

Therefore, any student response that was identified as “unclear” in the first cycle coding

was then analyzed for one of these indicators. Any that could be categorized as falling into one

of these ranges was accepted as a “correct” answer. Those that were not indicators listed or that

remained “unclear” after analysis were then considered “incorrect” responses.

       

   

84  

With this second round of coding complete, the student data results were recalculated to

include only correct, incorrect, and incomplete/missing responses. The results for the second

cycle pattern coding are represented in the following Figures 4.12 - 4.15.

Figures 4.12 and 4.13: Second cycle pattern coding results for all of grade four for each

question of the nonsense word assessment based on the three possible answers of correct,

incorrect, or incomplete/missing. For each question listed, the subject(s) in which it appears in

the curricula is listed. (The results for each individual grade four class can be found in Appendix

P).

Figure 4.12 Grade four, second cycle pattern coding results by assessment question.

GRADE 4 Code/totals

QUES/SUBJECT √ X O Total ques Ques 1 ELA 180 13 1 194 Ques 2 Science 35 138 21 194 Ques 3 Both 100 91 3 194 Ques 4 ELA 88 99 7 194 Ques 5 Science 99 86 11 196 Ques 6 Both 140 49 5 194 Ques 7 ELA 39 148 7 194 Ques 8 Science 6 175 13 194 Ques 9 Both 132 50 12 194 Ques 10 ELA 58 124 12 194 Ques 11 Science 136 53 5 194 Ques 12 Both 80 108 6 194 Ques 13 ELA 40 141 13 194 TOTALS 1133 1275 116 2408

       

   

85  

Figure 4.13 Grade four, second cycle pattern coding results by assessment question (bar).

Figures 4.14 and 4.15: Second cycle pattern coding results for all of grade five for each question

of the nonsense word assessment based on the three possible answers of correct, incorrect, or

incomplete/missing. For each question listed, the subject(s) in which it appears in the curricula is

listed. (The results for each individual grade five class can be found in Appendix Q).

0  

20  

40  

60  

80  

100  

120  

140  

160  

180  

200  

√   x   o  

       

   

86  

Figure 4.14 Grade five, second cycle pattern coding results by assessment question.

GRADE 5 Code/totals

QUES/SUBJECT √ X O Total ques Ques 1 ELA 170 22 1 193 Ques 2 Science 106 80 7 193

Ques 3 Both 116 59 18 193 Ques 4 ELA 177 11 5 193 Ques 5 Science 161 29 3 193

Ques 6 Both 59 108 26 193 Ques 7 ELA 141 45 7 193 Ques 8 Science 100 79 14 193 Ques 9 Both 80 85 28 193

Ques 10 ELA 45 121 27 193 Ques 11 Science 49 136 8 193 Ques 12 Both 129 54 10 193

Ques 13 ELA 175 12 6 193 TOTALS 1508 841 160 2509

Figure 4.15 Grade five, second cycle pattern coding results by assessment question (bar).

0  

20  

40  

60  

80  

100  

120  

140  

160  

180  

200  

√   x   o  

       

   

87  

Figure 4.16 Totals of correct and incorrect responses, including standard deviation, for the nonsense word assessment in each teaching team in grade four.

Grade 4 Totals – Nonsense Word Assessment by percent

Team Correct response

Incorrect response

No response Total responses (n)

Team 4A 45 50 5 37

Team 4B 49 43 8 39

Team 4C 39 60 1 40

Team 4D 48 45 7 40

Team 4E 43 54 3 38

AVERAGE 44.8 50.4 4.8

Standard deviation

4.02 6.87 2.86

Figure 4.17. Totals of correct and incorrect responses, including standard deviation, for the

nonsense word assessment in each teaching team in grade five.

Grade 5 Totals – Nonsense Word Assessment by percent

Team Correct response

Incorrect response

No response Total responses (n)

Team 5A 55 40 5 37

Team 5B 59 18 23 34

Team 5C 61 37 2 43

Team 5D 61 35 4 41

Team 5E 64.5 35 .5 38

AVERAGES 60.1 33 6.9

Standard deviation

3.47 8.63 9.16

       

   

88  

Figure 4.18. The percentage of correct responses for words taken from each content area curricula.

Grade 4 Grade 5

ELA 42% ELA 73%

Science 35.6% Science 54%

ELA and science 58% ELA and science 50%

A qualitative analysis at the second level of coding for each question for grade 4 and

grade 5 is provided below. After the nonsense word is listed, the number of responses that were

determined to be unclear in the first level coding, and therefore part of the second level coding, is

noted. The resulting number of correct vs. incorrect responses is then listed. Finally, a brief

explanation for that determination is given.

Each grade is followed with a chart that represents the amended results for the nonsense

word assessment with the updated number of correct and incorrect responses.

Grade Four  1. “aquaskates” (11 reviewed; 8 correct and 3 incorrect)

Answers that were considered correct included those that provided relevant attributes

such as “skates with fins” and “boots with boat propellers.” Students also defined the concepts

operationally (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969), such as “skates that row” or “skates that

swim.” Another answer was given by relating the concept of “water” to a supraordinate concept

(Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969) by writing “skate in the ocean.” Further clarification

in some instances was provided by a review of the drawing provided. “Jet powered skates” had a

picture of skates on water waves and another response that was lacking any written description

was also a picture of skates on water waves.

       

   

89  

Responses that were deemed incorrect were “skates on liquids,” “skates in po??”

(indistinguishable last two letters), and “he is skiing.” A review of the drawings could provide no

evidence that the child understood the core concept to be “water.”

2. “exorain” (31 reviewed; 15 correct and 16 incorrect)

The correct responses mainly referred to “exoskeletons.” However, they provided some

indication, through their words or drawings, that the skeleton was on the “outside.” This was

important to note so that it could be distinguished from an incorrect response that merely

repeated a word with which they had familiarity since the exoskeleton was the context in which

they studied “exo” in science class. Therefore, if the student answered “an exoskeleton falling

form the sky,” “raining exoskeletons of animals,” or “raining with exoskeletons,” the student had

to provide a picture that showed bones or a skeleton on the “outside” of a drop of rain. Other

correct answers included rain “going around something” which was very similar in the picture to

going “outside” an object as well as other answers with wording as close such as “rain that was

developed from outer space” and “inside out rain.” Finally, phrases that provided relevant

attributes of the concept (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969) were accepted as correct

answers such as “rain that is rock hard” and “hard rain from outer space.” One answer provided

an “outside” example of defining a concept structurally (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier,

1969) by stating “the rain has an exoarm” accompanied by a drawing with a raindrop that had an

arm on the “outside” of it.

Incorrect responses included several that seemed to follow the misconception that “exo”

related to “xray.” This was seen in “rain you can see its exoskeleton,” “rain that’s hollow” and

“rain that allows you to see your bones.” Answers that indicated the children were confusing the

morpheme “exo” with bones or a skeleton only due to their use of the word “exoskeleton” were

       

   

90  

marked as incorrect. These included “rain with bones” bones coming down,” and “it’s raining

bones.” Other incorrect answers included “she’s in the rain,” “it goes on the horse and sha??s

(indistinguishable) away,” “rain from the inner core,” and “raindrops exhaling air.” There was no

evidence in the drawings or contexts that provided further information that these might be correct

in the second review.

3. “moneymeter” (58 reviewed; 8 correct and 50 incorrect)

The correct responses were those that indicated some form of understanding of

“measurement.” This was made clear in the second coding primarily through the students’

drawings. Examples included many several that stated “a meter that shows money” with a

drawing with notations on it such as “$500,” “$2.50 line” or “you have $5.00 left.” Others had

pictures only, but the pictures indicated a line that showed a growth of money on progressive

lines. Other answers included “a money ruler” and “it tells you your budget.”

Most of the incorrect answers were determined as such because they made particular

reference to the metric “meter” of three feet. This indicated once again that children might have

been noting a word that is familiar to them vs. applying the actual meaning of the root. Examples

were “money that tells size in meters,” “money that equals one meter,” “a meter with money on

it,” “a meter stick made of money,” “money in meters” and “money that is a meter long.” Other

incorrect answers were “holds money,” “the temperature of money,” and “thermometer with

money in it.”

4. “hydrocar” (18 reviewed; 6 correct and 12 incorrect)

The correct answers either provided clarification through their drawings or one of the

indicators of conceptual understanding. Examples of answers that were paired with pictures

depicting water were “keeps car moist,” “can drive on anything,” and “car that hydrates a

       

   

91  

person.” Other responses showed conceptual understanding through the indicators. This included

the use of a structural definition with “car that runs on hydrogen and oxygen,” relating the

concept to a coordinating concept with “a rain car,” and noting attributes that are relevant to the

concept with “always wet and keeps you hydrated” (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969).

All of the incorrect answers were virtually the same in that they stated that the “car runs

on hydrogen,” “is made of hydrogen,” or was simply “a hydrogen car.”

5. “invertebracow” (12 reviewed; 7 correct and 5 incorrect)

During the second cycle coding for this prompt, two of the answers considered correct

upon further review were accepted because they provided examples of relevant attributes to the

concept (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969). One student response was “a cow that is

paralyzed” and the other wrote “a flexible cow” with a picture of a cow that resembled a snake.

Every other answer that was changed from unclear to correct was due to the drawing that the

child provided. For example, when several students answered, “no vertebra,” the cow is an

invertebrate,” “or “cow is without a vertebra,” they provided pictures that depicted cows with a

back that was wavy or dipped in an inverted fashion so as to depict a missing backbone.

The responses that were considered incorrect did not have pictures that were helpful in

determining their conceptual understanding. The phrases they provided were “a messed up cow,”

“a cow that can twist,” “no vertebra,” “no bones,” or “invertebra cow.” While some of these

answers are similar or even identical to others that were accepted as correct, there was no further

evidence from their picture that provided a reasonable referent. They either depicted a “normal”

looking cow, one with lines above it, or simply one standing up.

6. “thermoshoes” (20 reviewed; 4 correct and 16 incorrect)

       

   

92  

One student provided a picture that offered a bit more insight into their understanding.

This student’s response was simply “has a thermostat.” However, their picture noted a meter on

the shoe they drew that had increasing temperatures noted on the side of it. Other students

provided information through the conceptual indicators. One example was a student who chose

an attribute relevant to the concept by stating concept, writing that they are “shoes that have

blankets.” Another child defined the concept operationally by writing “shoe that keeps out the

cold.” A third student provided a coordinating concept with “shoes that shoot fire” (Frederick,

Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969).

Like other prompts, several of the student answers, upon further review, did not provide

additional information to indicate their understanding of the concept. Most of these answers

included that the shoe had “a thermostat” or “a thermometer” or even that it was a shoe “made

out of thermometers.” While these items are obviously related to the concept, neither the words

nor the pictures that went with them provided any indication that the children knew that the idea

was “heat” or “temperature.” Still other students responded that the shoe had a “thermos” in it,

could “tell the weather,” or that they were “shoes not found with thermal vision.” Again, there

was not enough evidence to determine that these were correct responses in terms of conceptual

understanding.

7. “astropants” (134 reviewed; 26 correct and 108 incorrect)

By far, there were two responses from the students that were the most common. These

were “pants that you wear in space” (or “to space” or “for space” or “from space”) and “pants

that astronauts wear” (or “pants for an astronaut”). Since these answers do not reference stars and

comprised over 50% of the unclear choices, the researcher made one observation of each of the

drawings paired with these answers. Simply, if the picture had a star or stars in it, the response

       

   

93  

was considered correct. Likewise, if there were no stars or other bodies instead such as the moon

or the earth, the answer was considered incorrect as there was not enough evidence to presume

conceptual understanding. The students’ pictures were also used in the same way when analyzing

the other responses provided. These definitions included “pants that are astro,” “pants that blend

into the sky at night,” “pants made in space and sent down to wear,” and “pants that take you to

the sky.” Each of these was accompanied by a picture that included one or more stars. Therefore,

they were determined to be correct.

There were other answers, however, that were identified as incorrect due to the absence

of any stars in the drawing. These were “pants with rockets on them,” “flying pants,” “pants with

no gravity,” “pants on (or “from” or “for”) the moon,” and “pants that have a telescope on them.”

While they were all relative to outer space, they did not definitively show a student’s

understanding of the concept of “stars.”

8. “millistars” (48 reviewed; 1 correct and 47 incorrect)

There was only one student answer that was considered correct after further examination.

This one said “real fast and real tiny stars – a millisecond fast and a millimeter in size.” The

reason this was accepted was because, though there was not a clear reference to a “thousand” (or

“thousandth”), there did seem to be an understanding that anything “milli” was at least much

smaller in relation to the larger unit.

All other responses had to be counted as incorrect. Most of these said “a star that is a

millimeter” (or “a millimeter tall” or ‘long”) or “small (or “little” or “tiny”) stars. While these

were similar to the first student response, none of these had both the word part and the concept of

its size; they were comprised of one or the other. This made it much harder to determine if the

       

   

94  

child accurately understood the concept. Again, the drawings provided did not offer any further

evidence. Most were simply pictures of stars and nothing else.

9. “symmetrishapes” (136 reviewed; 116 correct and 20 incorrect)

There was evidence that the children had discussed this concept in at least one class as

virtually all students had the same, or very nearly the same answer. Again, the determining factor

in whether they would be considered correct or incorrect came down to the picture with the

description. There were really only two responses out of the 70% that were considered unclear in

the first round coding. With very minor difference in wording, the most frequent answer was

“shapes with symmetry” (or “a line of symmetry”). Each child then provided a drawing with

shapes. Again, it was clear that this had been done with students since most had the identical

picture: a series of shapes with the “lines of symmetry” drawn in them. Whether the children

truly understood the concept or were simply re-creating an illustration that had been provided for

them cannot be fully determined. However, credit for correct responses was given to those that

had drawings with shapes that were truly symmetrical and had accurate lines of symmetry drawn

in them.

The remaining answers, even though they may have written “shapes that are

symmetrical” were considered incorrect if they provided a picture of asymmetrical shapes and/or

they did not draw the lines of symmetry on the shapes they provided. Again, while this prompt,

in particular, seemed suspect in terms of true student understanding due to the nature of the

drawings, reasonable consideration was made to determine this level of understanding.

10. “lunafood” (48 reviewed; 10 correct and 38 incorrect)

Similar to the previous prompt for “astropants,” there were many student responses that

were the same or very similar and had to do with “space.” For the same reason, these had to be

       

   

95  

further examined with particular attention to the drawings provided. As with the other example,

student responses that included the defining picture (a moon) were considered to be correct.

Those that did not include it were incorrect. Therefore, answers such as “food that is from space”

(or “for” space or “made in space”) that were paired with a clear depiction of the moon (or an

identifying label such as “moon” or “craters” or “crescent”) were marked as correct. Other

correct responses included “a cookie that glows in the dark” (with a drawing of a planet that was

labeled “moon with craters”), food that works in the night (with a drawing with a “moon” label),

and a picture of a moon eating food. “Food for astronauts” was also accepted as correct as this

represented a relevant attribute of the moon (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969). Finally,

“food that glows” was correct. While it did not include a moon in its picture, it also represented a

relevant attribute of the moon (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969). Therefore, it was

marked accordingly.

Following the same theory, if responses about food “from/in/on/for space” did not have a

picture of the moon or including the moon, it was considered incorrect. There were many more

that were deemed incorrect for this reason than were deemed correct. Other incorrect answers

were “food with stars,” “food that feeds the stars,” “space food,” “space ice cream,” “food

shaped like stars,” and a picture with a bubble that said “I’m eating a comet.” None of these had

a drawing with a moon in it to provide further insight that the student understood that “luna”

meant “moon.”

11. “amphibicat” (98 reviewed; 73 correct and 25 incorrect)

The majority of answers that resulted in a need for second cycle coding were variations

of “part cat and part amphibian.” It became important to further identify whether the children

were aware of what “amphibian” meant. Therefore, an examination of the drawings they

       

   

96  

completed was used to look specifically for any relevant attributes of the concept “amphibian.”

There were, indeed, several (44) that provided a picture depicting a cat with one of the following

features, or attributes, of an amphibian: scales, fins, webbed feet, and/or turtle shell. There were

other responses that included the cat in the water or with a thought bubble with a hybrid phrase,

such as “ribmeow.” These were all considered correct in the second cycle. Other acceptable

answers combined a mammal (cat) with an amphibian (lizard, frog, salamander, newt).

Those that remained incorrect were those that had drawings difficult to distinguish. While

the assessment is certainly not designed to measure artistic ability, in order to be considered

correct, there had to be evidence that a reasonable person would/could consider to be a depiction

of either an amphibian or a feature/attribute of one.

12. “solarexplorer” (114 reviewed; 39 correct and 75 incorrect)

There were a great number of student responses to this prompt that required further

review (59%). The vast majority of these answers were “someone who explores space” (or “solar

system” or “planets” or “galaxy”) with very minor variations to this wording. Since the word

“sun” was the key word, they could not be considered “clearly correct.” The drawing, once

again, would be critical in the second coding. Since a sun is relatively easy for a child to draw

and for a reviewer to recognize, this became the deciding factor. All of the pictures that

contained a sun (even in the presence of other “planets” or “stars”) were considered correct.

Other correct answers included “gives off energy,” “studies light and energy,” and “soars

through space.” Again, each of these had to be accompanied by a picture of the sun, which they

were.

Likewise, if a picture did not contain a sun in it, it was considered incorrect. Answers

included the most common phrases noted above, as well as “solar panels,” “explorer that has

       

   

97  

solar energy,” “an astronaut,” and “someone who studies planets.” However, since none of these

included the sun picture, they were marked as incorrect.

13. “terrahouse” (16 reviewed; 11 correct and 5 incorrect)

As a reminder, 70% of the students in this grade incorrectly identified the concept “terra,”

most confusing it with the word “terror.” Of the 16 students whose responses required further

review, several included “a covered house,” “a terra house,” and “a house made of (or “in”) a

terrain.” Those that were accepted as correct were again accompanied by a drawing depicting

dirt, rocks, and/or grass around a house.

The remaining five answers defined it as a “house in a tree” or a “tree house,” but they

did not include any ground or earth in their pictures. Therefore, these were identified as incorrect

responses.

Grade Five  1. “florabook” (5 reviewed; 2 correct and 3 incorrect)

Only five children provided answers that needed further review as most of them

answered this prompt correctly. One student wrote “a flora book,” but the picture with it had

flowers drawn all over the cover of the book. The second child whose answer was considered

correct had no writing. However, they drew a picture that clearly represented flowers.

The three remaining incorrect answers were “me reading a flora book,” “a book called

‘Flora the Queen’,” and “a florist reading a book.” While each of them provided a picture and

they may have understood the concept, none of the pictures identified any flower or plant life.

Therefore, it could not be concluded that the children did, in fact, understand this concept with

certainty.

       

   

98  

2. “biohouse” (72 reviewed; 40 correct and 32 incorrect)

The majority of responses that required a second coding review were due to the students’

uses of the prefix “bio” in other words. This facilitated the need to investigate further whether or

not they provided more details in their drawings. Students whose picture referred to the actions

of living things and then had clear pictures of living things in their pictures were considered as a

correct response. However, further scrutiny utilizing the indicators of conceptual understanding

was used. Responses that indicated that students were defining the term structurally were

definitively counted as correct (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969). These included any

written responses (accompanied by the appropriate pictures) that detailed a house that was made

of living things. Such answers were “house made of biomes” (with plants, trees, and flowers),

“house made of trees,” “using flowers, trees, and grass to make a house,” and “house made from

nature, flowers.” There were still more students, again, with the appropriate pictures, who gave

evidence of defining the concept operationally (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969). These

included, “house that holds and grows flowers,” “house that animals grow in,” “house that is

helpful to the environment” (flowers and trees), and “houses made for plants to grow in.” Three

students identified a non-example of the concept by defining it as a “biohazard,” and depicting

things inside of it not living (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969). Finally, a few students

described the house by identifying relevant attributes as one that is “living” (Frederick, Frayer,

and Klausmeier, 1969). This included “a person house” and “movable house” which both had

pictures depicting the house as a face or a person.

The first cycle coding identified some student misunderstandings. There were more

examples of this in the second cycle coding. For example, children clearly thought of the word

“biography,” but not necessarily the concept “life” in their descriptions and pictures. This was

       

   

99  

done both explicitly such as “house that is a biography,” “house about a biography,” “house

where you get biographies,” and “house you do a biography in” as well as implicitly in answers

like “story of your house” and “all about me.” The other answers that were not considered as

correct after the second review were due to the fact that none of them included pictures that were

clarifying or provided any further information to show conceptual understanding. The written

responses included “a person saving the environment,” “a biologist’s house,” “a place to study

animals,” “nature’s house,” “a house in the family,” “a house in the forest,” “a house on earth,”

and “a dog house” (or “bird house”). However, none of the pictures included any living subjects

such as people, animals, or flora.

3. “omnicolors” (81 reviewed; 57 correct and 24 incorrect)

There were more students whose answers required further review than there were

students with clearly correct answers. Of the 81 students whose answers needed further review,

the majority of them (57) were later determined to be correct in second level coding based on the

drawing provided. Since the key for “omni” required the words “many/multiple” or “all” in the

written responses, many students did not have this exact wording. However, upon reviewing

their pictures, in context with the wording, it could be reasonably determined that there was

conceptual understanding of “omni.” For example, several students drew either a color wheel or

a rainbow, and all of them represented many colors on them. The written descriptions for these

included “wheel with random colors,” “sketch colors,” “tie dye rainbow,” and “rainbow with

different colors.” Other children used pencil shading and/or colored pencils and markers to create

“many” different colors and explained their pictures as “splots of paint,” “20 (or “30”) colors,”

“both hot and cold colors,” “all different kinds of colors,” “multicolors,” and “bunch of different

and crazy colors.” Other pictures represented multiple colors in both their pictures and their

       

   

100  

vocabulary. Examples were “different colors,” “use all the shades,” “primary colors mixed,” and

“color with different parts.” One student simply wrote “paint.” However, their picture was

several circles or “splotches” of paint. This was considered to be representative of “many,” and

thus marked correct.

The incorrect responses seemed to center on the same misconception as observed in the

first cycle coding. However, the students’ pictures did not provide any further clarification.

Therefore, they were considered incorrect after further review. Again, as in the first cycle coding,

it was recognized that students misunderstood “omni” to mean “eat.” Many answers referred to

this as “colors only omnivores eat,” “a bear is an omnivore and it is colorful,” “different colored

food,” “colors eating other colors,” “people that represent the colors they eat,” and “colors that

eat everything.” When it was still unclear after second cycle coding whether the child clearly

understood “omni” to mean “many,” it was marked as incorrect. One example was “an omnivore

with different colors on it.” While this student referred to “different colors,” the fact that they

also wrote about the “omnivore” made it unclear which was their definition of “omni.” Similarly,

when it was simply repeated, as in “omnivore colors,” there was not enough information to

consider the student’s intentions to be the correct answer. Other incorrect responses had to do

with the “omnivore” error, but more indirectly. These included “colors of food,” “a colorful

dinosaur,” “meat and plant colors,” “colors of nature,” and “colors based on plants.” There were

two responses that remained too vague, even after further review. One of these was “crayon with

omnicolors.” The picture with it did not include more than one color. The other answer was “the

colors are calming down.” While the student’s picture depicted three colors in it, this was not

determined to be enough evidence that the child’s focus was “many.” Finally, when a child

       

   

101  

referred to simply “two colors,” this was considered incorrect as well since, while it represents

more than one, this is not the same as “many” or “all.”

4. “trifeet” (1 reviewed; 1 correct and 0 incorrect)

Only one answer was reviewed for a clarification of the child’s depiction of the

morpheme “tri.” This student wrote “feet that are triangles.” Their picture did, in fact, represent a

three-sided foot. Therefore, this was marked as correct.

5. “electrodog” (54 reviewed; 33 correct and 21 incorrect)

Since 54 children did not describe this prompt with “electricity” or “electrical, their

pictures were reviewed and their wording was further reviewed. In order to determine if the

children understood that “electricity” was the correct concept, they had to have a relevant

attribute (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969) of electricity in their written answer and/or

represented in their pictures. Therefore, if a child’s written answer was “robot(ic) dog,”

“electronic dog,” “dog that was struck by lightening,” “my dog is shocking me,” “dog who got

shocked,” or “dog who got electrocuted,” they had to be accompanied by a picture clearly

representing lightning bolts, an electric cord, an electric outlet, and/or an electric on/off switch in

order to be considered correct. This was the case with 33 of the answers that had to be reviewed.

All of the clearly incorrect answers, except for one, were worded as either “robot(ic)

dog,” “electronic dog,” or “remote control dog.” However, none of these had a clear indication

of electricity, including in the pictures they drew. Therefore, it could not be determined on this

evidence whether they understood the idea of “electricity.” The last answer reviewed, but

ultimately also marked as incorrect, simply re-stated the word by writing “electro dog,” and their

picture did not offer any further clarification.

6. “respihelmet” (14 reviewed; 5 correct and 9 incorrect)

       

   

102  

Again, the picture became extremely important in differentiating between which of the

reviewed answers would be considered correct or incorrect. Answers ultimately determined as

correct or incorrect may have had similar or even the same wording, so the picture and the

consideration of whether there were conceptual indicators were the determining factors. Answers

such as “helmet with respirator,” “respiratory helmet,” and “scuba helmet” were accepted as

correct if they included a picture of air bubbles or relevant factors (Frederick, Frayer, and

Klausmeier, 1969) that served as conceptual indicators such as a mouthpiece or someone

coughing. In terms of the incorrect answers, some of them had wording similar to those that were

considered to be correct; however, unlike those answers, they did not provide any further

information for clarification, including in their pictures. Other answers included wording that

may have indicated a relationship with breathing, thus requiring further review. However, none

of them contained any further clarification that would have been evidence of the child’s

conceptual understanding, so they were marked as incorrect. These included “space helmet,”

“gas mask,” and “sprayer helmet.”

7. “unistar” (24 reviewed; 18 correct and 6 incorrect)

Of the 24 answers reviewed, two of them provided wording and a picture that were

different than the others being considered again in second cycle coding. These were “only star in

the galaxy” and “a girl that became a star on her own.” Both of these responses were concepts

defined semantically (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969), and therefore were accepted.

The remaining answers that were marked as correct were alike and involved many stars coming

together as one. However, if they did not include a picture that clearly depicted this, they were

not included. Such pictures included one large star with many stars inside of it or many stars

drawn with arrows all pointing to one main star. The wording included “the stars are coming

       

   

103  

together,” “a group of stars,” “a union of stars,” “stars joining together” and “all stars are

together.” There were other answers that were worded similarly. However, they were marked as

incorrect because they did not have the accompanying picture for clarification. Definitions such

as “group of stars” and “same stars together” did not count because they simply drew many

separate stars on the page. Other incorrect answers were “someone who’s not a star,” “universal

star” and “unicorn shaped like a star.”

8. “visiphone” (77 reviewed; 31 correct and 46 incorrect)

While some students did not use the key word(s) in first cycle coding to be considered

clearly correct, they did offer terms that were relevant attributes of “see” or “seeing” as well as

pictures, the most common of them being a set of eyes. Therefore, “a phone with vision,” “phone

with an eye,” and “an EYE phone” that included pictures of eyes were all marked as correct.

Student drawings were also helpful in determining that various wordings for “an iPhone for Face

Time” and “a phone that someone can visualize” were also accepted. These depicted people

“seeing” each other or “seeing” the phone. Another picture showed a person with a line of dots

moving from the person’s eyes to a phone with the description “me finding my phone.” A

conceptual indicator was also provided in the form of a non-example (Frederick, Frayer, and

Klausmeier, 1969). A few students provided answers referring to an “invisible phone.” Their

pictures depicted a phone present and then a space with a very light outline of a phone or simply

the word “ring.” These indicated understanding of the phone being seen and not being seen.

However, similarly worded answers were, once again, not accepted if this type of clarification

was not available in the student drawing. The majority of responses included wording such as “a

visible phone,” but drew a picture of a phone only. While they may have intended to show that

this was a phone that could be seen, without some other indication or evidence, this could not be

       

   

104  

assumed or accepted. Therefore, 40 such answers were marked as incorrect. The remaining

answers that were considered incorrect after review were all for the same reason. They provided

wording such as “phone that you can sense,” “invisible phone,” “big phone,” “this iPhone,” or

“phone that is a light,” but there was no further explanation in the picture that made it clear they

knew this meant “see.”

9. “chocolovore” (47 reviewed; 8 correct and 39 incorrect)

The only answers that were considered unclear and sent for second cycle coding were

variants of “someone who likes chocolate,” or “a person who loves chocolate.” The picture had

to provide the necessary clarification of whether the student was directly referring to “eating”

chocolate. Therefore, if the student provided a drawing that clearly depicted someone in the act

of “eating” chocolate, their answer was considered correct. If there was no such picture, or if the

student drew chocolate only, it was counted as incorrect. Using this method of second cycle

coding, there were only 8 correct answers, and 39 were incorrect.

10. “matricake” (19 reviewed; 11 correct and 8 incorrect)

There were only two types of answers that were considered correct after review. One was

when students provided the conceptual indicator of a semantic definition (Frederick, Frayer, and

Klausmeier, 1969). In these cases, students described, “mother cake” as “female cake leader of

the family,” “cake that rules other cakes and is a girl,” and “cake with a matriarch on it” that

included a drawing of a female on the cake. The other types of answer with conceptual indicators

were those that described “family” in place of “mother.” This is an example of a supraordinate

concept (Frederick, Frayer, and Klausmeier, 1969). Answers in this category included “”cake

that spells family,” “a family of cakes,” “a family cake,” “cake made by a family,” “a cake for a

family,” and “a candy made family on the top of a cake.” Each had a picture representing their

       

   

105  

description. There were also student responses that were changed to incorrect once reviewed.

These included “a girl cake,” “a cake that has control over others,” “woman on a cake,” “cake for

a woman,” “cake as a wife,” and “cakes that are related.” While each of these is similar to the

answers that were marked correct, they were missing important evidence. For example, it

contained the fact that it was a female or it was in control; not both a female and in control as

was the case with the correct answers.

11. “photofood” (37 reviewed; 18 correct and 19 incorrect)

Upon further review, there were student answers that were considered correct due to the

specificity of the paired drawing and/or the presence of a conceptual indicator. In this case, the

word “sun” or a picture of the sun and/or the sun’s rays, was considered a relevant attribute of

“light.” Correct answers included “food made by the sun,” “photo = sun,” “food for the sun,”

“food from the sun,” “sun cooked toast,” “food growing toward the sun,” and “food on the sun.”

Each of these written responses contained the word “sun” and provided a clear picture of the sun.

Other answers that did not specifically include the word sun were “a bush going through

photosynthesis,” “photosynthesis that makes food,” “a plant doing photosynthesis,” and a simple

restatement of the prompt, “photofood.” Each of these answers was accepted as correct in second

cycle coding because they were accompanied by a student picture of the sun that indicated

particular focus on the rays of the sun leading to the other part(s) of the picture that. This

emphasis was accomplished by the student drawing an arrow to the lines coming from the sun or

circling them, thus indicating the sun’s “light.” One more answer that was considered correct

was “holographic food.” This response was paired with a student rendering of a device

projecting lines to the subject. This was determined to be light, as with the drawings of the sun.

Finally, one other answer, “cheeseburger in a picture,” included the depiction of a camera with a

       

   

106  

flash. The student added an arrow pointing to the flash and wrote in the words “flash of the

camera.” This was considered to be an indication that the child understood the emphasis was on

the flash of light vs. the photograph itself. There were many other answers that could not be

determined to indicate student understanding of the concept, so they were marked as incorrect.

This included several (15) that were worded as “photo of food” or “picture of food.” What made

these responses different than those that were determined to be clearly incorrect was that they

included pictures that depicted a camera with a flash. While most emphasized the flash by

drawing lines from the camera, it could not be confidently determined that this was the focus of

the picture and a clear indication that the child understood that the core concept of “photo” was

“light.” Therefore, each of these responses was considered incorrect. Other answers that were

marked incorrect were for a similar reason. They did not include a picture that clarified whether

they clearly understood the concept. These were “food that goes through photosynthesis” (with a

picture that was not discernible), “photosynthesis” (with a picture of a flower), and two

responses that did not have a picture, which were “food made by an organism” and “food that

makes itself.”

12. “subdirt” (36 reviewed; 32 correct and 4 incorrect)

Several of the student answers provided clarifying pictures to assist in the determination

that their responses were correct. These included the written responses “dirt after the first dirt,”

“second layer of dirt,” “two layers of dirt,” “different name for subsoil,” “middle dirt,” dirt that is

deep in the ground,” “replacement dirt,” “dirt that is on the sub side,” and simple restatements

such as “subdirt” and “subsoil.” These were considered correct after review because each

included a picture that clearly indicated something “under” something else. This was done by

drawing arrows to the lower level or labeling layers, and showing the lower or lowest layer was

       

   

107  

the “sub” layer. One answer, “I dug so far I found subsoil,” was also marked correct. It was

determined that this was a conceptual indicator as it semantically described (Frederick, Frayer,

and Klausmeier, 1969) something that would be “deep” or “below” the surface. The answers that

were deemed incorrect may have had similar wording such as “two dirts,” “two kinds of dirt,”

and “different layers of dirt,” as well as a picture with multiple layers. However, they did not

label their pictures to show that their intention was to indicate the lower level. Therefore, these

answers could not be considered correct. One more incorrect answer was “sub that has dirt on it.”

However, after further review of the picture, the drawing indicated a submarine with dirt on it,

and there was no indication of the “sub” being “under” anything.

13. “duoflag” (16 reviewed; 14 correct and 2 incorrect)

The student pictures were once again extremely useful in determining whether responses

were correct in the second round coding. All of the student responses that were identified as

correct were deemed so due to a clear depiction of two items in the drawing. Written answers

included “a team of flags,” “the flags were a duo,” “more than one flag,” “looks like a lot of

flags,” “duo flags,” “a U.S. flag and a Massachusetts flag,” “a double flag,” “one flag with

another attached to it,” and “the American and Japanese flags.” Again, each one of these

included a picture of exactly two flags. The answers that were incorrect did not have clearly

distinguishable conceptual understanding in the student drawing. These responses were “flag

with more than one flag” and “flag with multiple things on it.” The former was paired with a

picture that had many lines and shapes on it. It was not clear that the intent was to represent only

two. The latter was combined with the representation of a flag with the words “we win,” and “we

lose,” printed on it by the child. While this represents two phrases, it was considered to require

       

   

108  

too much inference to definitively conclude that the child meant to communicate the concept

“two.” Therefore, these responses were marked as incorrect.

Additional Data   In both grade four and grade five, it was observed that students utilized a strategy on their

worksheets that was not solicited. This was breaking the prompt word down into parts by the

root and the compound word with which it was combined (“separation” strategy). For example,

if the prompt was “trifeet,” students underlined, circled, or drew a separating line between “tri”

and “feet.” This was seen more frequently in grade four. However, the grade five students who

utilized this strategy did it far more successfully. Figure 4.19 illustrates these percentages for

each grade that made use of this strategy correctly and incorrectly.

Figure 4.19: Percentage of correct and incorrect responses when students used the “separation”

strategy.

Correct responses Incorrect responses

Grade 4 46% 54%

Grade 5 71% 29%

Grade Level Focus Groups   Focus groups were conducted for each grade level and each content area. The special

educators for each grade level were invited to join the teacher groups for the focus group

sessions. One of the grade four classroom teachers (ELA) and one of the grade five classroom

teachers (ELA) declined to participate. All other classrooms teachers were present (eight) and

special educators were also present. Therefore, the following focus groups were held: grade four

ELA, grade four science, grade five ELA, and grade five science.

       

   

109  

The researcher offered the administration and the teachers the choice of meeting time and

whether they preferred after school or during the school day. Everyone agreed that the best and

most convenient time for participants was during the teacher preparatory periods during the

regular school day. They were further given the option of focus group sites. The intention was

for the focus groups to be in an environment that was familiar and comfortable. It was also

important that there be no ambient or background noise so that the recordings could be

completed successfully. Each focus group took place in a classroom or teacher meeting room,

and participants, including the researcher, sat around a large table so that everyone could see and

hear one another easily. Teachers were reminded that they would be recorded, and the recording

device, an iPad with the Rev.com App, was placed in the center of the table.

Each of the focus group sessions was completed within 30 minutes. These sessions were

conducted following the focus group model by Krueger and Casey (2009). The same questions

were presented to each group and they were open-ended, to eliminate interviewer bias. They

began with opening and introductory questions, progressed to transition and key questions, and

concluded with ending and follow-up questions (Krueger and Casey, 2009). All focus group

questions are found in Appendix J.

Each participant was told that members could be interviewed separately and at a later

time if they wanted to share further information in the event they wanted to speak privately or

simply remembered more information to share. None of the participants exercised this option.

Each person in the Focus Group contributed to the discussion. Focus Group flaws were reduced

by utilizing the strategies of Krueger and Casey (2009). The interviewer was able to keep all

participants on task, have everyone contribute at least once, and avoid any one participant from

dominating the conversation. In addition, the interviewer provided a brief oral summary after key

       

   

110  

points were made, and before concluding each Focus Group, also allowed a moment for any

teacher to add a comment, have a question answered, or modify a prior response.

After the transcripts were professionally transcribed by Rev.com, electronic versions

were provided to every Focus Group participant. They were prompted to correct any errors in

meaning or intent. They were further encouraged to clarify any inconsistencies or provide

clarification if needed. There were no corrective responses from members of the Focus Groups,

so coding began. This fact-checking step was important to maintain the integrity of the study and

the accuracy of the participant responses.

First cycle coding for focus groups. Analysis was completed utilizing the Classic

Approach (Krueger and Casey, 2009). Every transcript was read thoroughly once. They were

then read a second time, this time color-coding the major areas represented in the question

design: student growth and achievement (green), fidelity to the program and strategies used

(yellow), and student difficulties and challenges (red).

Transcripts were read and details extracted in this order: grade four ELA, grade five

ELA, grade four science, and grade five science. This order was used purposefully so that the

researcher might be “alert to changes that may be occurring from one type of audience group to

another,” which, in this case, was being aware of any differences and/or similarities between the

fourth grade and fifth grade of each subject (Krueger and Casey, 2009).

The first area of analysis from each group consisted of any quotes that were indicators of

student growth or achievement. These were highlighted in green in the transcripts. The second

set of quotes extracted from the transcribed text were those that described any strategies or

alluded to fidelity or lack of fidelity to the program. These lines were highlighted in yellow.

Finally, the teacher quotes that indicated a difficulty or challenge with the program and

       

   

111  

morphological study of vocabulary were highlighted in red. The result of all of these quotes is

represented in the following charts, followed by a description of the second cycle coding for

thematic connections.

Grade 4 ELA Focus Group QUOTES - Cycle one coding Growth/Achievement

Green Fidelity/Strategies

Yellow Difficulties/Challenges

Red • I like it only because I

took Latin for a few years…I get the correlation

• I think there’s more (vocabulary)

• They remember the root…they can remember more words and at least be able to know how to break it down

• Yes (students are noticing word parts without prompting)

• A lot of the time (they know what the word part means)

• This group definitely has higher fluency and comprehension

• I think they’re more aware that they can break down prefixes and suffixes in the Greek words to help them

• Not now, but at the beginning of the year (had to prompt students to use strategies)

• I have a couple in my class when you say Latin…they get very excited

• They love using (flashcards)

• I’ve been going through the workbook page-by-page

• That’s the only resource I have (workbook)

• Few fold-ables • We don’t give them

quizzes and tests on just those pages

• It’s not every week… not necessarily what we’ve been doing in the workbook

• They have flashcards

• No collaboration with science teachers on common vocabulary

• Overwhelming at first • Lack of resources • Hard to squeeze it in with

other things • Very hard to fit in with

everything else • With time, it’s just not

feasible • I don’t find there’s very

good mastery • Just more exposure right

now…I feel like it’s a drive by

• I personally think they’re getting less (mastery)

• We don’t spend enough time on things

• I wouldn’t say 100% across the board (that students are using strategies on their own)

• If we had an actual program or different activities we could do with them to make them own them more

       

   

112  

• Helps with syllabication (they chunk it based on the word part)

Grade 5 ELA Focus Group QUOTES - Cycle one coding Growth/Achievement

Green Fidelity/Strategies

Yellow Difficulties/Challenges

Red • Once you start using it,

the conversations that happens with the kids, they make a connection that it all wraps together

• Integer…they brought that into math

• (Students) were excited to inform the teacher that they knew all about the word before she even spoke about it

• (Students) are happy that they know that (root meaning)

• They were making the math connections during ELA class

• (Students) were noticing it before we were instructing it

• Starting early January…(students) started (noticing connections)

• Kids would make that connection without doing a structured Greek and Latin…lesson

• They also made that connection, ‘Oh, we learned that in science’

• Yeah (they understand the concept)

• It’s extended beyond the academics

• Introduced maybe three years ago (Prestwick House)

• After the fact, we (teacher pairs) have some conversation (about shared vocabulary)

• The units were set up originally like as to who was going to teach what part…(we) met…and we kind of broke the unit up…more of an informal conversation

• Conversation in the beginning

• Showing them the root and having them activate their thinking …do they know any words with those pieces

• Put the notes on the board and (they) copy it into their notebooks so they have a chapter on each Latin root section

• I do charts…from the beginning of the year (with) all of the Latin roots

• I also take notes (for) the kids who might

• There’s no official common planning

• I was intimidated by the time and also for the children who are struggling with reading in general…I found it was too much

• Initially it felt like it was a separate program

• We instructed (students) more in the beginning of the year

• Time wise it’s still very difficult to get it in

• When (students are) generating a lot of words that actually don’t have a Greek and Latin root

• I’ve found that to be a stumbling block with just generating words that they think have (roots)

• The kids who are lower really struggle with making the relation to it

• I haven’t tried to do a lot with the Greek and Latin with (lower achieving students) because they’ve got so many other priorities

• Just find the whole time thing really difficult because there’s so much (to cover)

       

   

113  

• A student who has historically struggled, when we did ‘urb,’ for ‘in the city,’ we have a teacher in the building who has that as part of her last name and he referred to her as ‘Mrs. In-The-City’

• My kids made that connection

• I’m much more comfortable

• It comes more natural to the kids now. It’s a way of life

• They are starting to make connections and point them out to me with the roots

• Even if they come across something in the reading and I’m not noticing it, they are…they are making connections

• We know the units (the science teachers) teach…or the concepts that they cover

• The kids will point it out • It feels (they are) more

actively acquiring them the way we’ve done it this year

• There’s more of a connection to other words because of the similarities

• Yeah (they respond when relating roots to other words)

• I think some of them do make the connection

• They’ll point out…the Latin word and they want

miss (it) or are absent • If they have trouble

copying…I’ll give them my copy

• They’ll work collaboratively…and then sometimes we give them independent work on the workbook pages

• We do more finding words

• Writing sentences • Word spokes • I do a chart where

they find (words) that have (roots) in the beginning of the word or in the middle or the end

• They do sentences in a picture or on circles (Frayer Model)

• Mine tend to use Greek and Latin dictionary…they’re familiar with how to find that

• They write sentences • Kids pull words out of

their pleasure reading • Routine of Greek and

Latin roots • We do a drum roll

• Given the high stakes test, it would’ve been nice to have (covered roots earlier in the year)

       

   

114  

to show you that they see it and that they know what it means

• Definitely (they’re showing even when not asked)

• They’re excited that they’ve made a connection…and they’ve noticed it so they’ll bring it to our attention

• They’re more familiar with it (due to routines) and they notice it more

• It’s like ‘Oh, it’s cool so I’m going to point this out’

• They like to show off • Honestly, I enjoy

them…when they point it out it makes me happy

• It’s that recognition…’I know (the teacher) likes it and I found one…I’m happy’

• This is making me look good (students feel)

• Kids do a drum roll and they like that

• (It’s) like a self reward • The boy with ‘Mrs. In-

the-city,’ he definitely has a lot of challenges and that was excitement for him, he was motivated, definitely

• When they try to articulate it they say a lot more than what they show (in tests)

• The more comfort I (teacher) feel with it, the more I see (students’) comfort as well

       

   

115  

• I see (students) making connections and growing above and going beyond that

Grade 4 Science Focus Group QUOTES - Cycle one coding Growth/Achievement

Green Fidelity/Strategies

Yellow Difficulties/Challenges

Red • I was overhearing (a

student)…they wanted to know how many sides an octagon had and the other student said, ‘well, octo, octopus.’ They were trying to help that child make a connection.

• Probably more so in math they make those connections

• I don’t focus on them (Greek and Latin)

• Sometimes (roots) come up in measurement a little bit, but not to really focus on…we talked a little bit, but very brief

• Word splash, flashcards, fill-in-the blank…sentences with the word bank on the top

• A matching game where they have to go around and find their match

• Part of the test is vocabulary (embedded in the regular unit test)

• We might have to start working on the aligning…we are going to have to do something different soon…what that is, I really don’t know

• We’ve also talked about reordering the units and changing how we teach things…we’ve talked about integrating

• No (teacher collaboration between ELA and science)

• We pretty much do our own (vocabulary)

• It’s a million years old (science materials)

• No (not aligned to new standards)

• No (don’t know the word parts children learn in ELA)

• Now we’re more departmentalized, it’s more difficult to incorporate ELA and social studies

• We do (have common planning) with our partner…but you don’t really go across (to the other teachers or other grade)

• No (we don’t point out roots)

• Right (the textbook doesn’t make connections) the only prefix that we’re doing (is) vertebrate and invertebrate, but that’s it

• No, they’re not (making connections to words done in English class)

       

   

116  

some of the math into the science

• If I’m teaching…I will mention the fact that they come from the Greek language

Grade 5 Science Focus Group QUOTES - Cycle one coding Growth/Achievement

Green Fidelity/Strategies

Yellow Difficulties/Challenges

Red • Sometimes (students say a

word part looks familiar) • (Students) will usually say

they saw it in ELA class or they are familiar with it in some other reading

• When we came up with hydrotropism…the kids said ‘hydro, that means water,’ so they knew that

• Yes (it may be helpful in understanding concepts)

• Tropism(s) are the biggest ones…they do ‘geo’… ‘photosynthesis,’ and words like that

• Students usually tell me (which word parts they know)

• It’s my higher kids that I see sometimes pulling (a)part words or making that relationship

• If they can make that connection and know the parts, the meanings of the parts of the words, then they do understand it better

• One of the students made the connection (when doing fractions) that ‘uni’ means one…having a one

• If (Greek or Latin word parts) come up in a word, like in the word ‘photosynthesis,’ I’ll point it out: ‘It has photo, which means light’

• I don’t ever specifically say it’s Greek or Latin (but) I do the same thing (break the word down)

• I might (identify Greek or Latin) if I know which language it comes from

• I’ll underline it so I’ll specifically bring it to their attention

• I don’t ever reference whether (a word) is Greek or Latin. We just pull apart the word

• I do it sometimes (use a word attack strategy)

• My partner has a list in her room (of word parts in ELA), so if I’m doing something

• I don’t ever specifically say (a word) is Greek or Latin

• No, not too much (collaboration with the ELA teacher)

• No (there are not a lot of words that repeat in ELA and science)

• I don’t think we all probably have the same (vocabulary)

• Not always the same time (do we do the same units)

• If I do (notice any difference in a student’s level of comprehending the concept) it’s a select few

• There’s not many (other differences noticed)

• Students find (my end of year Greek and Latin activity) difficult and say that they find it challenging, most of them

• No one’s really ever mentioned anything to me (about understanding a word because of knowing the word part)

• I don’t think that the majority of kids have that

       

   

117  

in the numerator…they made that connection themselves

• I had someone say that, too, when that came up (uni)

• If they know it, they are kind of excited about it

• I find mine’s working fine. I usually do pretty well on vocabulary

in science I’ll go and put it on her list so the students will see it in both places

• I’ll put it on her board so that she sees or the students will see the same word in my class and their class

• We use a lot of supplements, things that we find

• If it’s in the frameworks (the vocabulary) will be exactly the same (in ELA and science)

• I know they do that one in ELA (‘uni’) from last year

• I do an activity that has Greek and Latin roots…at the end of the year

• They have activities so all the ‘hydro’ words or all the math words like ‘uni’ or ‘quad’…they have some activities where they need to use dictionaries and the students find that difficult and challenging

really good understanding of it. They can tell me the definition but to use it and apply it, they lack. Especially when you move on and talk about it…it’s not there anymore

Second cycle coding for focus groups. A second cycle coding was needed to identify

categories and/or themes. These could not be pre-determined without knowing the participants’

responses. There are four factors recommended by Krueger and Casey (2009) for use when

assigning weight to themes. The first is frequency. This takes into account the number of times a

       

   

118  

comment or point is repeated while still acknowledging the importance of the content to the

topic. The second factor to consider is specificity. It is suggested that the more detail provided

about a point, the more weight it should have in the development of themes. Emotion is the third

factor. This is when a participant has exhibited “emotion, enthusiasm, passion, or intensity” in

their answers (Krueger and Casey, 2009). Finally, extensiveness was considered. This goes

beyond frequency, or merely the number of times something is repeated. Extensiveness includes

the number of different people who say the same thing as well.

Growth/Achievement  

Each of the categories identified in first cycle coding was examined independently and by

grade level. The growth and achievement comments yielded five themes for both grade four and

grade five. These were student motivation and engagement, connections to other subjects,

conceptual understandings, student skill development, and teacher engagement.

The first to be described in more detail is the student motivation and engagement

theme. This was identified as a theme due to the frequency of times it was noted, the

extensiveness in that it was repeated by many people, and the emotion with which several

teachers communicated the information (Krueger and Casey, 2009).

In grade four, teachers noted this using the Greek and Latin roots when they reported that

students, “love using (flashcards),” and another noted that she had a couple students in her class

that, when she says “Latin…they get very excited.” Another said that students “were excited to

inform the teacher that they knew all about the word before she even spoke about it,” and

“students are happy that they know that” (root meaning).

       

   

119  

In grade five, the student motivation and engagement comments included that “they’re

excited that they’ve made a connection,” “they like to show off,” “if they know it, they are kind

of excited about it,” and it is “like a self reward when they find a root in a larger word.” Teachers

said the students “point out…the Latin word and they want to show you that they see it and that

they know what it means.” “It’s that recognition… ‘I know (the teacher) likes it and I found

one…I’m happy’.” “Kids do a drumroll, and they like that.” They add that the students are

“excited that they’ve made a connection…and they’ve noticed it so they’ll bring it to our

attention.” “It’s like ‘Oh, it’s cool so I’m going to point this out’… ‘This is making me look

good’ (students feel).” When a student made a connection to the teacher, she said “that was

excitement for him, he was motivated, definitely.”

The second theme was connections to other subjects. The specificity that teachers used

to describe the connections that students made in other areas and the frequent number of times it

was mentioned are the elements that contributed to this becoming a theme.

The grade four teachers observed that the students make connections to vocabulary in

other subjects, but “probably more so in math.” One teacher noted that she overheard two

students talking. One child “wanted to know how many sides an octagon had and the other

student said, ‘well, octo; octopus.’ They were trying to help that child make a connection.”

In the fifth grade, the frequency of the number of examples of student connections

increased. There were several illustrations from math. They said, “they were making the math

connections during ELA class,” “integer…they brought that into math,” and “one of the students

made the connection (when doing fractions) that ‘uni’ means one…having a one in the

numerator…they made that connection themselves.” The same is seen in science and outside

reading. Students say “Oh, we learned that in science” or “they saw it in ELA class or they are

       

   

120  

familiar with it in some other reading.” “If they come across something in the reading and I’m

not noticing it, they are…they are making connections.” They also note “It’s extended beyond

the academics.” “A student who has historically struggled, when we did ‘urb,’ for ‘in the city,’

we have a teacher in the building who has that as part of her last name and he referred to her as

‘Mrs. In-The-City’.” The teachers observe thdat “there’s more of a connection to other words

because of the similarities,” and that “sometimes (students say a word part looks familiar).”

Sometimes, “kids would make that connection without doing a structured Greek and

Latin…lesson.” “They are starting to make connections and point them out to me with the

root…once you start using it, the conversations that happens with the kids, they make a

connection that it all wraps together.”

Conceptual understandings is the third theme. This topic was identified in each session,

so the extensiveness is what qualified this as a central theme.

Teachers in grade four noted specific indicators of conceptual understanding. This

included stating that, “this group (of students) definitely has higher fluency and comprehension,”

“they’re more aware,” and they require less prompting to use the strategies. They also describe

children working to teach other children to use the strategies to understand words.

The teachers in grade five notice that the students seem to understand new concepts better

when they start with an understanding of part of the word. The say the process “comes more

natural to the kids now. It’s a way of life.” Another teacher said, “If they can make that

connection and know the parts, the meanings of the parts of the words, then they do understand it

better.” One teacher felt the student tests did not show the level of their full understanding. She

said, “When they try to articulate it they say a lot more than what they show (in tests).” Students

are “growing above and going beyond.”

       

   

121  

Another theme identified was student skill development. Teacher comments were

detailed, and this specificity, along with extensiveness of responses, is why this fourth theme was

chosen.

Students in grade four were described as being able to “remember the root…they can

remember more words and at least be able to know how to break it down.” They say that

students are “more aware that they can break down prefixes and suffixes in the Greek words to

help them.” A special educator noted, “it helps with syllabication” as well.

Several fifth grade teachers also spoke about “breaking down words” and the fact that

students are doing this more on their own now that they have practiced these skills with them.

This would happen even “without doing a structured Greek and Latin…lesson.” They felt that

the students were “more actively acquiring them the way we’ve done it this year,” “they’re more

familiar with it (due to routines) and they notice it (Greek and Latin word parts) more,” and they

sometimes see them “pulling (a)part words or making that relationship” on their own.

The fifth and last theme of student growth and achievement was the teacher

engagement. The extensiveness of these comments as well as the emotion that was attached to

them are what made this theme central to this category.

A fourth grade teacher said “I like it…I get the correlation.” Grade five teachers had

more specific comments. One said, “Honestly, I enjoy them…when they point it out it makes me

happy.” Another found that the students know that the teacher enjoys it. She said students like

the “recognition… ‘I know (the teacher) likes it and I found one…I’m happy’.” Two others

commented that, “The more comfort I feel with it, the more I see (students’) comfort as well,”

and “I find mine’s working fine. I usually do pretty well on vocabulary.”

       

   

122  

Difficulties/Challenges  

There were also five themes identified under the difficulties and challenges comments

made in the focus groups. These themes were lower achieving students, program coordination,

time/resources, level of mastery, and teacher mindsets/capacity.

The first theme, lower achieving students, was chosen due to the specificity of

comments in relation to student skill deficiencies.

A teacher in fourth grade said, “for the children who are struggling with reading in

general…I found it was too much.”

Fifth grade teachers said “the kids who are lower really struggle with making the relation

to it, and one said, “I haven’t tried to do a lot with the Greek and Latin with (lower achieving

students) because they’ve got so many other priorities.”

The next theme was program coordination. This was mentioned many times in each

group, so frequency and extensiveness were factors in choosing it.

In grade four, the ELA teachers reported that there was “no collaboration with science

teachers on common vocabulary.” The science teachers said there is no alignment to the Next

Generation Science Standards and no understanding of the word parts that the children learn in

their ELA classes. They stated, “We pretty much do our own (vocabulary).”

The fifth grade teachers noted that, “there’s no official common planning.” One felt as

though she instructed students “more in the beginning of the year.” One science teacher said, “I

don’t ever specifically say (a word) is Greek or Latin.” They agreed that there was “not too much

(collaboration with the ELA teacher).” They felt that they “don’t think (they) all probably have

the same (vocabulary),” and units are “not always (taught at) the same time.”

       

   

123  

Time/resources is the third theme. In addition to the number of various points made

about this, there was an element of emotion as teachers described this topic. Therefore,

frequency, extensiveness, and emotion were all reasons this was made a major theme.

The teachers in the fourth grade focus groups felt strongly about both time and resources

in their classes for this type of vocabulary work. In terms of time, they repeated this frequently,

saying, it’s “hard to squeeze it in with other things,” it’s “very hard to fit in with everything

else,” “with time, it’s just not feasible,” and “we don’t spend enough time on things.” They said

that it is “just more exposure right now…I feel like it’s a drive by,” and “now we’re more

departmentalized, it’s more difficult to incorporate ELA and social studies.” They said that they

had a “lack of resources,” and if we had an actual program or different activities we could do

with them to make them own them more,” that it would be more successful. The science teachers

said that their materials are “a million years old,” and the textbook doesn’t make the Greek and

Latin connections for them.

In grade five, the teachers made no mention of resources. However, they said that, “Time

wise, it’s still very difficult to get it in. One teacher said that she “just find(s) the whole time

thing really difficult because there’s so much (to cover),” and “given the high stakes test, it

would’ve been nice to have (covered roots earlier in the year).”

The fourth theme was level of mastery. Here, teachers made notes of depths of

understanding. There was specificity to these comments, which is why it was chosen even

though it may have not been stated as frequently as other topics.

In grade four, teachers said “I don’t find there’s very good mastery,” “I personally think

they’re getting less (mastery),” and “I wouldn’t say 100% across the board (that students are

       

   

124  

using strategies on their own).” A science teacher said that she did not notice that students were

making connections to words done in English class.

One fifth grade teacher found that she had some students who had difficulty

understanding why some word parts do not have the same meaning in all words. In science, a

teacher said, “If I do (notice any difference in a student’s level of comprehending the concept)

it’s a select few.” Another said, “I don’t think that the majority of kids have that really good

understanding of it. They can tell me the definition but to use it and apply it, they lack.

Especially when you move on and talk about it…it’s not there anymore.”

Finally, the fifth theme was teacher mindsets/capacity. This category incorporates how

teachers expressed feeling bout the Greek and Latin program as well as how it may have affected

them. The emotion expressed, combined with the frequency of comments, made this appropriate

to choose as a theme.

In addition to the challenge they expressed with time, fourth grade teachers said that the

approach itself was “overwhelming at first.” One said that she doesn’t point out the roots to

students at all, and another teacher commented that the science textbook that they use does not

make the language connections for them.

Time was also a concern for the fourth grade teachers. One said, “I was intimidated by

the time,” and another added, “Initially, it felt like it was a separate program.”

Fidelity/strategies  

The final code in first cycle coding was fidelity/strategies. Both grade four and grade five

noted many specific strategies that they used in teaching a morphological approach to

vocabulary.

       

   

125  

The grade four strategies for learning vocabulary in ELA included “going through the

workbook page by page,” using “a few foldables,” and “flashcards.” They said that they don’t

give quizzes every week, and when they do, they are not “on just those pages,” and “not

necessarily what we’ve been doing in the workbook.” In science, they may talk about the roots,

but it is “a little bit, but very brief.” One teacher said she doesn’t focus on them (Greek and

Latin),” and another said, “Sometimes (roots) come up in measurement a little bit, but not to

really focus on.” They also use “word splashes, flashcards, fill-in-the blank…(and) sentences

with the word bank on the top.” One teacher uses a “matching game where they have to go

around and find their match.” Vocabulary is embedded into the regular unit test. While they have

“talked about reordering the units and changing how (they) teach things…(including) integrating

some of the math into the science,” this has not yet been done. They acknowledge that they

“might have to start working on the aligning.” “We are going to have to do something different

soon…what that is, I really don’t know.”

The strategies that were used for teaching vocabulary in fifth grade ELA included

“Showing (students) the root and having them activate their thinking,” putting “the notes on the

board and (they) copy it into their notebooks so they have a chapter on each Latin root section,”

keeping “charts…from the beginning of the year (with) all of the Latin roots,” “finding words

(with the same word parts),” “word spokes,” “writing sentences,” pulling “words out of their

pleasure reading,” and using the “Greek and Latin dictionary…they’re familiar with how to find

that.” They also “take notes (for) the kids who might miss (it) or are absent,” or provide a copy

“if they have trouble copying.” Students will also “work collaboratively…and then sometimes

(they complete) independent work on the workbook pages.” A teacher keeps a chart where they

“find (words) that have (roots) in the beginning of the word or in the middle or the end,” and

       

   

126  

another has students “do sentences in a picture or on circles (Frayer Model).” Overall, students

follow a routine for Greek and Latin study. They said that, in terms of coordination, “the units

were set up originally like as to who was going to teach what part…(we) met…and we kind of

broke the unit up…more of an informal conversation.” For science, they said that, in terms of

strategies, they said they “use a lot of supplements, things that (they) find.”

Two of the science teachers in grade five said that they “don’t ever reference whether (a

word) is Greek or Latin. (They) just pull apart the word.” The others said that they did.

Specifically, one noted, “If (Greek or Latin word parts) come up in a word, like in the word

‘photosynthesis,’ I’ll point it out: ‘It has photo, which means light’.” Another says she might

identify the origin if she “knows(s) which language it comes from.” One teacher said, “I

underline it so I’ll specifically bring it to their attention.” The other science teachers agreed that

they know the list of ELA words with Greek and Latin word parts. Some make use of this to

coordinate with their ELA colleague. “My partner has a list in her room (of word parts in ELA),

so if I’m doing something in science I’ll go and put it on her list so the students will see it in both

places…I’ll put it on her board so that she sees or the students will see the same word in my class

and their class.” They listed a few examples of word parts that they knew they had in common

such as “uni” and “hydro.”

Individual Teacher Interviews  

The researcher utilized the Responsive Interview Model for the individual teacher

interviews (Rubin and Rubin, 2012) to extract the most authentic information from participants.

Questions were open-ended to allow for teacher elaboration and anecdotal information and

reduce interviewer interference in their responses. The responsive interviewing approach allowed

       

   

127  

the interviewer to add clarifying questions when and where necessary if there was an

unanticipated “wisp of insight,” or to “track down a new theme” (Rubin and Rubin, 2012).

Individual interviews were conducted with the Curriculum Leaders. These teacher-

leaders serve as the content area peer leaders for both grades four and five. The English

Language Arts (ELA) Curriculum Leader and the Science Curriculum Leader both happen to be

grade five teachers, but they are responsible for overseeing the curriculum and instruction in

their respective content areas for both grades. These are positions for which they apply each year

and receive a small stipend. Both of these Curriculum Leaders are in their third year of serving in

this capacity within the district. They receive specialized training in curriculum design as well as

content area pedagogy. They also meet regularly with the other Curriculum Leaders in the

district, PK-12, representing all content areas.

The Curriculum Leaders were interviewed separately. They also chose to have their

interviews conducted during the regular school day, and each was interviewed in their own

classroom. Both interviews were completed within 30 minutes. They were asked Tour, Main,

and Follow Up questions (Rubin and Rubin, 2012). Probes were also used when appropriate,

based on the participants’ responses. Each was reminded that they would be recorded, and an

iPad was placed in the center of the table between the researcher and the Curriculum Leader.

Both teachers presented comfortably and had the opportunity to answer every question fully and

to their satisfaction.

Electronic versions of the professionally transcribed transcripts (by Rev.com) were sent

to each Curriculum Leader. Each was prompted to review them for accuracy. Neither of the

Curriculum Leaders made any corrections. The Focus Group and interview transcripts will be

       

   

128  

maintained for the mandated period of time and then will be destroyed to protect confidentiality.

Participants were informed that this would be the protocol.

First cycle coding for interviews. Again, the open-ended responses of the Curriculum

Leaders were analyzed through fist cycle and second cycle coding. The first cycle consisted of

the same three categories that were used in the Focus Group analysis. These included student

growth/achievement (marked on the transcripts in green), fidelity/strategies (coded in yellow),

and difficulties/challenges (indicated by red).

The result of all of these quotes is represented in the following charts, followed by a

description of the second cycle coding for thematic connections.

ELA Curriculum Leader - Cycle one coding Growth/Achievement

Green Fidelity/Strategies

Yellow Difficulties/Challenges

Red • The kids will say, ‘Stop!

That’s one of the Greek and Latin words that we had’

• I always do something like, ‘Oh my goodness, I have no idea what…flourish means,’ and they go ‘Flor, flor! That means to thrive, grow well’

• They make the connections; I see them connecting to science

• ‘Vor, to eat,’ they went through ‘omnivore, herbivore,’ they made that connection to (the science teacher’s) class

• They’ll say to me, ‘Oh, we learned that in science’

• When we talked about ‘lat’ and ‘long,’ they were

• I would present the vocabulary; I’d have them look at the board to see what they thought they saw in common until we came to the root word, and then I would tell them the…Greek and Latin words that they came from and we’d talk about the definition

• Spend time trying to come up with words that we knew

• We look them up; do some application of it

• They had to find several examples of other words that they found the root in

• They wrote sentences

• The low, low kids have trouble making connections…to trying to find roots on their own and be able to apply them

• Overall the students are so low that they’re not making that connection form the year before

• I’m like, ‘Didn’t you do this last year?’ ‘No,’ some of them said…word parts

       

   

129  

like ‘Oh, like the latitude and the longitude that we did?” They kind of make the connections… maybe more so in science, but I think all the way across I see the connections

• They remember what the words mean

• It’s filled their vocabulary with words that were provided as well, and they’re taking when words are out of context they’re able to put the words together by using the roots

• We were talking about the branches of government and they go, ‘Preamble, pre…that means before. That was the introduction to the Constitution!’ They’re making those connections

• They do refer back to science, like ‘bi’ for ‘biome’

• I see home connections like ‘dorm, sleep.’ (Students say) ‘Oh, my sister lives in a dormitory’ or ‘My brother is in a fraternity.’ They’re making real life connections as well

• There’s all these ‘ah ha’ moments where the kids will say, ‘That’s Greek or Latin’ or ‘That’s a Latin root’

• Kids will come in, they go on their own, they love to find words that have roots in for the

with them; they wrote stories with them

• We discussed them indirectly oftentimes with reading selections

• I…model the lesson • I made myself a few

notes (of science terms)

• I also find the affixes very helpful as well, because we do that weekly

• I see it right there (connect with social studies)

• (There’s) a set time during the day that we’ll say every single day that we talk about (vocabulary)

• Ten (words per week) • (Student performance)

all depends on the fidelity of the program

       

   

130  

week…sometimes they’ll say, ‘You know what I saw on TV…?’

• They’re excited about it • The teacher on my team

(has ‘urban’ in her name). My kids are like ‘Mrs. In-the-city…oh, she lives in the city’…it’s one of their special ed kids

• They learn so much from it. I can’t stress enough how much they continue to use those words of the week; they’re now embedded in their vocabulary

• Absolutely. Yep, absolutely (it helps them understand concepts)

• They do, all the time (hypothesize the meanings of unknown words)

• When there’s no context clues at all…they’re uncovering new meanings…it’s not always accurate, but they attack it.

• They try to outdo each other…it creates competition

• They have to find some (words) on their own, and some go way above and beyond, like they like it; it’s a challenge for them

• Very engaging…this year the kids are somewhat low overall, and they’ve just done amazing with them (roots)

• They’ll say ‘this is fun. That’s a good way to do

       

   

131  

this. I never thought of this before.

• This group was really eager to make those connections and they did it on their own

• In general; all of (the students) make those connections

• As a result…they have built and they’ve acquired new words, but I think they’ve built an admiration for learning new words…they look forward to it

• They want to build, they want more words, they want to be able to use them and show them off

• They’re just so excited about it

• Absolutely (it gives a sense of pride). One of our themes was ‘How does something inspire you?’ Right away they kept referring to ‘breathing it in’

• I think it’s a really great program

Science Curriculum Leader - Cycle one coding Growth/Achievement

Green Fidelity/Strategies

Yellow Difficulties/Challenges

Red • We’re using the same unit

(the science teachers) • Correct (most likely

choosing the same vocabulary words

• I have a list of them (ELA words)

• Yes (all science teachers

• PowerPoint; I’ll put up the word. We might talk about it ahead of time

• If I think they’re already familiar with the word I might ask them, ‘Do you know

• We’re not using NGSS yet in our instruction

• I put it (vocabulary) as part of my unit test…some of the other science teachers have separate vocabulary quizzes as well

• We’ve never really gotten

       

   

132  

have the list) • Some students…have

more background knowledge coming in, so they’re able to make more connections to words they already know or things they’ve already learned about in their lives or encountered…for them, vocabulary instruction is a little easier

• If they recognize the word part, then…it’s helpful

• They already learned photosynthesis, so they could then make that connection…they could come up with ‘it’s growing toward the light’ (phototropism)

• If they saw hydrotrophic…they said ‘we’ve seen hydro before.’ They’ve seen that in ELA

• They made the connection to a hydrant, so they said, ’That has to do with water’ (hydro). They knew that the plant’s roots grow towards the water

• It definitely helps with them knowing what the word means. Not that they necessarily know the scientific process part of it, but at least they can connect that vocabulary word to that idea

what this means already?’

• If it’s something brand new, I…give them the definition for it

• If it…has a word part that I think they’ll recognize, for example when we do visible spectrum we talk about ‘what does visible mean? Do you know any other words that have visible in them?’ We’ll go from there

• I’ll usually have pictures to go with them

• Hands on activities; if it’s the parts of a plant, they’ll have those parts in front of them

• For the most part (science teachers have the same vocabulary words)

• If there’s overlap, if I know that there’s one that they’ve seen before (in ELA, I will make reference to it)

• I try to make those connections very explicit

• I’ll say ‘photo; let’s try to think of all the other words we can think of that have photo in them’

• I definitely instruct them to do that quite a

together and created a master list of vocabulary words. We don’t use common assessments in science

• Correct (there’s no formal central list of words)

• The words that they’re studying in ELA, the roots don’t necessarily come up in any of the science words that we have…there isn’t a lot of overlap

• For (some) students it’s brand new unfamiliar territory, they have no background knowledge, they might have deficits in terms of their reading abilities, and so they don’t have that vocabulary foundation, then it’s a lot more difficult for them

• They don’t really make the connection that a photograph has to do with light

• Not at this time (coordination of strategies)

• We’ve really been working more on our math curriculum and have not yet worked on coordinating science curriculum to a great degree

       

   

133  

bit (break down word parts)

• ‘Do you remember what photo means? That means light, so what do you think phototropic is?’

• Everyone (each science teacher) does have a list of the Greek and Latin roots that they do in ELA. I made a specific list of roots that related to math and science that were distributed to everybody

Second cycle coding for interviews. The four factors for determining categories for

themes as described by Krueger and Casey (2009) were also used for the second cycle coding of

the interviews. These included frequency, specificity, emotion, and extensiveness. Under these

indicators, the same five themes that emerged in the focus groups for growth/achievement and

difficulties/challenges were indicated for the interviews.

Both the ELA Curriculum Leader (ELA CL) and the science Curriculum Leader (Sci.

CL) are fifth grade teachers. Their interview responses will be analyzed under each of the five

resulting themes for each category as well as a list of the strategies they reported using for

vocabulary instruction.

Growth/Achievement  

The five themes of student growth/achievement were student motivation and

engagement, connections to other subjects, conceptual understandings, student skill

development, and teacher engagement.

       

   

134  

In terms of student motivation and engagement, the ELA CL said that her students

“love to find words that have roots in for the week…sometimes they’ll say, ‘You know what I

saw on TV…?’” and “They’re excited about it.” She continued, saying that, “They try to outdo

each other…it creates competition…some go way above and beyond, like they like it; it’s a

challenge for them.” She found that using this form of vocabulary instruction is “very

engaging…this year the kids are somewhat low overall, and they’ve just done amazing with

them (roots).” “They’ll say, ‘this is fun. That’s a good way to do this. I never thought of this

before.’…This group was really eager to make those connections and they did it on their own.”

She said the students have “built an admiration for learning new words…they look forward to

it,” “They want to build, they want more words, they want to be able to use them and show them

off,” and “They’re just so excited about it.” In class, “The kids will say, ‘Stop! That’s one of the

Greek and Latin words that we had’, (and) I always do something like, ‘Oh my goodness, I have

no idea what…flourish means,’ and they go ‘Flor, flor! That means to thrive, grow well!’.”

Finally, this CL says that this program gives the children a sense of pride. “One of our (school)

themes was ‘How does something inspire you?’ Right away they kept referring to ‘breathing it

in, breathing it all in!’”

The second theme is the connection to other subjects. The ELA CL described

connections that she observed students making to other content areas. She said, “I see them

connecting to science.” For example, students identified “biomes” when they reviewed “bio.”

This also happened with “‘Vor, to eat,’ they went through ‘omnivore, herbivore,’ they made that

connection to (the science teacher’s) class…they’ll say to me, ‘Oh, we learned that in science’.”

This also occurred in social studies. “When we talked about ‘lat’ and ‘long,’ they were like ‘Oh,

like the latitude and the longitude that we did?’” Also, when they talked about “the branches of

       

   

135  

government, the students said ‘Preamble, pre…that means before. That was the introduction to

the Constitution!’” She added, “They kind of make the connections… maybe more so in science,

but I think all the way across I see the connections.” There are connections being made outside

of school subjects as well. “There’s all these ‘ah ha’ moments where the kids will say, ‘That’s

Greek or Latin’ or, ‘That’s a Latin root’…I see home connections like ‘dorm, sleep.’ (Students

say) ‘Oh, my sister lives in a dormitory’ or, ‘My brother is in a fraternity.’ They’re making real

life connections as well.” As far as the scope of the growth/achievement, she said, “In general;

all of (the students) make those connections.”

The Sci. CL said that the students coming in with more background knowledge are “able

to make more connections to words they already know or things they’ve already learned about in

their lives or encountered…for them, vocabulary instruction is a little easier.” She also gave

examples of connections that students were able to make to other words such as

“photosynthesis…they could come up with ‘it’s growing toward the light’ (phototropism).”

Both CLs also commented on topics related to the third theme, conceptual

understandings as well. The ELA CL said, “They have all these ‘ah ha moments’.” She has

observed that, “They remember what the words mean…It’s filled their vocabulary with words

that were provided as well, and they’re taking when words are out of context they’re able to put

the words together by using the roots.” She added, “I can’t stress enough how much they

continue to use those words of the week; they’re now embedded in their

vocabulary…Absolutely. Yep, absolutely (it helps them understand concepts).” The Sci. CL said

that studying the word part “definitely helps with them knowing what the word means. Not that

they necessarily know the scientific process part of it, but at least they can connect that

vocabulary word to that idea.” For example, when reviewing ‘hydro,’ “They made the

       

   

136  

connection to a hydrant, so they said, ‘That has to do with water.’ They knew that the plant’s

roots grow towards the water.”

Student skill development is the fourth theme. According to the ELA CL, “They

remember what the words mean…they’re taking when words are out of context they’re able to

put the words together by using the roots.” She said that they use these skills to hypothesize the

meanings of unknown words “all the time.” Even “when there’s no context clues at all…they’re

uncovering new meanings…it’s not always accurate, but they attack it.” The students tell her “‘I

never thought of this (strategy) before.’ They have built and they’ve acquired new words, but I

think they’ve built an admiration for learning new words.”

Then final theme in this category is teacher engagement. In terms of ELA, the CL said,

“I think it’s a really great program.” The Sci. CL gave no clear indication of her level of

engagement with the program.

Difficulties/Challenges  

Again, there were also five themes identified under the difficulties and challenges

comments made in the interviews. These themes were lower achieving students, program

coordination, time/resources, level of mastery, and teacher mindsets/capacity.

The ELA CL specifically addressed lower achieving students. She said, “The low, low

kids have trouble making connections…to trying to find roots on their own and be able to apply

them.” She added, “Overall the students are so low that they’re not making that connection form

the year before.” In science, the CL said that “For (some) students it’s brand new unfamiliar

territory, they have no background knowledge, they might have deficits in terms of their reading

       

   

137  

abilities, and so they don’t have that vocabulary foundation, then it’s a lot more difficult for

them.”

The second theme captures the program coordination. The ELA CL will ask students

“‘didn’t you do this last year?’ ‘No,’ some of them said…’” In terms of coordination, the science

CL said, “We’ve never really gotten together and created a master list of vocabulary words. We

don’t use common assessments in science.” She said there is not a formal central list of words

that all teachers share and that there are many roots that they are studying in ELA that don’t

necessarily come up in science. She said that there is also not a current shared pool of strategies.

In terms of curriculum, she said, “We’ve really been working more on our math curriculum and

have not yet worked on coordinating science curriculum to a great degree.”

The ELA CL did not clearly make any comments that reflected on time and/or

resources. In science, the CL said they are not yet using the Next Generation Science Standards.

She made no other direct references to resources or time.

The fourth theme, level of mastery, was discussed only briefly. When referring to the

majority of students (and not the challenged learners), the ELA CL did not share any negative

observations regarding student level of mastery. The Sci. CL provided one example of difficulty

with mastery when she said, “They don’t really make the connection that a photograph has to do

with light.”

The final theme is teacher mindset/capacity. There was nothing in the ELA CL

comments that were appropriate for this category. The Sci. CL simply provided an explanation of

the state of the science curriculum. She said, “We’ve really been working more on our math

curriculum and have not yet worked on coordinating science curriculum to a great degree.”

       

   

138  

Fidelity/Strategies  

The final column discussed specific strategies in teaching vocabulary. In English class,

the CL would “present the vocabulary; I’d have them look at the board to see what they thought

they saw in common until we came to the root word, and then I would tell them the…Greek and

Latin words that they came from and we’d talk about the definition.” She would also have them

“come up with words that (they) knew…look them up; do some application of it…They had to

find several examples of other words that they found the root in, they wrote sentences with them;

they wrote stories with them.” She also “discussed them indirectly oftentimes with reading

selections.” She would model lessons and desired student thinking and made notes of the science

terms that had Greek and Latin word parts in them. Other strategies included “find(ing) the

affixes…weekly” which she described as “very helpful.” She assigns ten words per a week and

there’s “a set time during the day…every single day, that (they) talk about (vocabulary).” She

feels that high student performance “all depends on the fidelity of the program.”

The Sci. CL introduces the vocabulary words with PowerPoint. She displays the word

and said, “We might talk about it ahead of time. If I think they’re already familiar with the word

I might ask them, ‘Do you know what this means already?’ If it’s something brand new, I…give

them the definition for it.” She will identify the word part if she thinks they are familiar with it.

For example, she said, “when we do visible spectrum we talk about ‘what does visible mean? Do

you know any other words that have visible in them?’ We’ll go from there.” She utilizes visuals

and hands on activities. “I’ll usually have pictures to go with them…if it’s the parts of a plant,

they’ll have those parts in front of them.” She makes specific reference to students any words

that she knows are also studied in their English class. She said, “I try to make those connections

very explicit. I’ll say ‘photo; let’s try to think of all the other words we can think of that have

       

   

139  

photo in them.’ I definitely instruct them to do that quite a bit (to break down word parts).” She

shared an example where she said to students, “‘Do you remember what photo means? That

means light, so what do you think phototropic is?’”

In terms of fidelity, she said that “for the most part,” all of the science teachers have the

same science vocabulary lists. “Everyone (each science teacher) does have a list of the Greek and

Latin roots that they do in ELA…(she) made a specific list of roots that related to math and

science that were distributed to everybody.”

       

   

140  

Chapter V: Discussion of Research Findings  

“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” --Ludwig Wittgenstein

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine if students were able to apply what they have

learned in the study of morphology in their ELA classes to their understanding of content area

vocabulary in their science classes. A further goal was to identify whether students were able to

use any conceptual understanding of Greek and Latin word parts to hypothesize the meanings of

nonsense words that included science-related morphemes.

It has been widely reported and documented that there is a strong connection between a

robust vocabulary and reading comprehension (Chall and Jacobs, 2003; Beck, McKeown, and

Omanson, 1987; Stahl and Fairbanks, 1986; Graves, 1986; Nagy, 1988; Anderson and Freebody,

1981; NICHHD, 2000; Sinatra, Berg, and Dunn, 1985; Baumann, Kame’enui, and Ash, 2003;

Hiebert and Kamil, 2005; Mezynski, 1983). William Nagy (2005) also suggested that there is a

bidirectional relationship between vocabulary and comprehension, which he refers to as the

Reciprocal Model. It is also understood that vocabulary is an essential “strand” in the

comprehensive “reading rope” of children (Scarborough, 2001). When children have not

mastered grade level reading proficiency by the intermediate grades (approximately grades four

and five), they may suffer from the “Matthew Effect” (Stanovich, 1986). Each of these theories

underscores the necessary sense of urgency in making sure that every child is able to read with

comprehension at grade level by the time they enter middle school. If not, the statistics for failure

are staggering.

       

   

141  

According to reports by Achieve, Inc. (2005) and the Carnegie Corporation (Biancarosa

and Snow, 2004), students are not adequately prepared for college or career upon leaving high

school. This has resulted in an inordinate number of remedial courses needed for struggling

college freshmen and employers who are not satisfied with the level of basic skills of the entry

level work force. In addition, recently released Common Core State Standards for ELA and

Mathematics as well as the Next Generation Science Standards all call for a heavy reliance on

effective communication including scientific literacy.

Science, in particular, is an area in which students have reported weaknesses. In the

Achieve, Inc. study (2005) of high school students, “51% felt there were gaps in their preparation

in science.” There are three distinct contributors to the difficulty of accessing and understanding

science vocabulary. First, the conceptual nature of the domain specific vocabulary can be

problematic. Unlike other content areas, the introduction of a science term is likely also the

introduction of a concept that is entirely new for the student. This makes it difficult to compare it

to any other word the child may know. Having a conceptual understanding of part of the word,

however, could help the student to get an idea of what the word represents as they learn the new

application and concept. For example, if a new word has “hydro” in it, the child would recognize

that the word has something to do with water or fluid.

Second, the technical subjects, like the sciences, are utilizing a vocabulary that is growing

exponentially with continual inventions, discoveries, and innovations. Learning even the most

common affixes and base words can help a student to learn far more words and access a greater

number of concepts. This is particularly true in the sciences where most scientific terms are

based on Greek or Latin roots.

       

   

142  

Finally, direct and explicit vocabulary instruction has not traditionally been part of

science lessons. This is typically done in the English classes without much coordination or

articulation between teachers or courses. Capitalizing on students’ experiences across classrooms

could help in creating repetition of exposure as well as the use of quality vocabulary acquisition

strategies.

For this study, a total of 397 students (201 in grade four and 196 in grade five) and their

teachers participated. Results of a teacher assessment, two researcher-created student

assessments, four focus groups, and two individual interviews were presented. As a result, each

of the research questions can be addressed. Again, these questions were:

1. A. How do students apply their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts

in ELA to acquiring vocabulary and understanding new concepts in science?

B. What contributes to student application of morphological strategies learned in ELA to

their study of vocabulary in science?

2. A. To what extent do students utilize their understanding of morphemes to decode and

comprehend or conceptualize unfamiliar scientific vocabulary?

B. How do students hypothesize the meaning of nonsense scientific vocabulary

utilizing their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts?

Findings

The lack of coordination of the program must first be discussed in order to provide an

accurate context for the findings. At the beginning of the study, the building administrator and

both of the Curriculum Leaders explained that the Prestwick House scope and sequence and

workbooks were being used by both grade four and grade five in all ELA classes. The ELA CL

       

   

143  

provided a list of the vocabulary words and indicated that classes were at approximately the

same unit in the series. The Science CL provided a list of the units taught in science with all

relevant vocabulary. She further explained that every science teacher had been given a copy of

the ELA words being taught in each grade level. It was the presumption of the three leaders that

all grade four and grade five teachers were utilizing the program and coordinating their lists of

vocabulary words that had Greek and Latin parts. However, as a result of the teacher focus

groups, it has been determined that this was not the case.

This misunderstanding regarding the program coordination on the part of the instructional

leaders is likely due to the fact that both Curriculum Leaders are fifth grade teachers and they

report directly to the principal. They work most closely with their fifth grade colleagues and have

common planning with them. This allows them to directly observe what is happening in the fifth

grade classes. There is not a formal system of observing the implementation of any curriculum or

program in other classes. If it is not reported by teachers that they are not following the program,

it is not understood to be the case. There is a presumption that it is being done when it is not.

Also, while the district had begun a process of creating individual units of study utilizing the

Understanding by Design process, they have not completed these units. Common assessments

and resources have not been clearly chosen or used consistently across grades or subjects.

Therefore, if a teacher does not seek out his or her own “supplemental resources,” they do not

have what they need to advance the program, and it is not likely that it is consistent across a

grade or aligned with other grades.

This unexpected development created a research opportunity, however. Now, an added

feature could be disaggregated from the data. It would now become possible to analyze whether

the use of direct, explicit instruction of the Greek and Latin word parts had a different effect on

       

   

144  

the achievement of the students in their science classes compared to a group that did not

emphasize the identification and reflection on the morphology of the words.

Finding A: Fidelity and collaboration

According to the grade four ELA teachers, they are not closely following the program. As

noted earlier, they find that it is “hard to squeeze in with other things” and “with time, it’s just

not feasible.” They do not employ various strategies saying that when they do use the resources,

they “follow the workbook, page-by-page” and do not complete the activities “every week.”

They also acknowledge that there is “no collaboration” with their science colleagues in regard to

vocabulary. They complained of a lack of resources, but they did not specify what resources they

believe they needed. The grade four science teachers agreed that when it comes to vocabulary,

there is “no collaboration.” They, too, were not happy with their materials, saying that they were

not aligned to the new Massachusetts standards and that they were “a million years old.” They

said that their current “textbook doesn’t make connections” to the Greek and Latin word parts for

them. While they used more different kinds of activities in teaching vocabulary than the ELA

teachers described, they were not done with any reference to the Greek and Latin relationships.

They concluded, “We are going to have to do something different soon,” but added, “what that is

yet, (we) don’t know.”

While the grade five science team said they had “not too much collaboration” on the

vocabulary with their ELA partners, they said they had gotten the list of words covered in ELA.

Two teachers pointed out that they go into the ELA classroom when they notice a word that is

being covered in both classes. One of them “will go put it on her list (of Greek and Latin words)

so the student will see it in both places.” The other “will put it on her board so (she) sees it or the

       

   

145  

students will see the same word in my class and their class.” While they also said they had a lack

of resources, they said that they secured “supplemental resources” on their own.

The researcher-created, multiple-choice vocabulary assessment challenged students to

apply their understanding of Greek and Latin-based words they had learned in ELA, science, and

both ELA and science. The tool measured students’ understanding of words that should have

been familiar to them. This directly related to the first research question:

How do students apply their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts in ELA to acquiring

vocabulary and understanding new concepts in science?

The students in each grade performed well on words that they had learned in their ELA

classes. This included words that were repeated in the science curricula. In fact, they performed

identically in both grades. Students in grades four and five averaged 81% for ELA words and

83% for words from both ELA and science. However, for words that were only covered as part

of the science curricula, the fourth grade students averaged 67% correct, while the fifth graders

averaged 83% correct.

While grade four and grade five students had varied experiences with the Greek and Latin

vocabulary in their ELA classes according to the teachers, they performed well in the assessment

of words they had been exposed to that contained Greek and Latin word parts. However, the

grade four students did not have this same level of retention with words that they had only

encountered in their science classes. This would indicate that the more direct, explicit instruction

and efforts to make cross-curricular connections clear to students in grade five ELA resulted in

higher student achievement. Teaching students to transfer this strategic approach to

deconstructing scientific vocabulary into manageable word parts helped them to more accurately

define terms in science class.

       

   

146  

It was through the focus groups and individual interviews that the level of program

fidelity became clear. This had a marked impact on the analysis of the resulting data. In addition

to the student assessment results, many of the teacher responses also correlated with the level of

program implementation by grade. The highest number of strategies and instances of teacher

collaboration were reported in grade five, and this is the grade that had the highest level of

science vocabulary success.

Since the teachers in this school already have the Prestwick House resources, it would be

relatively easy to coordinate their implementation of the scope and sequence of these word parts

across content areas. For example, even a cursory review of the word parts (roots only) taught in

several of the Prestwick House ELA units for each grade include the following potential

relationships to other content areas:

Subject Mathematics Social Studies Performing and Visual Arts

ELA

GRADE 4 metr, centi- frag, fract, tract circ, cycl prim, quart, second, oct

temp, ann, chron circ dict, voc mag, min amb cap, manu

aud, vid, vis dict, voc prim, quart, second, oct son, phon

graph scrib gram bibl, verb, leg, lec, log ling

GRADE 5 uni, duo, tri init long, lat cur, curs mim, siml integr fin, term morph, form vers, vert angl, gon, rect sum, cumul, neg

mater, matr, pater, part, frater urb, loc, poli uni, duo, orig, arch domin, dom vict, vinc, reg, dyn long, lat doc, drom, cur aer, lith, agri migr, tort volv, volute cred, dox, fid

uni, duo, tri init mim, siml morph, form vers, vert angl, gon, rect vac, neg

vict, vinc reg dyn doc, mon drom cur, curs mim, siml sum cred, dox, fid

       

   

147  

Finding B: Strategic approaches

While the grade four ELA teachers reported varying degrees of fidelity to the program,

they all “covered” the words provided in the workbook. The grade five ELA teachers indicated

using a greater number of strategies to approach the vocabulary instruction including many that

were metacognitive in nature. As reported by the science teachers, the grade four teachers did not

make connections to Greek and Latin or to what the ELA teachers were doing in their classes.

However, the fifth grade teachers did make these connections. All of the fifth grade science

teachers also made use of word attack strategies in their vocabulary instruction, or “breaking

down” words to their component parts when determining their meanings. While simple recall

may account for successful student performance in ELA, the strategies that best served students

in applying their understanding across content areas were those that were more reflective and

strategic. These are the skills they learned in the fifth grade ELA and science classes and this

most directly addresses the following research question:

What contributes to student application of morphological strategies learned in ELA to their

study of vocabulary in science?

Grade five teachers described far more activities in teaching vocabulary that are above

and beyond what are in the workbooks. These include activating prior knowledge and thinking,

writing and drawing with the words, playing games, and using graphic organizers. Each activity

references the Greek and Latin connections. These represent differentiation and higher levels of

cognitive skills. Subsequently, their observations of their students’ vocabulary skills included far

more references to “student connections” than in the fourth grade. Grade five teachers referenced

positive “connections” 49 times as opposed to six times in grade four.

       

   

148  

The science teachers acknowledged different degrees of emphasis on Greek and Latin

instruction. While half said they pointed out the Greek and Latin roots to students when they

came across them, the other half said they did not. However, all of them said that they utilize

word attack strategies or have students “break down the words” into their smaller parts to

identify their meanings. In fact, this strategy was observed in the nonsense word assessment and

was referred to as the “separation strategy.” This included students underlining the compound

word parts, making a slash between the parts, or circling the two parts of the words. While both

fourth and fifth graders did this, the fifth grade students did it most successfully. When this

strategy was employed, 71% percent of the fifth graders identified the concept correctly as

opposed to a success rate of 46% for the fourth graders.

One fifth-grade teacher presented assessment results from the Prestwick House series.

This longitudinal archival data was made up of pre-test and post-test scores for two units of the

Greek and Latin program. Each unit was made up of five lessons. This represented

approximately half of the school year as each lesson is done in about two weeks. The same tool

was used for the pre-test and post-test. This tool was the five-lesson cumulative review provided

in the workbook. It was not surprising that the students performed better on the post-tests after

two weeks of instruction. They scored an average of 80% on these assessments (80.5% and

80.6% respectively). However, the pre-test scores increased from the first unit administration to

the second. Students scored 9% better on the second pre-test (53.3% to 62.3%). This could

indicate that their word attack strategies had improved after a complete unit of study and that

their approach to unknown words was different. Collection of the two remaining units would be

necessary in order to know if this is valid. Having more data points would help to confirm this

speculation.

       

   

149  

Finding C: Conceptual understandings   The second researcher assessment was created using nonsense words that contained a

Greek or Latin word part that students had learned in ELA, science, or both ELA and science.

Using a “nonsense” word eliminated the possibility that students could define the word based on

word recall alone. They would have to apply a conceptual understanding of the root. This

assessment would be far more indicative of student mastery of understanding and, perhaps more

importantly, their transference of this understanding to other contexts. This directly addressed the

second research question:

To what extent do students utilize their understanding of morphemes to decode and comprehend

or conceptualize unfamiliar scientific vocabulary? and How do students hypothesize the meaning

of nonsense scientific vocabulary utilizing their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts?

While students scored similarly in identifying word parts they had learned in both ELA

and science (58% correct in grade four and 50% in grade five), students in grade five

outperformed students in grade four in each individual content area. Students in grade five were

able to correctly identify the concepts of word parts learned in ELA 73% of the time (as

compared to 42% of fourth graders). The fifth grade students could also correctly identify the

meanings of 54% of the word parts learned in their science classes as opposed to fourth graders

who could only do this 35.6% of the time.

Overall, the highest performance was measured in fifth grade ELA, which correlates

perfectly with the amount of direct, explicit instruction that was given in relation to the Greek

and Latin word parts in these classes. The second highest performance was in fifth grade science,

which had the second highest reported level of strategic and purposeful instruction.

       

   

150  

Another indicator of a higher level of understanding among the fifth graders was actually

in the errors made on the nonsense word assessment. Two of the three most common errors

among fourth graders were the nonsense words “exorain” and “terrahouse.” The most common

answers were those that referenced words that had nothing to do with the conceptual meaning of

the root word. For example, student responses had to do with “x-rays,” or “exercise machines”

for “exo,” and multiple variations of “terror” for “terra.”

Conversely, two of the three most common errors for grade five were confusing the root

with other words that did have relation to the correct meaning. The nonsense words with the

concepts that were misidentified were “matricake,” and “omnicoors.” Several students identified

“matricake” as having to do with “family,” “wedding,” or another specific family member.

Others correctly extracted the “tri” from the word and connected the meaning “three” to the

concept. While this was counted as an incorrect response, they did correctly identify a word part

that they had learned this year.

Many fifth grade students (35) also incorrectly identified another nonsense word,

“omnicolors.” However, the majority of these responses had to do with omnivores. While

students correctly connected the root to the word omnivore, they incorrectly identified the

definition. They did provide answers such as “colors that eat both meat and plants” or “meat and

plant colors.” This could be the result of the definition they were taught by teachers. In fact, the

science curriculum provided identified an omnivore as “organism that eats both plants and

animals” vs. “organism that eats all things.” Therefore, the students were applying the concept

correctly based on what they learned. An explicit explanation of what “omni” meant in reference

to an “omnivore” would have helped students to have a better understanding of the meaning of

“omni” for future reference and application.

       

   

151  

Students had never encountered these words before because they were, in fact, nonsense

or made-up words. However, those students that had previously learned the concepts behind the

word parts were better able to understand the potential concepts behind the foreign words when

presented in a different content area because of that foundational understanding. This supports

the research of Tomlinson (2010), when she states that, “When students understand, then we find

that they can retain things better, they can retrieve it from memory better, they can transfer it

better, they can use it in the world more effectively.”

Finding D: Student and teacher engagement

The grade five teachers, in both ELA and science, reported far more instances of student

“engagement” when utilizing Greek and Latin as a means of teaching vocabulary. In fact, the

level of student “engagement” through the use of this approach was mentioned 22 times by the

fifth grade teachers, but only three times by grade four. The positivity of the comments as well as

the body language and level of excitement of the grade five teachers observed by the researcher

were much higher and more frequent than those of the fourth grade teams. Again, this level of

engagement correlated with the level of fidelity, the use of varied strategies, and the teacher

coordination as exhibited by the grade five teachers. Indeed, their students also had a higher level

of achievement in all measures. In addition, the teachers reported a greater number of student

connections to “life” as illustrated by the their reflection of student examples of identifying

Greek and Latin parts on television, in their pleasure reading materials, in classroom texts, and in

conversation (ie: “my sister lives in a dormitory,” “my brother is in a fraternity,” and references

to a teacher with “urban” in her last name as “Mrs. In-The-City”). These examples may illustrate

that the “rich” are “getting richer” as theorized by the Mathew Effect (Stanovich, 1986). It is also

       

   

152  

an indication that as the students increased their vocabulary, they increased their comprehension,

and as they increased their comprehension and continued reading, they increased their

vocabulary. This exemplifies the Reciprocal Model (Nagy, 2005).

Other research has supported this claim about the importance of student engagement.

According to Carol Ann Tomlinson (2010), if teachers have “a really dynamic curriculum and

differentiate that, then the power of the curriculum gives more power to the differentiation, not to

mention more power to the students…(teachers must) capture their minds…evoke some

curiosity…make them wonder about something or connect with it. Engagement is one really

critical attribute of quality curriculum.”

It is interesting to note that the theoretical frameworks of this study seemed to extend to

the teachers as well as the students. Teachers in both grades reported feeling “overwhelmed” by

the program when it began and claimed to have a lack of resources and time to complete all that

is required of them. However, when it came to the vocabulary instruction, the grade five teachers

indicated they have moved past these difficulties saying that they are “more comfortable” now

and that they found their own “supplemental resources” to use that were not necessarily provided

by the school or district. The grade four teachers expressed more of a sense of helplessness when

they agreed (as stated earlier) that “We are going to have to do something different soon,” but

“what that is yet, (we) don’t know.”

The teachers also agreed that, “there is no official common planning time,” so “time-

wise, it is still very difficult to get in.” However, the grade five ELA teachers did note that while

they “initially” found this work “intimidating,” they are now “much more comfortable” with it.

As a result, one teacher said, “the more comfort I see with it, the more I see (the students’)

comfort as well.” They said that they complete the Prestwick House units and that they “know

       

   

153  

the units (the science teachers) teach and the concepts they cover” in science class. This helps

them to make vocabulary connections for their students. The more enthusiasm they reported on

the part of their students, the more enthusiastic they got in their explanation. It was as if the

“rich” were “getting richer,” and they were more dedicated to making it work, even if they had to

carve out their own time and secure their own resources.

It is the researcher’s belief that sharing the data results of this study with the fifth grade

teachers would provide positive reinforcement and perhaps continue the cycle of the Reciprocal

Model (Nagy, 2005). As teachers continue to find excitement in their students’ performance,

they may continue to elicit excitement in their students. This would cause both groups to focus

on the strategies and skills that are currently bringing them success and continue to improve the

level of self-efficacy they are currently feeling. One area that this is lacking is in the grade five

teachers’ expression that a group of students are not retaining their understandings of the word

parts. They only have one measure of this, and that is the Prestwick House multiple-choice

cumulative assessment on the words learned that include the word parts. However, the nonsense

word assessment scores collected by the researcher for grade five showed a great level of

retention and application. Their students were able to transfer their understanding 54% of the

time (as opposed to 35.6% in grade four). In ELA, where there was more emphasis on the

morphology, they were able to apply their understanding 73% of the time. This is the type of

data and feedback that allows this cycle of engagement and confidence to continue.

Implications for practice   Learning science vocabulary presents three problems that make the acquisition of

domain-specific words more challenging than in an ELA class. First is the conceptual nature of

       

   

154  

learning new words. Most often, the new word represents a novel idea or understanding for the

child. It is not a word that can be made synonymous with something the student already

understands. In this study, children demonstrated that they were more successful at identifying

the concepts associated with unknown (nonsense) science terms if they had a prior conceptual

understanding of the root of the word, even if they learned that root in ELA. This concurs with

previous research (Aaron, Joshi, and Quatroche, 2008). In fact, students were more successful at

this the more they were engaged with the learning of the word part and the more that the

connections were made explicitly to them (as in grade five vs. grade four).

The second difficulty is the sheer number of new vocabulary words required in content

areas like science. Despite the fact that it is estimated children will need to learn up to 3,000

words per year to maintain grade level vocabulary, they can only master approximately 400 per

year through direct instruction (Beck, McKeown, Kucan, 2002). Science vocabulary is largely

based on Greek and Latin derivatives. In fact, 90% of multisyllabic words are based on Latin,

with most of the remaining 10% based on Greek (Rasinski, 2008). It is estimated that a student

can generate five to twenty different words from one Latin root (Rasinski, 2008). Therefore, if

the students of Billings Intermediate School were to study and learn just four root words per

week, they would have the potential of having a conceptual understanding and be able to

successfully hypothesize the meaning of 800 to 3,200 words per year, many of them highly

technical and domain-specific. According to Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002), students

generally have the capacity to learn 8-10 words per week through direct instruction.

The third challenge to learning vocabulary is lack of experience most teachers (other than

ELA teachers) have in language-based literacy strategies such as teaching vocabulary. However,

the newly released Common Core State Standards, Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, and

       

   

155  

Next Generation Science Standards all place a heavy emphasis on literacy skills such as

“understanding words and phrases, their relationships, and their nuances, and on acquiring new

vocabulary, primarily general academic and domain-specific words and phrases” (MA DESE,

2012). This will require direct and explicit instruction of all teachers in collaboration and

cooperation that must go beyond mere memorization to conceptual understanding and proper

application. Researchers have not conclusively determined one strategy that is most effective for

all students. This speaks to the fact that differentiation is key. In fact, this study has reinforced

that understanding by illustrating that the most successful students (grade five) were those whose

teachers utilized many and various strategies in their teaching of vocabulary, including those

strategies that required higher levels of cognitive demand, including metacognitive reflection of

their background knowledge and of the strategies themselves.

Throughout the study, teachers in both grades also made reference to the “connections”

they observed students making to other content areas. These included mathematics and social

studies, as well as “TV,” “other readings,” and “life.” A potential implication of the results of

this study would be the replication of the success of the fifth grade students’ vocabulary

acquisition in these other areas as well. This would be particularly true with some modifications

to the current program and how it is implemented as noted in the recommendations for

educational practice below.

Recommendations   The recommendations from this study come most directly from the themes identified in

the focus group and interview processes. Even though these conversations took place after the

       

   

156  

student assessments were given, the data from the assessments substantiated each of the themes

and indicated which were more successful and which were not in regard to student achievement.

Encourage student motivation and engagement. Teachers in this study noted that

students responded best when they viewed the activities as a “competition” or as a means to

“challenge” themselves. They “want to build, they want more words, they want to be able to use

them and show them off…they’re just so excited about it.” This has helped to provide a much

deeper level of understanding of the terms. “As a result…they have built and they’ve acquired

new words, but…they’ve built an admiration for learning new words…they look forward to it.”

Again, grade five teachers reported 22 times during their focus groups and interviews that their

students found this work to be engaging as opposed to three mentions of interest by grade four

teachers. Subsequently, the grade five students outperformed the grade four students in the

assessments.

Make cross-curricular connections. Teachers in both grade four and grade five noted

that students were “making connections” to words used in other classes. There were many more

references to connections in grade five where the strategy of using words across content areas

was more deliberate (49 references vs. six in grade four). This would be a relatively simple

addition to the curriculum at the Billings Intermediate School. This is because the current scope,

sequence, and materials being used (Prestwick House) have a collection of words that could

easily be added to the list of words taught in other content areas. They are already being taught in

the ELA classes. Connecting the words to what they may already be learning in other areas

would be a matter of proper planning and communication.

Focus on conceptual understandings and differentiate instruction. Most subject area

content, including science, is best understood conceptually. Students must connect new

       

   

157  

information to what they already know in order to make sense of it and be able to apply it

accurately. Teaching vocabulary words in isolation as part of a random list of words is not

effective. It is also not practical with the number of words they must learn and their capacity for

learning only a small fraction of that from direct instruction.

The classes with the highest levels of achievement in this study were the ones that

incorporated activities that were varied and required higher levels of cognitive engagement. The

grade four teachers noted seven activities that they used in their classes when teaching

vocabulary. The grade five teachers noted no less than 27 strategies. Also, while the grade four

activities consisted of going through “the workbook page-by-page” and utilizing “flashcards,”

the fifth grade teachers encouraged students to “activate their thinking,” “find (other) words”

utilizing the same root(s), identifying where the roots are in the words, and completing Frayer

Model graphic organizers which are a better indicator of student conceptual understanding.

Utilizing multiple strategies also encourages individual student differentiation based on their

needs and learning styles.

Cultivate teacher engagement through professional development. Teachers in both

grades expressed being “overwhelmed” and “intimidated” by the program at some point.

However, the fifth grade teachers reported that, with increased practice, they became “more

comfortable.” As a result, the students became “more comfortable” as well. Some of the fourth

grade teachers also explained that they did not know which words contained roots or whether or

not they were Greek or Latin. They said that their textbooks did not “make that connection” for

them. This resulted in uncertainty for them and the feeling that they have a “lack of resources.”

This affected their level as self-efficacy as they reported far less confidence in using the

program. Only one teacher in fourth grade said she “liked” the program, but quickly qualified her

       

   

158  

statement by saying, “only because I took Latin for a few years…I get the correlation.” Fifth

grade teachers, however, in addition to describing their “comfort” level added that they feel it is

“a really great program.” There were six positive comments by the grade five teachers as

opposed to the one in grade four. This was reflected in the level of fidelity that was committed at

each grade. However, not having the appropriate training and resources is daunting, frustrating,

and simply unfair. Having a clear set of expectations and direction would support the teachers

more appropriately.

Create a coordinated program with oversight and accountability. A coordinated

program is critical when trying to make explicit connections for students. It cannot be expected

that children will see these connections on their own. In spite of this, however, several teachers

reported just that, saying that students “were excited to inform the teacher that they knew all

about the word before she even spoke about it,” they “were noticing it before (teachers) were

instructing it,” and they “would make that connection without doing a structured Greek and

Latin…lesson.” Students often reported that they were learning a particular word part in math or

said, “Oh, we learned that in science!” A structured and coordinated scope and sequence across

content areas would help facilitate these “connections.”

While the Prestwick House series offers one possibility, it is not the only option. Simply

meeting and aligning the concepts in each area would produce the vocabulary that is common

across content areas. It is preferable to have the vocabulary result from the purposeful curriculum

that is creating utilizing the Understanding by Design process and aligned with the

Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. This study has presented evidence that multiple and

diverse activities are more effective, so utilizing these strategies with the identified words would

be fine as long as they are clearly articulated and well understood by the teachers.

       

   

159  

In order to insure that the program is being implemented effectively, there has to be some

oversight of the program. Even with the best intentions of implementation, a teacher without the

proper training or supports will have difficulty with any program. There must be clear goals and

outcomes for student performance. This understanding should be calibrated among all

stakeholders including teachers, administrators, parents, and students to insure success.

Provide time and resources. In order to create an aligned and coordinated program,

provide professional development, encourage teacher efficacy, and foster effective

communication among teachers and across grades, there must be ample time and opportunity for

collaboration. It is difficult to create a regularly scheduled common planning time, but the

success of any new program depends on this focused time together. Teachers will not have an

investment in the success of the program if they are not involved in the decision-making

regarding its integration. They will also not have a full understanding of the choices made for its

use or how it should be properly implemented. They should also participate in creating the

assessments to be used. They should define what the indicators of success would be and then

analyze the resulting student data to see if instructional adjustments need to be made and what

those adjustments might be.

It may or may not be necessary to purchase additional outside resources for this

endeavor. However, the units of instruction should be completed to identify the concepts and

skills to be taught in each unit. This will facilitate the choices for vocabulary and subsequent

resource needs, if necessary.

Further Research  

       

   

160  

There were questions that arose that were beyond the scope of this study. In addition,

shortcomings of this research presented themselves once the study was underway. Each of these

provides opportunities for further research on this topic.

ELL and special education. There were zero students in the Billings Intermediate

School that were identified as English Language Learners. In addition, the students that did

participate were not identified as having an Individualized Learning Plan (IEP) or learning

disability. Therefore, these variables could not be taken into account when analyzing student

results. However, teachers did comment that they felt their “low” students had most difficulty

with Greek and Latin word parts. It is unclear whether or not this was in reference to ELL or

special education students. Further study with these populations would be necessary to determine

if these students displayed different levels of achievement on these assessments.

Increased longitudinal data. The only archival data that were collected were two, five-

lesson units for grade five. This data indicated that both post-tests showed an increase in student

understanding form the pre-tests. However, the second pre-test also showed a 9% growth from

the first pre-test. This may indicate that the students were becoming more proficient at using

word attack strategies or breaking down word parts for meaning. However, without further data

points, this is non-conclusive. There could be four of these data points in a school year under the

current model at this school. Consistent growth in all four would be recommended before

making such a claim.

Comparative fidelity across participating grades. It was the intention of this research

to study the comparison across grades implementing the same program with the same level of

fidelity. However, after it was discovered that this was not the case, it became a study of

       

   

161  

contrasts. Another researcher may carry out the original goal of measuring the effectiveness of

this strategy across multiple grade levels.

Classroom observations. Classroom observations were not a part of this study.

However, this could be a valuable addition. Observations can be used to calibrate the information

and data collected by other means including the student assessments, focus groups, and

individual interviews. The level of explicit instruction and fidelity to the Greek and Latin scope

and sequence could be compared to the teachers’ self-assessments of these areas for accuracy in

reporting. The purpose of using this approach would be to “obtain data about behavior through

direct contact and in terms of specific situations in which the distortion that results from the

investigator’s being an outside agent is reduced to a minimum” (Kluckhohn, 1940).

Utilizing this model will also allow an objective view of the teacher/student interactions,

which may remove any bias, even unintentional bias, in a teacher’s report. According to the

constructivist-interpretivist construct, “lived experiences may be outside the immediate

awareness of the individual” (Ponterotto, 2005). The daily demands on the teacher in the

classroom is such that they may not be aware of the minutiae that might indicate student

recognition or may serve as an example of particular insight or confusion on the part of a child.

Observation for these specific elements and examples may uncover these details that may

otherwise go unnoticed. This would give a greater level of confidence in the accuracy of

resulting student performance data.

Student follow-up interviews. There were no student interviews conducted as part of

this study. However, upon review of the student assessments, particularly the nonsense word

assessments, there were several opportunities for follow-up questions with students. In the event

that a picture was indiscernible or the wording of a definition was unclear, the item was marked

       

   

162  

incorrect. However, it would have been interesting and possibly insightful to have the students

further explain their reasoning and representations. Also, there were many teacher reports of

“student engagement.” It would have been helpful to survey students themselves on their level of

interest in working with words in this manner. Measuring student interest in the context of their

achievement may have provided further useful data.

Other content areas. The morphological approach to content area literacy may have the

same results in other content areas. Theoretically, this would be the case. It may also be possible

to see even higher results if the vocabulary words were across three or more content areas and

not just two. The level of student conceptual understanding could then be measured in other

ways as well. For example, if a word has more than one meaning depending on the content area

in which it is studied and applied, it would be interesting to note whether the child is able to

discern the uses across disciplines. This would show a more sophisticated level of understanding

and application.

Fluency and spelling skills. It was reported by one teacher that the Greek and Latin

word study helped her students with “syllabication.” Upon further clarification, she confirmed

that students were better able to pronounce the words due to their “chunking” of the individual

word parts. Further study could be done to examine whether morphological study helps to

improve student reading fluency. It could also be investigated whether or not it improves student

spelling proficiency as well since they may memorize letter combinations that are less familiar to

them such as “sym,” “photo,” “amphi,” or “terra.”

Program review/case study. A specific case study could be completed for a particular

school and/or program. This could include a published program, a particular scope and sequence,

a chosen curriculum unit(s), or even a set of strategies used to teach the word parts. This could

       

   

163  

also be used to measure the success of an implementation, a professional development initiative,

or common planning time across a grade or across particular content areas.

Conclusion   Strategies for vocabulary acquisition in the content areas have been largely overlooked in

literacy literature and research. Recommendations have been made to simply apply the

instructional practices that have been used in language arts classes. However, the unique nature

of the content areas and their domain-specific vocabulary have made this difficult and frustrating

for teachers who do not identify themselves as literacy or reading teachers. However, state and

national expectations for college and career readiness have made the definition of a literate

graduate more demanding than ever before. Accessing dense expositional text independently is

an expectation of every student. Having the unique characteristics of the content areas in mind

when learning the pertinent vocabulary such as the conceptual nature of the terms, the massive

quantity of them that must be learned, and the need for direct, explicit skills to be used by all

teachers, can result in an effective and successful program. Further, encouraging a culture of

teacher support, professional development, collaboration, and self-efficacy can pay dividends in

all areas of instruction. Thinking smarter, and not harder about how instruction is approached can

result in a more efficient, rigorous, and rewarding program.

Action  

The three attributes that make the study of science-related vocabulary challenging, and

therefore a problem of practice, include the conceptual underpinnings of these words, the

copious amount of terms to be learned by a science student, and the specific, explicit strategies

needed to access this vocabulary and its connected text. Of the three challenges, the use of

       

   

164  

improved instructional strategies is the most easily addressed by science teachers. As a change

agent, I will work to provide science teachers, and, in fact, other content area teachers, with the

strategies and approaches to vocabulary acquisition that are most applicable and practical for

their unique content areas. Emphasis will be placed on providing children with repeated exposure

to word parts that they will see in different contexts and contents with explicit explanations of

their concepts and constructs so that they might make useful associations and connections that

will help them in all subject areas, and, indeed in their lives beyond school.

       

   

165  

References

 Aaron, P.G., Joshi, R.M., and Quatroche, D. (2008). Becoming a Professional Reading Teacher.

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Achieve, Inc. (February 2005). Rising to the Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work? A Study of Recent High School Graduates, College Instructors, and Employers. Washington, D.C. Prepared by Peter D. Hart Research Associates/Public opinion Strategies.

Achieve, Inc. (2013). Explore the NGSS. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By

States. Retrieved January 10, 2013 from http://www.nextgenscience.org ACT, Inc. (2005). ACT Profile Report-National: Graduating Class 2012. Retreived from:

http://www.act.org/readiness/2012 Advameg, Inc. (2014). Massachusetts Bigger Cities (over 6000 residents). City-Data.com.

Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/city/Massachusetts.html Anderson R. C. & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.),

Comprehension and teaching: research reviews (77-117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (eds). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and

Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Barton, P.E. (January 2000). What Jobs Require: Literacy, Education, and Training, 1940-2006.

Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Education Testing Service. Baumann, J.F., Kame’enui, E.J., & Ash, G.E. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction:

Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R. Squire, & J. M. Jenson (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English Language Arts (2nd ed., 752-785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

Press. Beck, I.L., McKeown, M. G. & Omanson, R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse

vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

       

   

166  

Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading Next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading Next—A vision for action and research in middle

and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.).Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Bloodgood, J.W. & Pacifici, L.C. (2004). “Bringing word study to intermediate classrooms.” The

Reading Teacher Vol. 58, No. 3 International Reading Association (250–263) doi:10.1598/RT.58.3.3

Bloom, B.S. & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the Classification

of Educational Goals by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.

Carnevale, A. P. (2001). Help wanted…College required. Washington, DC: Educational Testing

Service, Office for Public Leadership. Carrier, K. (2005). Supporting science learning through science literacy objectives for English

language learners. Science Activities, 42(2), 5-11. doi:10.3200/SATS.42.2.5-11. Chall, J.S. & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). Poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator,

Spring, 2003. American Federation of Teachers. Cheung, T. (May 2013). Relationships and convergences among the mathematics, science, and

ELA practices. Refined version of diagram created by the Understanding Language Initiative for ELP Standards. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches

(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Cruz, M.B. (2012). Student and Teacher Perceptions of a Mobile-Based Biology Vocabulary

Study Tool for English Language Learners. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.

D’Arcangelo, M. (2002). The challenge of content-area reading: A conversation with Donna

Ogle. Educational Leadership, 60(15), 12-15. Frayer, D., Fredrick, W.C., & Klausmeier, H.J. (1969). A Schema for Testing the Level of

Concept Mastery. Working Paper from the Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, The University of Wisconsin, No. 16.

Frayer, D., Ghatala, E.S., & Klausmeier, H.J. ((1972). Levels of Concept Mastery: Implications

for Instruction. Educational Technology, 12/12, 23-29.

       

   

167  

Graves, M. F. (1986). Vocabulary learning and instruction. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of

Research in Education, 13, 49-89. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In Halliday, M.A.K

& Martin, J.R. (Eds.), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power (69-85). Great Britain: University of Pittsburg Press.

Hiebert E. H. & Kamil, M. L. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to

practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hirsch, E.D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge—of words and the world:

Scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and the nation’s stagnant comprehension scores. American Educator, Spring, 2003. American Federation of Teachers.

Institute of Education Sciences (IES). (August 2008). Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices. Kamil, M.K. et al (panel). U.S. Department of Education: NCEE 2008-4027.

Jacobs, R. L. (2011). Developing a Research Problem and Purpose Statement. In D.S. Rocco, T.

Hatcher, and Associates. The Handbook of Scholarly Writing and Publishing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Krueger, R.A. and Casey, M.A. (2009). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research.

4th edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Kluckhohn, F. (1940). The Participant Observer Technique in Small Communities. American

Journal of Sociology. 46, 331-343. Lacey, M. (1998). Describing and displaying data: Scatterplots. Statistical Topics. Retrieved

January 12, 2014 from http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/stat101.htm LeCompte, M. and Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational

Research. London: Academic Press, Inc. Lee, O., & Fradd, S.H. (1996). Literacy skills in science learning among linguistically diverse

students. Science Education, 80(6), 651-671. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098 237X(199611)80:6<651::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-I.

Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. MA DESE (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) (March 2011).

Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts and Literacy Grades Pre-Kindergarten to12. Incorporating the Common Core State Standards for English

       

   

168  

Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Retrieved October 5, 2013 from: http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ela/0311.pdf

MA DESE (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) (February

2013). Characteristics of Standards-Based Teaching and Learning: Continuum of Practice. Accountability, Partnership, & Assistance. Retrieved January 10, 2014 from http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/dart/walk/

MA DESE (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) (January 2014).

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Retrieved January 11, 2014 from http://www.doe.mass.edu/STEM/review.html

MA DESE (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) (2014).

Enrollment Data. School and District Profiles. Retrieved from http:// profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/student.aspx?orgcode=06650000&orgtypecode=5&

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 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.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass Publications. Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects of vocabulary

training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 53, 253-279. Moliken, Paul, Senior Ed. (2008) Growing Your Vocabulary: Learning from Greek and Latin

Roots. (A and B). Prestwick House, Inc. Nagy, W. E. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading instruction. Newark, DE.

International Reading Association. Nagy, W. E. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive. In E.

H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nagy, W.E., Herman, P.A., and Anderson, R.C. (1985). Learning Words from Context. Reading

Research Quarterly. Vol. 20 Number 2. International Reading Association.

       

   

169  

National Academy of Sciences. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD). (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: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Partnership for Reading. (2001). Vocabulary: Instructional Guidelines and Classroom Examples.

Reading Rockets. Article 3473. Retrieved from: http://www.readingrockets.org/article/ 3473.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.), Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc. Ponterotto, J.G. (2005). Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology: A Primer on Research

Paradigms and Philosophy of Science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 2, 126-136.

Rasinski, T., et al. (2008). Greek and Latin Roots: Keys to Building Vocabulary. Huntington

Beach, CA: Shell Education. Rubin, H.J and Rubin, I.S. (2012). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand

Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Rupley, W.H., Logan, J.W., & Nichols, W.D. (1998/1999). Vocabulary instruction in a balanced

reading program. The Reading Teacher, 52 (4). Saldana, Johnny. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage Publications. Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities:

Evidence, theory, and practice. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research. NY: Guilford Press.

Siebert, D. & Draper, R. J. (2008). Why content-area literacy messages do not speak to

mathematics teachers: a critical content analysis, literacy research and instruction. 47:4. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University. doi: 10.1080/193880070802300314

Sinatra, R. C., Berg, D. & Dunn, R. (1985). Semantic mapping improves reading comprehension

of reading disabled students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 17(4), 310-314. Stahl, S. A. (1983). Differential word knowledge and reading comprehension. Journal of

Reading Behavior, 15(4), 33-50.

       

   

170  

Stahl, S. A. (1991). Beyond the instrumentalist hypothesis: Some relationships between word

meanings and comprehension. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (ed.), The psychology of word meanings (157-186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stahl, S. A. & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based

meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72-110. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual

differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 36–407. Thomas, D.R. (2006). A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data.

American Journal of Evaluation. Vol. 27, No. 2, 237-246. Tomlinson, C. A. (2010). Dynamic Curriculum: Differentiation Central. [Video file]. Retrieved

from http://www.differentiationcentral.com/videos.html Wandersee, J. H. (1985). Plants or animals—which do junior high school students prefer to

study? Journal of research in Science Teaching. Vol. 23, Issue 5. Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview

studies. New York: The Free Press.

       

   

171  

Appendix  A  –  Grade  4  cumulative  assessment,  lessons  1-­‐5

       

   

172  

       

   

173  

Appendix B – Grade 5 cumulative assessment, lessons 1-5

       

   

174  

       

   

175  

       

   

176  

       

   

177  

Appendix  C  –  Nonsense  words  for  grades  four  and  five  assessments

GRADE 4 NONSENSE WORDS

ELA

Science

Both

Word parts

Aquaskates Exorain Moneymeter Auto Hydrocar Invertebracow Thermoshoes Aqua Astropants Millistars Symmetrishapes Hydr Lunafood Amphibicat Solarexplorer Astr Terrahouse Luna Terr Exo Vertebra Milli Ex: autopencil Amph Meter Thermo Sym Sol(ar)

GRADE 5 NONSENSE WORDS

ELA

Science

Both

Word parts

Florabook Biohouse Omnicolors Frater Trifeet Electrodog Respihelmet Matr Unistar Visiphone Chocolovore Flor(a) Matricake Photofood Subdirt Uni Duoflag Duo Tri Bio Electro Ex: fratball Vis Photo Omni Resp Vor Sub

       

   

178  

Appendix D – Multiple-choice assessment for grade four Name:________________________________ Date:___________ Teacher:__________________________

Science vocabulary DIRECTIONS: Choose the best answer for each question, and write the letter of your answer in the space provided.

1. Which of the following things will hydrate you? 1. _______ A. Cookies B. Bread C. Water D. Crackers E. Toast

2. The words millimeter, decimeter, and kilometer are used when:

A. Growing things B. Collecting things 2. _______ C. Measuring things D. Insulating things E. Heating things

3. Energy from the sun is called: 3. _______

A. Mechanical energy B. Electrical energy C. Wind energy D. Sound energy E. Solar energy

4. Which word probably means growing plants with water and no soil?

A. Photogenic B. Thermonuclear 4. _______ C. Astrophysicist D. Hydroponics E. Centrifuge

5. The words astrology and constellatory both have to do with:

A. Stars B. The sun 5. _______ C. The earth D. Fire E. The moon

6. This is: 6. _______

       

   

179  

A. an amphibian B. a mammal C. a fish D. an arthropod E. a worm

7. Which of the following would you NOT see if you were looking at terrain?

A. Grass B. Dirt 7. _______ C. Stars D. Sand E. Mud

8. Dehydrate means: 8. _______

A. To lose or remove water B. To do something every year C. To be easily heard D. To measure something E. To move water in a container

9. Choose the sport that is aquatic: 9. _______

A. Baseball B. Swimming C. Soccer D. Football E. Basketball

10. The word parts ecto and exo both refer to the: 10._______

A. Inside B. Upper C. Lower D. Outside E. Under

11. Solar and lunar refer to things that are found in the:

A. Ground 11._______ B. Water C. Dirt D. Sky E. Sand

12. You can NOT measure the diameter of: 12._______ A. a pizza B. a circle C. a house D. a coin E. a wheel

       

   

180  

13. An amphibious car can probably: 13._______ A. Drive on land only B. Drive in the water only C. Drive on both land and water D. Drive on rocks only E. Drive on dirt and sand

14. Which shape has symmetry? 14._______

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

15. Which one has NO backbone? 15._______ A. Snake B. Human C. Dog D. Bird E. Fish

16. Which of the following is NOT an example of something thermal?

A. An ice cube B. The sun 16._______ C. A fire D. A heated oven E. A lit match

17. A vertebrate is: 17._______ A. An animal that has gills B. An animal that has no backbone C. An animal that has claws D. An animal that has a backbone E. An animal that has lungs

18. This instrument is used to measure temperature: 18._______

A. Thermometer B. Barometer

       

   

181  

C. Centimeter D. Metric ruler E. Balance scale

19. An astronomer studies: 19._______

A. Stars and planets B. Food and drink C. Plants and animals D. Rocks and minerals E. Liquids and solids

20. An arthropod has: 20._______

A. a vertebra B. an exoskeleton C. hollow bones D. an endoskeleton E. oxygenated blood

       

   

182  

Appendix E – Multiple-choice assessment for grade five Name:________________________________ Date:___________ Teacher:__________________________

Science vocabulary DIRECTIONS: Choose the best answer for each question, and write the letter of your answer in the space provided.

1. Which of the following things would a florist sell? F. Food and drinks 1. _______ G. Pens and pencils H. Dogs and cats I. Rocks and minerals J. Flowers and plants

2. Which of the following would NOT be eaten by an herbivore?

A. Apple B. Hamburger 2. _______ C. Carrot D. Lettuce E. Peanuts

3. A combination of electrical and magnetic energy is:

A. Electricity 3. _______ B. Chemical energy C. Magnetism D. Electromagnetic energy E. Nuclear energy

4. The work of biochemists and bioengineers probably has to do with:

A. Life or living things B. The solar system 4. _______ C. Family relationships D. Technology E. Electricity

5. Visible and visionary both refer to what someone can:

A. Hear B. Seen 5. _______ C. Say D. Feel E. Smell

6. The process in which plans take in light, carbon, dioxide, and water to produce sugar and oxygen

is: A. Photosynthesis 6. _______

       

   

183  

B. Chlorophyll C. Cell respiration D. Transpiration E. Adaptation

7. Which is an example of dual shapes?

A. 7. _______

B.

C.

D.

E.

8. Meat-eating animals usually have: A. Soft fur and tails 8. _______ B. Small teeth and tails C. Scales and fins D. Large teeth and claws E. Small eyes and no claws

9. Subsoil is:

A. The layer of soil above the topsoil 9. _______ B. The same thing as the earth’s crust C. The same thing as topsoil D. The layer of soil under the topsoil E. The layer of earth on top of the crust

10. Which is NOT a biotic factor?

A. Car 10._______ B. Plant C. Animal D. Tree E. Human being

11. The words unite, union, and unison refer to doing things: A. with a group of people B. with more than three people 11._______ C. with no help from anyone D. together as one E. as the leader

       

   

184  

12. These use what kind of energy? 12._______ A. Electrical energy B. Potential energy C. Chemical energy D. Physical energy E. Kinetic energy

13. Cell respiration requires:

A. Fire 13._______ B. Oxygen C. Prey D. Water E. Pollination

14. Humans are:

A. Decomposers 14._______ B. Herbivores C. Omnivores D. Producers E. Carnivores

15. Flora is the probably the goddess of:

A. Stars 15._______ B. Water C. Flowers D. Beaches E. Rocks

16. A collection of three works of art that are related to each other is:

A. a duet B. a duplicate 16._______ C. a trilogy D. a tricep E. a union

17. If someone is having trouble breathing, they probably have which kind of problem?

A. Circulatory 17._______ B. Respiratory C. Muscular D. Cellular E. Skeletal

18. The words tripetalous and trilayer both have to do with:

A. Living things B. Three parts 18._______ C. Mothers and fathers

       

   

185  

D. The solar system E. Dark colors

19. Which of the following probably does NOT have to do with light?

A. Photosynthesis B. Photon 19._______ C. Photograph D. Planetary E. Photocopy

20. Which of the following is NOT a word that has to do with family or family members?

A. Maternal 20._______ B. Paternity C. Thermal D. Matriarch E. Fraternal

       

   

186  

Appendix  F  –  Grade  Four  Student  Assessment  Questions  by  Type

Developed from (Frayer, D., Fredrick, W., Klausmeier, H., 1969) and (Frayer, D., Ghatala, E., Klausmeier, F. 1972)

Type of question

Prototype Question Vocabulary word/part

Discriminating Attributes

Given the name of an attribute value, the student can select the example of the attribute value.

Ø Which one has NO backbone?

F. Snake G. Human H. Dog I. Bird J. Fish

Invertebrate

Discriminating Attributes

Given an example of the attribute value, the student can select the name of the attribute value.

Ø Which word probably means growing plants with water and no soil?

F. Photogenic G. Thermonuclear H. Astrophysicist I. Hydroponics J. Centrifuge

Hydro

Classificatory Given the name of a concept, the student can select the example of the concept.

Ø Which shape has symmetry?

F.

G.

H.

I.

Symmetry

       

   

187  

J.

Ø Which of the following things will hydrate you?

K. Cookies L. Bread M. Water N. Crackers O. Toast

Hydrate

Classificatory Given an example of a concept, the student can select the name of the concept.

Ø This is: F. an amphibian G. a mammal H. a fish I. an arthropod J. a worm

Ø An arthropod has: F. a vertebra G. an exoskeleton H. hollow bones I. an endoskeleton J. oxygenated blood

Amphibian Exoskeleton

Formal Given the name of a concept, the student can select the names of the relevant attribute values of the concept.

Ø An amphibious car can probably:

A. Drive on land only B. Drive in the water

only C. Drive on both land

and water D. Drive on rocks only E. Drive on dirt and

sand

Ø The words millimeter, decimeter, and kilometer are used when:

F. Growing things G. Collecting things

Amphibious Millimeter, decimeter, kilometer

       

   

188  

H. Measuring things I. Insulating things J. Heating things

Ø An astronomer

studies: F. Stars and planets G. Food and drink H. Plants and animals I. Rocks and minerals J. Liquids and solids

Astronomer

Formal Given the name of a concept, the student can select the names of the irrelevant attribute values of the concept.

Ø Which of the following would you NOT see if you were looking at terrain?

F. Grass G. Dirt H. Stars I. Sand J. Mud

Ø You can NOT

measure the diameter of:

F. a pizza G. a circle H. a house I. a coin J. a wheel

Terrain Diameter

Formal Given the definition of a concept, the student can select the name for the concept.

Ø This instrument is used to measure temperature:

F. Thermometer G. Barometer H. Centimeter I. Metric ruler J. Balance scale

Ø Energy from the sun

is called: F. Mechanical energy G. Electrical energy H. Wind energy

Thermometer Solar

       

   

189  

I. Sound energy J. Solar energy

Formal Given the name of a

concept, the student can select the correct definition of the concept.

Ø Dehydrate means: F. To lose or remove

water G. To do something

every year H. To be easily heard I. To measure

something J. To move water in a

container

Ø A vertebrate is: F. An animal that has

gills G. An animal that has

no backbone H. An animal that has

claws I. An animal that has a

backbone J. An animal that has

lungs

(De)hydrate Vertebrate

Superordinate-Subordinate

Given the name of a concept and a concept coordinate to it, the student can select the name of a concept supraordinate to it.

Ø Solar and lunar refer to things that are found in the:

F. Ground G. Water H. Dirt I. Sky J. Sand

Solar/Lunar

Superordinate-Subordinate

Given the name of a concept, the student can select the name of a concept subordinate to it.

Ø Choose the sport that is aquatic:

F. Baseball G. Swimming H. Soccer I. Football J. Basketball

Ø Which of the

following is NOT an

Aqua(tic) Thermal

       

   

190  

example of something thermal?

F. An ice cube G. The sun H. A fire I. A heated oven J. A lit match

Principle Given the name of

two concepts, the student can select the principle which relates them.

Ø The words astrology and constellatory both have to do with:

A. Stars B. The sun C. The earth D. Fire E. The moon

Ø The word parts ecto

and exo both refer to the:

F. Inside G. Upper H. Lower I. Outside J. Under

Astrology/ Constellatory Ecto/exo

       

   

191  

Appendix  G  –  Grade  Five  Student  Assessment  Questions  by  Type Developed from (Frayer, D., Fredrick, W., Klausmeier, H., 1969) and (Frayer, D., Ghatala, E., Klausmeier, F. 1972)

Type of question

Prototype Question Vocabulary word/part

Discriminating Attributes

Given the name of an attribute value, the student can select the example of the attribute value.

Ø Meat-eating animals usually have:

K. Soft fur and tails L. Small teeth and tails M. Scales and fins N. Large teeth and claws O. Small eyes and no

claws

Carnivore

Discriminating Attributes

Given an example of the attribute value, the student can select the name of the attribute value.

Ø If someone is having trouble breathing, they probably have which kind of problem?

K. Circulatory L. Respiratory M. Muscular N. Cellular O. Skeletal

Respiratory

Classificatory Given the name of a concept, the student can select the example of the concept.

Ø Which is an example of dual shapes?

K.

L.

M.

N.

Dual

       

   

192  

O.

Ø Which of the following things would a florist sell?

P. Food and drinks Q. Pens and pencils R. Dogs and cats S. Rocks and minerals T. Flowers and plants

Florist

Classificatory Given an example of a concept, the student can select the name of the concept.

Ø These use what kind of energy?

K. Electrical energy L. Potential energy M. Chemical energy N. Physical energy O. Kinetic energy

Ø Humans are: K. Decomposers L. Herbivores M. Omnivores N. Producers O. Carnivores

Electrical Omnivores

Formal Given the name of a concept, the student can select the names of the relevant attribute values of the concept.

Ø Flora is the probably the goddess of:

F. Stars G. Water H. Flowers I. Beaches J. Rocks

Ø The words unite,

union, and unison refer to doing things:

K. with a group of

Flora Unite, union, unison

       

   

193  

people L. with more than three

people M. with no help from

anyone N. together as one O. as the leader

Ø Cell respiration

requires: K. Fire L. Oxygen M. Prey N. Water O. Pollination

Respiration

Formal Given the name of a concept, the student can select the names of the irrelevant attribute values of the concept.

Ø Which of the following would NOT be eaten by an herbivore?

K. Apple L. Hamburger M. Carrot N. Lettuce O. Peanuts

Ø Which is NOT a

biotic factor? K. Car L. Plant M. Animal N. Tree O. Human being

Herbivore Biotic

Formal Given the definition of a concept, the student can select the name for the concept.

Ø The process in which plans take in light, carbon, dioxide, and water to produce sugar and oxygen is:

K. Photosynthesis L. Chlorophyll M. Cell respiration N. Transpiration O. Adaptation

Photosynthesis

       

   

194  

Ø A collection of three works of art that are related to each other is:

K. a duet L. a duplicate M. a trilogy N. a tricep O. a union

Trilogy

Formal Given the name of a concept, the student can select the correct definition of the concept.

Ø Subsoil is: K. The layer of soil

above the topsoil L. The same thing as

the earth’s crust M. The same thing as

topsoil N. The layer of soil

under the topsoil O. The layer of earth on

top of the crust

Ø A combination of electrical and magnetic energy is:

K. Electricity L. Chemical energy M. Magnetism N. Electromagnetic

energy O. Nuclear energy

Subsoil Electromagnetic

Superordinate-Subordinate

Given the name of a concept and a concept coordinate to it, the student can select the name of a concept supraordinate to it.

Ø Visible and visionary both refer to what someone can:

K. Hear L. Seen M. Say N. Feel O. Smell

Visible, visionary

Superordinate-Subordinate

Given the name of a concept, the student can select the name of a

Ø Which of the following probably does NOT have to do with light?

Photosynthesis, photon, photograph, photocopy

       

   

195  

concept subordinate to it.

K. Photosynthesis L. Photon M. Photograph N. Planetary O. Photocopy

Ø Which of the following is NOT a word that has to do with family or family members?

K. Maternal L. Paternity M. Thermal N. Matriarch O. Fraternal

Maternal, Paternity, Matriarch, Fraternal

Principle Given the name of two concepts, the student can select the principle which relates them.

Ø The words tripetalous and trilayer both have to do with:

F. Living things G. Three parts H. Mothers and fathers I. The solar system J. Dark colors

Ø The work of

biochemists and bioengineers probably has to do with:

K. Life or living things L. The solar system M. Family relationships N. Technology O. Electricity

Tripetalous and Trilayer Biochemist/ bioengineer

       

   

196  

Appendix  H  –  Nonsense  word  assessment  for  grade  four Name:_____________________________ Date:__________ Teacher:_____________________

That’s Nonsense! DIRECTIONS: Each word below is a nonsense word (a make-believe word). See if you can figure out what the word might mean by breaking it down into its different parts. Draw a picture and then describe your picture.

Nonsense word

My picture

It looks like this because…

EXAMPLE:

autopencil

A pencil that writes by itself

aquaskates

exorain

 

       

   

197  

 

Nonsense word

My picture

It looks like this because…

moneymeter

hydrocar

invertebracow

thermoshoes

   

       

   

198  

Nonsense word

My picture

It looks like this because…

astropants

millistars

symmetrishapes

lunafood

   

       

   

199  

Nonsense word

My picture

It looks like this because…

amphibicat

solarexplorer

terrahouse

       

   

200  

Appendix I – Nonsense word assessment for grade five Name:_____________________________ Date:_________ Teacher:______________________

That’s Nonsense! DIRECTIONS: Each word below is a nonsense word (a make-believe word). See if you can figure out what the word might mean by breaking it down into its different parts. Draw a picture and then describe your picture.

Nonsense word

My picture

It looks like this because…

EXAMPLE:

fratball

Me playing ball with my brother

florabook

biohouse

   

       

   

201  

Nonsense word

My picture

It looks like this because…

omnicolors

trifeet

electrodog

respihelmet

   

       

   

202  

Nonsense word

My picture

It looks like this because…

unistar

visiphone

chocolovore

matricake

   

       

   

203  

Nonsense word

My picture

It looks like this because…

photofood

subdirt

duoflag

       

   

204  

Appendix  J  –  Focus  Group  Questions Four Focus Groups: Grade 4 ELA teachers and special educators, Grade 5 ELA teachers and special educators, Grade 4 Science teachers and special educators, Grade 5 Science teachers and special educators.

Type

Questions

Opening Questions

How long have each of you been teaching? At which school(s) have you taught?

Introduction Questions

How long have you been teaching vocabulary using Greek & Latin word parts? How did you choose and teach vocabulary prior to this? What type of teacher collaboration (ELA and science) is currently present in sharing vocabulary?

Transition Questions

What were your first impressions of using Greek and Latin as part of vocabulary instruction? Has that impression changed? If so, how? What are some instructional strategies that you use? What is their level(s) of success?

Key Questions Have you perceived any changes in student performance in vocabulary acquisition? If so, please describe. Have you perceived any changes in student performance in other literacy skills (fluency, comprehension, etc.)? If so, please describe. Have you noticed any other changes (behavior, motivation, engagement, etc.)? Do you have any evidence of changes (quantitative data, anecdotes, observations, etc.)?

Ending Questions

Are there any changes you would like to make with the vocabulary instruction or content you currently use? If so, what? Is there anything I should have/could have asked that you would like to add?

Follow-up Questions

Based on answers to the above questions

Question types based on Focus Group model by Krueger and Casey (2009).

       

   

205  

Appendix  K  –  Individual  Interview  Questions

Two Individual Interviews: ELA Curriculum Leader, Science Curriculum Leader

Type

Questions (ELA)

Tour Questions Please describe how a typical vocabulary unit is organized from start to finish. Please describe your experience(s) incorporating Greek and Latin into your class(es)?

Main Questions What are problems you have encountered in your vocabulary units? What are successes you have encountered in your vocabulary units? How, if at all, do students apply their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts to acquire vocabulary and/or understand new concepts in ELA? How, if at all, do students hypothesize the meaning of unknown vocabulary utilizing their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts?

Follow up Questions

Based on answers to the above questions

Probes Based on answers to the above questions and the direction of the conversation

Type

Questions (Science)

Tour Questions Please describe how you incorporate vocabulary instruction into a science unit from start to finish. Please describe your experience(s) incorporating Greek and Latin into your class(es)?

Main Questions What are problems you have encountered in your vocabulary instruction? What are successes you have encountered in your vocabulary instruction? How, if at all, do students apply their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts to acquire vocabulary and/or understand new concepts in science? How, if at all, do students hypothesize the meaning of unknown science vocabulary utilizing their understanding of Greek and Latin word parts?

Follow up Questions

Based on answers to the above questions

Probes Based on answers to the above questions and the direction of the conversation Question types based on Responsive Interview model by Rubin and Rubin (2012).

       

   

206  

Appendix L – Answer keys for multiple-choice assessments (Grades four and five)

Grade 4 answer key: Grade 5 answer key:

1. C 1. E 2. C 2. B 3. E 3. D 4. D 4. A 5. A 5. B 6. A 6. A 7. C 7. B 8. A 8. D 9. B 9. D 10. D 10. A 11. D 11. D 12. C 12. A 13. C 13. B 14. A 14. C 15. A 15. C 16. A 16. C 17. D 17. B 18. A 18. B 19. A 19. D 20. B 20. C

       

   

207  

Appendix M – Answer keys for nonsense word assessments (First cycle coding for grades four and five)

Grade 4 answer key: 1. aquaskates – water 2. exorain – outside 3. moneymeter – measure/how much/counts 4. hydrocar – water/moisture 5. invertabracow – backbone/spine 6. thermoshoes – heat/temperature 7. astropants – star 8. millistars – thousands 9. symmetrishapes – similar/same 10. lunafood – moon 11. amphibicat – both (water and land) 12. solarexplorer – sun 13. terrahouse – earth/soil/land

Grade 5 answer key:

1. florabook – flower/plant 2. biohouse – life 3. omnicolors – all/many/multiple 4. trifeet – three 5. electrodog – electric(ity) 6. respihelmet – breathing/air 7. unistar – one/single 8. visiphone – see/sight/look 9. chocolovore – one that eats/feeds 10. matricake – mother 11. photofood – light 12. subdirt – under/below 13. duoflag – two/double

       

   

208  

Appendix N – Nonsense word assessment cycle one coding for all grade four classes

GRADE 4 – Class 4A 4A Code/Totals

? √ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 2 35 0 0 37 Ques 2 Science 11 3 21 2 37

Ques 3 Both 14 14 9 0 37 Ques 4 ELA 2 19 14 2 37

Ques 5 Science 2 27 8 0 37 Ques 6 Both 4 23 8 2 37

Ques 7 ELA 22 3 10 2 37 Ques 8 Science 4 2 28 3 37

Ques 9 Both 25 6 4 2 37 Ques 10 ELA 10 8 15 4 37

Ques 11 Science 20 7 9 1 37 Ques 12 Both 10 10 15 2 37

Ques 13 ELA 1 4 30 2 37

TOTALS 127 161 171 22 459

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

?   √   X   O  

       

   

209  

GRADE 4 – Class 4B 4B Code/Totals

? √ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 2 36 0 1 39

Ques 2 Science 6 7 23 3 39

Ques 3 Both 7 22 9 1 39

Ques 4 ELA 4 15 17 3 39

Ques 5 Science 1 27 8 3 39

Ques 6 Both 3 28 6 2 39

Ques 7 ELA 28 1 7 3 39

Ques 8 Science 16 1 18 4 39

Ques 9 Both 26 4 4 5 39

Ques 10 ELA 11 16 9 3 39

Ques 11 Science 18 11 7 3 39

Ques 12 Both 22 9 5 3 39

Ques 13 ELA 4 7 23 5 39

TOTALS 148 184 136 39 468

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

?   √   X   O  

       

   

210  

GRADE 4 – Class 4C

4C Code/Totals

? √ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 2 35 3 0 40

Ques 2 Science 6 3 29 2 40

Ques 3 Both 14 17 9 0 40

Ques 4 ELA 4 8 27 1 40

Ques 5 Science 3 7 29 1 40

Ques 6 Both 4 29 7 0 40

Ques 7 ELA 31 1 8 0 40

Ques 8 Science 11 1 28 0 40

Ques 9 Both 29 4 7 0 40

Ques10 ELA 5 6 29 0 40

Ques11 Science 15 18 7 0 40

Ques12 Both 28 4 8 0 40

Ques13 ELA 3 6 31 0 40

TOTALS 155 139 222 4 516

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques10  ELA  

Ques11  Science  

Ques12    Both  

Ques13  ELA  

?   √   X   O  

       

   

211  

GRADE 4 – Class 4D 4D Code/Totals

? √ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 1 37 2 0 40

Ques 2 Science 4 1 22 13 40

Ques 3 Both 15 18 6 1 40

Ques 4 ELA 7 21 12 0 40

Ques 5 Science 1 21 12 6 40

Ques 6 Both 3 31 6 0 40

Ques 7 ELA 28 6 5 1 40

Ques 8 Science 9 0 26 5 40

Ques 9 Both 27 2 7 4 40

Ques 10 ELA 13 10 13 4 40

Ques 11 Science 21 16 3 0 40

Ques 12 Both 27 12 1 0 40

Ques 13 ELA 6 3 26 5 40

TOTALS 162 178 141 39 481

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

?   √   X   O  

       

   

212  

GRADE 4 – Class 4E 4E Code/Totals

? √ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 4 29 5 0 38

Ques 2 Science 4 6 27 1 38

Ques 3 Both 8 21 8 1 38

Ques 4 ELA 1 19 17 1 38

Ques 5 Science 5 10 22 1 38

Ques 6 Both 6 25 6 1 38

Ques 7 ELA 25 2 10 1 38

Ques 8 Science 8 1 28 1 38

Ques 9 Both 29 0 8 1 38

Ques 10 ELA 9 8 20 1 38

Ques 11 Science 24 11 2 1 38

Ques 12 Both 27 6 4 1 38

Ques 13 ELA 2 9 26 1 38

TOTALS 152 147 183 12 482

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

?   √   X   O  

       

   

213  

Appendix O – Nonsense word assessment cycle one coding for all grade five classes

GRADE 5 – Class 5A 5A Code/Totals

? √ X O Total ques Ques 1 ELA 2 27 8 0 37 Ques 2 Science 13 17 7 0 37 Ques 3 Both 12 17 5 3 37 Ques 4 ELA 0 28 8 1 37 Ques 5 Science 7 26 4 0 37 Ques 6 Both 4 12 17 4 37 Ques 7 ELA 3 20 11 3 37 Ques 8 Science 10 16 10 1 37 Ques 9 Both 10 12 10 5 37 Ques 10 ELA 5 4 24 4 37 Ques 11 Science 3 9 25 0 37 Ques 12 Both 6 15 16 0 37 Ques 13 ELA 2 28 6 1 37 TOTALS 77 231 151 22 459

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

?   √   X   O  

       

   

214  

GRADE 5 – Class 5B 5B Code/Totals

? √ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 2 30 1 1 34

Ques 2 Science 9 12 7 6 34

Ques 3 Both 16 4 3 11 34

Ques 4 ELA 0 31 0 3 34

Ques 5 Science 8 24 1 1 34

Ques 6 Both 2 8 9 15 34

Ques 7 ELA 3 25 3 3 34

Ques 8 Science 7 11 5 11 34

Ques 9 Both 2 10 3 19 34

Ques 10 ELA 2 5 7 20 34

Ques 11 Science 9 9 11 5 34

Ques 12 Both 2 22 3 7 34

Ques 13 ELA 2 29 1 2 34

TOTALS 64 220 54 104 338

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

?   √   X   O  

       

   

215  

GRADE 5 – Class 5C 5C Code/Totals

? √ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 0 42 1 0 43

Ques 2 Science 11 16 15 1 43

Ques 3 Both 16 15 11 1 43

Ques 4 ELA 0 42 1 0 43

Ques 5 Science 14 28 0 1 43

Ques 6 Both 1 10 30 2 43

Ques 7 ELA 5 32 6 0 43

Ques 8 Science 25 14 3 1 43

Ques 9 Both 15 15 12 1 43

Ques 10 ELA 3 7 31 2 43

Ques 11 Science 7 6 29 1 43

Ques 12 Both 10 18 13 2 43

Ques 13 ELA 6 34 2 1 43

TOTALS 113 279 154 13 546

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

45  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

?   √   X   O  

       

   

216  

GRADE 5 – Class 5D 5D Code/Totals

? √ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 1 37 3 0 41

Ques 2 Science 19 10 12 0 41

Ques 3 Both 19 9 11 2 41

Ques 4 ELA 0 38 2 1 41

Ques 5 Science 15 23 2 1 41

Ques 6 Both 7 14 17 3 41

Ques 7 ELA 5 25 10 1 41

Ques 8 Science 16 13 11 1 41

Ques 9 Both 11 16 11 3 41

Ques 10 ELA 7 8 25 1 41

Ques 11 Science 10 1 28 2 41

Ques 12 Both 11 23 6 1 41

Ques 13 ELA 5 34 0 2 41

TOTALS 126 251 138 18 515

 

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

?   √   X   O  

       

   

217  

GRADE 5 – Class 5E 5E Code/Totals

? √ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 0 32 6 0 38

Ques 2 Science 20 11 7 0 38

Ques 3 Both 18 14 5 1 38

Ques 4 ELA 2 36 0 0 38

Ques 5 Science 10 27 1 0 38

Ques 6 Both 2 9 25 2 38

Ques 7 ELA 8 21 9 0 38

Ques 8 Science 19 15 4 0 38

Ques 9 Both 9 19 10 0 38

Ques 10 ELA 2 10 26 0 38

Ques 11 Science 8 6 24 0 38

Ques 12 Both 7 19 12 0 38

Ques 13 ELA 1 36 1 0 38

TOTALS 106 255 130 3 491

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

?   √   X   O  

       

   

218  

Appendix P – Updated nonsense word assessment after cycle TWO coding for all grade four classes

 GRADE 4 – Class 4A

4A Code/Totals √ X O Total ques Ques 1 ELA 36 1 0 37 Ques 2 Science 5 30 2 37 Ques 3 Both 18 19 0 37 Ques 4 ELA 20 15 2 37 Ques 5 Science 28 9 0 37 Ques 6 Both 23 12 2 37 Ques 7 ELA 5 30 2 37 Ques 8 Science 2 32 3 37 Ques 9 Both 30 5 2 37 Ques 10 ELA 13 20 4 37 Ques 11 Science 18 18 1 37 Ques 12 Both 15 20 2 37 Ques 13 ELA 4 31 2 37 TOTALS 217 242 22 481

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

√   X   O  

       

   

219  

GRADE 4 – Class 4B 4B Code/Totals

√ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 38 0 1 39

Ques 2 Science 11 25 3 39

Ques 3 Both 23 15 1 39

Ques 4 ELA 16 20 3 39

Ques 5 Science 27 9 3 39

Ques 6 Both 28 9 2 39

Ques 7 ELA 3 33 3 39

Ques 8 Science 2 33 4 39

Ques 9 Both 30 4 5 39

Ques 10 ELA 17 19 3 39

Ques 11 Science 26 10 3 39

Ques 12 Both 19 17 3 39

Ques 13 ELA 11 23 5 39

TOTALS 251 217 39 507

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

√   X   O  

       

   

220  

GRADE 4 – Class 4C 4C Code/Totals

√ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 36 4 0 40

Ques 2 Science 6 32 2 40

Ques 3 Both 18 22 0 40

Ques 4 ELA 9 30 1 40

Ques 5 Science 10 29 1 40

Ques 6 Both 32 8 0 40

Ques 7 ELA 8 32 0 40

Ques 8 Science 1 39 0 40

Ques 9 Both 26 14 0 40

Ques 10 ELA 8 32 0 40

Ques 11 Science 33 7 0 40

Ques 12 Both 10 30 0 40

Ques 13 ELA 7 33 0 40

TOTALS 204 312 4 520

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

45  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

√   X   O  

       

   

221  

GRADE 4 – Class 4D 4D Code/Totals

√ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 37 3 0 40

Ques 2 Science 3 24 13 40

Ques 3 Both 20 19 1 40

Ques 4 ELA 26 14 0 40

Ques 5 Science 21 13 6 40

Ques 6 Both 31 9 0 40

Ques 7 ELA 14 25 1 40

Ques 8 Science 0 35 5 40

Ques 9 Both 23 13 4 40

Ques 10 ELA 11 25 4 40

Ques 11 Science 30 10 0 40

Ques 12 Both 25 15 0 40

Ques 13 ELA 8 27 5 40

TOTALS 249 232 39 520

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

√   X   O  

       

   

222  

GRADE 4 – Class 4E 4E Code/Totals

√ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 33 5 0 38

Ques 2 Science 10 27 1 38

Ques 3 Both 21 16 1 38

Ques 4 ELA 19 18 1 38

Ques 5 Science 13 24 1 38

Ques 6 Both 26 11 1 38

Ques 7 ELA 9 28 1 38

Ques 8 Science 1 36 1 38

Ques 9 Both 23 14 1 38

Ques 10 ELA 9 28 1 38

Ques 11 Science 29 8 1 38

Ques 12 Both 11 26 1 38

Ques 13 ELA 10 27 1 38

TOTALS 214 268 12 494

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

√   X   O  

       

   

223  

Appendix Q – Updated nonsense word assessment after cycle TWO coding for all grade five classes

GRADE 5 – Class 5A 5A Code/Totals

√ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 27 10 0 37

Ques 2 Science 23 14 0 37

Ques 3 Both 27 7 3 37

Ques 4 ELA 28 8 1 37

Ques 5 Science 29 8 0 37

Ques 6 Both 14 19 4 37

Ques 7 ELA 22 12 3 37

Ques 8 Science 19 17 1 37

Ques 9 Both 14 18 5 37

Ques 10 ELA 5 28 4 37

Ques 11 Science 9 28 0 37

Ques 12 Both 19 18 0 37

Ques 13 ELA 30 6 1 37

TOTALS 266 193 22 481

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    

Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

√   X   O  

       

   

224  

GRADE 5 – Class 5B 5B Code/Totals

√ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 32 1 1 34

Ques 2 Science 15 13 6 34

Ques 3 Both 11 12 11 34

Ques 4 ELA 31 0 3 34

Ques 5 Science 30 3 1 34

Ques 6 Both 9 10 15 34

Ques 7 ELA 28 3 3 34

Ques 8 Science 15 8 11 34

Ques 9 Both 10 5 19 34

Ques 10 ELA 6 8 20 34

Ques 11 Science 17 12 5 34

Ques 12 Both 24 3 7 34

Ques 13 ELA 31 1 2 34

TOTALS 259 79 104 442

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

√   X   O  

       

   

225  

GRADE 5 – Class 5C 5C Code/Totals

√ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 42 1 0 43

Ques 2 Science 24 18 1 43

Ques 3 Both 26 16 1 43

Ques 4 ELA 42 1 0 43

Ques 5 Science 37 5 1 43

Ques 6 Both 10 31 2 43

Ques 7 ELA 33 10 0 43

Ques 8 Science 22 20 1 43

Ques 9 Both 18 24 1 43

Ques 10 ELA 9 32 2 43

Ques 11 Science 9 33 1 43

Ques 12 Both 26 15 2 43

Ques 13 ELA 40 2 1 43

TOTALS 338 208 13 559

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

45  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

√   X   O  

       

   

226  

GRADE 5 – Class 5D 5D Code/Totals

√ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 37 4 0 41

Ques 2 Science 21 20 0 41

Ques 3 Both 24 15 2 41

Ques 4 ELA 38 2 1 41

Ques 5 Science 32 8 1 41

Ques 6 Both 17 21 3 41

Ques 7 ELA 30 10 1 41

Ques 8 Science 20 20 1 41

Ques 9 Both 18 20 3 41

Ques 10 ELA 14 26 1 41

Ques 11 Science 4 35 2 41

Ques 12 Both 34 6 1 41

Ques 13 ELA 37 2 2 41

TOTALS 326 189 18 533

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

√   X   O  

       

   

227  

GRADE 5 – Class 5E 5E Code/Totals

√ X O Total ques

Ques 1 ELA 32 6 0 38

Ques 2 Science 23 15 0 38

Ques 3 Both 28 9 1 38

Ques 4 ELA 38 0 0 38

Ques 5 Science 33 5 0 38

Ques 6 Both 9 27 2 38

Ques 7 ELA 28 10 0 38

Ques 8 Science 24 14 0 38

Ques 9 Both 20 18 0 38

Ques 10 ELA 11 27 0 38

Ques 11 Science 10 28 0 38

Ques 12 Both 26 12 0 38

Ques 13 ELA 37 1 0 38

TOTALS 319 172 3 494

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Ques  1    ELA  

Ques  2    Science  

Ques  3    Both  

Ques  4    ELA  

Ques  5    Science  

Ques  6    Both  

Ques  7    ELA  

Ques  8    Science  

Ques  9    Both  

Ques  10    ELA  

Ques  11    Science  

Ques  12    Both  

Ques  13    ELA  

√   X   O