Vocabulary Curriculum

7/31/2019 Vocabulary Curriculum

1/9

The Importance of a Vocabulary Rich CurriculumDaniel Anderson Behavioral Research and Teaching

How do you teach a person to read? There are varying theories and dogmas abound, and

no single method will always work with every student. But generally, the point of instructing

students on reading is to get them to comprehend the text they are interacting with. Fluency,

phonemic-awareness, decoding; these are all strategies to get at the end game comprehension.

Knowing this, we can ask which factors influence reading comprehension the most? This is not

an easy question, as some skills may be prerequisites to others (i.e. one cannot be fluent with text

without first being able to decode it), while other skills may only influence comprehension to a

point (i.e. once you are a fluent reader, you do not comprehend text better by becoming more

fluent). Vocabulary, however, is not a developmental concept, and it influences comprehension

at all reading levels (Kamil & Hiebert, 2005). Even as adults, our vocabulary knowledge plays a

large role in comprehension. For instance, if you have gone to medical school, you may have

little problem comprehending an article on cytoreductive hepatic surgery, given that you have

knowledge of the vocabulary within it. Without the vocabulary knowledge, the article may as

well be written in a foreign language, as it will be nearly impossible to form connections to the

text if the majority of words are incomprehensible.

Vocabulary thus plays an interesting role in reading comprehension because it is a

continual process and non-developmental in nature (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; National Reading

Panel, 2000). So when should instruction begin to focus on vocabulary explicitly? In current

practice, it often does not begin until after the primary grades (Biemiller & Boote, 2006). The

National Reading Panel (2000), reviewed 50 studies on vocabulary, comprising 73 different

student samples. Of these 73 samples, only 14 appeared in grades K-2. When listing possible

explanations for this disparity, the authors state that:


2/9

Teaching of vocabulary is often not separate from other instruction in the early grades. As

students begin to read content material [in the upper grades] they may need to learn

vocabulary specific to the material, giving rise to the instructional need for vocabulary

learning. Another possibility is that much of early reading is, at least theoretically, done

with texts that do not exceed the vocabularies of most early readers. In this event, there

would be little need for vocabulary instruction (p. 4-18).

Yet, Biemiller and colleagues (2005; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Biemiller & Slonim,

2001) argue that vocabulary instruction mustbe focused on explicitly in the early grades; stating

that the number of root word meanings acquired by the end of second grade (end of primary

years) can differ substantially. The number of root word meanings (words with all affixes

removed) acquired then corresponds to later levels of achievement (Biemiller, 2005). Students in

the lowest quartile of root word meaning acquisition by the end of second grade typically have

around 4,000 words at their disposal, while average students have around 6,000, and students in

the highest quartile around 8,000 (Biemiller & Boote; Biemiller & Slonim). These disparities are

large and are a major predictor of reading levels in later grades. After grade two, students

typically acquire around 1,000 root words per year; meaning those in the lowest quartile enter

third grade two years behind their peers acquiring words at an average rate and four years behind

those at the upper quartile (Biemiller & Boote). Cunningham and Stanovich (1997) found these

gaps do not disappear with later schooling. They found that over 30% of the variance in 11 th

grade reading comprehension scores could be accounted for by the students vocabulary

knowledge in first grade. While some (Christian, Morrison, Frazier, & Massetti, 2000) have

found that school plays little to no role in vocabulary knowledge in the primary grades, evidence


3/9

suggests (Biemiller & Boote, 2006) that the gap between student groups can be narrowed by

focusing instruction explicitly on vocabulary in the primary grades.

Focusing Instruction on Vocabulary

To be able to effectively explore vocabulary, we must first be clear about what exactly it

is and what different types there are. Simply put, vocabulary is knowledge of words. However,

words may be communicated orally or by print (Kamil & Hiebert, 2005). The knowledge an

individual has on a particular word may vary by the way it is communicated (i.e. one may

understand a word when it is spoken, but not when read). Further, according to Kamil and

Hiebert, (2005) knowledge of words also comes in at least two forms, receptive that which we

can understand or recognize and productive the vocabulary we use when we write or speak

(p. 3). At first glance, this confluence of ideas may seem to muddle the simple question of Is

this word in Johnnys vocabulary? However, once the idea of students interacting with words

differently by usage or setting is grasped, it may help target the instruction. For instance, if a

student is struggling with a word in a book, do they know what it means when it is spoken out

loud? If so, do they understand it well enough to be able to use it productively, or only

receptively through oral communication? Further, if the students can read the words easily, are

they actually able to understand the word receptively, or are they simply decoding the words

appropriately, and can they then use that word productively through either oral or written

communication?

Choosing which words to study. There are quite literally hundreds of thousands of

words in the English language. Deciding which are most appropriate for the students of a given

class can be a formidable challenge. For instance, should instruction be focused on unusual

words that the student may not otherwise encounter? Or, by contrast, should instruction be


4/9

focused on unfamiliar words that are common in both oral and written communication? As

Hiebert (2005) illustrates, many textbooks take the former approach. When reviewing a passage

from a fourth grade textbook, Hiebert states, of the 24 words that are highlighted for vocabulary

instruction of this text in the teachers edition, 11 would be expected to have one or fewer

appearances per one-million-word corpus of school texts from kindergarten through college (p.

243). Given their infrequent use, are these words really where instruction should be focused?

Much research has been conducted on the typical sequence of language acquisition

(Biemiller, 2005; Biemiller & Slonim, 2001). Just as one would expect a first grader to be around

a particular height and a second grader to be slightly taller, research has begun to expose the

typical rate at which students acquire words (Biemiller & Slonim, 2001). Of course, this does not

mean that we should expect all students to have the same developmental lexicon, just as we

would not expect all students to be the same height. But knowing what is typical can help bring

out red flags for students who are substantially behind where we would expect them to be.

Further, it can highlight which words should be the focus of instruction and when. Rather than

choosing a vocabulary curriculum with many obscure words, the most important vocabulary

sequence could be mapped into a curriculum that makes developmental sense. There is even

preliminary evidence that these same vocabulary develop at around the same times in different

languages (Biemiller & Slonim).

How to instruct vocabulary. Knowledge on typical language acquisition could form the

basis for a coherent vocabulary curriculum, but it still does not speak to how the teacher should

instruct students on vocabulary. Unlike decoding or other literacy skills, there is no established

method or sequence for teaching vocabulary (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; National Reading Panel,

2000). There are, however, many promising practices. Most of the research evidence supports a


5/9

direct instruction approach, with vocabulary being taught explicitly by the teacher through

modeling and guided practice (Carnine, Silbert, Kame'enui, & Tarver, 2010; Marzano &

Marzano, 1988; National Reading Panel, 2000). However, given the sheer size of the English

vocabulary, it is unfeasible to expect every relevant vocabulary word to be taught directly. Some

(Bromley, 2007; Hennings, 2000; Marzano & Marzano) have suggested teaching words with

common origins in clusters. In this way, words are taught directly, time is saved, and the student

is able to make more connections with the words.

All words are constructed with morphemes, which are the smallest linguistic units that

have meaning (Carnine, et al., 2010, p. 202). A teacher may instruct students on the morpheme

able by first telling students the meaning of able in terms they can understand. The teacher

could then model how knowing this morpheme can help find the meaning of unknown words.

For instance, the teacher could state, Able usually means having an ability to do something. If

attach means to connect, what does attachable mean? The teacher would then guide the

students into the meaning of having the ability to connect. It is important to note, however, that

teaching morphemes has many limitations. It can often be difficult to transfer the meanings of

morphemes into terms the student can understand. Many morphemes have two or more

meanings, and even if students have the root word knowledge they may struggle with parsing out

the morpheme from the word as a whole.

There is a considerable amount of research that suggests vocabulary provided in context

improves understanding (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Carnine, et al., 2010; Nagy, 2006).

According to Nagy (2006) intensive or rich vocabulary instruction requires giving students both

definitional and contextual informationand providing them with opportunities to process this

information deeply by applying it in ways that require creativity and connections with their


6/9

existing knowledge (p. 28). Using this method, Biemiller and Boote (2006) found that

kindergarten and first grade students learned about 4 words per week. In the same study, the

authors investigated the effect of repeated oral readings with explanations and reviews of words

unknown to the students. Students instructed with this approach learned 8-12 words per week on

average. This is substantially above the norm for vocabulary development at this age (Biemiller

& Slonim, 2001) and could result in an additional 1,000-1,500 known vocabulary words by the

end of the primary years.

According to Bromley (2007), language acquisition typically stems from oral

communication and grows into written communication. This suggests that appropriate activities

for building vocabulary would include reading aloud to students frequently, playing oral

vocabulary games, and facilitating discussions about unfamiliar words. This is particularly

relevant given that Biemiller and Slonim (2001) found that past grade 3, 95% of students can

read more words than they can define (see Biemiller, 2005 for a more clear representation of this

concept with the data). This highlights the focus of many instructional approaches word

recognition. Word recognition is, of course, an important skill worth teaching given that if

students cannot recognize a word in text, they simply cannot read. But if the instruction does not

go beyond recognition, then the meaning of the text may be lost. A balance must be struck

between teaching word recognition and word understanding.

Where To From Here?

There is still a lot of work that needs to be done by both practitioners and researchers in

the future. From a research perspective, more studies like Biemiller and Slonim (2001) need to

be conducted to establish what words are developmentally appropriate for students at different

grade levels. This information should then be used in conjunction with curriculum developers to


7/9

create materials that target meaningful words, instead of obscure words that are used infrequently

in written or oral communications (Hiebert, 2005). Further, more research needs to be completed

on teaching methods to establish which are most effective for boosting vocabulary acquisition.

Much has been learned about vocabulary. As a whole, researchers need to do a better job of

communicating this information to practitioners where it can be put to use. From a practitioner

standpoint, more of a commitment needs to be given to vocabulary. Its impact on reading

comprehension should be recognized and given the same level of attention as other areas of

reading. Direct vocabulary instruction should be integrated with the daily language arts

curriculum. That this is not currently the case is not an indictment on teachers. Rather, it is to

suggest that a sizeable gap exists between what research has shown and what many teachers

believe to be effective in reading instruction for comprehension. Both researchers and

practitioners can do a better job in the future, but it must first begin with a commitment to the

importance of vocabulary development.


8/9

References

Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in vocabulary development: Implications for choosing

words for primary grade vocabulary instruction. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.),

Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building vocabulary in primary

grades.Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44-62. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.44

Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and

advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498-520. doi: I0.1037//0022-0663.93.3.498

Bromley, K. (2007). Nine things every teacher should know about words and vocabulary

instruction.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(7), 528-537. doi:

10.1598/JAAL.50.7.2

Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame'enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2010).Direct instruction reading

(Fifth ed.). Boston, MA: Merrill.

Christian, K., Morrison, F. J., Frazier, J. A., & Massetti, G. (2000). Specificity in the nature and

timing of cognitive growth in kindergarten and first grade.Journal of Cognition and

Development, 1, 429-448. doi: 10.1207/S15327647JCD0104_04

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to

reading experience and ability 10 years later.Developmental Psychology, 33, 934-945.

Hennings, D. G. (2000). Contextually relevant word study: Adolescent vocabulary development

across the curriculum.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(3), 268-279.


9/9

Hiebert, E. H. (2005). In pursuit of an effective, efficient vocabulary curriculum for elementary

students. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary:

Bringing research to practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kamil, M. L., & Hiebert, E. H. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary: Perspectives and

persistent issues. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary:

Bringing research to practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. S. (1988).A cluster approach to elementary vocabulary

instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Nagy, W. E. (2006). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive. In E.

H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary. Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the

scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction .

Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Documents

Vocabulary Curriculum