Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.


Word Meanings Matter: Cultivating English Vocabulary Knowledge in Fifth-Grade SpanishSpeaking Language Minority Learners
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 4 (December 2010), pp. 669-699
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27896759 .
Accessed: 12/12/2014 18:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.


Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.


This content downloaded from on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Word Meanings Matter: Cultivating
English Vocabulary Knowledge in Fifth
Grade Spanish-Speaking Language
Minority Learners
UniversityofIllinois at Chicago
Chicago, Illinois, United States

This pilot study investigated the effects of a 20-week quasiexperimental
vocabulary intervention aimed at improving Spanish-speaking language




49) in a
samples of fifth graders (N







Participants were twomatched





analyses revealed that the treatment group gained knowledge of a
larger number of targetwords than did the contrast group and that the









own word knowledge. Further, individual growth modeling revealed
the treatment students' overall writing quality improved over the course











part of the intervention, and improvements in students' writing quality
were larger during the last 10 weeks of the intervention. The need for
purposeful activities that provide students with authentic contexts to




dot: 10.5054/tq.2010.213782




is discussed.

are approximately
98 million ethnic minority group members
in the United
States, with
There (or
country's population)
growing segment of this
the past 30 years the
number of school-age children who spoke a language other than English
at home, known as language minority
learners, nearly tripled
to 10.6 million; U.S. Department
of Education,
(3.8 million

Statistics, NCES,
2007a), with Spanish being the
have clear and immediate
as the number
of Latino
Carlson, Asencio, & Miller, 2002). Of concern is that this
LM learners accounts
of Spanish-speaking
rapidly growing population

Center for Education
most common home



Vol. 44, No. 4, December


This content downloaded from on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


for a disproportionate
of struggling comprehenders
& Shanahan,
2006; NCES,
2007b). Given that Latino families continue
to be overrepresented
8c Paez,
among America's
with poor academic
(Hart 8c Risley, 1995), a considerable

of Spanish-speaking
students is doubly at-risk for
school failure. It is beyond
the scope of this article to attempt to
status on
the effect of LM status from low socioeconomic
student academic outcomes, but it is clear that these variables tend to be
to successful academic
creating compounding
outcomes for the growing population
of low-income LM students. Many
factors are associated
with LM
continue to emerge
difficulties, but low levels
vocabulary knowledge
as key impediments
to successful comprehension
(Garcia, 1991; Nagy,

of Health
and Human
1997; Stahl 8c Nagy, 2006; U.S. Department
Institutes of Health, National
Institute of Child Health
Services, National
and Human Development,
2000; Verhoeven,
1990). Despite

link between vocabulary and comprehension
strong and well-established
(Anderson 8c Freebody, 1981; Anderson & Nagy, 1991; U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educational
and Improvement, RAND
past 20 years relatively few
Study Group,
on the effectiveness of
researchers have conducted
(August 8c Shanahan,
8c Cheung,
2005). The
this research
by assessing
study strengthens
to improve
effectiveness of a pilot vocabulary
intervention designed
fifth-grade (ages

10-11 years) LM


literacy outcomes.

the poor academic outcomes of many LM learners at
all grade levels, reading research has tended to focus on the reading
of young monolingual
(e.g., NICHD,
2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), and that which has been conducted
with LM learners has similarly focused on young children (for a review,
see Lesaux,
2006). Thus
Siegel, & Shanahan,

have focused more

on word

skills. However,


skills than vocabulary and
finds that LM

learners tend to develop relatively strong word reading skills, but often
without the necessary
skills to support comprehension
& Gough,
1990; Hutchinson,
Smith, & Connors,
2003; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow,

Proctor, August,




2006; Verhoeven,

1990, 2000).


This content downloaded from on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the sentences containing the target words were unconnected).000 (Nagy & Herman. group) received vocabulary instruction focused in meaningful paragraphs Specifically. 1987). they learned the target words the target words formed narratives). the sentences containing were provided with picture cards of the target words that illustrated their and they dictated their own sentences using the target words.Thus a distinction between word and knowledge of the reading of the in words read is under meanings being especially important LM It learners' is estimated that students standing literacy development. a called suggestopedia (a language Spanish speakers.e. and the groups performed experimental better than the control. at least 95% of the need to know (not simply recognize and/or decode) in text for successful comprehension words they encounter (Calder?n et al. reading text and answering questions).. the early vocabulary knowledge that many Considering disadvantage LM learners face. Calder?n and (2005) colleagues significantly third graders' word learning. Nation. Carlo et al. they (i. Over the course of 3 weeks.000 (Goulden. Spanish-dominant were to both groups. meanings. In this study.e.e. and only one (Carlo et al. Biemiller. explicit vocabulary to contribute to word found 2003). 1986. but likewise investigated Spanish-speaking the major goal of their 22. Lipson & Wixson..g. Ramirez. the other group received instruction (the control group) focused on individual sentence contexts (i. showed meanings. Perez. & Read. students.. 1990) to 3.to 25-week intervention (an adaptation of the Success for All reading program) was on facilitating students' Spanish-to WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82. 2004) has targeted Vaughn-Shavuo.. Estimates of words learned during a typical school year range from 1. (Calder?n 1990). 2004. Ten words were learning) taught per day in 40-min lessons over the course of 4 days.134 on Fri. only on LM five vocabulary intervention studies have focused learners et al. a sole reliance on incidental vocabulary learning for this group of learners is both impractical and negligent.. Perez's min of oral instruction group receiving 20 experimental daily language on word over the course of about 3 months.77.33. However. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 671 .. 2003). Group one (the experimental 31 words presented on elaborated meanings. upper-elementary (1990) doctoral dissertation Vaughn-Shavuo's investigated the effect of vocabulary instruction by randomly assigning two groups of first-grade children to two groups. In contrast. although clearly most of these words are learned instruction has also been incidentally.. method to that uses music to create an atmosphere conducive learning method was used. 2005. 2005. learning (e.. In another that the work with third graders revealed (1981) study. on over word the group receiving significant improvements learning The (i. Results showed that the experi mental group learned more words than the control group. regular instruction on third vocabulary also focused 1986) third-grade study (Ramirez. 1981.

suggesting that a central role in students' writing background knowledge plays quality. but findings to date point to role of vocabulary instruction to improve LM learners' the promising the Further. strong and significant correlation vocabulary knowledge. Verhoeven. Hutchinson Verhoeven. improvements The scope of vocabulary intervention work with LM learners is sparse. Foorman. 1990. familiarity with the writing topic is related to writing performance.an transition from a Spanish reading program. significant in both domains.33. Finally. writing one assessment Education revealed that about Progress writing only quarter of 4th. expect monolingual English-speaking to be the National Assessment of 2002 greatly impeded. and 12th graders performed at or above the proficient level in writing (NCES. background knowledge to postulate It seems reasonable that vocabulary instruction might result in improved writing outcomes. but even more troubling is the fact that substantial differences emerged when examining the data by ethnicity: At all grade levels.. 1990. vocabulary was a major focus. 2000) suggests that 2003. 8th. as 30 min were to oral activities around devoted revolving grade-level language on children's literature. but there is a surprisingly limited research base on the effect of vocabulary instruction on students' 672 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82. 8c Taylor. & & Hoover 2003. even though vocabulary might be expected to also impact writing.and fourth-grade monolingual English speak ers suggests that limited vocabulary knowledge to depen contributes dence on repetitive uses of the same words and thus to underelaboration of thoughts and ideas in writing (Moats. while the fifth-grade Spanish-speaking They a was to 3045-min intervention of their greater on day impact on were there than vocabulary reading comprehension. However. vocabulary. Thus. Further. on average. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 2005. in the 90-min lessons. Some work with third. which an role in evaluating students' academic increasingly prominent a after the limitation in the field is that primary grades. key performance none of the vocabulary to date have intervention studies conducted plays examined writing outcomes. Their results revealed modest positive effects most and Carlo and students' English recently. between vocabulary and reading comprehension among LM learners et al. English additional goal of the intervention was on building English vocabulary. note and Saddler Graham that writers' (2007) Additionally. (Droop Gough. most notably beyond the primary grades. Proctor et al.77. LM Because learners tend to have more limited vocabularies and interrelated than their (two highly areas) we can LM students' counterparts. 2004). while Blacks and Latinos scored near the 25% percen tile. a 15-week vocabulary intervention with conducted (2004) colleagues LM learners.134 on Fri.. Indeed. 2006. Whites and Asians scored above the 50% percentile. 2006). found that. LM learners can benefit from targeted vocabulary instruction.

for Spanish-speaking only relationship four studies have directly investigated of the writing development LM learners & Prater. that can be made limiting the generalizations use other two studies investigated productive in The vocabulary school intermediate multinative among secondary writing language in Canada. 2003. Because receptive vocabulary knowledge generally precedes produc tive vocabulary knowledge 1996. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 673 . Notwithstanding. However. in writing represents growth in science of newly taught vocabulary knowledge and also indicates that students have productive control over an analysis of whether science vocabulary. 1990. relationship potential between vocabulary and writing development. Nation. very few studies have examined students' use of newly taught vocabulary in writing (Bravo 8c Tilson. students' overall science was not conducted. Davis. 2006). students indeed find that a key determinant in nonnative English speakers' overall writing quality is vocabulary (e. As part of a larger study an the effects of examining integrated science-literacy curriculum. Leki & Carson. that students. and Pearson. in the writing of (2003) investigated correct usage of target vocabulary writing WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82. tentative conclusions about the impact of vocabulary instruction on students' writing and particularly difficult to ascertain the nature of this LM learners.134 on Fri.. (Bermudez Spanish-speaking & Beeman. finding that students spontaneously used vocabulary use in science words their The authors that suggest newly taught writing. Students need vocabulary to write. 1985. lack of empirical research Raimes.77. students Lee English-as-a-second-language Specifically. To date.and third-grade students' use of (2006) analyzed in writing. Muncie. & Snow. greatly limiting the that can be drawn from EFL work to the LM learner generalizations EFL studies with college school-age population. Carlisle.33. 1987. even amongst native-English-speaking populations even 8c is to Graham It thus difficult draw Perin. Graves. to LM learners. Bravo and Tilson second.g. Lee & 2006. Walters & Wolf. Hiebert. but the only evidence available on the role of vocabulary in comes second from language writing English-as-a-foreign-language context of LM learners differs (EFL) college students. (Laufer. Lanauze none of these studies examined the However. To my knowledge. it can be expected to actively in particular LM learners. 1989). will require ample opportunities use newly are in oral able to use taught vocabulary language before they the new words in their writing. The investigating this potential relationship amongst the large and growing of school-age LM learners is a major limitation in the literacy population research field. 1998. showed and the quality improvements were of in this students White native study majority English speakers. Lee. 2007). The educational in substantive ways from that of older EFL students. 1994. Ferris & Politzer. 1994. & Kamil. 1981. Meara. 1999.(Duin 8c writing. 2007). 1996).

The goal of explicit instruction is for students to learn the meanings of words across various contexts to ultimately Researchers agree that the specific improve their literacy outcomes. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . To adequately the explore on of vocabulary instruction students' outcomes. and to target vocabulary increase students' productive vocabulary exposure use in like the other two studies. and developmentally (see Beck et al. However.134 on Fri.g. (2003) investigate the effects in reading instruction on students' overall of vocabulary encountered considered the relationship between writing quality. direct. noting are needed.33. student income levels writing. cross-disciplinary. methods incidental and structured instruction. and Lee and Muncie 48) (2006) investigated learners' (N use of target vocabulary and how their target vocabulary use influenced their lexical frequency profile (see Laufer 8c Nation. other words. for one widely appropriate used 674 system for selecting words). were not reported. 2001. discussion and negotiation. there is reason to believe that vocabulary instruction may indeed be a step in the right direction to improve the writing skills of LM learners. to aid students' words to be taught should be guided by their potential text of and that words students are and/or concepts understanding to encounter should be likely relatively frequently targeted (e. vocabulary of Effective instruction Vocabulary components and strategies must Instruction that there is no single best research (2000) concluded method for vocabulary that a variety of instruction. for details).= 65 students. Drawing on research to date. in writing quality. Nation. Lee and Muncie use in encountered and learners' of the vocabulary reading vocabulary in writing. Beck. not Like Bravo and Tilson Lee did (2006). the limited number and limited scope of studies exploring Despite the relationship between vocabulary instruction and writing. finding that improvements including teacher elicitation. & Kucan. 2002. In McKeown. words to be taught should be functional. literacy research-based be attended Components to. two reasonable hypotheses are that (1) LM learners will use to do so on newly taught words in their writing z/given opportunities a consistent learners' effects instruction will strengthen LM basis. Biemiller & Slonim. 2001). explicit explanation. including to is indirect instruction vital any program aiming to develop Although students' vocabulary. effectively limiting our understanding of whether can be expected to be replicated these findings with low-income populations.. 2002.. TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82. carefully designed instruction is also an The NICHD based integral part of the puzzle. 1995.77. and (2) vocabulary overall writing quality over time.

to hear and use academic than language native English speakers. strengthened. primary grades Latino students write at the below basiclevel (NCES. is learners' Fifth school year to literacy optimal grade more enter the before students intervene.134 on Fri. Considering for LM learners must target students' language instruction vocabulary skills not only more intensively. do the treatment or (1) Following contrast group students gain knowledge of of a greater number targeted words? (2) In the treatment group's weekly student essays. Because exposure to academic is largely confined to the regular school day for language LM learners arguably need more both learners. academically demanding middle school grades when rapidly fall struggling comprehenders in all content areas. over one-quarter for all of students and. do over the course use the students of the 20-week target vocabulary WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82. 2004) but serve to bolster their overall background that also knowledge... but also more broadly. the target vocabulary for instruction should be presented in meaningful. LM opportunities. Further. Writing becomes after the on average. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 675 . 2003). engaging contexts that are not only relevant to students' interests (e. being taught taught words in writing may foster learning of the words.33. to write on a consistent basis LM learners by giving ample opportunities as part of a vocabulary program. The vocabulary program piloted in on effective vocabulary this study draws from the research base instruction and rests on the premise that vocabulary instruction can to be 10-11 improve fifth-grade (ages years) LM expected reasonably an outcomes. The study addressed the following further behind research questions: the 20-week vocabulary intervention. LM students with limited vocabularies are very disadvantaged academically. both orally with opportunities a major form of evaluation and in writing. incidental and structured. Carlo et al. Finally. their understanding of the words they are use of newly That sheer will be the is.77. PRESENT STUDY Given that LM students tend to have both less breadth and less depth of vocabulary knowledge and knowing that vocabulary is strongly related to students' overall school success.g. effective vocabulary programs for LM learners should of word target the development specifically consciousness and of word learning strategies to help LM learners catch up with monolingual English speakers. Itmay be that.the more limited vocabulary levels of many LM learners. an area that is seldom attended to is ensuring that students are provided to actively use newly taught vocabulary. what is the extent of use word target vocabulary intervention? Specifically. Additionally.

Except for the number of two students 676 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82.. and researchers an urban K-8 school serving a 91% Latino. low-income. English for recent immigrants and thus did not participate.134 on Fri. is there any change in the quality (e. of and academic the coherence use) essays over time? language METHOD Research Context taken from one in the school study were in an on-going study designed States participating This students' school.77.g. pilot study exploring preliminary intervention. primary concern designated special and teachers centered on students' low levels of vocabulary knowledge outcomes. 53 students in the two mainstream classrooms participated.33. a is the Research School. Seventy-nine percent of the student body is LM (Spanish). and bringing well-established research knowledge practice The data Northeastern to improve for this United this SERP partnership. or is their use confined to words taught in the current week? Further. The Mystic School is 91% low-income population. SERP is the with (SERP) Partnership organization overarching the wisdom of by acknowledging goal of improving student outcomes to bear. urban K-8 (fifth grade) to carefully monitor school in the Northeast the implementation of the intervention. There were only three fifth-grade classrooms in this school. projects. served as the treatment group and the other as the classroom classroom group. thus the final sample for statistical analyses consisted of 24 students from the treatment and 25 from the contrast classroom. pseudonym Mystic Strategic Education an site. poor reading comprehension and Design Participants a matched-control pilot study employed quasiexperimental a As the of a vocabulary effects design. piloting of the intervention was limited to one grade level in the same predominantly Latino. This two were mainstream contained One contrast All and the other was a self classrooms. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . known by the literacy outcomes. but treatment two from the students from the contrast and classroom transferred to other schools during the intervention.words cumulatively. and middle-school Within upper-elementary teachers from the participating schools attend cross-university research collaborate with the teachers on research seminars. with 46% designated limited English proficient and 8% The of the Mystic education.

but not in spoken language. starting in January 2007 and ending in May 2007.28 23 21 1 3 0 5.07 0. Catherine Snow.134 on Fri. with more in the treatment classroom. approach literacy Intervention Overview and Implementation a SERP collaborative Word Generation (WG).32 9 16 5.01 7 0 0 1 First language 23 Spanish 1 English/other Formerly limited English Yes 17 proficient No 7 1 to classrooms and thus the greater Students at the Mystic School are randomly assigned number of limited-English-proficient students in the treatment group compared with the contrast group happened by chance. (2) cultivating general word and world TABLE 1 Characteristics Background of Treatment Treatment Gender Female Male Race Latino Black White Asian and Contrast (n = 24) Group Contrast Students {n = (N = 49) p value 25) 17 14 11 1.17 22 3 1.students formerly identified as limited English proficient. in an effort to improve literacy outcomes. is a research-based to build students' academic intervention designed 20-week vocabulary vocabulary across the content areas.77. students. Academic vocabulary refers towords in textbooks and on tests (e. WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82.97 0.. are The (1) building following components emphasized: vocabulary knowledge through repeated exposure to frequently occurring academic in various words contexts. The treatment group received the 20-week intervention. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 677 . developed through effort under the leadership of Dr. language (see Table 1).16 0.00 0.g. and especially LM learners. on at least in this instruction school district centered Regular literacy a of the reading 80 min model in which and writing workshop to "balanced" instruction is followed.33. district-wide group literacy instruction. gender. Without explicit instruction on these types of words. while the contrast continued with the regular. students' academic vocabulary. infer that students are likely to encounter and element). are likely to The goal ofWG is to increase experience difficulty with comprehension.1 in there were no significant differences across and first the characteristics classrooms race.

. The to of words be learned in the context five high-utility target presentation in the of brief passages outlining controversies currently under debate inmath and science United States (ranging from the abilities of women are therefore relevant to a to global warming). and the multiple exposures Word different contexts (e. Thus the following are key features of theWG intervention: revoicing by the teacher (i. interpretation position).. 678 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82. The main criteria in selecting the 100 target words were that they be high A for the and cross-disciplinary (see Appendix utility. The WG ample opportunities materials include a teacher's guide that explains the structure of the a set of 20 engaging and rationale behind it. high-functional. or another student's position in having other students repeat paraphrase order to check on their interpretation of the statement)..html WG. math and history) seek to provide students with for deeper understanding of the words.e. and (3) engaging students in core program centers on the weekly weekly persuasive writing. repeating a student's utterance with the purpose of checking back with them for clearer or statement of their student repetition (i. because were specifically developed for use with middle school students (grades 6-8).e. the end-of-week writing activity 2 are written at a 6th grade The WG paragraphs theWG materials readability level.77.e. wordgeneration.33. which topics journalistic paragraphs connect to real word issues and to students' lives.knowledge. are less inclined to join whole (i. Finally.2 The 100 target words areas were and and selected from the Academic of range settings subject as a support List (Coxhead. as well as word study strategies. full list of WG words).134 on Fri. which was originally developed for instruction to college-level nonnative English speakers and does not include words that are in the most frequent 2. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . brief instructional activities associated with weekly topics and target words. including access for more to the Teacher's detailed Guide information and a sample about weekly lesson). giving students who group to talk with a partner to ensure that all discussions the opportunity students are on the same page). The cross-content focus on a small number of words each week aims to enable students to understand the variety of to words in ways in which words are related. of every WG lesson to build students' component is classroom talk. 2000).org/index. Aside from vocabulary improving students' of the classroom discussion and talk vocabulary knowledge.. promotion of students' reasoning and their also aims to support the development ability to express their reasoning. program vocabulary current in about written style.e. and references to support teachers in implementing WG activities (see http://www.000 words of English. asking students Another central academic to debate to agree and disagree and (i. giving students opportunities state their them and make clear and partner talk having reasoning)..g.

5 the Tuesday days a week. because the goal is tomake writing an integral part of to the vocabulary program.is essential toWG. science. the teacher selected from an array of math. to be filled in to complete the sentences of the five target words needed a most social studies the with science typical dealing topic.77. was the students class debate. science. one at a time. the students were asked to complete a word chart for homework. way writing a aims to the of Additionally. the teacher showed the five weekly target words on large index cards to this the class. which appeared type in the passage. asking if they knew what the words meant. words. and Thursday. the whole debate. in a math context to the extent possible. Though toThursday activities varied from week to week (these were the days that the target vocabulary was discussed in the content areas of math. and list any related words. Before reading the weekly passage with the class. such that students have the opportunity a on short based the controversial have compose piece topic they discussed all week. provide identify prefixes and and suffixes. and social studies). This provides yet another means of allowing students to express their thoughts and opinions. Wednesday. For LM learners. Finally.33. during which they were asked to do one or more of the following: provide the part of speech and meanings of the inflectional forms of the words. in particular. On Monday. the teacher began the weekly WG the controversial topic of the week.134 on Fri. The teacher was asked to implement WG for at least 15 min daily. For example. For math. social studies related activities. and she would explicitly tell her negative impact in bold students that they would be learning five words. in which a word that resembled the type of word into problem incorporated on state tests. On Tuesday. serves as a nonthreatening to express their views. Rather. lesson by introducing the teacher would tell the class that they would be discussing their thoughts on whether rap on a music has kids. activity During weekly were asked to take a stance on the controversial topic they had been WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 679 . encounter standardized students would likely problem on was not of the day The inclusion of the math problem teaching the focus was on exposing students to the math skills per se. which is critical to cultivate deeper vocabulary learning of the words. was a way for the teacher to gauge her students' knowledge of the five target words. Most of the time. The weekly target vocabulary in which many science activities tended to consist of cloze paragraphs. there was typically a problem at least two of the five target words were of the day. incorporation weekly writing component use to of the students the opportunity newly taught provide explore in their writing. the structure of WG is such that the first day of the week (typically Monday) begins with of the passage and ends (typically Friday) with the the introduction open-ended essay-writing activity.

134 on Fri. on average. In accordance on the the direct observations confirmed that the reports weekly form. a The treatment group teacher completed weekly feedback form to on of the intervention (see Appendix the implementation B). comprehension. tests only. The direct language revealed the teacher imple classroom observations that.77. Researcher-Developed Measures of students' knowledge of the target vocabulary words Two measures were administered. opposing the opposing argument. All Posttest measures included the researcher-developed measures were administered during the school day.an to present their view to the group holding were to time students allowed rebut permitted.33. Finally. Her responses indicated that completed about she had implemented WG every week. The MC (VSC) a comprised of randomly selected sample of 30 of the 100 target WG words. The multiple-choice (MC) test and the vocabulary were test was self-check both group administered. in 38 observations were the treatment classroom and 12 in the contrast classroom to ensure that the treatment teacher was implementing conducted. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . during periods of district-mandated testing. and writing. as expected and that the contrast teacher was continuing with the or some other instruc regular instruction and not implementing WG WG tional program targeting academic specifically. and 680 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82. the teacher did not provide any writing instruction related to theWG intervention or give students feedback on the weekly essays they produced. However. persuasive writing learning about and view. target words. When 10 min. required. even the intervention was being implemented faithfully. on Friday. with the teacher mented WG for about 20 min a day. reading comprehension. Measures in the treatment and contrast groups were administered Students in the fall of 2006 and posttests in the spring of 2007. She report the form each of the 20 weeks. Additionally. students were group's a to "take stand" required by writing a short persuasive essay about the controversial topic they had been discussing. Importantly. On to students tended finish their essay in average. students silently read a phrase or short sentence in which the target word was printed in bold type. Students were encouraged to use the five weekly target WG words. Pretest pretests measures included researcher-developed and standardized (for match tests and administered of group individually ing purposes) language word reading. as well as previously learned was not in their this essays. Following standard format.

After reading the sentence.. their choices were: (a) exploded. were assessed ideas. The Reading Vocabulary without the benefit of clues. Students rated their own knowledge not I the I scale: do know have heard it.33. All essays were transcribed by three trained research assistants and scored using a researcher-developed rubric that consisted of three sections: overall cohesion/structure. 2002). students read the following sentence: The building collapsed after the earthquake. as well provided writing quality. the Group Reading using Evaluation (GRADE) and reading Assessment (Williams. fell and (b) (d) apart. the essays on overall Measures listening comprehension. know something about and I know it well and it. culture on the multiple-choice test and not on the self-check. the 10 Further. The GRADE comprehension and Diagnostic is an untimed test that includes vocabulary. word. suggesting (88%) by assess their own word Both the MC and generally able to knowledge. (4) on were an the VSC for such that overall Responses analysis.e. This was corrected for the posttest. (2) it.77. (see Appendix students in the treatment group wrote persuasive essays Additionally. indicating' that the WG target words merited were as instruction. Interrater agreement was D). VSC correlated the standardized with pretests significantly literacy measures C). on a weekly basis.the appropriate meaning of the target word from a list of For example.81 the of as academic (Kendall's time (i. the VSC assesses students' familiarity with the same 30 words3 of the words and 10 pseudowords. only 4 of the 30 WG words were reportedly known by 80% or more of all students. (c) stayed standing. sub testmeasures students' vocabulary sub tests. reading listening sentence and passage comprehension comprehension.134 on Fri. comprehension. indicated that students reported knowing few word meanings. information on WG target word use. explicit pseudowords reported were unknown 49 of all that students students. whereas an average score close to one words well enough they selected four choices. students were required to choose the word or group of words that mean the same or almost the same as the underlined In this example. Standardized Vocabulary. and raters were blind to were in which the week) essays Analyses produced. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 681 . Based and Paribakht (1965) and Wesche (1996). On the fall pretest. (see Appendix language Coefficient of Concordance). on work by Dale collated. averaged score to close four indicated students the average reported knowing to use them. WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82. and . Students contextual silently read knowledge group-administered 3 There was pretest: appears one exception to this set of 30 randomly selected WG target words for the on the self-check and not on the multiple-choice reluctant appears test. (3) I (1) using following can use it.

and they select the appropriate four or five choices. Students listen students' linguistic comprehension to a sentence or pair of sentences that are read aloud by the test one of four that best and then select administrator.0001). as .77. posttest performance beginning measures was examined Bonferoni researcher-developed by conducting ?-tests on the gain scores (change from pretest to posttest). the Next. and they then select the appropriate word from a list of choices. Finally. Torgesen.134 on Fri. The Listening one of the words is printed in bold from a list of of the word meaning measures subtest Comprehension without printed cues. 682 sizes inmean and contrast d. reliability was reported as . p = < 0.99. Wagner. divided performance (Cohen's 1988) were computed standard by the pooled TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82. Cohen. Finally. Form A was used at pretest. First.33. they pictures matches what was read aloud to them. Rashotte. Passage measures students' skills with an comprehension Comprehension a extended passage. Internal consistency passage. After silently reading passage with one or more answer the students about questions multiple-choice paragraphs.8219. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 1999). the Sentence and Passage the subtests yield "comprehension composite. measures the standardized treatment effect using differences deviation. The TOWRE Internal consistency reliability was for analysis (r = . Students read short thought silently sentences in which one of the words ismissing (as indicated by a blank). question do the treatment or contrast group students gain knowledge of a greater number of targeted words? Analytic Approach on all groups were compared to the and standardized) (researcher-developed prior on of the intervention.a phrase or short sentence in which type. Level 5. were assessed Word individually using reading accuracy and fluency the Test of Word Reading & Efficiency (TOWRE. the Phonemic Decoding assesses nonsense of pronounceable subtest the number Efficiency subtests were combined words a student can read in 45 s. The Sight Word Efficiency subtest assesses the number a student can read in 45 s.95. scorer reliability as .95 and reported of real words RESULTS 1: Following Research the 20-week vocabulary intervention." Comprehension measures students' of a Sentence comprehension Comprehension or as a whole sentence unit.

71 4.00 2.06 1.77 8.33. WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82. Maximum to use them).36 1.50 9.06 48.67 26. with The targetWG TABLE 2 Fall Pretest = 49) Scores on All Literacy Measures for the Treatment Treatment (n WG self-checkb Mean SD Mean self- Mean testa multiple-choice WG real words WG nonsense checkc words GRADE vocabulary GRADE listening hensiond hensione comprecompre- word reading ency composite GRADE comprehension TOWRE flu- compositef SD SD = 24) 19.32 and Contrast Contrast = (w 25) Group Bonferroni Rvalues 19. treatment contrast groups were very well matched at the and higher.00 0.97 1.37 1. Put target approximately differently.134 on Fri.32 1. gain statistically significant.44 0. = 35.Pretest Performance on which the treatment group scored slightly Except for the TOWRE.84 1.00 0.46 0.96 4.86 8.91 = 4 = 30.16 2.28 Mean 13. aMaximum (a high as nonsense not is it indicates students words well that desirable.07 Mean SD 56. standard deviations. bMaximum = 4. '"Maximum = 17.00 0.040.63 0. and effect sizes on the measures.36 0. gained one. average reported knowing f = 39. whereas students in the contrast group went from knowing 65% of the target words at pretest to knowing about 68% at posttest.000.63 Students (N Effect size 2. significance tests. (see pretest Posttest Performance Table 3 presents the results of posttest performance. The difference in the was an impressive effect size (d = 1. including means.55 Mean 15.00 1.39 0. Only 30 of the 100 taught WG knowledge of about vocabulary words were randomly included in the MC test. dMaximum enough Note. Table 2). 'Maximum SD = standard deviation.08 13.24).50 13. gain scores.25 SD SD SD 4. researcher-developed Word Generation Test Multiple-Choice treatment group students gained knowledge of approximately six contrast whereas the students group vocabulary words.77.35 1. gain students in the treatment group went from knowing about 65% of the target words at pretest to knowing about 83% at posttest.28 0.55 0. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 683 .97 0.83 4. and thus a gain of 6 target words on the MC test translates into gained knowledge of approximately 20 a 1 ratio of into words and 3.23 Mean 28.18 9.

64 1. is the extent of target vocabulary word use over the course of the 20-week intervention? Specifically. the treatment group a reported knowing significantly lower number of known nonsense words than the contrast group.44 0. MacWhinney Snow. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .33 and scores Gain 25.80 Note.TABLE 3 Spring Posttest Contrast Group and Gain Students Scores on Researcher-Developed = (n 49) Spring Treatment (n WG multiple choice testa WG real words Mean SD Mean SD Mean self-Checkb WG nonsense words 24) scores Contrast {n = for the Treatment Treatment 25) 21. (e.33.24 0.1200 0.77 0.16 3.29 3. aMaximum = 30.44 0.35 Bonferroni 25) 1.58 0. exchange and the computerized 1990). 1985. SD = standard deviation.58 = 0. as it indicates that students use them).14 3. analysis 684 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82.003 0. In fact. except for two nonsense words reported as known well enough to use by one student in the treatment group.41 0. words well enough Word Generation Vocabulary Self-Check there were no significant differences between the two Although on the for the VSC real direction of the effects words.12 4. do students use the target vocabulary to words words cumulatively or is their use confined taught in the current week? is there any change in the quality Further. groups suggest that.30 SD self-checkc = Measures Rvalues Effect size 0. cMaximum reported knowing real words well enough to = 4 (a higher average is not desirable. system (MacWhinney. each of the 10 nonsense words were consistently reported as known well enough to use them by students in the contrast group. Research question 2: In the treatment group's weekly student essays.47 1. over time? coherence and academic of the use) essays language what Analytic Approach All available of essays were transcribed format in the codes of for the human the child data (CHAT) transcripts language & 1995.22 3. On for the VSC nonsense words.. students in the treatment group reported knowing more of the target words from pretest to posttest.29 0. bMaximum = 4 (a higher average is desirable.40 0.55 3.g.67 0. The focus of analysis was (MacWhinney. (CLAN) program language analysis 2000) was used for analysis. However. none of the students in the treatment group reported knowing the nonsense words well enough to use them.72 0.29 0. as it indicates that students reported knowing nonsense to use them).27 0.0005 1.0400 0. on average.134 on Fri.60 (n = Contrast 24) (n 5.77.

rubric (see Appendix researcher-developed writing as counts as of past target of the well Frequency weekly target words. As suggested by Singer and Willett the likelihood (2003). even or for individual with occasional data points missing incomplete children. writing quality improved for change (IGM) using the multilevel model growth modeling (Singer & Willett. incorporating for handling missing values. and providing a better mechanism MIXED class of mixed of covariance WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82. using estimation. on average.on whether students used the newly taught WG vocabulary words in their were Thus all corrected essays writing. 42% used 6-11 past target words.04 points per week (see Table 4). 21% of the students used more than 12 past target words in their essays. and as the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria were also provided of fit. Further. 2003) was used. The analyses were conducted in a person that contained the longitudinal data on all sampled period dataset SAS PROC with full maximum likelihood MIXED4 children.134 on Fri. of the intervention the average writing quality score at the beginning was 4. prior to being scored with the E for an example). there was during weeks variability in the total number of past target words individual students used across the 20-week intervention. Writing Quality The students' final area of overall involved improved over investigation whether of the 20 that indicate examining the course writing quality Individual Growth Modeling results intervention. 10 previously taught words were used in the weekly essays from week 2 to week 20. At the individual level. determine whether students' overall words. The use of IGM allows for robust estimates of growth. structures. run were in To CLAN. the use of previously taught words was greater toward the end of the intervention: Students used an average of 8 past target words during weeks 2-10 compared with an average of 12 substantial 11-20. ratio test was used as the primary criterion for evaluating model fit.05. it fits the wider random effects. additional indicators of goodness Target Word Use Over the course of the 20-week intervention.21). with an average growth of to an average .71 points (nearly point) writing quality growth week 4 SAS PROC of the general linear model is a generalization (GLM) . and 33% used 5 or fewer past target words. This corresponds over the 1 of full . students used an average of two of the five weekly target words in their weekly essay (SD = 1. allowing for the specification linear models.53 (SD = 1. across the individual 20-week intervention. scale of 0-9 points).33. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 685 .77.

These differential results.30 1. As correlated with essay length essays expected.6988*** 1. However. This may raise the question more and thus more were study merely writing producing high-quality over was time. the early and the later period of the intervention (Raudenbush 2002). substantively important. of the 20-week intervention.401. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .g.403.393.40 1. information criterion.001. 686 of the the correlation intervention. broken into separate linear The up trajectories were growth to the of differential between components growth investigate possibility & Bryk.0353*** 2 4.29 points over the course of the first 10 weeks) did not course reach significance. of whether students in the present 1969)..30 1. controlling use word and target writing quality TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82.5308*** 0.03 points per week during (see Figure 10 weeks (or .406.04 points per week during the last 10 weeks of the intervention was statistically significant. A Note on Essay Length A long-standing finding in the writing field is that essay length correlates with overall writing quality (e.0291 0.05). Marcotte. SD (mean 18). Writing quality was significant only during the last 10 weeks of the intervention the first 1): 0. as are subtle.67).77.6988*** 1. AIC 2 = writing quality growth across weeks < 0.393. BIC = Bayesian information criterion.5931*** 0.409.TABLE 4 Individual Results Growth Modeling for Students' Writing Quality Model Fixed effects Initial status Weeks Weeks 1-20 1-10 Weeks 11-20 Variance Level Level (N 1 = 24) Model 4.45. but . essay stable throughout the duration of the intervention length remained = = 90. Note. between for essay Indeed.134 on Fri. = < students' overall writing quality .33.0633*** 1.20 LL) 1.20 1= overall average writing quality growth across the 20-week vocabulary intervention.0406* components 1 Growth 0. & Martin. p (r .0636*** Wi thin-person Between-person 2 Deviance AIC BIC (?2 0. LL = lower limit. indicating that students were not writing more over the course length. Hiller. though they suggest that the effects on students' writing would have gone undetected had the vocabulary intervention lasted only 10 weeks.40 1. translating into a substantial effect size (d = . Model = Akaike 1-10 versus weeks Model 10-20.

24). Finding that upper-elementary of words intended for college learners were able to learn the meanings level nonnative English speakers is noteworthy. Further. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 687 .71 points over the 20-weeks growth = not significant significant ID Vocabulary = . the treatment group reported knowing of fewer nonsense the meanings words than the contrast group.42. There are multiple implications the extent to LM students' Spanish-speaking of explicit vocabulary instruction.67) 15 Intervention Weeks .33.05). remained DISCUSSION This 20-week pilot vocabulary intervention aimed to evaluate which upper-elementary predominantly literacy outcomes would improve as a result Results underscore the promise of theWG learners. Comparison of individual growth modeling results for students' writing quality FIGURE 1-10 (not statistically significant) and their writing quality growth across growth across weeks = weeks 10-20 (statistically significant. suggesting that the observed significant (r use and writing quality was not an between word target relationship artifact of essay length. = . This difference in performance suggests that the treatment group had a heightened awareness of their word WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82.77. more group a substantially larger number of English proficient. at posttest.Weeks 1-10Growth ?Weeks 10-20Growth I 1.5 Average 11-20 Growth Weeks Weeks 1-10 Growth = (<tf = . and yet the treatment WG implemented of whom were formerly identified as limited students.134 on Fri.5. was for only 15-20 min a day. p < . gained knowledge of LM words than the contrast group. vocabulary intervention for LM and discussion points?practical and theoretical?to address when interpreting the results of this pilot study.

Because productive word knowledge even longer for students to use words in it should take presumably. this the final 10 weeks of the intervention. the writing quality gains cannot be attributed to increased essay length. contributes Importantly.This word awareness is critical for comprehension. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Though current study does not provide any definitive answers about the nature of these relationships. Further. Nagy & Scott. study begin to shed light on this relationship LM in the United learners amongst some occurs transfer with that States. A key to the fact that students need opportunities implication?highlighting use newly taught words?is to that it will take time for students internalize the newly taught words before they are willing or able to use them in writing. 1990). the effects of explicit vocabulary instruction (even if for just a few minutes a day) should not be underestimated. whether opportunities there is a reciprocal the vocabulary. and having students write on a weekly basis use) language likely to students' overall writing quality gains. In fact. and the teacher did not provide or instruction focused on persuasive argumentative writing. and given the stability of low vocabulary among LM students at all grade levels. their writing. a greater number of past target words were used vocabulary. the need to encourage students to ask when they research underscoring of words do not know the meanings (Biemiller. it was Further. results of this study do that the suggest of vocabulary combination instruction (including other aspects of the such as the weekly debates that fostered increased intervention. The final area of investigation involved examining the effects of the intervention on writing quality. to find that students used from words target previous encouraging weeks in their essays. with knowledge. 2003.77. or whether relationship. to examining In addition effects on to extent to which the explore designed study was words would newly taught current in The students' results of the appear writing.33. then. are at least partially in students' words lexicons. Not surprisingly. (Nation. to new words for receptive word knowledge takes 5-16 exposures is more difficult. The dearth of research exploring this during LM learners effectively limits our amongst relationship school-age of whether increased results in understanding vocabulary knowledge to write results in better better writing quality.134 on Fri. 2002. analyses revealing relatively use of newly taught words in writing suggests that the quickly. The key takeaway point is thus that finding multiple ways of exposing students to the newly taught words is critical. Taking these findings together. Graves & Watts. as students did not produce longer essays over time. feedback on the essays was not provided by the teacher. For research shows that it productively example. A possibility to be further explored. is that students' writing quality improved 688 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82. during the course of the 20-week intervention. 2000).

rather than immediately 20-week following are is that interventions however. 1981. only 2 of the 30 words on the GRADE test were target WG words. As Stahl and Fairbanks decades ago. students' reading comprehension The the intervention. Regarding standardized reading vocabulary WG students to a wide range of outcomes. Further. Background a strong is of students' edge predictor reading comprehension & Freebody.g. & Pearson. from global warming to the death penalty. in students' writing quality were smaller improvements Importantly. the effects of vocabulary vocabulary should be evaluated more robustly (e.33. likely outcomes will be evident over intervention for reading comprehension about time. commonly pervasive for short periods of time with the expectation of large. because administered effects on standardized were not (1986) noted more than two expected. Thus the benefits of WG on exposed they through can be expected to be cumulative. only researcher-developed measures at posttest. throughout the elements of effective vocabulary the school years. Anderson (Anderson performance and the & it is that value of the 1984. examining effects on writing). but it should be clear that lasting gains can only be sustained with well-designed and. and therefore helped broaden students' general background knowl knowledge.a store because they were practicing and because they had accumulated of new words that could make their writing more precise and effective. a relatively high number of explicitly taught words must in standardized measures for them to be sensitive to the be present effects of vocabulary instruction. implemented immediate gains. challenge. comprehension exposed topics.134 on Fri. 1998). as students encounter (or related to) the topics passages to have been WG. underscoring during sustained vocabulary instruction combined with ample opportunities for students to write. the of the the need for first 10 weeks intervention. Implications for Research measures were In this pilot study. Droop Verhoeven. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 689 .77. of LM learners who enter school with low For the growing population WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82. expected instruction instruction. many interventions with high potential are erroneously deemed "ineffective" and consequently terminated on the basis results. Accordingly.. Refining to meet the differentiated of students will be a needs instruction critical next step. A clear implication from this study is thus that to detect improvements in sustained vocabulary instruction is needed students' writing. equally importantly. An of implication can be effective for LM instruction of weak this research is that learners and should vocabulary sustained become part of students' every day curriculum.

Nelson & a related note. the demonstrated literacy gains found in this quasiexperimental cannot be causally related to the intervention. Limitations and vocabulary Future instruction must be a part of their Research First. vocabulary an open question iswhether the demonstrated gains will be lasting ones can be and whether gains on comprehension expected. itappears that explicit vocabulary increasing instruction has the potential for increasing students' overall writing quality. Further. low-income. not short-term interventions. greater instructional vocabulary knowledge to vocabulary is needed in and well starting continuing beyond the primary grades. who tend to have fewer English and thus more limited language models attention to native English speakers. Third. the instruction for types present study. that attend to depth of word knowledge. monolingual-English-speaking comparison group would help disentangle whether vocabulary instruction has differential effects for LM versus non-LM students. aside from compared students' vocabulary knowledge. a randomized pilot study a as was the case in this study.134 on Fri. Second. with found. studies designed over time are needed to robustly evaluate the components of effective In different of learners. Notwithstanding these limitations.g. This pilot study suggests that sustained vocabulary instruction. students in the study are representative of a growing of learners in the United States?children from Spanish population in homes enrolled schools?and urban. are needed and that purposeful activities that provide students with authentic contexts to learn and productively use newly taught words are integral components of vocabularies 690 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82. instruction on upper-elementary CONCLUSION Because is cumulative. generally speaking intervention study thus extends previous the present pilot vocabulary of the effects of vocabulary work and strengthens our understanding LM students.77. even without explicit writing instruction. Stage. school day.33. Finally. study are tests to used index students' vocabulary multiple-choice widely future of vocabulary but work should incorporate measures knowledge.. next is necessary step. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . including writing. This point must be underscored for LM learners. the effect of vocabulary lower performing students exhibiting greater benefits (e. longitudinal to track students' literacy progress. the relatively small sample size limited the feasibility of investigating whether. and the extent of those differential effects on various literacymeasures.levels of vocabulary. a On 2007). as some research has instruction varies by ability levels.

L.. all students. Pearson. reading comprehension Association Education Research Annual magazines: Gauging Talk presented Meeting. research (Vol. 231 Longman. Association. (Eds. Biemiller. 18. Mancilla-Mart?nez is an Assistant Professor Jeannette Language.1080/02702710390227297.3. Inj..). Assessment (2006 April). Biemiller. . Handbook meanings. Kamii. Snow. M. Anderson. NY: Guilford Press. J. Until vocabulary becomes an integral. R.). minority struggle with reading. I. Barr. Anderson. Bravo. C. .). & P. NY: Word (1991). San students' at Francisco. 10. (1984). G. and skills is essential for academic vocabulary writing simultaneously ACKNOWLEDGMENTS like to thank Catherine E. Kamii. L. (2001). and N. Vocabulary knowledge. language immigrant and is the who REFERENCES R.. Freebody. D. B?nging life: Robust instruction. D. Vocabulary: Needed ifmore children are to read well.. White Plains. Reading root word in vocabulary growth Estimating for a common of Evidence sequence populations: doi: 93. B.77. at the Universityof at Culture Illinois Her primary research interest Chicago. & Shanahan.. Psychology. C. (2003). Comprehension International Reading R.A. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions depth of the American CA. (1994). fournal of Educational Psychology. New York.effective vocabulary instruction. 323-335. II pp. W. (2002). E. 8c P. and science understanding. C. D. 8c Nagy. NY: Longman. normative 8c Slonim. L. vocabulary A. WORD MEANINGS MATTER 691 This content downloaded from 82. daily aspect of the K-12 curriculum.93. T. & P.e. to learn to read (i.134 on Fri. advantaged vocabulary acquisition. New York. L. the effects of gender and second Bermudez. & Kucan.) (2006). learners. Guthrie (1981). (Eds. Mosen thai comprehension. 498-520. fournal. 47-62. Examining on discourse. writers' Research Bilingual persuasive language proficiency Hispanic Mahwah. P. on learners: Report of theNational Children and Youth. 8c Tilson. A. and Terrence Tivnan for on this comments was made their helpful This by the manuscript. teaching: (pp. & Prater. and in particular LM learners. R. Barr. study possible the Carnegie Education Research funded (SERP). doi: 10. D. D. but the development of may continue success. reading Erlbaum. Strategic Partnership by the William and Flora Hewlett and The Foundation. 255-291). Lesaux. 8c Pearson. words McKeown. THE AUTHOR in Literacy. of at-risk populations. of reading In R.1037/0022-0663. Literacy Panel Language-Minority Anderson. Pearson Mosenthal 256). Corporation. Beck. NJ: Lawrence to M.33. Handbook of reading research (pp. Nonie K. P. (Eds. M. decode).. Developing literacy in second-language August. DE: reviews Research Newark. T.. Spencer I would Foundation. L.498.24. 77-117). and (Ed. A schema-theoretic in view of basic processes In P. students and language literacy development including and students. A.

Reading Chicago. D. Bornstein families (Ed. B. American Writing schools?A for Excellent vocabulary of doi: be? next: Effective strategies to improve uniting of report to Carnegie ofNew York. technique. C. Newark. White. Droop. & Gough... and mainstream bilingual 10. Research Reading R. Leyendecker. E.77. (2007). Coxhead. F. 8cA. classrooms. 78-103. McLaughlin. Snow.Calder?n. writing In T. acquisition: English composition skills of Spanish-speaking junior high school TESOL students. Shanahan and when is the of instruction. 8c Miller. IL: National Conference. Madden. L. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .1093/applin/11. Effects of early and delayed second (1981). 263-274. (1969). 8cRisley. NJ: Lawrence A new A. T. Duran. B. 34. M. Dale..2307/3586752. Bringing Hiebert practice Carlo.2307/747971. Duin. 115-136). complexity.. J. doi: 10. Slavin. Meaningful differencesin theeverydayexperienceofyoung MD: children. sciences (2nd ed. H. Goulden.341. H. in the U.38. Kamil and learning vocabulary: Bnnging research to (Eds. and Hiller. (1999). the behavioral analysis for academic word Research Reading list.). based program..J. Asencio. 26. (1988). A. A. Baltimore. 127-160. M. D.1598/RRQ. 42. words 8cM. Ferris. Spanish English English language 8c F. doi: 10.1080/10862969809547998. Rodriquez-Brown (Eds. Quarterly. R.).S. Research. test performance the influencing English reading children. doi: 10. Mahwah. Association. Quarterly. F. Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal 2. What research instruction DE: ed. F. C. & Martin..1598/RRQ. and second-language (1998). J. vocabulary to say about has reading International Reading Hart. Opinionation. Spanish-speaking 10. Factors R. Essay Research Journal. with English-language learners. How large can a receptive Applied Linguistics. traits measured American Educational specificity-distinctions: by computer.4.. & Verhoeven. 8c Perin. (1995). Corporation Education. ability in reading doi: 38. Graham. children's in Davis.. NJ: (pp. 253-271..). E. (1990). adolescents in middle and high DC: Alliance Washington. Farstrup (Eds. Erlbaum... 341-363. M. .. Hispanic J. L. Teaching Lawrence Erlbaum. J. reading Background comprehension.. M. In M. 11. D.. D. H. Vol. 39.& Cheung. Graves. (1965). (3rd 140-165). H. D. Latino among Parenting Paul H.. Lipman..1. 692 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82. Droop. A.. M. Elementary English. (1991). Erlbaum. second-language 10. . M. Mahwah. TESOL 10. & Watts.4. Garcia. 271-286. Nation. M.2307/3587951. 6. Marcotte. Samuels. August. 371-392. first. R. doi: measurement: and major Vocabulary Techniques findings. 213-238. B. P. pp.134 on Fri. S..and learners.. 8c Beeman.. The simple view of reading. Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English Language in Learners doi: 88-215. Hillsdale.39. Reading Research Quarterly. Hoover. 238-249). Carlisle. R. as a Intensive instruction prewriting vocabulary doi: 10. Reading linguistic of Literacy Journal and proficiency Research Quarterly. National reading conference yearbook (pp. L. L. L. August. doi: 10.2307/747894. (1990). 4. V. 30. The handbook Harwood. vagueness. A. (2003). 895-901. T.M. pp. Quarterly.33. G. Quarterly. Carlson M. E. The of word in a research consciousness (2002) place In S.). Hispanic P.. (2004). Language knowledge. to life in classrooms In E. R.2. Brookes. & Graves. S. language (1987). B.. Statistical power Cohen. Dressler. W.. 22... 8c Read. 311-330.).1007/BF00401799. (2000). 8c Politzer. (2nd ed. T.. 15. 8c Verhoeven. of parenting NJ: Lawrence D. J.3. L. M. (2005). (2002). M. C... 21-46).

. The nature of vocabularyacquisition (pp. (1990). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical Applied Linguistics. 8c Snow.. of Research between first. Hillsdale. doi: applin/19. England: Cambridge (pp.1017/S0305000900006449. Hutchinson. 16. written production. 19-32. Mosenthal. 8c T. On . K.and (Eds. vocabulary writing doi: instruction. 295-320. Koda. & R. (1996). quality Meara. A.1007/sl 1145-005-4944-6. Shanahan August of the National Mahwah.1093/applin/ use in and the effects of explicit ESL S. the role of the context (1997). In (2006). An update. (Eds. MA: Allyn and Bacon.. H.. Moats. J. L. W. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. In M. E. L. Lipson. D. second-language Vocabulary: vocabulary description. Foorman. doi: EAL. Lesaux. (1989). 10. Report Erlbaum.. 12. WORD MEANINGS MATTER 693 This content downloaded from 82. knowledge: .). P. 10. Laufer. Erlbaum C.261003. B.2003. McKeown and instruction. A. TESOL learners' composition Quarterly. The of lexical dimensions Brown. (pp.1093/ in L2 richness 10. language of Child Language. The CHILDES Project: Toob for analyzing talk (3rd ed.. of passive development and active in vocabulary language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics. Vocabulary J.2.004. 64-73). P. for acquisition Implications and depth of vocabulary Breadth (1987). instruction and of reading uniting Boston. England: Cambridge University Press. literacy second-language Developing on Children and Youth Language-Mino?ty Literacy Panel 8c Shanahan. Language. vocabulary to ESL From S. programs. 81-101. Students' (1994). 40. 35-53). (2006). Barr Pearson. L. M. Siegel. Erlbaum. Nagy. doi: second 10. vocabulary postreading Lee. C..255. H. W.02. MacWhinney. K.. system. 8cWixson. 8c In Schmitt. 307-322. The C. 26. 8c Snow. (1995). in Rican school children Puerto from skills: Evidence elementary writing doi: and Education. System.. skills in children of learning developmental progression comprehension-related in Reading. . NJ: Lawrence Scott. (2000). E. 8c Connors. 16. 8c Muncie. Whiteley. E. in second language 8c J. The (1998). MacWhinney. 19. 255-271. of literacy. NJ: Lawrence .1111/1467-9817. & 269-284).33. the disciplines.. writing 3587199.and second-language The relation Lanauze. D. processes. Hillsdale. G. L. E. University Cambridge.K. system: 10. pp. Improving J. NJ: Lawrence B. E. M. language doi: 10. D.). C. doi: 10.. E. 8c Carson. learning. N. 75-122). McCarthy. Lee. The child data exchange (1985). P.. research (Vol. competence. P. 8c Nation. in first. competence Performance Press. and Assessment (2003).134 on Fri. Journal 10. 537-561.307. doi: 10.77. (1995). Associates.. across I. high-risk impacts fourth graders' writing. needs Leki. B.). 271-296. G. 8c In M. 8c Snow. 323-339. The child data exchange E. Y.. Kamil. 31.). acquisition of writing P. M. 3. 8c Taylor.2307/ T. MacWhinney. M. Nagy..). 457-472. . Journal of Child B. Williams and (Eds. MacWhinney.. 8c Herman. NJ: Lawrence Mahwah. receptive productive: use of in a task. Smith. Linguistics bilingual J.).).2307/40264524. doi: 17. 19-35). difficulty. 363-391. Curtis (Eds. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions B. Handbook of reading Erlbaum. Cambridge. Reading and Writing: An Interdis?plinary Journal. Mahwah.3. . The CHILDES Project: Took for analyzing talk (2nd ed. 5898(89)80005-1.1017/ In G.1016/S0898 1..1016/j.. How instruction B. W. acquisition and pedagogy (pp. Development in learners: (Eds.system. Nagy. 19. Laufer. 28. (2006).. Malmkjaer. doi: and 10. (2003). instruction of EAP writing perceptions TESOL Quarterly. Journal S0305000900013866. (2000). learners' (2003).

Oaks. Educational doi: 10. effects of suggestopedia in teaching English third graders. Proctor. 231-247. U. vocabulary. E. (2002). Journal 0663.. we know and what we need 8c Kamil. Preventing reading difficulties in children. April 1.42.246.. (2006).2307/3586828. Reading 8c Snow. 8c Snow.1080/10573560701277575. A. Psychology. Stahl. M. Chicano Spanish-dominant doi: 10. relationship writing knowledge more and less skilled writers. E. Latinos: C. Suarez-Orozco. TX: Pro-Ed. New Press. meaning P. Printing Office. Teaching M.23. Reading multiple 30. C. 56.2. Ekmentary The (1986). 282-296. assessment: What (2007). 35. York. Torgesen. S. The between and Saddler. U. (1986). language. 229-258. 72-110. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 98. E. M. J.159. Education vocabulary MA: Boston. E. (2000). L. Z.. P. August. unskilled What (1985). S. to learn. Phi Delta and response Kappan. 59-66. (1990). TESOL Quarterly. Berkeley. A. knowledge and Teaching (2001).. model-based Review Research. skills of Mexican competence improves language reading third graders. 24-27.. Teacher. data analysis methods CA: Sage Publications. 38-40. I. Proctor. National Center for Education (Report No. C. University & and in another (2007). 97. (2006). R. Applied longitudinaldata analysis:Modeling change and event occurrence. Hierarchical Raudenbush. P. Slavin. & Paez. Stage. students do as doi: they write: A 10. Raimes. S. NCES (2004). National Center for Education Statistics.1.census. 325-333. Test of word reading Population Estimates CA: efficiency Program. Learning Press. (TOWRE). Department of Education.pdf of Education.. 8c Rashotte. A Remaking (1999). C. M. vocabulary S. M. and July 1. Cambridge Nelson. A.gov/ population/www/ pop-profile/files/dynamic/RACEHO..S. (2007). doi: 10. National young Washington. K. role D. D. Ramirez. Research to critics. DC: Press.. E. A. D. B. J. Census Bureau.. Spanish-speaking a model in English: of children Toward reading Journal comprehension. of California Press. Bureau. 8c Bryk.S. Wagner. Publishers. W. (2003). (Eds. 8cWillett. doi: 42. 2004-007). Washington. H.S. & among Reading Writing writing performance Quarterly. Washington. Nation. NCES Statistics.97. School fournal. (2nd ed. C. 10. Carlo. Native D. Nation. No. Pearson. S.) (1998).. 246-256.33.98. M. the Fostering reading comprehension instruction. R... The (2003). to linear models: Applications and S. doi: 10.1086/461453. NJ: Lawrence America. M.134 on Fri. Carlo.1037/0022 classroom study of composing. Burns. P. P.1037/0022-0663.2. E. J. R.. Thousand S. Oral Perez. Academy M. outcomes of Success 82. of development England: vocabulary through contextually-based and Intervention of Children. 8c Graham. A.1598/RRQ. Austin. The C.). (Report DC: Government 2003-530). 8c Fairbanks. Psychology. 2000.I. condition of education 2004 Government Printing Office. NY: Oxford University on achievement N. Vocabulary Research Quarterly.. August. 8c Nagy. 2004. vocabulary 86. (1981). intriguing American of of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading compre of Educational hension. (2005). W.. 8cMadden. 8c Griffin. for All: A summary Snow. K. P. Singer.. The DC: 694 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82.19. J. Hiebert.. M.. S. A S. B. instruction: A The effects of vocabulary Stahl. U. Mahwah. (2002).4.. M..77. Department nation's trial urban district assessment report card: Writing 2002. Erlbaum. ofEducational meta-analysis. ESL 159-169. 1-22.S. Census word meanings. (2005). University U. learning Heinle 8c Heinle Cambridge. Retrieved from http://www. S.

53. L.134 on Fri.U. 00-4769). of education (Report No. Rely 27. Attribute 37. 10. Quarterly. Promote 7 Week 8 36. of Education. Washington. Cycle 38. doctoral Hosfra dissertation).. DC: Center for Education Assessment National Statistics. language 313-330. (1996). awareness (1996). The breadth. Access 32. Indicate 8. and language story grammar Using experience for improving to in the teaching of ESL comprehension first-graders Spanish-dominant New York. (2000). recall and (1990). Language in doi: 10. Statistics. Walters. Williams. Alternative 25.S. Contribute 26. Teaching Development. Department of Education U. Analyze 2. Interpret 5. 90-114. Services. Scientific S1532799XSSR0404_4.1996. React 23. Culture 13.9959888. Variable 9. Department of Child Health Institute and Human National (2000). University. Civil 33.1080/09658416. Statistics WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82. (2002). Integrate 35. Department The condition Government U. of Education. Reading Research language. 8c Wolf. (1990). Department Reading StudyGroup. T. Appendix A 100Word Generation 1 Week 1. Context 7. Tradition 6 Week 31. second 4. Proportion Target Vocabulary Words 4 Week 16. and reading writers: doi: 5. Justify 30. Verhoeven. second Modern and Diagnostic vocabulary Review. 2007-496). Wesche. T. Resourceful 19. Valid 2 29. Depth knowledge: 13-40.T. Transfer 15. Hypothesis 39. MN: AGS Publishing. Considerable 22. Vaughn-Shavuo. spelling. Washington. Function 4. S. to read: An assessment children evidence-based literature on of the scientific research reading and its implications for reading instruction(NIH Publication No. J. Center for Education National 2006 2007-064). language Language Evaluation (GRADE). 3-25. (2002).S. Benefit Week 5 21. (Unpublished L. Design 17. Paribakht.25. vs.S. Project 40. Reading for understanding:Toward an R&D program Santa Monica.33. DC: Printing Office. Sufficient 28. NY. Despite 34. Metalinguistic Y judgments in Components Studies early of Reading. Impact 3 Week 11. Progress. Complexity 12. Features 18. & M. Potential 20. Washington. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 695 . NCES Printing Office.77. in reading of Educational Office Research RAND Improvement.1207/ non-native Awareness. Language of need for revision. CA: RAND. Government F. doi: 10. The nations report card: Reading 2007 (Report No. Create 10.. of Health and Human National Institutes of Health. U. . Assessing Canadian Assessment Group Reading Circle Pines. Acquisition in a second of reading Verhoeven. Factor 3. Demonstrate 24. comprehension. Structure Week Week 6. National (2007b). (2007a).2307/747596.S. Element 14. NCES States Government DC: United Printing Office. of Education.

Intervention Prohibited 70. Transmission 69. Incidence 53. Substitution 45. Yes_No_ Because of (check all that apply): enthusiasm _Student of Materials _Design from teachers/coach/administrator _Support own _My preparation _Other_ this week. Suspended 72. Decades 18 86. 13 Week 61. Unethical 89. Temporary 84. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .What activity did you do 2. Nonetheless Appendix Word Generation Weekly Teacher Area_Day Grade_Subject Please fill in this anonymous 1. 62. Reluctant 94. Conflict 43.77. Compounds 42. 63. 57. Convince 97 Enormous 98.9 Week 41. Route 90. Week Modified Monitor 10 Adjustment Transition Exposure 14 Week Week 17 Week 81. Incline 12 Diversity Enhance 19 Week 20 96. Confine 82. 15 Migration Presumed Reveal Week 16 76. 49. Manipulate Exploit Week 91. Unified 85. Incompatible 11 Week 51. 64. Fundamental 44. 59. I struggled with 696 the WG materiah this week. Contradict 78. 74. 60.33. Initiatives 55. Persistent 100. TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82.134 on Fri. Accommodate 88. Accumulation 77. Word Generation of Week_ forWEEK_of questionnaire inWG Word Form Generation (WG). Transport Week Week 56. Collapse 92. Advocate 66. this week? went well this week. 75. Violation 83. Priority 68. Intrinsically 95. enough time forWG Yes_No_ Because of (check all that apply): 3. 73. Abandon Contrary Reverse Release 67. Bulk 87. Exhibit Biased Contemporary Dramatic 79. Inevitable 80. 47. Integrity 99. Alter 46. 50. 65. 58. Phenomenon 71. Incorporate 54. Acknowledge 52. Conceive 93. I had level actions/interest (or lack of support) from others _Support own _My preparation of preexisting curriculum _Nature ofWG materials _Nature _Students' _Other_ 4. 48.

content was hard to prepare _WG WG did not fit with Amount the rest of my all that apply) lesson of time required of support _Lack _Other_ 5.g. I will make Yes_No_ If Yes. explain changes to how I do WG next week.Yes_No_A little_ If you said Yes or A little. it's because _Their _To _To _To teachers about WG (check this week. it's because_ 6. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . I talked with other Yes_No_ If Yes. briefly:_ 8. Yes_No_ If Yes. it's because of (check resources _School etc. photocopier.134 on Fri.) (e. all that apply): to me is of help knowledge vent frustration information exchange coordinate WG lesson plans _Other_ IfNo. Any comments? WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82. I talked with a literacy coach about WG.33.77.. it's because _I _To (check all that apply): on needed general advice vocabulary vent frustration about WG instruction lesson get help with thisWG _Other_ If you said vent frustration it's because _To 7.

001.21 0 Composite are uncontrolled. 3.42** -.08 .03 . 5.35* ? ? 1.44** .35* -. 4.05. display results < . 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . but with relative ease usually with effort Academic Language 1 Uses mostly bulary a well dence Overall Some grade-level Expressed developed elaborates _/3 iswell organized Writing and effective in commu _/3 nicating ideas (organiza tion bolsters the argument) 2 Uses voca- several aca to demie words express ideas TOTAL SCORE Word choices are varied and purposeful the piece throughout _/9 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 82. more like a non related list 0 is con Writing strained by lack of vocabulary 698 2 (or Expressed an argu attempted) ment.134 on Fri.22 -.0 4 -. can deciorganized municates ideas piler ideas. of Headings Nonsense Words GRADE Vocabulary GRADE Listening 1 1-7 .0 ? -. *jfr< .34* -. 6.54* 1.01. 7.36* 5 .40** -.66***. Correlations on control for GRADE vocabulary.49*** . above the diagonal Note. 2.33* ? 4g*** 22 . not an argument 1 0 Lack of organiza tional pattern.34* . ***/? < . Cohesion/Structure 2 Overall.77.49*** 1. .Appendix C Correlations Among All Measures at Pretest.58*** 1.0 74** 50*** 55*** . writing is organizaand com tion.0 ? .33.51*** 1.28~ 6 .02 .0 .09 . **p < Key: ~p and correlations below the diagonal Appendix D Word Generation Weekly Writing Rubric Score Ideas 0 Did not succeed in articulating ideas coherent 1 a couExpressed or pie of ideas claims. but only some or insufficient evi argument. Partialing Out GRADE Vocabulary (N = 49) Definitions 1.09 .22 ? Comprehension TOWRE Composite GRADE Comprehension 3 2 1.0 WG Multiple Choice Self-check: WG Vocabulary Real Words WG Vocabulary Self-check: .12 .17 06 7 .37** .10.66*** .

Student errors to the extent that except for capitalization. I believe their should not be strict dress code because it's not fair for the student to be wearing the same thing every single that their day for school and especially on Fridays and on special days.134 on Fri. I think it's not fair for kids to wear their uniform every single day.. WORD MEANINGS MATTER This content downloaded from 82. Below you will find an example of a corrected essay.33. WEEK 9 ESSAY: SCHOOL UNIFORMS Original Student Text I believe Their chould Not be sticter dress codes because most of the student in school Now that they have to weire their uniform and they do weare them but some of the student belive their chould be strick dress code and I think itsNot fair for kids to wear their uniform every wear their uniform on special days and or single day and I think its ok if the student don't dose are the days that the kids don't like to wear their unifor so I belive their fridays because chould Not be strick dress code because it's Not fair for the student to be wearing the same on so that what I thing every single day for school and spechily of friadays and special days believe that their chould Not be strict dress codes and I think the kids keep modtify of what they wear or what they don't wear And I think is time to trastion of the uniform. They do wear them but some of the student believe their should be strict dress code.77. spelling "weare" for "wear").g.E Appendix Example of a Word Generation Essay Correction text was always preserved." were preserved. and run-on sentences. stemming from incorrect word choices such as "their" for "there. 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 699 . Corrected Text I believe their should not be stricter dress codes because most of the student in school now that they have to wear their uniform. That what I believe should not be strict dress codes and I think the kids keep modify of what they wear or what they don't wear and I think is time to transition of the uniform. Note that incorrect spelling. they could be identified (e. I think it's ok if the student don't wear their uniform on special days and/or Fridays because those are the days that the kids don't like to wear their uniform.