Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Is word learning different in a second language? Clearly, we believe it is different in some ways. We would not have written this book if we thought otherwise.
Research and theory about the vocabulary acquisition and instruction of native
English speakers has been very influential in shaping the way we think about how
to teach vocabulary to second-language learners, but research and theory on bilingualism and second-language acquisition also suggest that there are important
differences between instruction in a first language and in a second that we need to
attend to in order to increase instructional effectiveness and efficiency. One source
of differences between first- and second-language vocabulary development stems
from learners degree of proficiency in the second language. A second stems from
learners level of proficiency in the mother tongue. State-reported data indicate
that there were an estimated 5.3 million English language learners enrolled in U.S.
public schools (preK through grade 12) for the 20082009 school year. This number
represents approximately 10.8% of total public school student enrollment (National Center for English Language Acquisition, 2011a). Additional data indicate that
the number of ELLs in U.S. public schools increased 51% between the 19981999
and 20082009 school years, with increases in 11 states of over 200% (National
Center for English Language Acquisition, 2011b).
In this chapter, we take up three major topics: First, we consider the vocabulary learning task that students face across the K12 years. Then we consider the
role of individual, home, school, and instructional context in second-language vocabulary development. Finally, we turn to the main theme of the chapter, effective
vocabulary instruction.
THE VOCABULARY LEARNING TASK STUDENTS FACE
What Is a Word?
Vocabulary can be classified as receptive (words we understand when others use
them) or productive (words we use ourselves). Vocabulary can also be classified as
10
11
oral or written. Thus, each of us has four vocabularies: Words we understand when
we hear them (receptive/oral), words we can read (receptive/written), words we
use in our speech (productive/oral), and words we use in our writing (productive/written). The four vocabularies overlap but are not the same, and the relationships among them change over time. Children entering school, for example,
have larger oral than reading vocabularies in their first language. Literate adults,
on the other hand, have larger reading than oral vocabularies. And both children
and adults have larger receptive vocabularies than productive ones; that is, they
understand more words than they use in their speech or writing. The emphasis in
this book will be on reading vocabulary. However, all four types of vocabulary are
important, and we will give some attention to each of them.
In order to talk about vocabulary sizethe very important matter of how
many words students know and need to learnit is necessary to decide just what
we will call a word. When written, words are groups of letters separated by white
space. Thus, the is a word, apple another word, predawn another, perpendicular another, and houseboat still another. By this same definition, however, want, wants,
wanted, and wanting are each separate words, though their only real difference is
how they are grammatically inflected. Therefore, for the most part, when we are
considering how many words students know or need to learn, we will use the
term word to refer to word families. By word families, we mean the basic word and all
of its inflected forms. Thus, we count the forms want, wants, wanted, and wanting
as a single word.
Another convention we follow in talking about the size of the learning task
is to count graphic forms with different meanings as a single word. Thus, key referring to the door key, key the musical term, and key meaning a small island are
considered one word. Doing so definitely underestimates the size of the learning
task, but it is necessary because this convention has been followed in virtually all
studies of vocabulary size.
What Does It Mean to Know a Word?
Given the assumption that second-language word learning is influenced by
knowledge of first-language words, it is necessary to carefully consider what it
means to know a word for an ELL. Several researchers have weighed in on this
issue. Recently, Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) suggested this continuum of
word knowledge for native English speakers:
No knowledge.
General sense, such as knowing mendacious has a negative connotation.
Narrow, context-bound knowledge, such as knowing that a radiant bride is a
beautifully smiling happy one, but unable to describe an individual in a different
context as radiant.
Having knowledge of a word but not being able to recall it readily enough to apply it in appropriate situations.
Rich, decontextualized knowledge of a words meaning, its relationship to other
words, and its extension to metaphorical uses, such as understanding what
someone is doing when they are devouring a book. (Beck et al., 2002, p. 10)
12
13
tors Word Frequency Guide, since the number of entries in the Guide is considerably
larger than the number in the Word Frequency Book, it is reasonable to assume that
an estimate of word families based on the Guide would be well over 180,000.
Note that these are not estimates of the size of individual students vocabularies; they are estimates of the total number of words in the myriad texts students
might encounter. Note also that many of these words are extremely rare and that
no single student will encounter all of them, much less learn all of them. Still, realizing that there are this many words that could be taught is important. It is abundantly clear that we cannot directly teach all of them.
How Many Words Do Students Learn?
As noted in Chapter 1, estimates of the number of words in native Englishspeaking students reading vocabularies vary considerably depending on how the
estimate is made. Many of these estimates can be dismissed or at least very strongly questioned because of such factors as the size of the dictionary from which
words were sampled, the definition of what constitutes a word, the method of testing, the sampling procedures used, and such ad hoc requirements as that a word
appear in a number of different dictionaries (Graves, 1986; Lorge & Chall, 1963).
The most unbiased estimate of the size of native English-speaking students
reading vocabularies comes, in our judgment, from work done by Nagy and
Herman (1987). Using data gathered from the Nagy and Anderson (1984) study,
Nagy and Herman recalibrated earlier estimates and concluded that 3rd-graders
reading vocabularies average about 10,000 words, that 12th-graders reading vocabularies average about 40,000 words, and that schoolchildren therefore learn
about 3,000 words each year. These figures refer to word families as previously described, but they do not include idioms, other multiword units, multiple
meanings, or proper nouns, which would raise the figure considerably. All in
all, our best estimatebased on the work of Anderson and Nagy (1992); Anglin
(1993b); Miller and Wakefield (1993); Nagy and Anderson (1984); Nagy and Herman (1987); and White, Graves, and Slater (1990)is that average 12th-graders
know something like 50,000 word families and learn from 3,000 to 4,000 words
each year. These figures, however, are for native English speakers. ELLs, of course,
have smaller English vocabularies. Moreover, the vocabularies of ELLs vary tremendously depending on their levels of first-language literacy development and
second-language proficiency. The goal is to help all students develop an extensive
vocabularysomething like 50,000 wordsover their years in school. Based on
this goal, many ELLs face a huge word-learning task.
There is one other crucial fact about the vocabulary-learning task that students
face: The English language includes a very large number of infrequent words and
a very small number of frequent words. Here are some examples of just how important frequent words are: The 100 most frequent words account for about 50%
of the words in a typical text; the 1,000 most frequent words for about 70%; and
the 5,000 most frequent words for about 80% (Hiebert, 2005). If a student does not
know these very frequent words, he will be repeatedly stumbling over the words
in anything other than a book with severely controlled vocabulary.
14
15
16
17
18
19
language. Children can be exposed to rich language through having text read
aloud to them, their own reading of texts, and media such as television.
Shared Book Reading. As noted in the Introduction, one method that has been
used frequently and successfully to develop vocabulary in children is shared book
reading in which adults read aloud to children, periodically stopping to highlight
and discuss individual words as well as other aspects of what they are reading.
Research with native English speakers indicates that this method has an impact
on oral language outcomes, including vocabulary, grammar, and listening comprehension (Wasik & Bond, 2001; Zevenbergen & Whitehurst, 2003). The same appears to be the case for ELLs (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Carlo et al., 2004; T. Roberts,
2008; Roberts & Neal, 2004; Silverman, 2007). In a study with young ELLs, Roberts and Neal (2004) compared small-group comprehension-oriented instruction,
which consisted of shared book reading, vocabulary instruction, and comprehension activities, with emergent literacy instruction, which consisted of naming and
writing letters and recognizing and generating rhymes. Findings indicated that
children in the comprehension-oriented instruction outperformed children in the
emergent literacy instruction in vocabulary and print concepts, while emergent
literacy instruction resulted in better letter-naming and writing. Additionally, English oral proficiency was more correlated with the comprehension-related skills
than with the decoding-related skills.
There is evidence that shared book reading can be an effective component for
programs for older learners as well. In a study conducted by Carlo et al. (2004), a 15week intervention was designed to build breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension in 254 bilingual and native English-speaking
children from nine 5th-grade classrooms in four schools in California, Virginia, and
Massachusetts. The intervention used immigration as a theme. Each weekly lesson
began with shared reading of one of a variety of text genres, including newspaper
articles, diaries, first-hand documentation of the immigrant experience, historical
accounts, and fiction. In accordance with research indicating that words are best
learned from rich semantic contexts, target words were selected from the brief, engaging reading passages. Twelve words that students at this level were likely to
encounter repeatedly across texts in different domains were introduced each week.
Although there were relatively few words introduced each week, activities helped
children make semantic links to other words and concepts and thus to attain a deeper and richer understanding of each words meaning, as well as to learn other words
and concepts related to the target words. The lessons also taught students to infer
meanings from context and to use roots, affixes, cognates, morphological relationships, and comprehension monitoring. All the strategy instruction used the reading
passages as a springboard. Findings indicated that the ELLs did better in generating sentences that conveyed different meanings of multi-meaning words, in completing cloze passages, on tests of knowledge of word meanings, and on measures
of word association and morphological knowledge. On a cloze test used to evaluate comprehension, students showed significant improvement, but the impact on
comprehension was much lower than on vocabulary. These results indicate that this
multifaceted training led to improved knowledge of the words studied.
In Chapter 3, we discuss several shared book readings in some detail. We want
to note that this is an extremely important type of vocabulary instruction for chil-
20
21
22
23
child-friendly definitions of the target academic vocabulary. Again, various activities were used to develop context for the targeted vocabulary, including introducing it as a lesson objective; using picture cards to clarify its meaning; reinforcing
it through discussion during daily shared interactive reading; and reviewing it
through the use of glossaries and concept maps.
Instruction that involves activating prior knowledge and comparing and
contrasting word meanings is likely to be more powerful than simple combinations of contextual information and definitions (Baumann, Edwards, Boland, Olejnik, & Kameenui, 2003; Beck & McKeown, 1991). Such instruction has
also been shown to improve comprehension of selections containing the words
taught. The best known and most widely researched techniques falling in this
category are semantic mapping (Heimlich & Pittelman, 1986) and semantic feature analysis (Pittelman, Heimlich, Berglund, & French, 1991). In a study with
upper-elementary-grade, learning-disabled, bilingual students, Bos, Allen, and
Scanlon (1989) found that semantic/feature analysis led to significantly higher
vocabulary scores than more traditional vocabulary instruction, and that semantic mapping led to significantly higher comprehension scores than more traditional vocabulary instruction.
More lengthy and robust instruction that involves explicit teaching that includes both contextual and definitional information, multiple exposures to target words in varied contexts, and experiences that promote deep processing of
words meanings is likely to be more powerful than less time-consuming and
less robust instruction. Working with native English speakers, Beck and McKeown and their colleagues have developed, refined, and repeatedly tested several
forms of rich vocabulary instruction that involve students in extensive and varied experiences with words (Beck & McKeown, 2004; Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown,
1982; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Perfetti, 1983; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, &
Pople, 1985). Researchers who work with ELLs (August, Artzi, & Mazrum, 2010;
August et al., 2009; Caldern et al., 2005; Carlo et al., 2004; Lawrence, Capotosto,
Branum-Martin, White, & Snow, 2011; Mancilla-Martinez, 2010; Silverman, 2007;
Snow, Lawrence, & White, 2009) have also developed, refined, and tested forms of
rich vocabulary instruction that generally have consisted of:
introducing words through the rich context of authentic childrens literature or grade-appropriate expository text;
clear, student-friendly definitions and explanations of target words;
questions and prompts to help students think critically about the meaning of words;
examples of how words are used in other contexts;
opportunities for younger children to act out the meaning of words
when applicable;
visual aids illustrating the meaning of words in authentic contexts other
than the book in which the word was introduced;
encouragement for students to pronounce, spell, and write about words;
24
A series of recent studies (Dalton, Proctor, Uccelli, Mo, & Snow, 2011; Proctor,
Dalton, & Grisham, 2007; Proctor, Uccelli, Dalton, & Snow, 2009; Proctor, Dalton,
et al., 2011) with Spanish-English bilinguals and native English-speaking 4thand 5th-grade students in high-poverty schools has investigated the effects of
rich vocabulary instruction delivered via the Internet. In one intervention (Proctor, Dalton, et al., 2011), students read eight multimedia texts and received embedded vocabulary instruction on 40 power words. The intervention, termed
Improving Comprehension Online (ICON), embodied a variety of features, including
Spanish translations of all texts and directions; human read-alouds of each text in English and Spanish; English monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual pedagogical
coacheswho provided assistance with using the system and responding to prompts;
a revisable electronic work-log that collected student responses; a multimedia glossary;
and pictures illustrating the narrative and informational text content. (Proctor, Dalton
et al., 2011, p. 524)
25
cognates (Shanahan & Beck, 2006; August & Shanahan, 2010a). As was the case for
other vocabulary methods, the second-language studies generally taught strategies as part of a multifaceted vocabulary program, making it difficult to disentangle the effects of strategy instruction from that of other methods. Nevertheless,
like all students, ELLs must master word-learning strategiesusing context, using
word parts, using the dictionary, and using first cognate knowledge when students native language shares cognates with English. However, mastering wordlearning strategies is particularly important for ELLs because they have so many
words to learn (Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005).
Context Clues. As Sternberg (1987) suggests, Most vocabulary is learned from
context. In our judgment, and in the judgment of most other vocabulary researchers, no other explanation can account for the huge number of words students
learn. Relevant studies on context clues include descriptive research on students
ability to use context to learn the meanings of unknown words, a topic that was
discussed in the section above on rich and varied language experiences. The next
question for educators is, Can students be taught to better use context to learn
the meanings of unknown words? As Baumann, Edwards, Boland, Olejnik, and
Kameenui (2003) point out, not all instruction in using context clues has been successful. In fact, teaching students to use context clues is a challenging task. Still,
there have been some notable successes.
Two studies by Baumann and his associates (Baumann et al., 2002; Baumann,
Edwards, Boland, Olejnik, & Kameenui, 2003) are the most ambitious to date. In
both studies, native English-speaking students were taught contextual analysis
and morphological analysis. In the 2002 study, results indicated that students in
both the contextual group and the morphemic group were better able to glean the
meanings of transfer words on an immediate test, but not on a delayed test. In the
2003 study, results indicated that students receiving the experimental treatment
were more successful at inferring the meanings of novel affixed words and at inferring the meanings of morphologically and contextually decipherable words on
a delayed test, but not on an immediate test.
Fukkink and de Glopper (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of 21 studies of
instruction in context clues with native English speakers. In their analysis, they
distinguished five types of instruction, including:
1. instruction centering on one or more context-type clues,
2. instruction in which students are asked to complete cloze tests,
3. instruction focused on developing a general strategy to infer word meaning
from context with explicit reference to clue types,
4. instruction directed at helping students develop a general schema to conceptualize a definition, and
5. instruction involving practice only, without any specific guidance about how
to infer the meanings of the words.
Findings indicated a significant positive effect (medium effect size of .43) for instruction deriving word meaning from context. Of the five types, clue instruction
was superior to the other types.
26
27
in adorable. Prefixes are elements that are attached to the beginnings of words and
change the words meaning. Examples include un- in unhappy and re- in replay.
Latin and Greek roots are non-English words that are sometimes used as parts of
English words. Examples include tract meaning pull, as in attract and extract,
and voc meaning call, as in advocate and equivocate.
Children learning in their first language learn inflectional suffixes well before
entering school and thus do not need to be taught them. Conversely, 1st-grade
children show little competence in recognizing derivational suffixes, and although
competence increases with age, even some high school students show little knowledge of some of them. There is some evidence that derivational suffixes can be
taught, and thus these suffixes are a reasonable target of instruction as students
progress through school. Many upper-elementary students do not know even the
most common prefixes, and there is good evidence that prefixes can and should
be taught in the upper-elementary grades (White, Power, & White, 1989). The situation with Latin and Greek roots is more problematic for the following reasons:
There are hundreds of roots that might be taught; most roots are not used in a great
many English words; the relationship between the original Greek or Latin meaning of a root and its meaning in an English word might be vague; and roots are
variously spelled, making them difficult for students to notice in words. Nevertheless, the CCSS recommends that students begin using common, grade-appropriate
Latin and Greek roots as clues to word meanings in the 4th grade.
ELLs will not have learned as many inflectional suffixes as native English
speakers prior to school entry. A recent study with 4th- and 5th-grade Spanishspeaking ELLs (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2007) examined the role of derivational suffixes
in students reading comprehension and found that between 4th and 5th grade,
awareness of these derivational suffixes became a more significant predictor of
reading comprehension.
Although not all studies conducted with English-proficient students focusing
on the use of word parts to unlock the meanings of unknown words have produced positive results, in general the results have been good. A recent meta-analysis of three types of morphological awareness interventions in Englishthose
that focused on awareness of inflections, derivational suffixes, and compound
words for school-age children synthesized data from 17 published and unpublished studies (Goodwin & Ahn, 2010) and found an overall effect of .44 on literacy
outcomes, with significant effects for morphological awareness, vocabulary, phonological awareness, phonological recoding, and reading comprehension. Eleven
studies had vocabulary outcomes with a large and significant effect size of 1.04.
The Goodwin and Ahn review identified 14 teaching strategies. The most common was teaching students the meaning of prefixes, suffixes, and roots as well as
to identify these units within morphologically complex words. Other interventions taught children to build morphologically complex words from cards containing prefixes, roots, and suffixes (Berninger et al., 2003); taught morphological
patterns and rules (Roberts, F. A., 2008); helped students identify the words within
compound words (Lovett et al., 2000); taught the grammatical role of morphemes
(Nunes et al., 2006); helped students break words into morphemes (Harris, 2007);
and taught about word origin (Henry, Calfee, & Avelar-LaSalle, 1989).
28
29
30
31
32
33
used. Examples included using guides and materials that explicitly address concepts in basal readers that might be confusing for second-language learners (Prez,
1981); creating opportunities for children to act out meanings of words and using
visual aids that illustrate the meanings of words in authentic contexts other than the
book in which the word is introduced (August et al., 2009; Silverman, 2007); aligning
independent reading materials to childrens level of reading and second-language
proficiency with support prior to and during reading, and creating opportunities
for teacher-student interaction around books to make them comprehensible during
reading (August et al., 2009); and providing a model of a process, task, or assignment before requiring students to undertake it, previewing material prior to questioning students, and using graphic organizers (August, 2010).
Differentiating instruction. It is important to keep in mind that students development of literacy is influenced by a range of individual factors, including age
of arrival in a new country, educational history, SES, and cognitive capacity (August & Shanahan, 2006a). This point is highlighted by the differential effects of
instruction on students of different ages (such as the differences in word learning
described in this book), with differing degrees of English proficiency (Neuman &
Koskinen, 1992), and varied ability to read (Block, 2008).
The studies examined here provide clues as to how to successfully differentiate instruction for individual ELLs:
However, given the diverse needs of children, there is very little experimental
research that provides specific guidance about how to accommodate the diverse
needs of students within a single classroom or school.
A FINAL WORD
Given the difficulty of deciding just what will be counted as a word and what
level of word knowledge should count as knowing a word, it is difficult to say
exactly how many words students know or need to learn. However, there is good
evidence that the texts and other reading materials students could encounter over
the 13 years of schooling contain over 180,000 word families, that average students learn to read something like 3,0004,000 words each year, and that average
students acquire reading vocabularies in the neighborhood of 50,000 words by
the time they graduate from high school. To accomplish this very significant task,
students need all the help that we can give them. There is also good evidence that
34