Article summary

Dissertation2.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Article summary

IRA Outstanding Dissertation Award for 2012

What Classroom Observations Reveal About Oral Vocabulary Instruction in Kindergarten Tanya S. Wright Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA

T here is now compelling evidence that children’s early vocabulary development (i.e., ability to understand word meanings) is essential to their

long-term reading comprehension (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005; Ricketts, Nation, & Bishop, 2007; Sénéchal, Ouellette, & Rodney, 2006; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Findings from experimen- tal studies have indicated that vocabulary knowledge inf luences the development of conceptual knowledge and comprehension, suggesting a causal relationship among these fundamental language skills (Neuman, Newman, & Dwyer, 2011).

Yet, profound differences in vocabulary knowledge among learners from different socioeconomic (SES) groups have been documented as early as toddlerhood (Hoff, 2003). Children growing up in low SES circum- stances are likely to be exposed to fewer words early on, resulting in more limited vocabulary knowledge than their middle class peers (Har t & R isley, 1995). Consequently, children from low-income backgrounds may a r r ive at for mal schooling with more limited vocabulary than their more economically advantaged peers. These differences in vocabulary knowledge can become exacerbated as children move through school (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997). By four th grade, students with limited vocabulary knowledge are likely to slump in reading comprehension (Chall & Jacobs, 2003), and they will often continue to struggle as read- ers throughout their schooling (Stanovich, 1986).

Therefore, there is consensus that teachers need to focus on enhancing students’ oral lang uage vocabu- lary from the star t of schooling (National Early Lit- eracy Panel, 2008; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Off icers, 2010; Nationa l Instit ute of Ch ild Health and Development, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Grif- f in, 1998). Evidence from meta-analyses of interven- tion studies indicates that vocabulary instruction can improve young children’s vocabulary knowledge and later comprehension when instruction attends to word

selection, explicit explanations, and extensive prac- tice and review (Marulis & Neuman, 2010; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). Yet, cutoff date studies have shown that children’s chronological age, not whether they experience one or two years of schooling, predicted vocabulary out- comes (Ch r istia n, Mor r ison, Fra zier, & Masset ti, 2000; Sk ibbe, Connor, Mor r ison, & Jewkes, 2011). These f ind ing s sug gest that cur rent instr uctiona l practice may not impact children’s vocabulary learn- ing trajectories.

Although the preponderance of research has indi- cated that vocabulary instruction can and should be taught in schools, observational studies have recorded only limited attention to print vocabulary for students in upper elementary and middle school classrooms (Blanton & Moor man, 1990; D urk in, 1978; Scot t, Jamieson-Noel, & Asselin, 2003; Watts, 1995). Teachers did much mentioning and assignment of new vocabu- lary but little actual teaching of it. Although these results focus on upper grades and print vocabulary, they do not forebode well for the prevalence of oral vocabulary instruction in the earlier years of schooling.

Study Goals Given the strong evidence suppor ting early vocabu- lary instruction, there is a clear need to better under- stand how oral vocabulary instr uction is enacted at the star t of formal school and whether such instruc- t ion i s e q u it a ble a c r o s s so c io e conom ic c i r c u m- stances. Specif ically, I asked the following research questions: (1) What is the extent of oral vocabulary instr uction in k indergar ten? (2) How do the peda- gogical features of vocabulary instruction in kinder- ga r ten alig n with the resea rch base? and (3) Is the quantity and quality of oral vocabulary instr uction in kindergar ten equitable across teachers serving in different SES schools?

Reading Research Quarterly • 47(4)354

Method Ten trained obser vers visited the classrooms of 55 k inderga r ten teachers with st udents from a range of urban and suburban communities across a Rust Belt state. Approximately one-third of the teachers served in primarily low-income schools (i.e., greater than 50% of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches), one-t h i rd taught i n more econom ica l ly diverse schools (i.e., 25 –50% of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches), and a third served in more economically advantaged schools (i.e., 25% or fewer receiving free or reduced-price lunches). Obser- vations lasted for three-hour periods beginning at the star t of the school day, which constituted the entire day of kindergar ten for half-day kindergar ten pro- grams. Each classroom was visited four times in the spring of 2009 for a total of 660 hours in kindergarten classrooms.

Observers audiorecorded all teacher talk and simul- taneously took notes on a laptop using an observation protocol designed to capture all episodes of vocabu- lary instruction as well as when they occurred during the school day. An episode of vocabulary instruction was def ined as an interaction in which the teacher discussed the meaning of a word with students at any point throughout the observation period. For example, “A cube has six sides that are square” would be identi- f ied as a vocabulary episode. I included episodes that were in the form of a child-friendly definition, or a clear rephrasing. They could be long or short conversations, synonyms, antonyms, category attribution, or examples to give meaning to a target word.

All vocabulary episodes were transcribed for cod- ing and analysis. I examined the extent and quality of vocabulary instruction in classrooms across different SES schools by analyzing (1) the number of vocabulary episodes that teachers provided per day, (2) the number of vocabulary words that teachers addressed per day, (3) the diff iculty level of vocabulary words that were addressed using three methods from previous research (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Biemiller, 2009; Weizman & Snow, 2001), (4) the length of vocabulary episodes (i.e., number of teacher utterances), and (5) the number of vocabulary episodes per minute across con- tent areas during the kindergarten day. I used ANOVA to compare each feature of vocabular y instr uction across teachers serving in different SES schools.

Results I found that teachers discussed vocabulary words on average 8.14 (SD = 4.24) times per day. However, the range and variability were considerable. Some teachers provided no vocabulary episodes, whereas others did so

up to 20 times per day. There were signif icant differ- ences across groups in the number of vocabulary epi- sodes per day: F(2, 52) = 3.72, p < .031. Teachers serving in predominantly low-income schools provided fewer vocabulary episodes than those serving in economically advantaged schools. The effect size was large and edu- cationally meaningful (Cohen’s d = 0.95).

On average, kindergarten teachers used their eight daily vocabulary episodes to teach 7.44 (SD = 3.72) dif- ferent vocabulary words, suggesting that teachers rarely discussed the meaning of the same word more than once during the day. Vocabulary episodes were very brief, consisting on average of 2.50 (SD = 0.68) utter- ances by the teacher. The episodes were also intermit- tent, with low to moderate correlations across teachers’ vocabulary episodes from one observation to another.

Converging evidence across three approaches to analysis revealed that the majority of words explained by kindergarten teachers were considered common, easy, or basic. However, teachers serving in economi- cally advantaged schools explained challenging words more of ten than teachers ser ving in economically diverse or low-income schools. Effect sizes for these comparisons (Cohen’s d = 0.85– 0.95) were large and educationally meaningful.

Teachers provided the greatest number of vocabu- lary episodes per minute during read-alouds, science, and social studies instruction when these subjects were taught. Yet, on average, teachers devoted less than 11 minutes per day to read-alouds, only about 2 minutes per day to science instruction, and 1 minute to social studies instruction. Median calculations revealed no science or social studies instruction at all in many kin- dergarten classrooms. Therefore, the subject areas that seemed most likely to support vocabulary instruction were least likely to be taught in kindergarten.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to develop a portrait of oral vocabulary instruction in kindergarten classrooms. The goal was to provide an in-depth description of the quantity and quality of oral vocabulary instruction pro- vided by teachers serving in a range of SES contexts. My analysis revealed that vocabulary instruction in kin- dergarten consisted of single, brief word explanations by the teacher. These explanations occurred intermit- tently and were embedded across all contexts through- out the day. Teachers seemed to explain words to sup- port students’ understanding of the immediate context; however, word selection did not ref lect recommenda- tions from previous research.

Taken together, these findings suggest that vocabu- lary instruction observed in a large group of kindergar- ten classrooms consisted of word explanations during

What Classroom Observations Reveal About Oral Vocabulary Instruction in Kindergarten 355

teachable moments throughout the day with no evi- dence of more formal vocabulary instruction. I found that teachers ser ving in economica lly advantaged schools provided more of these teachable moments and addressed more challenging words than teachers serving in predominantly low-income schools. There- fore, rather than ameliorating or potentially closing the vocabulary gap, the current state of vocabulary instruc- tion could potentially exacerbate this gap. Unfor tu- nately, such inconsistent instruction and great disparity in opportunities to learn vocabulary may have long- term consequences for students’ literacy development and success in school.

References Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to

life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford. Biemiller, A. (2009). Words worth teaching: Closing the vocabulary

gap. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill. Blanton, W., & Moorman, G. (1990). The presentation of read-

ing lessons. Reading Research and Instruction, 29(3), 35 –55. doi:10.1080/19388079009558015

Chall, J.S., & Jacobs, V.A. (2003). The classic study on poor chil- dren’s fourth grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–15.

Christian, K., Morrison, F.J., Frazier, J.A., & Massetti, G. (2000). Specif icity in the nature and timing of cognitive growth in kin- dergarten and f irst grade. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1(4), 429–448. doi:10.1207/S15327647JCD0104_04

C u n n i n g h a m, A .E ., & St a nov ic h, K . (1997). E a rly r e ad i n g acquisition and its relation to reading exper ience and abil- ity 10 years later. Developmental Psycholog y, 33(6), 934 –945. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934

Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about read- ing comprehension instr uction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481–533.

Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaning ful differences. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Hof f, E . (20 03). T he spe c i f ic it y of env i ron ment i n f luence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabular y development via mater na l speech. Child Development, 74(5), 1368 –1378. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00612

Ma r u l is, L ., & Neuma n, S.B. (2010). The ef fec ts of voca bu- lary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta- a na lysis. Re view of E ducational Research, 80(3), 300 – 335. doi:10.3102/0034654310377087

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Coun- cil of Chief State School Off icers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social

studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.

National Institute of Child Health and Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An

evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on

reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publica- tion No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

N ICHD E a rly Ch i ld C a re R esea rch Net work. (20 05). Pat h- ways to read i ng: T he role of or a l la ng ua ge i n t he t r a nsi- tion to read ing. Developmental Psycholog y, 41(2), 428 – 442. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.428

Neuman, S.B., Newman, E.H., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Educational effects of a vocabulary intervention on preschoolers’ word knowl- edge and conceptual development: A cluster-randomized trial. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 249–272.

Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. (2007). Vocabulary is impor- tant for some but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Read- ing, 11(3), 235–257. doi:10.1080/10888430701344306

Scott, J.A., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Asselin, M. (2003). Vocabulary instruction throughout the day in twenty-three Canadian upper elementary classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 269–286. doi:10.1086/499726

Sénéchal, M., Ouellette, G., & Rodney, D. (2006). The misunder- stood giant: On the predictive role of early vocabulary to future reading. In D.K. Dickinson & S.B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy (Vol. 2, pp. 173–182). New York: Guilford.

Skibbe, L., Connor, C., Morrison, F., & Jewkes, A. (2011). Schooling effects on preschoolers’ self-reg ulation, early literacy, and lan- guage growth. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 42–49. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.05.001

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

Stahl, S.A., & Fairbanks, M.M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72–110.

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some conse- quences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.

Storch, S.A., & Whitehurst, G.J. (2002). Oral language and code- related precursors to reading: Evidence from a long itudinal str uctural model. Developmental Psycholog y, 38(6), 934 –947. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934

Watts, S. (1995). Vocabulary instruction during reading lessons in six classrooms. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(3), 399–424.

Weizman, Z.O., & Snow, C.E. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated expo- sure and suppor t for its meaning. Developmental Psycholog y, 37(2), 265–279. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.265

Tanya Wright completed her doctoral work and dissertation at the University of Michigan and is now an assistant professor in the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA; e-mail tswright@msu.edu.

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.