Literacy Teaching in Secondary Content

page

31

Voices from the Middle, Volume 20 Number 1, September 2012

Marzano | A Comprehensive Approach to Vocabulary InstructionRobert J. Marzano

A Comprehensive Approach to Vocabulary Instruction

In 2000, the National Reading Panel published a landmark review of the research on reading entitled The

Report of the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). This report identified five elements as focus areas for reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and compre- hension. Of these, vocabulary was singled out. As reported by Kamil and Hiebert, “Vocabulary holds a special place among these components” (2005, p. 2).

The importance of vocabulary development and, consequently, vocabulary instruction was recog- nized long before the National Reading Panel report. Numerous studies have documented its critical role relative to learning in general and reading in particular. For example, as early as 1941, researchers estimated that there was about a 6000-word gap between students at the 25th and 50th percentiles in both fourth and twelfth grades (Nagy & Herman, 1984). In 1984, Nagy and Herman estimated the difference to be be- tween 4,500 and 5,400 words for low- versus high-achieving students.

What Vocabulary Should Be Taught? While the importance of vocabulary knowledge to all students is almost self-evident, the specific vocabulary words students should be taught are not. Indeed, Nagy and Anderson (1984) esti-

mated that 88,500 unique terms can be found in reading material encountered by students in grades 3 through 9 alone—far too many to be considered viable for direct instruction. But Beck, McKeown, and Omanson (1987) offered a useful perspective on the numbers of terms students en- counter and the number of terms they should be taught. They noted that of those 88,500 terms, about half would be encountered only once in the lifetime of an avid reader. In other words, they highlighted the fact that not all terms in the Eng- lish language should receive equal consideration from an instructional perspective, since a large proportion of terms are not very frequently en- countered in typical reading.

For the purposes of instruction, Beck and McKeown (1985) suggested that vocabulary terms be categorized into three tiers. Later, Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) described the first tier as those terms that are basic to the English language because of their high frequency in oral and written language use—terms such as big, clock, walk, baby, and so on. They noted that “Words in this tier rarely require instructional attention to their meanings in school” (2002, p. 8).

Tier 2 terms are those that appear infre- quently enough that they will probably not be learned incidentally by students. Such terms might include nimble, feeble, vigor, and so on. They are good candidates for direct vocabulary instruction.

Tier 3 terms are subject-specific terms that, although not frequently found in the course of general speaking or reading, are important to general literacy in specific subject areas. For example, the term cellular response might not be

g31-35-Sept2012_VM.indd 31 7/30/12 4:22 PM

Marzano | A Comprehensive Approach to Vocabulary Instruction page

32

Voices from the Middle, Volume 20 Number 1, September 2012

Organizing the basic terms

into clusters provides

teachers with a scaffold

infrastructure that can be

used in instruction.

frequently encountered in general speaking or reading, but it is important to science at the high school level. Subject-specific tier 3 terms are also good candidates for direct instruction. Addition- ally, tier 3 terms include terms in the general vo- cabulary that are so infrequent as to be unlikely candidates for direct instruction—terms like be- smirch, chattel, and begone.

In short, Beck and her colleagues provided a template for identifying terms that are impor-

tant for student success in their K–12 academic experiences: tier 1 terms that are so frequent they probably do not require direct instruction, tier 2 terms from the general vocabulary that should receive direct instruc-

tion due to their importance and lack of frequen- cy, and the subject-specific terms from tier 3. Unfortunately, the terms in these tiers were not explicitly identified—at least, not until recently.

What Are the Tier 1, 2, and 3 Terms? While the specific terms in tiers 1, 2, and 3 have historically been discussed in an abstract manner only, progress has been made recently in identi- fying this corpus.

Tier 1 Terms As described above, Beck and her colleagues made a case that tier 1 terms do not have to be taught since they are quite frequent in the En- glish language and will typically be understood by most students upon entrance to Kindergar- ten or first grade. However, this generalization is not true for all students. Indeed, there is con- siderable evidence that vocabulary knowledge is highly correlated with family income and socio- economic status (SES) (Nagy & Herman, 1984; Graves & Slater, 1987). For example, Hart and Risley (1995) estimated that 36-month-old chil- dren from welfare families have only 45 percent of the vocabulary of children from professional

families and the gap between the groups widens over time. There is also evidence that direct in- struction in tier 1 terms is important for English language learners (Calderón et al., 2005; Biemil- ler & Slonim, 2001; McLaughlin et al., 2000).

In the book Teaching Basic and Advanced Vo- cabulary (Marzano, 2010), I identified 2,845 tier 1 terms that I refer to as “basic terms.” Those words are organized into 420 semantic clusters that are themselves rank-ordered in terms of how basic their constituent words are. To illustrate, cluster 102 (of the 420) entitled Bodies of Wa- ter includes the following basic terms: lake, ocean, puddle, river, sea, stream, bay, creek, and pond. In contrast, cluster 10 entitled “Cause/Effect Rela- tionship Markers” includes the following basic terms: because, by, for, from, if, since, so, then, to, and because of. While cluster 102 contains 9 basic terms and cluster 10 contains 10 basic terms, the difference in their rank (i.e., rank 10 versus 102) is primarily because the basic terms in cluster 10 are more frequent in the English language than the basic terms in cluster 102.

Organizing the basic terms into clusters pro- vides teachers with a scaffold infrastructure that can be used in instruction. Specifically, more than one basic word can be addressed at a time, par- ticularly if a student is already familiar with one or more of the basic terms in a given cluster. For example, if a student is already familiar with the terms lake, puddle, and stream from cluster 102, this knowledge can be used as a starting point for introducing any unfamiliar terms in the cluster.

The 420 clusters of basic terms are also or- ganized into larger groups, referred to as super- clusters. Super-clusters are topical categories that include two or more clusters. For example, one of the 60 super-clusters into which the basic terms have been organized is entitled Animals. It includes the following clusters: Birds, Baby Ani- mals, Cats/Dogs, Land Animals, Sea Animals, Reptiles and Mythical Animals, Insects, Actions Related to Animals, Parts of Animals, Rodents, Dwellings for Animals, General Names for Ani- mals, Shellfish, Equipment Used with Animals, and Primates. This super-cluster contains 131

g31-35-Sept2012_VM.indd 32 7/30/12 4:22 PM

page

33

Voices from the Middle, Volume 20 Number 1, September 2012

Marzano | A Comprehensive Approach to Vocabulary Instruction

There are about 15,000

unique terms . . . that ap-

pear critical to a student’s

understanding of general

English vocabulary and the

vocabulary necessary for

basic literacy in the major

K–12 subject areas.

basic terms and is designed to be used in whole- group instruction when a teacher is addressing content that relates to the general topic of ani- mals. For example, if a teacher were planning a unit of instruction that directly or indirectly ad- dressed animals, terms could be selected from this super-cluster to augment the teacher’s vocabu- lary instruction, particularly for students who do not come to school with a working knowledge of tier 1 terms.

Tier 2 Terms As described above, tier 2 terms are important to a general understanding of the English language but are not used frequently enough that teach- ers can assume they are known to most students from English-speaking homes. Teaching Basic and Advanced Vocabulary (Marzano, 2010) identi- fies 5,162 such terms, referred to as “advanced” terms. Each is associated with a cluster of basic terms. For example, consider the aforementioned cluster 102 entitled Bodies of Water. In addi- tion to the nine basic terms, it contains 25 tier 2 terms, such as brook, gulf, inlet, strait, lagoon, and tributary (to name a few). Similarly, in addition to the 10 basic terms in cluster 10 entitled Cause/ Effect Relationship Markers, there are 31 tier 2 terms, such as if only, now that, therefore, whereas, accordingly, and hence.

Tier 3 Terms Of course, tier 3 terms contain every word in the English language that does not belong to tier 1 or tier 2. As discussed above, the vast majority of such terms are too infrequent to justify direct in- struction in their meaning. However, tier 3 also includes terms that are specific to academic con- tent, terms that, although not used frequently in everyday language, are critical to understanding their respective subject areas. In the book Build- ing Background Knowledge for Academic Achieve- ment (Marzano, 2004), I identified 7,923 such terms across the following subject areas: math- ematics, science, English language arts, general history, US history, world history, geography, civics, economics, health, physical education, the

arts (general), dance, music, theatre, visual arts, and technology. Since the publication of that book, a few states (e.g., Tennessee and Okla- homa) have developed state-level lists that are specific to their state standards. Similar efforts have been made by a host of districts across the country.

Considering Tier 1, 2, and 3 Terms as a Whole If one combines the lists of tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 terms described above, their total num- ber is 15,930. However, about 900 of the terms on the subject-specific lists are also found on the tier 1 or tier 2 lists. For example, the terms computer and letter are on subject-specific lists and on the tier 1 list. In all, then, there are about 15,000 unique terms that constitute tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3—terms that appear critical to a student’s understanding of general English vo- cabulary and the vocabulary necessary for basic literacy in the major K–12 subject areas.

The identification of 15,000 terms is a far cry from the 88,500 terms alluded to by Nagy and Anderson in grades 3–9 alone, and considerably shrinks the scope of the task if a school district were to set as a goal that all students would leave their K–12 experience with a basic understand- ing of the tier 1, tier 2, and subject-specific tier 3 terms. This is not to say that all 15,000 terms should be taught directly. Indeed, a school or district should have a well-crafted, efficient, and comprehensive plan for instruction regarding these 15,000 terms.

A Comprehensive Plan for Vocabulary Instruction A comprehensive plan for vocabulary instruction would include the identification of those students

g31-35-Sept2012_VM.indd 33 7/30/12 4:22 PM

Marzano | A Comprehensive Approach to Vocabulary Instruction page

34

Voices from the Middle, Volume 20 Number 1, September 2012

who would benefit greatly from direct instruc- tion in the tier 1 terms. These students would re- ceive highly focused instruction outside of their regular classes in order to provide them with a working knowledge of as many of the 2,845 basic terms in as short a time as possible. The cluster and super-cluster framework would be used to help students link known words with unknown words, thus avoiding the trap of teaching words in isolation.

Tier 2 terms would be taught as needed as a function of regular classroom instruction. Again,

not all of the 5,162 tier terms would or should be taught directly or in isolation. As tier 2 terms naturally occurred in the context of class- room instruction, they would be introduced to students and then deep- ened over time through repeated use and exami- nation. tier 3 academic

terms would be taught in the context of their respective subject areas. It should be relatively easy to ensure that these terms receive adequate attention as their numbers are not that great. For example, I identified only 201 mathematics-spe- cific terms in grades 6–8, and 214 mathematics- specific terms in grades 9–12. Similarly, there are only 225 science-specific terms in grades 6–8 and 282 in grades 9–12. These numbers might seem inordinately small, but when a school or district ensures that tier 1 and tier 2 terms are addressed elsewhere, the vocabulary instruction load on subject matter teachers is lessened considerably. Stated differently, most subject matter teachers currently have the burden of teaching not only the terms important to their subject areas but also the tier 1 and tier 2 terms students have not learned as a part of their general education.

Vocabulary notebooks can play a critical role in a comprehensive approach to vocabu- lary instruction. Students at all levels can keep notebooks in which they record their tier 2 and

subject-specific tier 3 terms. After words are ini- tially recorded in these notebooks, they would be revisited and revised by students as their knowl- edge of the terms deepens, misconceptions are corrected, and new information is added.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come When the view of vocabulary was that students must learn over 88,000 terms in grades 3–9 alone, the viability of direct vocabulary instruc- tion appeared severely limited. Indeed, by simple extrapolation, it appeared as though a compre- hensive program of direct vocabulary instruction would involve over 100,000 terms across grades K–12. Of course, such an effort would be impos- sible to execute.

However, the insights by Beck and her col- leagues provided a vision of a more focused ap- proach, and the recent listings of tier 1, tier 2, and subject-specific tier 3 terms described above has provided a new, more feasible vision that can be carried out across a K–12 continuum. Given this new vision and accompanying lists of pertinent terms, I see no reason why any student should leave grade 12 without a firm grounding in the terms across tiers 1, 2, and 3. All that is required is for schools and districts to accept the challenge of implementing a comprehensive approach to vocabulary instruction.

References Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1985). Teaching vocabu-

lary: Making the instructions fit the goal. Educa- tional Perspectives, 23(1), 11–15.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruc- tion. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Omanson, R. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse vocabulary instruc- tional techniques. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 147–163). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beimiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and ad- vantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498–520.

When a school or district

ensures that tier 1 and

tier 2 terms are addressed

elsewhere, the vocabulary

instruction load on subject

matter teachers is lessened

considerably.

g31-35-Sept2012_VM.indd 34 7/30/12 4:22 PM

page

35

Voices from the Middle, Volume 20 Number 1, September 2012

Marzano | A Comprehensive Approach to Vocabulary Instruction

Calderón, M., August, D., Slavin, R., Duran, D., Mad- den, N., & Cheung, A. (2005). Bringing words to life in classrooms with English-language learners. In E. F. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to prac- tice (pp. 115–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graves, M. F., & Slater, W. H. (1987, April). The devel- opment of reading vocabularies in rural disadvan- taged students, inner-city disadvantaged students, and middle-class suburban students. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Re- search Association, Washington, DC.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differ- ences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Kamil, M. L., & Hiebert, E. F. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary: Perspectives and persistent is- sues. In E. F. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teach- ing and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J. (2010). Teaching basic and advanced vocabulary: A framework for direct vocabulary

instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle.

McLaughlin, B., August, D., Snow, C., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., White, C., Lively, T., & Lippman, D. (2000, April). Vocabulary improvement and read- ing in English language learners: An intervention study. Paper presented at the Research Symposium on High Standards in Reading for Students from Diverse Language Groups: Research, Practice, & Policy, Washington, DC (US Department of Edu- cation, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs [OBEMLA]).

Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.

Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1984). Limitations of vocabulary instruction (Tech Report No. 326). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED248498).

National Institute of Child Health and Human Devel- opment. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: Author.

Robert J. Marzano is C.E.O. of Marzano Research Laboratory and Executive Director of REL Central. He can be reached at [email protected]

2012 NCTE Election Results In NCTE’s 2012 elections, Elementary Section member Kathy Short, University of Arizona, Tucson, was cho- sen vice president. Short will take office during the NCTE Annual Convention in November. The Middle Level Section also elected new members. Elected to a four-year term on the Steering Commit- tee were Matthew Skillen, Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania, and Shelbie Witte, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Elected to the 2012–2013 Nominating Committee were Zanetta Robinson, Thurgood Marshall Fundamental Middle School, St. Petersburg, Florida, chair; Mollie Blackburn, Ohio State University, Colum- bus; and Katrina Gonzales, Eldorado Middle School, Texas. On the NCTE website, see additional 2012 election results and details on submitting nominations for the 2013 elections (http://www.ncte.org/volunteer/elections).

g31-35-Sept2012_VM.indd 35 7/30/12 4:22 PM