Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners'
Vocabulary Acquisition
Debra L. Otterby
Seattle Pacific University
UMI Number: 3353761
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI UMI Microform 3353761
Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctoral
Degree at Seattle Pacific University, I agree that the library shall make its copies freely
available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this dissertation is
allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with "fair use" as prescribed in the
United States Copyright Law. Requests for copying and reproduction of this dissertation
may be referred to University Microfilms, 1490 Eisenhower Place, PO Box 975, Ann
Arbor, MI 48106, to whom the author has granted "the right to reproduce and sell
(a) copies of the manuscript in microfilm, and/or (b) printed copies of the manuscript
from microfilm."
Signature
D^ 07laA/rJi/ zoo*?
Acknowledgements
To the staff and English language learners in the district where this study was conducted,
thank you for the opportunity to work with you.
To my professors at Seattle Pacific University,
thank you for providing me with rigorous and challenging curricula.
To my dissertation committee, including Dr. Scott F. Beers, Dr. William E. Nagy,
and Dr. Christopher A. Sink,
thank you for your willingness to be my committee members and
for your insight and encouragement.
To Dr. William E. Nagy, my dissertation chair,
thank you for sharing your expertise in vocabulary learning,
for your thoughtful feedback, and for your positive attitude.
To Becky, Diane, Eileen, Glenice, Jody, Kathy, Kirsten, Molly, Noyuri, Sharon,
Valerie, and Vivian,
thank you for your wisdom and for your laughter and thoughtfulness.
To Diane, Kurt, and Mark, my siblings,
thank you for your constant support and for your kindness.
To June, my mother-in-law,
thank you for your cheerfulness and for your optimism.
To Garry, my dear husband,
thank you for the freedom to pursue a lifelong goal and
for your unconditional love.
in loving memory of my father,
The Reverend Leslie H. Otterby
and
in appreciation to these children who have given me
a perspective of learning through their eyes,
Adriana
Erica
Hailey
Jacob
Katie
Kirsten
Luis
Marco
Maxwell
Mayra
Ryan
Sonja
Susana
Table of Contents
Page
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
List of Appendixes viii
Chapter 1: Introduction 4
Vocabulary Learning 4
Mandatory Testing for English Language Learners 8
Purpose of the Study 10
Significance of the Study 10
Research Questions and Hypotheses 12
Research Question 1 12
Research Question 2 12
Research Question 3 12
Research Question 4 12
Hypothesis 1 12
Hypothesis 2 12
Hypothesis 3 12
Hypothesis 4 13
Variables 13
Participants 13
Review of Chapters 13
Chapter 1 13
I
Chapter 2 14
Chapter 3 14
Chapter 4 14
Chapter 5 14
Terminology 15
LI 15
L2 15
Criteria for English Language Services 15
Conclusion 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review 18
Introduction 18
Section 1: Theoretical Foundation 19
Vocabulary Learning Within Reading Development Theory 19
Second-Language Vocabulary Theory 20
Theories Regarding Orthographic Cues 22
Section 2: Review of Research 25
Reading Development 26
Read Alouds 27
Word Explanations 31
Read Alouds Coupled With Word Explanations 35
Orthographic Cues 37
Conclusion 42
ii
Chapter 3: Method 43
Introduction 43
Research Design 43
Sampling Procedure 44
Participants 45
Materials 46
Selection of Target Words 47
Measures 49
Vocabulary Pretest 49
Vocabulary Posttest 52
Test Reliability 56
Procedures 57
Conclusion 59
Chapter 4: Results 60
Introduction 60
Research Questions and Hypotheses 60
Research Question 1 60
Research Question 2 60
Research Question 3 60
Research Question 4 60
Hypothesis 1 61
Hypothesis 2 61
Hypothesis 3 61
iii
Hypothesis 4 61
A Priori Decisions 61
Variables 62
Within-Subjects Factor 62
Dependent Variable 62
Descriptive Statistics of Participants 62
Data Snooping 64
Descriptive Statistics for the Vocabulary Pretest and Posttest 65
Statistical Analyses 66
Assumptions 66
Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance 61
Planned Pairwise Comparisons 68
Holm's Sequential Bonferroni Procedure 69
Effect Sizes Using Pooled Cohen's d 70
Conclusion 71
Chapter 5: Discussion 73
Introduction 73
Purpose of Research 73
Theoretical Implications 74
Other Theories to Conceptualize Vocabulary Learning 75
Pedagogical Implications 78
Vocabulary Learning 78
Mandatory Testing 80
iv
Limitations of the Research 82
Threats to Internal Validity 82
Threats to External Validity 84
Recommendations for Future Research 84
Conclusion 87
References 88
Appendixes 97
Appendix A: Letters of Consent—English, Tagalog, and Spanish 97
Appendix B: Vocabulary Pretest 106
Appendix C: The Reader Self-Perception Scale—International
Reading Association Permission I l l
Appendix D: The Reader Self-Perception Scale—English, Tagalog, and
Spanish 112
Appendix E: Reading Passages 121
"Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose" 121
"The Flame of a Candle" 124
"To Reach the Promised Land" 128
"WasteNot, WantNot" 133
Appendix F: Vocabulary Posttests 138
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Percentages of Students Meeting the Reading Standard on the
2006-2007 Statewide Criterion-Referenced Assessment of Learning 9
Table 2. Assignment of Participants in a Repeated-Measures Method 44
Table 3. Posttest Target Words Matched for Difficulty Using Pretest Scores 56
Table 4. Distribution of Participants by Grade, Deleted Cases, and Gender 63
Table 5. Home Languages of Participants 64
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for the Pretest and Posttest 65
Table 7. Planned Pairwise Comparisons for the Factor Condition Using
Posttest Scores 69
VI
List of Figures
Figure 1. Pretest and Posttest Means for three levels of the factor Condition 67
vii
List of Appendixes
Appendix A: Letters of Consent—English, Tagalog, and Spanish 97
Appendix B: Vocabulary Pretest 106
Appendix C: The Reader Self-Perception Scale—International
Reading Association Permission I l l
Appendix D: The Reader Self-Perception Scale—English, Tagalog
and Spanish 112
Appendix E: Reading Passages 121
"Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose" 121
"The Flame of a Candle" 124
"To Reach the Promised Land" 128
"Waste Not, Want Not" 133
Appendix F: Vocabulary Posttests 138
viii
2
Seattle Pacific University
Abstract
Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners'
Vocabulary Acquisition
By Debra L. Otterby
Chairperson of the Dissertation Committee: Dr. William E. Nagy
School of Education
Vocabulary learning has long been considered one of the essential components of literacy
instruction (International Reading Association, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000).
Recently, members of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and
Youth have maintained the need to research how English language learners develop their
literacy skills (August & Shanahan, 2006). This is critical because of the ever-increasing
linguistic heterogeneity in classrooms. The purpose of this study was to investigate
instructional strategies that may increase vocabulary learning for English language
learners in their middle school years. It was of interest to determine which intervention
best facilitated vocabulary learning: (a) read alouds with explanations of target words
and an orthographic cue; (b) read alouds with explanations of target words; or (c) read
alouds with neither explanations of target words nor an orthographic cue. In a public
school district in Northwestern United States, 50 of the potential 52 English language
learners in grades 5 through 9 enrolled in the state's Transitional Bilingual Instruction
Program participated in the study. A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted using
vocabulary posttest scores to analyze differences among 3 levels of the factor Condition:
(a) Read/Explain/Spell; (b) Read/Explain; and (c) Read. Significant difference was found,
3
Wilks's lambda, A = .24, F(2,48) = 75.35,p = .00, multivariate n2 = .76. Three planned
pairwise comparisons with a Holm's sequential Bonferroni procedure were conducted, all
of which were significant, and effect sizes were calculated using pooled Cohen's d:
(a) Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain, t(49) = 8.529, p = .000, d= 1.267;
(b) Read/Explain and Read, t(49) = 3.512,p = .001, d= .543; and (c) Read/Explain/Spell
and Read, /(49) = 12.018,/? = .000, d= 2.039. These results showed reading aloud
coupled with in-flight word explanations and an orthographic cue significantly increased
vocabulary learning for English language learners. Implications for instructional
practices for second-language learners during their middle school years are included.
4
Chapter 1
Introduction
Vocabulary Learning
Vocabulary has long been considered one of the essential components of literacy
instruction (International Reading Association, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000).
After students have mastered the alphabetic principle, phonological awareness, and
fluency—the building blocks of learning to read—they have transitioned to reading to
learn by continuing their fluency development, increasing their vocabulary knowledge,
and comprehending written text more fully (Chall, 1987).
Over a decade ago, Congress charged members of the National Reading Panel
(2000) with the task of assessing research-based evidence and recommending effective
approaches regarding comprehension. They formulated seven overarching questions, two
of which focused on vocabulary and oral reading instruction:
1. Does vocabulary instruction improve reading? If so, how is this instruction
best provided?
2. Does guided oral reading instruction improve fluency and reading
comprehension? If so, how is this instruction best provided? (p. 3)
These questions led to the idea that investigating instructional practices regarding
vocabulary was of merit, especially if they included oral reading. Because of the
ever-increasing linguistic heterogeneity in classrooms, it was of further interest to
examine these strategies with second-language learners. The National Reading Panel's
(2000) members recognized their recommendations applied to first-language learning,
and there was a need to examine second-language learning; however, they did not include
this aspect because, at that time, there was another research initiative focused on
second-language learning. Recently, authors of the Report of the National Literacy Panel
on Language-Minority Children and Youth suggested there was a need to research how
second-language learners develop their literacy skills (August & Shanahan, 2006).
Recommendations from members of these national panels have demonstrated the
continued need to investigate instructional practices educators can use to assist English
language learners (ELLs), many of whom are placed in English-only classrooms despite
arguments to the contrary. The International Reading Association's (2001) position has
been that second-language learners should, if they desire, have the opportunity to learn in
a multi-lingual environment; however, in the state where this study was conducted nearly
60% of English language learners have begun their educational endeavors in English-
only classrooms (Kindler, 2002).
Because of this, ELLs in their middle or junior high school years not only have to
negotiate communicating their basic needs, but also have to study rigorous curricula in a
new language. This two-fold challenge has been known as Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Skills (CALPS)
(Cummins, 1994). Simply, both of these challenges are unavoidable in English language
learners' everyday and academic life.
For example, in school ELLs have to learn basic communicative sentences, such
as "When do I have to finish this assignment?" or "How do I find a book in the library?"
They also have to grasp cognitively challenging academic vocabulary in subject-specific
courses so they can read fluently and comprehend written text. In social studies, they
6
have to understand vocabulary such as democracy, diversity, and colonial. In science,
they have to grasp concepts such as hypothesis, ecosystem, and velocity. In mathematics,
they encounter vocabulary such as equation and variable during teachers' instructions
and in students' textbooks.
To become proficient in a second language, English language learners need time.
Those who already have 2 to 3 years of first-language schooling in their home country,
require 5 to 7 years to become proficient in a second language, and if there has been no
first-language schooling, then 7 to 10 years are needed (Cummins, 1994). The process
becomes more daunting because second-language learners must become proficient while
their first-language classmates continue to learn. Because ELLs face this challenging and
often demanding task when they are in the initial stages of learning a new language, it is
incumbent upon researchers and educators to find instructional strategies that facilitate
vocabulary learning.
Vocabulary acquisition and knowledge have been outlined by many researchers,
and there has been a concerted effort to find commonalities. This has encompassed
analyzing the development of word meaning vocabulary and determining how students
vary in their development. It has involved examining what it means to know a word and
exploring how individuals differ in their knowledge of words. It has warranted
investigating the connection between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension.
Additionally, there has been a call to analyze social-cognitive factors that potentially
motivate students to read.
Some of the well-established instructional practices for first-language learners
include reading aloud (McKeown & Beck, 2003; Teale, 2003); engaging students in
7
Questioning the Author (Beck & McKeown, 2001a; Beck & McKeown, 2002; Beck,
McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1997); having Text Talks (Beck & McKeown, 2001b);
creating literature circles (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 1998); and encouraging frequent
reading (Nagy & Herman, 1987).
Of these practices, reading aloud using a direct instructional approach is of
interest because it may provide second-language learners the opportunity to hear stories
they might not otherwise be able to read if given the written text. Direct and indirect
instructional approaches to teach vocabulary have been shown to be effective (National
Reading Panel, 2000); however, providing ELLs with explicit, direct instruction of
definitions may be more beneficial for vocabulary growth than having them rely on
contextual support (Nagy, 1997). A direct instructional approach of reading aloud and
explaining reading strategies helps students understand how to use these effective
approaches (Teale, 2003). Reading aloud using a variety of genres may encourage
students to read more broadly (Ivey & Broaddus, 2007), and ELLs can gain information
about specific topics while listening (Read, 2000). Hearing stories read aloud gives ELLs
the opportunity to observe someone who reads fluently (Manyak, 2007). For
less-motivated readers, hearing stories may spark their interest to read. Children of all
ages enjoy having stories read to them because it is a social and interactive activity
(Barrera & Bauer, 2003). In light of these reasons, reading aloud coupled with direct
instruction of vocabulary may be an effective strategy to assist second-language learners
as they acquire new vocabulary.
8
Mandatory Testing for English Language Learners
In order to understand written text on state- and federally mandated tests in core
subject areas, such as reading, language arts, and math, English language learners must
have basic vocabulary knowledge. At the federal level, Title III has specified that annual
achievement objectives must be developed to measure English language learners'
language proficiency so they meet the same standards as other students (United States
Department of Education, 2005). Within the federal No Child Left Behind legislation,
ELLs must be tested annually regarding their educational progress (Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2007). In the state where this study was conducted,
ELLs are assessed annually using a language proficiency test that is given to those who
quality for state services in addition to a statewide criterion-referenced assessment that is
administered to all students.
When comparing ELLs in the school district where this study was conducted to
ELLs statewide, the percentage of students meeting the reading standard on the mandated
criterion-referenced test for the school year 2006-2007 was consistently in the 40% range
for both groups; however, when comparing ELLs in the district to all students statewide,
the percentage of ELLs in the district meeting the reading standard was considerably
lower than all students (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2007; see
Table 1).
9
Table 1
Percentages of Students Meeting the Reading Standard on the 2006-2007
Statewide Criterion-Referenced Assessment of Learning
Grade
District
Migrant
Percentages
State
Migrant
State
All Students
5
6
7
8
44
51
48
33
40
42
42
44
72
68
69
65
Note. On the website of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, data for the school district in
this study were reported in the category Migrant instead of Limited English. Also, school districts vary
regarding reading tests for ninth graders, and there were no scores reported to the Office of Superintendent
of Public Instruction; therefore, ninth-grade data were not included in the above table.
In analyzing other data, a notable portion of English language learners narrowly
missed meeting the reading standard. The percentage of students at Level II, which is
just below the standard, for Grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 was 48%, 36%, 42%, and 46%,
respectively. These data on reading show English language learners in the school district
where this study was conducted are struggling on mandated assessments.
The effects of testing have been studied by researchers, such as Garcia (1991)
who reported Latina/o students in Grades 5 and 6 knew fewer vocabulary words in
reading passages than monolinguals, and this adversely affected their performance on
10
tests. Additionally, a 5-year study conducted by Thomas and Collier (2002) examined
the long-term effects of various academic courses on student achievement. The results
showed there was an association between ELLs' reading scores and their post-secondary
admissions test scores.
In light of state- and federally mandated testing throughout English language
learners' academic lives, it is worthwhile to investigate strategies that help them improve
their reading skills. One variable could be certain instructional practices that have the
potential to increase vocabulary learning, which in turn may improve comprehension
skills. It is recognized, however, there are innumerable factors that may influence
vocabulary learning and comprehension.
Purpose of the Study
This study explored instructional strategies that potentially enhance vocabulary
learning for English language learners in their middle school years. It was of interest to
determine which intervention best facilitated vocabulary learning: (a) read alouds with
explanations of target words and an orthographic cue; (b) read alouds with explanations
of target words; or (c) read alouds with neither explanations of target words nor an
orthographic cue.
Significance of the Study
As a result of this study, educators may have a better understanding of certain
factors that increase vocabulary learning for English language learners. This may give
them insight into effective strategies for teaching vocabulary so ELLs learn challenging
academic vocabulary essential for comprehension in subject-specific courses and on
mandatory tests.
11
Even though there has been abundant research for first-language learners
regarding read alouds and word explanations, there has been an increasing need for
in-depth studies that focus on these strategies as an avenue for ELLs to learn vocabulary.
Research that includes reading aloud coupled with word explanations and the use of
orthographic cues is needed as this may provide ELLs with a multi-sensory approach
when learning new vocabulary.
Studies that have focused on primary-aged students have been plentiful, yet
research with participants in their middle school years is needed, and research that
exclusively focuses on English language learners in their middle school years is scarce.
This study has provided needed insight into students who are learning a new language in
their middle or junior high school years, specifically Grades 5 through 9.
English language learners in the state where this study was conducted are exempt
from the mandated criterion-referenced test during their first year of residency.
Thereafter, they are required to participate in the yearly examination even if they do not
understand the vocabulary. It is of interest, then, to use released items from this
assessment so ELLs have experiences with the kind of vocabulary needed to perform
well.
Therefore, this study was conducted to determine if certain instructional strategies
had the potential to promote English language learners' vocabulary learning because
vocabulary knowledge is essential for comprehending academically challenging content
in subject-specific courses and on mandated assessments.
12
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to determine which instructional practice best
facilitated vocabulary learning for English language learners. The research questions and
hypotheses are as follows:
Research question 1. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ across the
three levels of the intervention factor Condition: (a) Read/Explain/Spell—read alouds
with explanations of target words and an orthographic cue; (b) Read/Explain-—read
alouds with explanations of target words; and (c) Read—read alouds with neither
explanations of target words nor an orthographic cue?
Research question 2. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ for the
planned comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain?
Research question 3. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ for the
planned comparison between Read/Explain and Read?
Research question 4. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ for the
planned comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and Read?
Hypothesis 1. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest among the three levels of the factor
Condition—Read/Explain/Spell, Read/Explain, and Read.
Hypothesis 2. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain/Spell and
Read/Explain.
Hypothesis 3. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain and Read.
13
Hypothesis 4. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain/Spell and Read.
Variables
For this repeated-measures analysis of variance, there was one within-subjects
factor Condition with three levels: (a) Read/Explain/Spell; (b) Read/Explain; and
(c) Read. The dependent variable was the vocabulary posttest.
Participants
In the school district where this study was conducted, 50 of the potential 52
English language learners in Grades 5 through 9 enrolled in the state's Transitional
Bilingual Instruction Program (TBIP) participated in a 7-week study. During this time
they followed this schedule:
1. Returned the Informed Consent document to participate (see Appendix A);
2. Completed a researcher-created vocabulary pretest (see Appendix B);
3. Answered questions on The Reader Self-Perception Scale1 (Henk & Melnick,
1995; see Appendixes C and D);
4. Listened to four stories, read at separate times, in which nine target words were
presented using different instructional strategies (see Appendix E); and
5. Completed a researcher-created vocabulary posttest after each reading (see
Appendix F).
Review of Chapters
Chapter 1. Included in the Introduction is an explanation of several challenges
facing English language learners, namely vocabulary learning and mandatory testing.
1 The International Reading Association granted permission to reprint this scale and have it translated into Spanish and Tagalog.
14
These provide the basis for articulating the purpose and significance of the study and for
determining relevant research questions, developing hypotheses, and defining the
variables. The final section provides definitions for terms germane to English language
learning.
Chapter 2. The first section of this chapter details the theoretical foundation for
conducting this study by explaining the reading development theory, second-language
vocabulary learning theory, and various theories supporting the use of orthographic cues.
The second section reviews pertinent research that supports these theories.
Chapter 3. This chapter details the design of the research study, the sampling
procedure, and the participants. The materials include four reading passages from the
state-released assessment of student learning. The process for creating a vocabulary
pretest and posttest is described, and the procedure for conducting the intervention
sessions with participants is explained.
Chapter 4. The research questions, the hypotheses, and the variables are identified
in the first section of this chapter. Then, the results of the statistical procedures,
including descriptive statistics, repeated-measures ANOVA, planned pairwise
comparisons, and effect sizes using pooled Cohen's d are detailed.
Chapter 5. The final chapter provides the justification for conducting this research
study. The study's purpose is summarized, and theoretical and pedagogical implications
are discussed. Limitations to the research and recommendations for future research are
proposed.
15
Terminology
Because of specialized terminology in second-language research, it is necessary to
define certain jargon and to explain the state program for second-language services.
LI. Students' first language (LI) is their primary or native language.
L2. Students' second language (L2) is the language they are acquiring, having
learned the spoken and/or written register of a first language. Terminology for
second-language learning has varied from state to state—even school district to school
district: (a) ESL, English as a Second Language; (b) LEP, Limited English Proficient;
(c) ELD, English Language Development; and (d) ELL, English Language Learner. For
consistency, the terms second-language learners and English language learners are used
throughout the chapters.
Criteria for English language services. Even though there are many
second-language learners nationwide, only students who meet certain criteria receive
Title III services. Data collected from educational agencies regarding the process to
identify students for services revealed that home language, parental information,
students' grades and records, and teachers' observations and interviews were frequently
used. To assess language proficiency, four tests were commonly given: (a) Language
Assessment Scales, LAS; (b) IDEA Language Proficiency Tests, IPT; (c) Woodcock-
Munoz Language Survey; and (d) Language Assessment (Kindler, 2002). These large-
scale tests have varied regarding students' eligibility and cut-off scores; therefore, their
results should be interpreted cautiously.
In the state where this study was conducted, students eligible for the Transitional
Bilingual Instruction Program must have "a primary language other than English and
16
their English language skills must be sufficiently deficient or absent to impair their
learning in an all-English classroom setting" (Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 2007, p. 6).
In the district where this study was conducted, the following criteria have been
used to identify English language learners. Parents or guardians complete a registration
form. If certain questions indicate their child's primary language is not English, or the
language spoken at home is not English, parents or guardians fill out an in-depth Home
Language Survey. The district coordinator conducts a student interview. A
state-required language proficiency placement test is administered to determine eligibility
for the state's Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program. (S. Nolan, personal
communication, December 17,2007).
According to the state's guidelines, English language learners remain in TBIP
until one these criteria has been met:
1. On the state-required language proficiency test, ELLs must reach the highest
level on the reading assessment (Level IV—Transitional) and the
second-highest level on the writing assessment (Level III—Advanced).
2. On the state-required criterion-referenced assessment of learning, ELLs must
reach the reading standard (400 points), and they must score just below the
writing standard (7 of 12 points in Grades 4 and 7; 13 of 24 points in
Grade 10).
3. On a nationally normed test of reading and language arts, ELLs must reach the
35th percentile (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2007).
17
In order for students to remain in the program longer than 3 years, district personnel must
justify students' needs with empirical evidence.
Conclusion
This chapter detailed several challenges—vocabulary learning and mandatory
testing—facing English language learners as they begin their educational life. In light of
these, it is important for researchers and educators to find effective instructional
strategies that promote vocabulary learning so ELLs can use their knowledge of word
meanings to help them comprehend cognitively challenging language. Three potential
practices include read alouds, word explanations, and orthographic cues.
18
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Introduction
Vocabulary is a crucial component in the reading development of children.
During the emergent literacy phase, learning to read, instruction focuses on alphabetic
principle, phonological awareness, and fluency. As children learn letters, sounds, and
words, they connect the pronunciations of words with their spellings and meanings in
their memory. For instance, children learn the letters rat are associated with the sounds
Ixl Id HI, and with time, they make a connection between the spelling of rat and its
pronunciation and its meaning (Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008).
Vocabulary learning continues to be crucial during and after the transition from
learning to read to reading to learn because of the vocabulary-comprehension cycle: As
students acquire vocabulary knowledge, their comprehension increases, and this provides
them with the cognitive ability to acquire more vocabulary knowledge and to improve
comprehension even further.
In reading development theory, constructs regarding vocabulary learning for
first-language learners have been well developed and validated in quantitative research;
however, consensus has yet to be reached regarding a theoretical framework for
second-language vocabulary learning (Read, 2000). August, Carlo, Dressier, and Snow
(2005) have argued that very few quasi-experimental or experimental studies have been
conducted in the past 25 years to examine various theories regarding vocabulary
acquisition for English language learners, and few researchers have investigated and
created programs to enhance second-language reading vocabulary (Garcia, 2000).
19
Furthermore, while various theories regarding the usefulness of orthographic cues have
been proposed, "few, if any, studies to date have examined experimentally whether
seeing the spellings of words contributes to vocabulary learning" (Rosenthal & Ehri,
2008, p. 176). Even so, there are various suppositions and pertinent research studies that
correspond to the purpose of this study.
Section 1: Theoretical Foundation
Vocabulary learning within reading development theory. The contextual
framework for analyzing vocabulary learning was based on reading development theory,
first proposed in 1979 (Chall, 1987). Reading was conceptualized "not as a process that
is the same from the beginning stage through mature, skilled reading but as one that
changes as the reader becomes more able and proficient" (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin,
1990, p. 9). Simply, reading development for first-language learners was viewed as a
fluid process among six stages: Stage 0, prereading; Stage 1, initial decoding and
reading; Stage 2, confirmation and fluency; Stage 3, reading for learning the new;
Stage 4, multiple viewpoints; and Stage 5, construction and reconstruction.
Even though children passed from stage to stage at different times, Stage 3
typically occurred for native speakers of a language between ages 9 and 13 and in Grades
4 through 8 (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990). During this time they transitioned from
Stage 2 learning to read to Stage 3 reading to learn using a variety of fiction and
nonfiction sources, such as textbooks, trade books, reference materials, newspapers,
magazines, and online references. In other words, there was a significant shift from a
word recognition vocabulary in which students identified words and decoded them to a
word meaning vocabulary where students learned unfamiliar words in increasingly
complex and decontextualized text.
The process of learning to read for second-language learners has also been
considered developmental in nature, according to members of the National Literacy Panel
on Language-Minority Youth and Children (August & Shanahan, 2008). They asserted
the "relationships among the components of literacy are not static and may change with
the learners' age, levels of second-language oral proficiency, cognitive abilities, and
previous learning" (p. 7).
Second-language vocabulary theory. One essential component of reading is
learning vocabulary, and the challenge facing English language learners when developing
a word meaning vocabulary has been gaining enough vocabulary knowledge to
comprehend words and sentences, and, in turn, comprehending enough words and
sentences so that more vocabulary can be learned (Laufer, 1997).
Read (2000) maintained, "There is no comprehensive, generally accepted
conceptual framework for L2 vocabulary work" (p. 153). Despite this, Nation (2001)
postulated a construct that provided the theoretical foundation for this study because it
integrated the importance of vocabulary acquisition, vocabulary knowledge, and
vocabulary use. Nation proposed a goal-oriented construct for second-language learning:
(a) language items, including pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammatical constructions;
(b) ideas, involving the content of the subject matter and cultural knowledge; (c) skills,
consisting of accuracy, fluency, strategies, and subskills; and (d) text, including
conversational discourse guidelines and text schemata. To cover these goals effectively,
educators were advised to provide ELLs with a balanced approach that included four
strands of language learning.
The first strand involved learning a new language from meaning-focused input in
which 95% of the words were understood by a student. Listening and reading activities
were introduced for the purpose of gaining information. The second strand highlighted
language-focused learning, and within this strand, teaching and learning vocabulary was
embedded. The goal was to produce an ongoing progression of vocabulary knowledge
through direct instruction as a means to benefit language learning. The third strand
identified meaning-focused output as integral to language learning. In this strand,
students engaged in speaking and writing activities as a means to convey information.
The goal was to use a productive mode in order to strengthen knowledge of words they
already knew. The final strand was fluency development in which learners increased
their fluency of already known words. For example, students may have learned new
words in a second language and have felt confident in their speaking ability, but when
they have interacted with a store clerk who speaks too quickly, the words have become
incomprehensible. Because of this, it has been imperative that second-language learners
not only learn new words, but also speak and write them fluently.
Therefore, Nation (2001) asserted that when developing reading competency,
teachers should focus on each strand approximately 25% of the time. Even though
vocabulary was embedded in the four strands, the first and second strands provided the
underlying principles for this study: (a) Meaning-focused input included the skill of
listening, and (b) language-focused learning necessitated vocabulary teaching and
learning using direct instruction.
The construct of second-language vocabulary learning must be narrowed because
of various suppositions regarding what it actually means to know a word. Has a student
22
learned a word if he or she can recognize, spell, and define it? Or, has he or she learned a
word when it has been used correctly in speaking and writing? Nation (2001) proposed a
construct for knowing a word that included three aspects: (a) form, in terms of spoken,
written, and word parts; (b) meaning, in terms of form and meaning, concept and
referents, and associations; and (c) use, in terms of grammatical functions, collocations,
and constraints. Of these three aspects, the first and second facets are associated with
Stage 3 of the reading development theory because English language learners need to
know the spoken and written forms of words and to understand the meanings of
vocabulary words in order to be proficient in Stage 3—reading for learning the new.
Theories regarding orthographic cues. Nation's (2001) goal-oriented theory
regarding second-language learning, explained in the previous section, provided one
assumption for this study's theoretical framework. Equally important was
information-processing theories regarding orthography as they provide the rationale for
showing students the spellings of words. The theoretical basis has been derived from the
supposition that word meanings are stored visually and linguistically, and utilizing mental
images enhances the learning and memory-retrieving process (Sadoski & Paivio, 2004).
In other words, there has been the assumption that connecting the orthographic and
phonological representation of words secures them in memory for later retrieval.
First proposed by Paivio in 1971, the Dual Coding Theory has evolved to presume
"cognition occurs in two independent but connected codes: a verbal code for language
and a nonverbal code for mental imagery" (Sadoski, 2005, p. 221). Therefore, one
hypothesis in this study has assumed instructional practices that include multi-sensory
modalities facilitate vocabulary learning.
23
The use of concrete rather than abstract language has been theorized as an
effective means of retrieving words from one's memory. Paivio, Kahn, and Begg (2000)
provided this explanation:
Dual coding theory explains positive effects of word concreteness in target tasks
primarily in terms of the following empirically supported assumptions:
(a) Nonverbal images are more likely to be aroused by concrete than abstract
words; (b) the memory traces of the activated images are "stronger" than the
verbal traces of the words themselves; (c) the image and verbal traces are
mnemonically independent and additive; (d) concrete word pairs promote
activation of compound images that function as integrated memory traces; and
(e) the integrated image can be redintegrated by presentation of one pair member
as a retrieval cue, thereby mediating response recall, (p. 149)
The second of these assumptions provided the rationale for the inclusion of an
orthographic image: "Memory traces of the activated images are 'stronger' than the
verbal traces of the words themselves" (Paivio, Kahn, & Begg, 2000, p. 149). In other
words, it can be assumed that the use of an orthographic cue as a means to learn
vocabulary is stronger than just the verbal code.
The importance of orthographic cues can be understood using the theory of
comprehension skill and the Lexical Quality Hypothesis (Perfetti, 2007). Regarding the
theory of comprehension skill, first theorized in 1985, Perfetti postulated the central issue
regarding word identification involved phonological procedures that allowed words to be
retrieved from one's memory—even if their meanings were or were not retrieved. It was
assumed that alphabetic reading skill was based on the ability to decode words, and
24
phonology played an important role because it not only stored parts of words, but also
connected the subunits of those words.
Perfetti (2007) further proposed in the Lexical Quality Hypothesis that
comprehension was dependent on reading words successfully. Specifically, knowledge
of the quality of word representations—orthography, phonology, grammar, and
meaning—had consequences for processing word meanings, and equally important, the
knowledge of how these four processes were bound together impacted comprehension.
Thus, the underlying premise of the Lexical Quality Hypothesis was "variation in the
quality of word representations has consequences for reading skill, including
comprehension" (p. 357). It was presumed that orthographic forms having high lexical
quality were retrieved quickly and consistently, and those having low lexical quality led
to problems in comprehension.
The lexical quality of words was defined as the degree to which a mental
representation of them occurred, and there were two qualities: preciseness and flexibility
(Perfetti, 2007). For example, preciseness referred to knowing that base and bass or
metal and medal were different. Flexibility referred to knowing the "meanings of
'roaming charge' and 'a fee charged by a mobile phone service for calls initiated or
received outside a contracted service area' are the same" (p. 359). At times precision and
flexibility were needed to pronounce and to comprehend words, such as "The bow of the
ship hit the dock" and "A bow is used in archery."
The variability for readers, then, included not only vocabulary size, but also the
stability of knowledge regarding the representation of words. Components of knowledge
included word forms and meanings, and when this knowledge was practiced via reading
25
experiences, efficiency occurred. Perfetti (2007) delineated efficiency from speed in that
efficiency was "the knowledge a reader has about words, specific lexical representations"
(p. 359). When readers efficiently and rapidly retrieved words, they reached high levels
of comprehension. In light of this, Perfetti hypothesized that knowledge of word
representations had its place with other cognitive processes, such as decoding,
phonological processes, and automaticity.
Dual Coding Theory and Lexical Quality Hypothesis can be further substantiated
by Rosenthal and Ehri's (2008) connectionist theory that presumed spellings of words
were mnemonic devices that facilitated a reader's ability to connect them to their
pronunciations and meanings. For example, the process of connecting the spelling of rat
with its pronunciation and its meaning secured it in memory. Then, when this word was
seen sometime in the future, it was easily retrieved from memory.
These theories—reading development theory, goal-oriented theory, and
information-processing theories regarding orthographic cues—have provided the
framework for this study. It is theorized that hearing a target word read aloud and seeing
its written form connects that word with its definition, and for English language learners
this may promote vocabulary learning, an essential component of reading to learn.
Section 2: Review of Research
The second section of this chapter reviews pertinent quantitative and qualitative
research that correlates with the theoretical suppositions outlined in the first section. Of
importance are studies relating to five aspects of vocabulary learning: (a) general reading
development; (b) read alouds; (c) word explanations; (d) read alouds coupled with word
explanations; and (e) orthographic cues.
26
Reading development. Because the focus of this research was vocabulary learning
for English language learners, it was of interest to identify, as closely as possible, where
vocabulary becomes critical in the five stages of reading development. Knowing this
provided the researcher with a guideline for choosing the grade levels of students to
include in this study.
In reading development theory, vocabulary learning has been shown to be an
essential skill throughout all stages of reading. However, as children's reading
development transitions from Stage 2 learning to read to Stage 3 reading to learn and
thereafter, vocabulary learning has evolved from a word recognition vocabulary to a
word meaning vocabulary. This progression has been validated using two factor
analyses.
In factor analysis 1, students' scores in Grades 2, 4, and 6 were examined on
measures of reading, writing, and language. Literacy (reading and writing) was defined
as the strongest factor, and the highest loadings were oral reading, phonics (decoding),
and word recognition, .85, .83, and .82, respectively (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990).
These findings revealed that students were in Stage 2 learning to read.
The transition to Stage 3 reading to learn was shown in factor analysis 2 that
examined students' scores in Grades 3, 5, and 7 on measures of reading, writing, and
language. The strongest factor was defined as reading, and the highest loadings were
vocabulary knowledge, silent reading comprehension, and word meaning, .82, .81, and
.78, respectively (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990). These results indicated a word
meaning vocabulary was an important aspect of reading to learn. The grade levels in
each of these studies were fairly similar, and this indicated the fluidity from one stage to
27
the next in reading development. Readers do not instantaneously leave one stage and
begin another at a particular age; instead, development through the stages has been a
gradual back-and-forward progression.
Because having a word meaning vocabulary has been shown to be crucial in Stage
3 and thereafter, it was of interest to review research regarding instructional practices that
promoted vocabulary learning at this stage, especially for English language learners.
August, Carlo, Dressier, and Snow's (2005) recent review showed various strategies have
assisted ELLs in their vocabulary development, one of which is knowing the meaning of
basic words.
Studies that have focused on learning word meanings have shown various
methods to be effective, such as read alouds (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson,
1985; Elley & Mangubhai, 1983; Feitelson, Goldstein, Iraqi, & Share, 1993; Ivey &
Broaddus, 2007; Robbins & Ehri, 1994); word explanations (Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown,
1982; Carlo, et al., 2004; Chall, 1987; Graves, 1987; Manyak, 2007; Nation, 2001); read
alouds with word explanations (Brett, Rothlein, & Hurley, 1996; Elley, 1989; Penno,
Moore, & Wilkinson, 2002); and the use of orthographic cues (Ehri & Wilce, 1979;
Koda, 1997; Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008).
Read alouds. Reading aloud received much attention from the National Academy
of Education's Commission on Reading, the National Institute of Education, and the
Center for the Study of Reading when the authors of Becoming a Nation of Readers
concluded, "The single most important activity for building the knowledge required for
eventual success in reading is reading aloud to children" (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, &
Wilkinson, 1985, p. 23). Since then, research has shown that reading aloud to students
28
has increased literacy growth for first- and second-language learners.
The nature of reading aloud to students has varied from classroom to classroom.
In some, there have been regularly scheduled times for teachers to read aloud, whereas in
other classrooms there may have been a concentrated read-aloud time when, for instance,
a teacher has read a novel to students. Despite the range of instructional practices,
research over the past three decades has shown that reading aloud has been useful for
most children (Teale, 2003).
In a study 25 years ago, Elley and Mangubhai (1983) analyzed the effect of either
reading aloud or not reading aloud on students' listening comprehension and found
reading aloud was more beneficial. Students between the ages of 9 and 11 in eight rural
Fijian schools were randomly assigned to one of two book-flood methods. In the first
method Shared Book Experience, teachers read aloud new books in either their entirety or
a portion of them and included follow-up activities. In the second method Silent
Reading, teachers displayed new books, read aloud regularly, and provided 20 to 30
minutes of daily sustained silent reading. The control group continued with the normal
English-learning curriculum called Oral English Syllabus in which words and structures
were taught in a sequential order with little exposure to trade books.
The results for listening comprehension in Class 5—approximately one half of the
study's participants—showed a significant difference between reading aloud using book
floods and the normal English-learning curriculum, F(\, 266) = 35.74,/? < .001. Also,
the Shared Book group where teachers read aloud new books in their entirety surpassed
the Silent Reading group where teachers read aloud regularly, F(l, 266) = 5.19,/? < .01.
Even though the study's main focus was whether or not exposure to rich and high-interest
29
books showed gains in English language, students' listening comprehension improved in
the two methods where reading aloud was an integral feature (Elley & Mangubhai, 1983).
More recently, a formative experiment, which included a mixed-method of
quantitative and qualitative measures, was conducted with 14 English language learners
in Grades 7 and 8 who qualified for school services because they were in the initial stages
of literacy learning. Interventions over the course of a school year included two aspects:
(a) self-selected reading, and (b) teacher-directed reading and writing exercises. The
original classroom schedule was changed to modify aspects of the study the researchers
felt promoted reading, one of which was introducing daily teacher read alouds. The
teachers reported benefits, such as students selecting more English texts than
Spanish-only texts; valuing the teachers' choices as it meant these books were
worthwhile; and choosing the read-aloud books as a choice during independent reading,
which increased the students' confidence in reading (Ivey & Broaddus, 2007).
Despite the fact that reading aloud as a general practice has been beneficial, it was
necessary to determine if students really benefited from either hearing or not hearing
target words during a read aloud. A focal point in another study analyzed whether
students' word knowledge increased when teachers either read the target words aloud or
did not read them aloud. Thirty-three students in kindergarten heard one of two edited
stories The Boy Who Cried Wolf and A Crocodile's Tale with readability levels at Grade
2. The repeated measures factor Heard-Not Heard was found to be significant,
F ( l , 32) = 29.258,/? < .001, demonstrating the importance of reading target words aloud
so students can hear them. Anecdotally, the researchers commented that during
interviews after the posttest some students recognized the target words with statements,
30
such as, "You said clamor on The Boy Said Wolf, " (Robbins & Ehri, 1994, p. 58).
Another aspect of reading aloud that has been of interest is whether or not to use
students' most familiar language or the one they are learning. Feitelson, Goldstein, Iraqi,
and Share (1993) investigated whether reading stories aloud in FusHa, the formal
language in the Arab world, assisted skill development in emergent literacy despite the
fact students' everyday language was a colloquial dialect Aamiyya. Over the course of 5
months, students in the experimental group listened to stories in FusHa. Posttest scores
on listening comprehension showed the experimental group surpassed the control group,
demonstrating the benefit of reading aloud using the language students were acquiring.
A unique feature of reading aloud to English language learners has been the use of
concurrent translations. It has been argued that if both languages were available to
students, they concentrated on their native language rather than the target language. In
Ulanoff and Pucci's (1999) study, three classes of students in Grade 3 were randomly
assigned to one of three treatment conditions. Even though data were collected for all
students, the study included a random sample that spoke Spanish as their primary
language. Of these students, the control group listened to a story in English. Another
group heard the same story in English, but received a concurrent translation. The third
group received a preview-review scaffolding approach where the teacher used Spanish to
share pertinent information and to discuss difficult words prior to and following reading
the story in English.
While the results of this study showed using scaffolding to build background
knowledge was the most effective, Ulanoff and Pucci (1999) also found concurrent
translations did not significantly facilitate vocabulary acquisition. The subjects in the
31
preview-review group had mean gains of 57%. The control group that heard the story
and received no treatment had mean gains of 19%, whereas students in the concurrent
translation group had mean gains of only 12%. The researchers indicated that while the
total sample included 60 students, dividing them into three groups was a limitation.
These findings are contradictory to what members of the National Literacy Panel on
Language-Minority Youth and Children found: "Students perform better when they read
materials in the language they know better and when the text language is clearly written
and accessible" (August & Shanahan, 2008, p. 106).
These research studies over the past few decades have shown reading aloud has
been a beneficial instructional practice to learn target words; however, students must also
learn the meanings of words, and certain instructional practices have been proven to be
effective.
Word explanations. Providing students with explanations of words has been
shown to be a useful instructional strategy for learning vocabulary. Researchers have
investigated how to deliver explanations—directly or indirectly. They have also
examined the length, suitability, and quality of explanations.
There have been various direct instructional methods for explaining words, such
as in-flight definitions where the reader pauses to give a concise explanation or synonym
(Elley, 1989), or where a more in-depth dialogue occurs between the reader and the
listener (Beck & McKeown, 2001a, 2001b; McKeown & Beck, 2003).
As early as 1938, Gray and Holmes explored which of two methods, wide reading
or direct instruction, increased word meaning vocabularies. For students in Grade 4,
gains on vocabulary and comprehension tests were significant using direct instruction,
32
most notably for students with lower abilities. Research over the next few decades
showed a variety of direct instructional methods to be effective over no instruction;
however, this was pessimistically interpreted that because no superior method came to
the forefront, direct instruction was not a beneficial means to increase word meaning
vocabularies (Chall, 1987).
Despite this, a study in the early 1980s showed that instruction of target word
meanings was effective. Even though the participants were not English language learners,
the findings have had instructional implications. Over the course of 5 months, 27
students in Grade 4 in the instructed group were given a specific vocabulary training
program in which they learned 104 words. During a 5-day cycle, they learned a set of 8
to 10 words. The first day included direct instruction of target word meanings, and the
other days included various instructed activities. The control group of 39 students
followed the school's textbook language arts curriculum. Results of this study showed
the instructed group made gains in "all tasks, ranging from single-word semantic decision
through text recall and even apparent transfer to standardized tests of vocabulary and
comprehension" (Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982, p. 518).
Researchers during this time, however, questioned whether or not the most
comprehensive explicit instruction was enough to establish a substantial size in
vocabulary and suggested a more global viewpoint was needed. Nagy and Herman
(1987) argued that direct teaching of word meanings for a particular reading lesson may
have been beneficial, but it did not provide a considerable increase in students' total
vocabulary size. This argument has had merit for second-language learners because other
practices, such as repeated exposures to text or high-interest books, may be more
effective avenues to increase vocabulary.
Even so, in a seminal study conducted by Carlo et al. (2004), one particular
analysis showed that mastery of words explicitly taught resulted in an effect size of .34.
English language learners in Grades 4 and 5 participated in a 2-year study to analyze
whether improvements in vocabulary correlated with improvements in reading
comprehension when useful words and word-learning strategies were taught. At the end
of the study, second-language learners who received English instruction that focused on
the depth of vocabulary knowledge and on strategies for word comprehension performed
as well as or better than an English-only control group in areas of word knowledge and
reading comprehension.
Even though explanations of words via direct instruction have been shown to be
an effective instructional strategy, there have been varied opinions as to the appropriate
length of the explanations. Chaudron's study (as cited in Nation, 2001) showed teachers'
oral definitions that were overly complicated and lengthy made it difficult for learners to
grasp how all the words in the definition were connected: Were they the same, or did
they provide more information? In another study, Ellis (as cited in Nation, 2001) found
vocabulary instruction was effective when concise, simple definitions were used. Ellis
examined input factors that influenced vocabulary learning. One intervention involved
giving definitions and elaborations that were short and included few defining
characteristics, and this method, compared to pre-modified input in which definitions
were embedded in the text, showed vocabulary learning was more likely to occur. Ellis
reasoned concise definitions were effective because longer definitions overloaded
learners' short-term memories, thereby making lengthy and elaborate definitions rather
34
useless to learners as there was too much information to process. As a cautionary note,
initial exposure to word meanings using brief instruction was beneficial for second-
language learners if it was followed by more in-depth learning of word knowledge
(Graves, 1987). This was also true for their academic vocabulary development in that
instruction should be explicit, yet thorough (Manyak, 2007).
Another aspect of providing students with definitions has been the suitability and
the quality of word explanations. Nagy (1988) argued that definitions from dictionaries
may be accurate, but that did not mean they were helpful enough for the reader to use
them correctly. Even in basal readers, glossaries may not provide suitable definitions. In
the second of two experiments, Scott and Nagy (1997) examined the quality of three
types of definitions. Conventional definitions were defined as meanings of words from
traditional dictionaries. Another format was the use of conventional definitions
supplemented with an example sentence. The third type was considered transparent,
which has been recently used in children's dictionaries. Basically, words have been
defined first by giving a phrase using the entry word and then a paraphrase that explains
the entry word. For instance, in the current study one of the target words was convinced,
and in the Scholastic Children's Dictionary (Macy, 2002) the definition was, "If you
convince someone, you make the person believe you" (p. 118). The results showed no
significant difference among the three formats of definitions. Even though the focus of
the study was on fragment selection errors, it was noteworthy that no superior form of
quality among the three formats was found. Even though these studies have shown the
particularized benefits of either read alouds or word explanations, further inquiry into
studies that included both of these strategies was necessary.
35
Read alouds coupled with word explanations. While the studies featured in this
section did not focus solely on second-language learners, they represented the most
comprehensive research over the past 2 decades on read alouds coupled with word
explanations. Generally, they showed that participants benefited from a combination of
listening to stories with short explanations of words.
In the second of two studies conducted nearly 20 years ago, Elley (1989) explored
the effects of teachers' explanations of words during read alouds to no explanations
during read alouds. Group A and B included 127 students who were 8 years old, and
Group C included 51 students who were of similar age and background. Results for
Rapscallion Jones, one of the stories that was read aloud, showed overall mean gains for
Group A (with explanations) and Group B (without explanations) were 39.9% and 14.8%,
respectively. Group C, the control group, had a less than 2% gain. Also, for all groups
the mean gain on five control words was close to zero.
Further research has confirmed students' vocabulary knowledge increases from
listening to stories and hearing short explanations of target words. In a study conducted
by Brett, Rothlein, and Hurley (1996), 175 students who were ages 9 through 11 listened
to Bunnicula and The Reluctant Dragon and were given short explanations of target
words; other students just listened to the stories; and the control group had no exposure to
either the stories or the target words. The group that listened to stories and received word
explanations learned on average three new word meanings for each of the two books, and
a delayed posttest, given six weeks later, showed they remembered six new word
meanings.
36
More recently, Penno, Moore, and Wilkinson (2002) showed that reading aloud
and explaining target words contributed significantly to vocabulary growth; however,
another factor Repeated Exposure was included. Even though the 47 subjects in this
study were described as having English as their first language, Maori was used for 30%
of the instruction in one of the classes, implying that some of these participants were
multi-lingual. Students' ages ranged from 6 years, 6 months (Class A) to 5 years, 8
months (Class B), and they were at the beginning stages of reading to ensure any
vocabulary gains were attributed to listening to stories and explaining words.
Anak the Brave and No Place Like Home, two children's books, were chosen
because classroom teachers determined they were above the students' reading levels.
The interventions included reading aloud the stories along with one of two treatment
conditions: (a) word explanations in which the reader used Elley's (1989) in-flight
explanations for 10 target vocabulary words, and (b) no explanations. Afterwards,
students completed a multiple-choice test for each story and retold the story to the
examiner. The results showed a significant interaction between the factors Pre-posttest
and Explanation, noting that although Group A and B had similar pretest scores, students
in Group A that had stories read aloud to them with in-flight explanations of target words
did better on the posttest than Group B (Penno, Moore, &Wilkinson, 2002).
On the other hand, some studies have shown that including word explanations
may not be more effective than just having students listen to stories. In a study
conducted by Senechal and Cornell (1993), four reading conditions were used:
(a) questioning where students were asked what and why questions; (b) recasting in
which the target words were introduced and then synonyms were given; (c) word
37
repetition where target-word sentences were repeated; and (d) verbatim in which students
listened to the story and were not encouraged to contribute. The results of this study
showed the verbatim condition was just as effective for learning target words as recasting
and questioning. A limitation, however, was the age of the subjects as they were 4- and
5-year-olds, and this may have been too young to assess accurately the full effectiveness
of certain strategies.
Results from another study indicated that learning the meanings of target words
was equally effective using either read alouds with explanations of words or just reading
aloud (Swedberg, 2004). Twenty parent-child dyads from two Montessori schools
participated, and prior to the intervention, a multiple-choice vocabulary pretest was given.
Then, parents read aloud researcher-simplified sections of an informational text in which
15 target words were explained and 15 were just read, followed by the children
answering multiple-choice vocabulary questions. Results showed significant learning
occurred because posttest scores were higher than pretest scores; however, greater
learning did not occur for words that were explained compared to words that were merely
read aloud during the story.
Nevertheless, most research that has focused on read alouds with word
explanations has shown this strategy to be beneficial. Another instructional practice that
has the potential to facilitate vocabulary learning has been the use of orthographic cues to
learn words and their meanings, and the following section details various pertinent
studies.
Orthographic cues. Nation (2001) postulated that English language learners'
knowledge of a word involved recognizing what it sounds like, what it looks like, and its
38
meaning; however, it was the depth of the relationship among these three aspects that
determined how quickly words were learned. For second-language learners, possibly
hearing and seeing the spellings of target words—what words sound and look like—may
be a value-added effect in order to connect them with their meanings for later retrieval.
Additionally, these skills can be improved and reach the level of monolinguals (August &
Shanahan, 2008).
Extensive research regarding the value of orthography was conducted by Ehri and
Wilce (1979). In four experiments, they found "spellings are effective because they
provide readers with orthographic images useful for symbolizing and storing sounds in
memory" (p. 26).
In Experiment 1, 48 students in Grades 1 and 2 were taught four different
paired-associate sound learning prompts, one of which was the initial letter sound of a
word accompanied by its spelling. Results of post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed
this pairing allowed for significantly faster learning over other prompts—squiggles,
initial letters, and initial letters with misspellings. The researchers also conducted a
correlational study to explore the relationship between students' performance on sound
learning tasks and their knowledge of printed language. While cause and effect cannot be
determined using correlational studies, the results showed that to explain the variability in
the knowledge of printed language for beginning readers, the use of spellings to
remember oral sounds was an independent factor up and beyond general
learning-memory ability.
Experiment 2 included 30 students in Grade 1 and replicated the procedures in the
first experiment except the prompt of initial letter sounds with misspellings was not
39
included and two measures were added: (a) naming accuracy and speed for letters of the
alphabet, and (b) phonemic segmentation. Results of post hoc tests confirmed the
findings in Experiment 1 that beginning readers learned words significantly faster with
spelling aids versus no spelling aids, and learning occurred more quickly when initial
letters were used rather than squiggles. Of particular interest in Experiment 2, though,
was the distinction between less advanced and more advanced beginning readers and
their capability to use orthographic mnemonics. The researchers compared the reading
skills of children who benefited from spellings with those who did not benefit from
spelling aids. Results of / tests showed beginning readers who were advanced in their
spelling-aided sound capability had better basic reading skills compared to beginning
readers who were less advanced in their spelling-aided sound capability. These findings
supported the researchers' assumptions that there was a strong relationship between
orthographic memory and learning to read, and "when children learn to read, they acquire
an orthographic mnemonic system, and this capability enables them to build up a
repertoire of printed words in lexical memory" (Ehri & Wilce, 1979, p. 33).
For Experiment 3, the researchers explored the possibility of alternative
explanations regarding the influence of spelling, such as repetition, additional rehearsal,
segmented pronunciations, and a nonvisual feature of letters. This was done to further
support their hypothesis that recalling words visually was superior to other methods. One
of the independent variables was Condition with four levels, including visual spellings,
oral spellings, phonetic segmentation, and repetition. An analysis of variance showed a
main effect for Condition, F(3, 69) = 10.13,/? < .01; a main effect for Trial,
F(6, 138) = 76.21,p < .01.; and an interaction effect between Condition and Trial,
F(18, 414) = 2.33, p < .01. Post hoc tests revealed the mean value for visual spellings
(M= 2.24) was superior to the other three levels that had fairly similar means (oral
spellings, M = 1.53; phonemic segmentation, M= 1.55; and repetition, M= 1.43). This
demonstrated that over time beginning readers' recall using visual spellings increased
when compared to the other conditions.
Another aspect in Experiment 3 concerned whether spelling coupled with other
kinds of stimuli in paired-associations affected recall. The condition initial letters plus
correct spellings was replaced with numbers plus correct spellings to determine if there
was an inherent relationship between the stimuli and responses. Providing spellings
increased recall regardless of the stimuli (numbers), and the researchers noted that "what
is important about spellings is not their ability to connect responses to stimuli (i.e., to
facilitate the associative phase of learning) but their capacity to improve response
learning" (Ehri & Wilce, 1979, p. 35).
In the final experiment of Ehri and Wilce's (1979) study, the researchers
hypothesized that spellings facilitated recall because they prompted the formation of
orthographic images of the sounds, which were stored in beginning readers' memories.
To explore this, students in Grade 2 were given two conditions: (a) image formation, in
which oral spellings were coupled with images of the spellings; and (b) repetition, in
which sounds were rehearsed several times. One of the independent variables of the
ANOVA was Task (image versus repetition), and results showed a significant main effect
for this factor, F{\, 16) = 4.73, p < .05, indicating the use of sounds coupled with the
images of spellings was superior to repeating the sounds.
Ehri and Wilce (1979) provided these conclusions from the four experiments:
41
1. For beginning readers, there was a mnemonic value regarding orthography.
Sounds that were coupled with spelling aids (visual or imagined) were learned
faster.
2. Visual representation of spellings facilitated recall. In the third experiment,
hearing letters named was less effective than seeing the letters, and in the
fourth experiment, hearing the letters improved students' sound memory when
they were coupled with visual images.
3. Beginning readers had the capability to generate alphabetic images to map
sounds, and they utilized this when needed. In the first three experiments,
participants were simply shown the spellings of words either before or after
pronouncing the sounds; there was no explicit teaching of how sounds could
help them remember the spellings. Nevertheless, they most likely used the
spellings to recall the sounds.
4. Central to learning to read was the skill of using spellings to remember sounds.
Experiments 1 and 2 showed this skill delineated between less- and
more-advanced beginning readers.
Ehri and Wilce (1979) concluded, "The orthographic mnemonic explanation for
the facilitative effects of spelling aids is the one favored by present findings" (p. 37).
In a recent study, Rosenthal and Ehri (2008) concluded the orthographic cue
spelling was a means to increase students' memory of word pronunciations and meanings.
In the second of two experiments, 32 participants in Grade 5 were randomly assigned to a
counterbalanced design in which one set of target words was taught with spellings and
the other set without spellings. During the trial study, students were introduced to target
42
words using these methods: (a) showing a picture of the word, (b) hearing the word
pronounced along with it embedded in a definitional sentence, and (c) repeating the word
and the sentence. Then, students were given five to eight opportunities to learn the words
and their meanings. The main effect of Condition (spelling aids versus no spelling aids)
was significant, F(\, 28) = 33.56, p < .05, indicating the benefit of having students see
the spelling of words.
These research studies have provided the rationale for assuming that an
orthographic cue may be a value-added strategy for English language learners to learn
words and their meanings.
Conclusion
In light of the theoretical framework detailed in the first section of this chapter
and substantiated in the second section using pertinent research studies, the purpose of
this study was to determine if the instructional practice of read alouds coupled with word
explanations and an orthographic cue significantly increased vocabulary learning for
English language learners.
43
Chapter 3
Method
Introduction
This chapter addresses the methodology for conducting this study. Included are
the design, the sampling procedure, and a description of the participants. The processes
for selecting reading materials, choosing target words, and generating the
researcher-created vocabulary pretest and posttest are described. Additionally, the
procedure for conducting the intervention is explained.
Research Design
In the interest of improving vocabulary learning for English language learners, the
researcher chose to create an intervention with multiple treatment levels and to administer
a vocabulary pretest and posttest. By definition, this kind of research was considered
experimental because the independent variable was manipulated; however, because the
participants were not randomly selected, it was considered quasi-experimental (Gall, Gall,
& Borg, 2003). An important aspect of the research design was having all participants
receive all levels of the intervention and measured repeatedly. This meant the means that
were subsequently analyzed were derived from the same participants. Table 2 shows the
assignment of participants using a repeated-measures method (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001).
44
Table 2
Assignment of Participants in a Repeated-Measures Method
Condition
Read/Explain/Spell Read/Explain Read
Pi Pi Pi
Participant P2 P2 P2
P3-50 P3-50 P3-50
Note. P = Participant. # = 5 0 .
Sampling Procedure
A convenience sampling was used in this research study for various reasons:
(a) English language learners, a special population, were needed for the purpose of the
study; (b) some data needed to analyze the descriptive statistics were available in the
district; (c) the sample population was located in multiple locations; and (d) seven
sessions were needed, so it was most feasible to have the participants located near the
researcher (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
The researcher submitted a comprehensive proposal to the school district's
Director of Research and Evaluation who met with district-level cabinet members and
personnel in the Office of Teaching and Learning to discuss the feasibility of conducting
this study; they approved the research study, and the researcher signed a contract with the
district that required adherence to ethical principles for conducting research. Then, the
sampling process began with meeting potential participants to explain the Informed
Consent document, the permission slip. The researcher read it aloud in its entirety and
45
answered questions so students understood their participation was voluntary and their
classroom grades would not be affected. Also, it was explained that scores on their
vocabulary questions and responses on their survey would be kept confidential.
The researcher provided each potential participant with two copies of the
Informed Consent as stipulated by the school district. Students discussed the form with
their parents or guardians, and if they agreed to allow their child to participate, the
parents or guardians signed one copy and had their child return it to the researcher and
kept the other copy at home for reference. The researcher paid a locally owned
interpreting service $376.80 to have the consent form translated into Spanish and
Tagalog, the two most commonly spoken languages, for parents or guardians who did not
understand English.
Because the participants received all levels of the intervention rather than one
level, they were required to participate more extensively. To alleviate the possibility of
becoming discouraged throughout the study, the researcher scheduled intervention
sessions over the course of 7 weeks with each session lasting 15 to 20 minutes.
In light of using a convenience sample, the researcher took extensive precautions
to distribute equitably the target words across the three levels of the factor Condition
based on word difficulty using pretest scores. Also, the researcher thoroughly
randomized the order in which words were presented on the vocabulary pretest and
posttest.
Participants
In the state where this study was conducted, the target population included
English language learners in the Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program. For the
46
2004-2005 school year, this included an enrollment of 87,343 students, which was nearly
10,000 more students than the previous year (Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 2007). The accessible population, however, was 52 English language
learners in Grades 5 through 9 from a school district with a population of nearly 14,000
students. Of these students, one was absent during the entire study and was removed.
Another student returned the Informed Consent, but was absent for most of the
intervention sessions and was removed. Therefore, 50 participants completed the study.
The descriptive statistics for these students are detailed in Chapter 4.
Materials
Deciding which texts to read aloud required a thoughtful process for various
reasons. Selecting text that was either fiction or non-fiction was of concern because
some students may have found reading informational text about cultures more appealing
than a fictional piece about unicorns, and possibly one format provided more contextual
support. The researcher did not administer a reading interest survey prior to the study, so
knowledge of this kind was not available. It has been found, however, there has been "no
consistent difference between the narrative and expository texts either in the absolute
level of contextual support or in the range of levels of support, as reflected in the standard
deviations" (Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987, p. 264).
Proficiency levels of the participants were potentially problematic because some
students had been in the United States less than six months, whereas others had lived here
10 or more years. Since they must take state- and federally mandated assessments even if
they do not have proficiency levels to be able to read and to understand cognitively
challenging vocabulary, using texts from these assessments was of interest because it has
been an underrepresented aspect in second-language research.
Therefore, stories that had reading levels appropriate for students in Grades 5
through 9 were selected. Four reading passages that were released items from a statewide
annual assessment were chosen, and they represented variety of fiction and nonfiction,
including two at a sixth-grade reading level and two at an eighth-grade reading level:
1. "Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose" was a story that described how
a pack rat took items to build its den.
2. "The Flame of a Candle" was a tale in which Hodja, the main character,
bragged to his friends that he was able to endure bitterly cold nights outside,
so they challenged him to do so.
3. "To Reach the Promised Land" was a biography that chronicled the obstacles
Booker T. Washington overcame in order to reach his dream of receiving an
education.
4. "Waste Not, Want Not" was a personal narrative written by Earl M. Weber
who detailed his experiences during the Great Depression of the 1930s (Office
of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2006).
Selection of Target Words
Determining which target words to use from the four reading passages was
challenging. McKeown and Beck (2004) maintained there was neither a formula nor
principles that determined which words were the most age-appropriate even though word
inventories, such as fifth-grade words, existed. Stories that had controlled vocabulary
may not have provided students with the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to learn
48
academically challenging words; instead, it was recommended to use grade-level texts as
they provided a continuum of words (Nagy & Herman, 1987).
Because of this, target words were selected by using a web-based readability
analysis and input from 20 educators. First, the four reading passages were typed into the
Dale-Chall Readability Test using a web-based program called Intervention Central (n.d.).
On the readability analysis printout, difficult words were italicized. Basically, words that
were identified as difficult were ones that did not appear on the Dale-Chall list. These
difficult words were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and were given a value of 1 in
each cell.
More data were needed to select the target words so the four reading passages
were sent to current and retired teachers, all of whom have taught core curriculum. For
each of the passages, the researcher asked them to circle 10 to 15 words they thought
were difficult for English language learners. Of the 22 teachers who were sent the
readings, 20 returned their forms, some of whom circled as few as 2 and as many as 36
words per reading passage. To rectify this discrepancy, two analyses were conducted. In
analysis 1, every word teachers chose received 1 point, designated by the value of 1 in
each spreadsheet cell. This meant that despite one teacher circling only 2 words and
another teacher circling 36 words in a reading passage, every word received 1 point. The
words were then sorted by the total column in descending order, and those that received
the most tallies were considered the most difficult.
Analysis 2 used an item-weighted approach in which each word received a
weighted score. First, a weight-per-word was calculated for each teacher based on 12.5
(the average number of words he or she was supposed to circle) divided by the total
number of words that teacher actually circled. Then, for each word the teacher chose,
this weighted number was entered into the spreadsheet, and a new weighted score was
calculated. The words were sorted by the total column in descending order, and those
that received the most tallies were considered the most difficult.
Even though a comparison of the two analyses showed minimal discrepancy
between these approaches for choosing the target vocabulary words, the item-weighted
approach was selected because this method ensured equity among the teachers' choices
for the most difficult words.
Measures
Vocabulary pretest. A researcher-created vocabulary pretest was generated using
guidelines from Laufer (1997); McKenna & Stahl, 2003; McKeown, Beck, & Kucan
(2005); Nation (2001); Read (2000); and "Test and Item Specifications for Grades 3-High
School Reading WASL" (Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2006).
The process for determining whether to use a multiple-choice, cloze procedure, or
another testing format was based on Read's (2000) three dimensions for second-language
assessment: (a) construct—discrete to embedded; (b) range—selective to
comprehensive; and (c) context—independent to dependent. Regarding the first
dimension, it was of interest to create a vocabulary test that measured, as closely as
possible, a construct separate from other constructs. Thus, it was necessary to create a
discrete test rather than one in which a construct was embedded. Read identified three
purposes for designing discrete vocabulary tests: (a) for researchers to understand
vocabulary knowledge and how it is acquired; (b) for teachers and language testers to
assess progress, measure achievement, and determine proficiency; and (c) for decision
50
makers regarding program evaluation. This study focused on the second aspect of
designing discrete vocabulary tests: to measure the progress or success of learning new
target vocabulary words after receiving various instructional interventions.
The second dimension to consider was the range of vocabulary used for the
assessment. In this study, the vocabulary was considered selective because
pre-determined target words were used. The third dimension was determining the role
context played in the assessment. In light of the desire to measure vocabulary learning
using specific instructional practices, the target words in the assessment needed to be
independent, which meant context on the assessment had to be minimized.
The most appropriate option to operationalize these three assessment dimensions
was a multiple-choice test. Read (2000) preferred having three target words (1,2, 3)
listed, and then having students choose the answers from five possible choices (A, B, C,
D, E). The researcher believed this format had the potential to give students an
opportunity to use a process of elimination. For example, if a student knew two of the
three words, their corresponding answers could have been eliminated, thereby making the
task of answering word 3 easier. Therefore, a different format was used because each
target word needed to be measured separately in order to assess accurately the
effectiveness of the instructional intervention. Each target vocabulary word had its own
set of four choices (A, B, C, D).
To create the multiple-choice selections (A, B, C, D) for each of the 48 target
words, the researcher used three guidelines based on recommendations of
second-language experts:
51
1. The four choices had to be easier than the target word. If the words for the
definition were more difficult than the target word, they were not appropriate
(McKeown, Beck, & Kucan, 2005). This was particularly crucial when
creating second-language assessments (Read, 2000).
2. The four choices had to be plausible (Nation, 2001). This was important
because if the three distracters were either nonsensical or unrelated, some
participants may have been able to choose the correct answer by virtue of
elimination. For ELLs, though, this may not have been the case because they
may have thought they knew certain words when, in fact, they did not know
them, or there were words that were impossible to guess (Laufer, 1997).
3. The definitions needed to be "specific, direct, unambiguous, and simple. The
'Goldilocks principle' may apply here—not too much, not too little, but just
right" (Nation, 2001, p. 83).
Using this framework, the researcher created the correct answer and three
distracters for each of the 48 target words. First, potential choices for the correct answer
were found using dictionaries that were at the level of the learners, especially second-
language learners (Read, 2000); however, it was also necessary to reference other
dictionaries: (a) Scholastic Children's Dictionary (SCD) (Macy, 2002); (b) Webster's
New Collegiate Dictionary (WCD) (Bethel, 1959); and (c) Webster's New Dictionary of
Synonyms (WDS) (Gove, 1968). If a word in the dictionary definition was on the
General Service List (GSL) or the Academic Word List (AWL), it became a potential
correct answer. For example, to create the correct answer for the target word necessities,
SCD and WCD provided potential choices—words that were easier than the target word,
52
plausible, and specific. Those choices were narrowed further using the GSL and AWL,
creating the correct answer: things you need or must have.
Second, three distracters for each target word were created using the GSL and the
reading text (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2007; Read, 2000). Once
again, the distracters had to be easier than the target word, plausible, and specific. For
example, to create the distracters for the target word seldom, three words that were easier
than the target word, plausible, specific, text based, and found on the GSL were used:
(a) carefully, (b) always, and (c) almost. Third, the correct answer and the three
distracters for each of the 48 target words had to be assigned a specific multiple choice
(A, B, C, or D). To do so, the researcher used a web-based randomizing sequence
program. Finally, the overall order of the 48 multiple-choice items was randomized
using the same web-based program.
The pretest was given to the participants and scored by the researcher in which 1
point was given for each correct answer and 0 points for incorrect answers or no answer.
The results determined which target words were most difficult for the participants.
Vocabulary posttest. Creating a posttest for each of the four readings followed a
structured process, and "Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose" has been used as
an example. First, the 12 target words were ranked from most difficult to least difficult
using pretest scores. The three least difficult (most known) words were deleted, leaving
nine target words. Second, these nine words were analyzed for contextual support,
examined for frequency, and compared with the teachers' choices. This proved, however,
to create many inconsistencies, so ultimately the pretest scores were the main determiner
for ranking the words from most to least difficult.
53
Third, the nine target words were distributed among three columns that did not
have Condition factor levels assigned to them. Using a basic Latin-square sequence
design (LSD), the three most difficult target words were distributed among three columns.
For "Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose," the most difficult words were
abandoned, insulated, and generation, and they were distributed among the three
columns using the first LSD sequence 1, 2, 3. This meant abandoned was placed in
column 1, insulated in column 2, and generation in column 3. The third- to sixth-ranked
target words gnawing, pantry, and appealing were distributed among the three columns
using the second LSD sequence 2, 3, 1. This meant gnawing was placed in column 2,
pantry in column 3, and appealing in column 1. The seventh- to ninth-ranked target
words obvious, legend, and dynamite were distributed among the three columns using the
third LSD sequence 3,1,2. Thus, obvious was placed in column 3, legend'in column 1,
and dynamite in column 2. This process ensured there was an equitable distribution of
words across the three columns based on levels of difficulty.
Fourth, a web-based random sequence generator was used to assign one of the
three levels of the factor Condition to each of the columns. The random sequence was 3,
2, 1 so the first level of Condition (Read/Explain/Spell) was assigned to column 3; the
second level of Condition (Read/Explain) was assigned to column 2; and the third level
of Condition (Read) was assigned to column 1.
At this point, the nine target words had been assigned to one of three columns
using a LSD, and the three Condition levels (Read/Explain/Spell, Read/Explain, and
Read) had been assigned to the columns using a web-based randomizing program;
however, the order in which the nine target words appeared on the posttest had not been
54
determined, so further randomization was needed. To do so, a four-step process was
followed using a web-based randomizing program. Once again, "Stop, Thief! There's a
Pack Rat on the Loose" has been used as an example:
1. The three target words for the Condition Read/Explain/Show were randomized
2, 1,3. This meant generation was second in the word order, pantry was first,
and obvious was third.
2. The three target words for the next Condition Read/Explain were randomized
3,2, 1. This meant insulated was third in the word order, gnawing was
second, and dynamite was first.
3. The three target words for the third Condition Read were randomized 2, 3, 1.
This meant abandoned was second in the word order, appealing was third,
and legend was first.
4. Then, the entire group of nine target words was randomized 3, 6, 5, 1, 8, 2, 4, 7,
9. This meant the final word order on the posttest was as follows:
dynamite, insulated, panty, legend, obvious, generation, abandoned, gnawing,
and appealing.
The above process was repeated for the other three reading passages. To
determine if the target words had been equitably distributed among Read/Explain/Spell,
Read/Explain, and Read, the researcher conducted a test of within-subjects contrast, and
Condition was not significant, F(l, 49) = .014,p = .908, indicating the target words had
been equitably distributed.
55
A posttest of nine items was given to the participants following each of the four
readings (see Table 3). It was scored by the researcher in which 1 point was given for
each correct answer and 0 points for either incorrect answers or no answer.
56
Table 3
Posttest Target Words Matched for Difficulty Using Pretest Scores
Condition
Read
Reading Explain Read
Passage Spell Explain Read
generation
pantry
obvious
scoffed
mightily
convinced
pored
devoted
henceforward
parcels
darned
seldom
insulated
gnawing
dynamite
muezzin
boasted
endure
furnace
resolved
critically
calico
tweed
mortgage
abandoned
appealing
legend
flickering
bitterly
assured
stagecoach
practical
proclaim
vague
muslin
economic
Note. a "Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose".b "The Flame of a Candle".c "To Reach the
Promised Land".d "Waste Not, Want Not".
Test reliability. The reliability of a test has been based on the classical test theory
that has included three assumptions: (a) every subject has a true score, which in this study
57
is the actual amount of vocabulary learning as measured by the posttest; (b) any test has
some amount of measurement error; and (c) this error is assumed to be random. The
reliability of a test has been estimated using four methods: (a) alternate-form, (b)
test-retest, (c) internal consistency, and (d) inter-tester (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
However, these methods were either inappropriate or impractical for this study. There
was no alternate form of the test. Test-retest was not a suitable method because the
participants not only saw the target words on the pretest, but also heard them during the
readings. Additionally, they heard in-flight definitions and saw the spellings of some
target words, which could have given them further opportunities for learning. There
could have been one possibility of using the test-retest method if there had been other
participants, but 50 of the 52 accessible students participated in the study.
Because these reliability methods were problematic, the use of conventional
quantitative measures was not appropriate; instead, the process for creating a vocabulary
multiple-choice test followed precedent. The researcher used well-established,
long-standing principles to construct the individual multiple-choice test items, detailed
earlier in this chapter.
Procedures
The first session was explained in a previous section as it involved the sampling
process of gaining permission from parents or guardians to have their children participate
in the study. At the beginning of the second session, the researcher explained the
procedure for answering the vocabulary questions on the multiple-choice pretest by using
an example that was printed at the top of the students' forms. The participants completed
the pretest in which they answered 48 multiple-choice vocabulary questions. There were
58
no time restrictions, but generally, students needed about 10 to 15 minutes.
In the third session, students completed The Reader Self-Perception Scale (Henk
& Melnick, 1995). The researcher received permission from the International Reading
Association to use this scale in English and paid for permission to reprint it. To ensure
participants had a thorough understanding of the statements in the survey using either
their first- or second-language reading skills, the researcher also requested and received
permission to have the scale translated into Spanish and Tagalog with a disclaimer the
association was not responsible for the accuracy of the translation. The researcher paid a
locally owned interpreting service $421.80 for the translations. The researcher followed
Henk and Melnick's recommended procedure to explain the directions, and then students
completed the Likert-style scale. There were no time restrictions, but students needed
about 10 minutes. Analysis of the data was not included in this dissertation.
In the subsequent four sessions, the approximate schedule was as follows:
1. Prior to reading the story aloud, the researcher gave each participant a folder
with the posttest enclosed and provided a pencil. The folder was set aside and
left closed until after the read aloud. The researcher introduced the reading
passage by telling its title and author. One brief sentence about the story was
shared. The process for choosing an answer on the multiple-choice posttest
(A, B, C, or D) was reviewed.
2. The researcher read aloud the passage that included nine target words. For
three target words, explanations were given using in-flight definitions (Elley,
1989), followed immediately by an orthographic cue, showing students the
written spellings. Each of the three spelled words was printed on computer
59
paper using a font size of 120, and the paper was folded in a triangle to make
it stand upright so all students could see it. Three other target words were
explained using the same in-flight definition process, but students were not
given an orthographic cue. The remaining three words were neither explained
nor spelled as they were the control. Each reading lasted approximately 7
minutes. For consistency, all in-flight definitions were prewritten into the
researcher's script (see Appendix E).
3. When the researcher finished reading the passage, students opened their
folders and answered nine multiple-choice vocabulary questions. They placed
their folders upright to give them privacy from other students and the
researcher. This allowed them the opportunity to answer the questions at their
own pace without the researcher watching them. There was no time limit, and
this portion of the session lasted about 5 minutes.
Conclusion
In summary, the design of this research was quasi-experiment. The sampling
procedure was convenient because a special population was needed and included 50
English language learners in Grades 5 through 9 who qualified for a state-sponsored
program. The participants completed a vocabulary pretest and answered questions on a
reading survey. Then, the researcher read aloud four reading passages, and after each one,
participants completed a posttest.
Chapter 4
Results
Introduction
This chapter identifies the research questions, the hypotheses, and the variables.
The central findings of the statistical procedures, including descriptive statistics,
repeated-measures analysis of variance, and planned pairwise comparisons are presented.
Finally, the results are summarized and used as the focus for the discussion in the next
chapter.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
These research questions were used to develop the hypotheses that were then
tested statistically.
Research question 1. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ across the
three levels of the factor Condition: (a) Read/Explain/Spell—read alouds with
explanations of target words and an orthographic cue; (b) Read/Explain—read alouds
with explanations of target words; and (c) Read—read alouds with neither explanations
of target words nor an orthographic cue?
Research question 2. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ for the
planned comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain?
Research question 3. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ for the
planned comparison between Read/Explain and Read?
Research question 4. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ for the
planned comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and Read?
61
Hypothesis 1. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest among the three levels of the factor
Condition—Read/Explain/Spell, Read/Explain, and Read.
Hypothesis 2. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain/Spell and
Read/Explain.
Hypothesis 3. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain and Read.
Hypothesis 4. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain/Spell and Read.
A Priori Decisions
Prior to viewing the results, the researcher made the choice of which statistical
test to report—the standard univariate F, alternative univariate, or multivariate. Since
there were more than two levels of the factor Condition, it was inappropriate to report the
standard univariate ANOVA F because the assumption of sphericity would most likely
have been violated. The alternative univariate test could have been used because it takes
into account the sphericity assumption; the F statistic is used, and the/? value is
calculated using an epsilon statistic that adjusts the degrees of freedom. Instead of these
two options, a multivariate test was chosen because the assumption of sphericity is not an
issue, and statisticians have tended to prefer it due to its conceptual link to follow-up tests,
meaning multivariate statistics and pairwise comparisons determine if the population
means for two sets of scores are simultaneously equal to zero (Green & Salkind, 2005).
In other words, if ai denotes the extent to which condition 1 deviates from the overall
62
mean (ai = ju\ - ju), then "all treatment (group) effects are zero: that is, cti = ot2 = (X3 = 014 =
a5 = 0" (Cardinal & Aitken, 2006, p. 9).
Also, prior to viewing the results, the choice of follow-up tests was made.
Planned pairwise comparisons that used paired-samples t tests with a Holm's sequential
procedure were chosen because this procedure controls for Type 1 error across multiple
pairwise tests. The Holm's sequential has greater power and is preferred over the
Bonferroni method (Green & Salkind, 2005).
Variables
For the repeated-measures ANOVA, there was one within-subjects factor and one
continuous dependent variable.
Within-subjects factor—predictor variable. The factor Condition had three levels:
(a) Read/Explain/Spell; (b) Read/Explain; and (c) Read. Because this study used a
within-subjects design, all 50 participants received all levels of the factor and were
measured repeatedly on these levels.
Dependent variable. The dependent variable was a continuous variable, the
vocabulary posttest.
Descriptive Statistics of Participants
The 50 participants were English language learners in Grades 5 through 9 who
qualified for the state's Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program. While in this
program, they were assessed annually on their oral language communication skills using
subtests of reading, writing, listening, and speaking to determine their overall proficiency
level: (a) Level I, Beginning/Advanced Beginning; (b) Level II, Intermediate; (c) Level
III, Advanced; and (d) Level IV, Transitional. The participants had proficiency levels
63
ranging from Intermediate to Transitional, and 82% were considered Advanced.
According to the state's criteria, this indicated they were able to initiate conversations,
to read, to write, and to use descriptive sentences (Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 2007). The distribution of participants among the five grade levels was
unequal with approximately one half of them in two grade levels. Overall gender was
fairly equal; however, by grade level there were inequities, most obviously in Grade 7
where all participants were male (see Table 4).
Table 4
Distribution of Participants by Grade, Deleted Cases, and Gender
Grade n
Deleted
Cases Male Female
5
6
7
8
9
Totals
13
14
7
7
9
50
0
0
1
0
1
2
6
7
7
4
3
27
7
7
0
3
6
23
These participants spoke nine languages, but the most common were Tagalog and
Spanish, 40% and 32%, respectively. Between 4% and 8% of the students spoke
Armenian, Korean, Taiwanese, and Vietnamese. The remaining students spoke
Cambodian, Chamorro, and Chuukese (see Table 5).
64
Table 5
Home Languages of Participants
Grade
Languages 5 6 7 8 9 Total Percentage
Armenian
Cambodian
Chamorro
Chuukese
Korean
Spanish
Tagalog
Taiwanese
Vietnamese
1
0
0
0
0
3
9
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
4
3
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
2
2
1
1
1
4
16
20
2
3
4
2
2
2
8
32
40
4
6
Data Snooping
Prior to conducting statistical procedures using posttest scores, the researcher
analyzed the data to ensure the SPSS file was complete. In the data file there were
approximately 4,500 cells of information—50 participants and 92 data entries per
participant. Therefore, a process of checking and rechecking occurred to ensure data
were entered accurately and all cells were filled.
65
Descriptive Statistics for the Vocabulary Pretest andPosttest
Three levels of the factor Condition (Read/Explain/Spell, Read/Explain, and
Read) were analyzed, and variables were computed using pretest and posttest scores. The
descriptive statistics for these variables are detailed in Table 6.
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics for the Vocabulary Pretest and Posttest
Condition N
Pretest
Read/Explain/Spell 50
Read/Explain 50
Read 50
M
.355
.353
.362
Variance
.030
.033
.031
SD
.173
.183
.175
Skewness
.334
.275
.377
Kuitosis
.213
-.606
.318
Posttest
Read/Explain/Spell 50 .788
Read/Explain 50 .573
Read 50 .483
.024
.034
.021
.154
.184
.145
-.841
.063
.394
1.629
-.714
-.310
Note. N= 50. The 50 participants received all levels of the factor and were measured repeatedly.
Maximum score = 9 for each level of Condition (Read/Explain/Spell, Read/Explain, and Read).
Analysis of the normality of the curves was explored through skewness (outliers)
and kurtosis (degree of peakedness). These indices should be as close to zero as possible;
however, an absolute value less than 1 is generally considered to indicate a relatively
normal distribution (Sink, 2005). The curves for Read/Explain and Read were normal;
however, Read/Explain/Spell was more leptokurtic. Even though parametric statistics
66
tend to be robust even when distributions do not meet the assumptions of the analysis
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), a nonparmetric procedure for repeated-measures designs
with an intervention was used to confirm this was not an issue (Green & Salkind, 2005).
One Wilcoxon test evaluated whether vocabulary learning was greater using either
Read/Explain/Spell or Read/Explain, as measured by the posttest. The results indicated
significant difference, i = -5.672, /? = .000. A second test evaluated whether vocabulary
learning was greater using either Read/Explain/Spell or Read, as measured by the posttest.
The results indicated significant difference, z = -6.040, p = .000. These Wilcoxon tests
showed that even though the distribution curve for Read/Explain/Spell was slightly
leptokurtic, significant difference was found even when nonparametric procedures were
used.
Statistical Analyses
A factorial ANOVA and a repeated-measures ANOVA were conducted; both
results were equivalent, so the researcher chose a repeated-measures ANOVA and used
only the posttest scores. A multivariate test was conducted, and the findings were
reported using Wilks's lambda. Planned pairwise comparisons that used pair-samples
t tests with a Holm's sequential procedure were chosen, and effect sizes were reported
using pooled Cohen's d.
Assumptions. Because multivariate statistics were used, three assumptions needed
to be met so that the ultimate difference in the levels of the factor could be attributed to
the mean scores with the residual variability due to random error (Green & Salkind,
2005). First, the assumption that scores were multivariately normally distributed in the
population had to be met. Within this assumption, individual scores must be normally
67
distributed for any combination of the other scores. Second, the assumption that each
case was a random sample from the population must be met. Third, the assumption that
scores for each subject were independent of other subjects' scores had to be met (Green
& Salkind, 2005).
Repeated-measures analysis of variance. A repeated-measures ANOVA was the
omnibus statistical procedure used to analyze posttest scores for the three levels of the
factor Condition. Using the General Linear Model and repeated measures function of
SPSS 14 for Windows, the results of multivariate tests were reported using Wilks's
lambda, a statistical test for equality of group means (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003); however,
interpretations were given in terms of a F ratio (Vogt, 1999). The results showed a
significant overall effect, Wilks's A = .24, F(2, 48) = 75.35, p = .00. Because of these
findings, Null Hypothesis 1 was rejected, indicating the means on the vocabulary posttest
scores were significantly different among Read/Explain/Spell, Read/Explain, and Read
(see Figure 1).
CD
5
Figure 1. Pretest and posttest means for three levels of the factor Condition.
68
Because significance was found, the effect size was calculated using multivariate
eta squared as it is associated with Wilks's lambda, multivariate rj = 1 - A. The results
showed an effect size, 1.00 - .24 = .76. This indicated that 76% of the variance in the
posttest was accounted for by the factor Condition. The remaining 24% was the
unexplained variance.
Plannedpairwise comparisons. Even though the omnibus test showed there was
significant difference among the three levels of Condition, these differences were not
specified, so three planned pairwise comparisons were conducted using a paired-samples
t test procedure to determine if the mean difference between two variables was
significantly different from zero. The first test was conducted to compare vocabulary
learning between Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain. For this comparison, the results
indicated the mean for Read/Explain/Spell was significantly greater than the mean for
Read/Explain, t(A9) = 8.529, p = .000 (see Table 7).
The second paired-samples t test was conducted to compare vocabulary learning
between Read/Explain and Read. The results showed the mean for Read/Explain was
significantly greater than the mean for Read, t(49) = 3.512,/? = .001 (see Table 7).
The third paired-samples t test was conducted to compare vocabulary learning
between Read/Explain/Spell and Read. For this comparison, the results indicated the
mean for Read/Explain/Spell was significantly greater than the mean for Read,
/(49) = 12.018,/? = .000 (see Table 7).
69
Table 7
Planned Pairwise Comparisons for the Factor Condition Using Posttest Scores
Condition Levels df t p d
Read/Explain/Spell
& Read/Explain 49 8.529 .000* 1.267a
Read/Explain
&Read 49 3.512 .001* .543a
Read/Explain/Spell
&Read 49 12.018 .000* 2.039a
Note, "pooled Cohen's d. *p < .05.
Because significant difference was found for each of the three paired-samples
/ tests, Null Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 were rejected, and these conclusions were drawn:
1. Vocabulary posttest scores were different between Read/Explain/Spell and
Read/Explain.
2. Vocabulary posttest scores were different between Read/Explain and Read.
3. Vocabulary posttest scores were different between Read/Explain/Spell and
Read.
Holm's sequential Bonferroni procedure. When conducting multiple
comparisons, the probability of committing a Type 1 error, rejecting the null hypothesis
when it is true, increases. To correct for this, a Holm's sequential Bonferroni procedure
was used because of its capability to assess each paired comparison at a different alpha
level (Green & Salkind, 2005).
70
First, the three pairs were ranked from smallest to largest according to their
p values, and then each pair was examined using a sequential procedure. Two of the
comparisons had/? values of .000 so their ranked order was inconsequential. The pair
Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain was examined using the first Holm's procedure,
a = .05 / 3 = .02, and the pair Read/Explain and Read was examined using the second
Holm's sequential procedure, a = .05 / (3 - 1) = .025. The/? value for the third
comparison between Read/Explain and Read was .001, and it examined using the final
Holm's sequential procedure, a = .05 / (3 - 2) = .05. The results showed there was
significant difference between each of the paired comparisons even when the Holm's
sequential procedure was computed.
Effect sizes using pooled Cohen's d. Effect size can be calculated using either
t values or means and standard deviations. Because paired t tests were used, it was not
appropriate to use t values (Becker, 1999). Instead, means and standard deviations were
used. Cohen's d calculates the difference between means, M\ - M2, divided by either of
the groups' standard deviation, a, if their variances are homogeneous. However, the
standard deviation of a sample population tends to be a biased estimator, meaning it
underestimates the population standard deviation (Vogt, 1999). Therefore, pooled
Cohen's d was used: d = M\ - M21 cyp0oied, where apooied = V[(a \2 + a 22) / 2]. For
example, the effect size for the first planned comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and
Read/Explain was calculated using a web-based calculator that divided the numerator
(the difference between the means of Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain) by the
denominator (the square root of the average of the squared standard deviations for
Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain).
71
Regardless of the sign, lvalues of .2, .5, and .8 are interpreted as small, medium,
and large effect sizes, respectively (Green & Salkind, 2005). Also, when d=\, the group
means for the two comparisons are exactly one standard deviation apart. The effect size
for the first comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain was 1.267, which
was considered very strong and was interpreted as, on average, a student receiving the
Condition Read/Explain/Spell performed better than a student receiving Read/Explain.
This indicated the mean of the intervention group (Read/Explain/Spell) was at the 94.5
percentile of the other group (Read/Explain) (Becker, 1999).
For the second comparison, the effect size was .543, which was considered
medium. This indicated that, on average, a student receiving the Condition Read/Explain
performed better than a student receiving the Condition Read, and the mean of the
intervention group (Read/Explain) was at the 71.0 percentile of the other group (Read)
(Becker, 1999).
For the third comparison, the effect size was 2.039, which was considered very
strong. This implied that, on average, a student receiving the Condition
Read/Explain/Spell condition performed better than a student receiving the Condition
Read. This indicated the mean of the intervention group (Read/Explain/Spell) was at the
97.7 percentile of the other group (Read) (Becker, 1999).
Conclusion
The findings using a repeated-measures ANOVA showed there was statistically
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest among the three conditions.
Furthermore, the planned pairwise comparisons showed Read/Explain/Spell was more
effective than either Read/Explain or Read. The large effect size for Read/Explain/Spell
72
demonstrated the practicality of reading aloud, explaining words, and showing spellings,
especially for English language learners in their middle/junior high school years.
73
Chapter 5
Discussion
Introduction
This chapter reviews the purpose of this study and the rationale for conducting the
research. Theoretical and pedagogical implications are proposed, and the implementation
of reading aloud coupled with explanations of words and an orthographic cue is discussed.
Finally, the limitations are explained, and recommendations for future research are
detailed.
Purpose of Research
When adolescent English language learners have their initial exposure to a second
language, typically in an English-only setting in the United States, they must
simultaneously learn to communicate their basic needs and to grasp cognitive academic
vocabulary in subject-specific courses. Added to this, English language learners must
understand and comprehend academic vocabulary when assessed on mandatory tests in
core curricular areas. Therefore, research that investigates instructional interventions as
one facet to promote vocabulary learning for English language learners is of importance.
This study explores research-based first-language instructional strategies that have
the potential to promote vocabulary learning for second-language learners in their middle
school years. It is of interest to determine which intervention best facilitates vocabulary
learning: (a) read alouds with explanations of target words and an orthographic cue;
(b) read alouds with explanations of target words; or (c) read alouds with neither
explanations of target words nor an orthographic cue. To do so, the researcher chose to
build on certain aspects of two recent studies: (a) learning vocabulary from read alouds
74
and explanations of target words (Penno, Moore, & Wilkinson, 2002); and (b) learning
definitions from seeing the spellings of words (Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008). Because neither
of these studies focused on second-language learners, it was necessary to extend their
research to validate whether or not these instructional practices were of benefit to English
language learners, particularly those who qualified for a state program.
Theoretical Implications
As stated earlier, the theoretical framework for second-language vocabulary
learning has yet to be well developed (Read, 2000). The importance of conceptualizing
this construct, however, has been noted by members of the National Literacy Panel on
Language-Minority Youth and Children who have claimed there is a need to use theory to
inform instructional practices for English language learners (August & Shanahan, 2006).
This has included understanding theories for the purpose of "improving strategies
teachers use when reading aloud to young children" (August & Shanahan, 2006, p. 562).
Integral to the current study is the assumption that reading aloud to English language
learners benefits vocabulary learning. Thus, reading aloud was embedded in all levels of
the intervention. Even though the researcher's major hypothesis that increased
vocabulary learning would occur when reading aloud was coupled with explaining words
and using an orthographic cue, it is notable that students made a slight gain from pretest
to posttest for the condition that included just reading aloud.
The findings in this study also support two assumptions and provide evidence of
construct validity: (a) Direct instruction in which target words are explained promotes
second-language vocabulary learning (Read, 2000); and (b) the use of an orthographic
cue is a means to connect the spellings of words to their pronunciations and meanings
75
(Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008). First, direct instruction of target words was embedded in two
of the three levels of Condition (Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain). Results from the
posttest show more vocabulary learning occurred using Read/Explain/Spell and
Read/Explain than Read in which there was no direct instruction of target words. This
demonstrates the vocabulary posttest has construct validity because it measures the
hypothesis that direct instruction (giving explanations of target words) increases
vocabulary learning for second-language learners. Second, showing the spellings of
words is provided in one of the Condition levels (Read/Explain/Spell). Results from the
posttest indicated more vocabulary learning occurred when an orthographic cue was
provided than when it was not. This provides evidence of construct validity because the
findings support the theory that orthographic cues are a means to connect the spellings of
words to their pronunciations and meanings.
Other Theories to Conceptualize Vocabulary Learning
As stated in earlier chapters, suppositions regarding second-language vocabulary
learning have yet to be conceptualized in a theoretical framework. However, one
construct from first-language theory that has gained acceptance in second-language
theory is the view that vocabulary knowledge is either receptive or productive. Receptive
vocabulary is associated with listening and reading, and productive vocabulary is linked
to speaking and listening. Theorists argue that even though receptive knowledge of
vocabulary is of importance, students have not mastered vocabulary learning until
productive knowledge of words is evident. The rationale for this stems from the notion
that students may be able to recognize word meanings, yet they are unable to use
vocabulary productively when speaking and writing.
76
This construct is problematic because of the difficulty assigning students'
awareness, understanding, and use of words to an either-or delineation of reception or
production; instead, it should be viewed as continuum with a "fluid boundary and a great
deal of interaction between receptive and productive vocabulary" (Read, 2000, p. 154).
Others concur regarding dichotomizing vocabulary into receptive and productive
knowledge, citing that a continuum of knowledge is more representative of how
vocabulary has been learned and then used (Hatch, 1995). Possibly, an accurate
conception of receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge is more cyclical and
recurring in nature, such that vocabulary learning requires both reception and production,
and this cycle continues throughout one's life.
Manyak (2007) has proposed another construct that may explain vocabulary
learning. Of four components of effective literacy instruction for English language
learners, one is language-rich instruction that includes the development of oral language
and academic vocabulary. For oral language development, Manyak advocates the
importance of ensuring ELLs have access to fluent speakers, have frequent modeling, and
receive feedback. Therefore, there may be social-cognitive theories, such as these and
teacher modeling (Bandura, 1997), that better explain vocabulary learning.
Another principle that may explain vocabulary learning is the similarity between a
student's first and second language and his or her level of proficiency. Koda (1997) has
proposed that students' first language may be an avenue to process second-language word
recognition. Proctor et al. (2006) found that students' first-language literacy skills, such
as fluency, transferred to their second language. Gathercole and Baddeley (as cited in
Nation, 2001) have provided this supposition:
77
An important factor influencing vocabulary learning is the ability to hold a word
in their phonological short-term memory. A variable influencing this for second
language learners must be the learners' ability to 'chunk' the spoken form of a
word into meaningful segments which in turn depends on LI and L2 similarity
and the learners' level of proficiency in L2. (p. 41)
In the current study, 82% of the participants had proficiency levels that were
considered advanced, so it is possible this influenced their vocabulary learning.
Another possibility for learning vocabulary has been the use of keywords.
Pressley, Levin, and McDaniel (1987) examined many of the keyword methods and
stated, "All relevant evidence supports the conclusion that classroom instruction in
keyword mnemonics improves the associative learning of children" (p. 111). One
strategy has involved students making associations between a word and its definition.
For example, in the current study furnace is a target word and its definition is a. place
where things are heated. Students could use the first part of furnace (fur) to create an
image of fur being heated or burned in a furnace. When students subsequently see
furnace on a test, they could retrieve fur from their memory because it is acoustically the
same as fur in furnace, and this could provide the connection to aplace where things are
heated. If students have been taught how to use keywords, then possibly this better
explains how they learn vocabulary.
One final theory is of merit because of its implications. The supposition
that reading achievement can be predicted from difficulties in auditory discrimination has
been discussed for nearly 40 years. Two researchers Deutsch and Karger (as cited in
Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin, 1990) studied low-income children, especially those who
78
could not speak standard English. They found the ability to differentiate between sounds
predicted early reading achievement. Therefore, there is the possibility that students in
the current study who are able to distinguish between sounds have higher reading
achievement.
Pedagogical Implications
Vocabulary learning. In this study, the effect sizes from the planned pairwise
comparisons indicate the practical significance of reading aloud to English language
learners when it is coupled with word explanations and the use of an orthographic cue.
Educators can be encouraged this is a worthwhile practice for the following reasons. It is
fairly simple to implement, yet educators need to make a conscious effort to read aloud to
English language learners, and for difficult words, provide them with simple, concise
explanations and show them the spellings. Monetarily, this strategy does not require
costly instructional materials so implementation should be fairly simple. It is noteworthy,
however, that the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Youth and Children
recommends professional development in the area of reading aloud (August & Shanahan,
2006). Therefore, personnel in charge of staff development in a school district should
encourage educators to receive training and to include this strategy in their schoolwide
learning improvement plans.
Additionally, there are implications that vocabulary learning influences listening
and reading comprehension, which in turn increases vocabulary learning, demonstrating
its cyclical nature. Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin (1990) have postulated that listening
comprehension is a more effective means of learning vocabulary at the beginning of
Stage 3 reading to learn, which for native speakers occurs between ages 9 and 13 in
79
Grades 4 through 8. Then, a transition occurs to the use of both listening and reading
comprehension at the end of the stage. Likewise, listening comprehension has been
shown to remain strong through Grade 8 when reading comprehension finally approaches
the same level as listening comprehension (Biemiller, 2001). Most recently, listening has
been defined as an avenue to gain understanding and to interpret information for English
language learners in Grades 6 through 8 (Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 2007). Possibly, when adolescent second-language learners are learning
word meanings for the first time, it is worthwhile to use the strength of their listening
comprehension skills to foster vocabulary learning, and one strategy is reading aloud.
Then, as ELLs learn more vocabulary, instruction can improve their listening and reading
comprehension skills.
Vocabulary knowledge has been shown to correlate with improvement in reading
comprehension. At the end of a 2-year study, Carlo et al. (2004) reported that
second-language learners in Grades 4 and 5 performed as well as or better than an
English-only control group when instruction focused on the depth of vocabulary
knowledge and strategies for word comprehension. The researchers found that during a
15-week intervention period if instruction concentrated on word-learning strategies using
fewer words as opposed to learning useful words, both vocabulary knowledge and
reading comprehension improved.
Therefore, the instructional practice of reading aloud coupled with explaining and
showing the spellings of words is a simple and cost effective means to increase
vocabulary learning for English language learners and has the potential to influence
listening and reading comprehension.
80
Mandatory testing. English language learners face several dilemmas regarding
state- and federally mandated testing. First, they are not given time to acquire an
adequate vocabulary in order to do well on tests. After residing in the United States for a
short period of time, ELLs are required to demonstrate their knowledge in core subjects
using a language they have yet to master; however, research studies since the early 1980s
have shown learners of a new language require 2 to 3 years to acquire fluency using
words that are contextualized via representative pictures or gestures. They need nearly 5
to 7 years to learn academically challenging words in textbooks, trade books, newspapers,
or other printed materials that are decontextualized, meaning visual clues are not
embedded in the text (Cummins, 1994). This process of becoming proficient in a second
language and acquiring academic vocabulary may require more years because adolescent
second-language learners must simultaneously learn a new language their classmates
already know and must understand new concepts in academically challenging subjects
(Collier, 1987, 1989).
Second, complex language occurs in assessments and becomes a constant obstacle
for ELLs to overcome (August & Shanahan, 2006). Therefore, ELLs should be afforded
whatever time they need to do well on tests; however, many tests are timed. Garcia's
(1991) study found time contributed to Hispanic students performing lower than
monolinguals on reading tests. Participants were interviewed, and many ELLs felt they
did not have enough time to read and to answer questions, so toward the end of the
testing period, they answered the questions without reading the text.
Third, most mandatory testing involves the use of norm-referenced assessments.
August and Shanahan (2006) claimed the use of standardized tests to assess English
81
language learners' knowledge, ability, and achievement was an inaccurate measurement
because these tests have been normed on a different population. They contended "a
number of researchers have pointed out that few English-language learners, if any, are
included in the norming sample for standardized tests developed in English" (p. 585).
This raises concerns regarding the use of such measures for assessing English language
learners. In the state where the current study was conducted, statewide mandatory tests in
reading, writing, and math for students in Grades 4, 7, and 10 are criterion-referenced;
however, in other grades, norm-referenced tests are used.
It should be recognized that English language learners can demonstrate their
knowledge if they have the opportunity to be tested using their native language. Even
though there are certain accommodations, such as providing bilingual dictionaries, having
dual-language tests, and administering tests orally, these are not consistently provided,
and their effectiveness has not been researched extensively (August & Shanahan, 2006).
The adverse results of being tested have been validated by Collier (1987) using
cross-sectional data collected from 1977 to 1986 that included 1,548 ELLs who arrived in
the United States between the ages of 12 and 15. They encountered the most difficulty
reaching grade-level norms in academic achievement when their entire learning
experience was in their second language. When standardized tests were examined, it was
estimated that as many as 6 to 8 years were needed to reach national grade norms of
native speakers. These results have implications regarding English language learners in
the current study because nearly 60% are in English-only classrooms, and they are
exempt from mandatory testing for only 1 year; they are not given 6 to 8 years to reach
national grade norms.
82
In light of mandated testing, it is important for researchers and educators to find
instructional strategies that promote vocabulary learning so ELLs find success on
challenging assessments in core curricular areas. Possibly, one such strategy is the use of
an intervention that improves vocabulary learning: read alouds coupled with word
explanations and the use of an orthographic cue.
Limitations of the Research
Even though there are many advantages to choosing a repeated measures design,
the disadvantages include certain threats to internal and external validity. Researchers
must control as many extraneous variables as possible so the dependent variable can be
attributed to the intervention. In turn, this strengthens the power of the treatment. If
certain variables are not controlled, the observed changes may be due to other factors.
Through careful planning at the initial stages of this research study, internal threats were
addressed, thereby minimizing the possibility of other explanations regarding treatment
effects (Abrami, Cholmsky, & Gordon, 2001).
Threats to internal validity. One potential threat to internal validity concerns the
number of levels of the independent variable. Because this study had three instead of two
levels of the factor, threats such as maturation, regression, instrumentation, testing, and
history were reasonably reduced (Abrami, Cholmsky, & Gordon, 2001).
One of these threats maturation has been defined as physical or psychological
changes that may influence students' progress and can be controlled by ensuring there is
a control group (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). For example, in this study there was the
possibility that students' confidence increased after listening to the first two stories and
particularly to word explanations and spellings. They may have, then, listened more
83
carefully during the third and fourth stories, thereby affecting their posttest scores. To
control for this, the researcher chose a repeated-measures design because all participants
received all levels of the factor, serving as their own control group.
If this study's design had included observations, the extraneous variable
instrumentation would have been a potential threat to internal validity because the
observer might have either consciously or subconsciously deemed students' work more
favorably during subsequent observations. Because the measuring instrument was a
posttest rather than sequential observations by the researcher, this threat is minimized
(Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
The extraneous variable testing is challenging to control because the focus of this
study is investigating certain instructional strategies that have the potential to increase
vocabulary learning. To determine this, the researcher needed to include the same set of
target words on the pretest and posttest so that differences in scores could be analyzed.
Therefore, there is the possibility the participants became test-wise, also known as order
effects, meaning they performed better on the posttest because they had experienced or
practiced the words on the pretest (Cardinal & Aiken, 2006).
Subject effects are not a threat to internal validity because a within-subjects
design was used, meaning all participants received the hypothesized effective
intervention. This eliminated certain effects if some participants had been assigned to a
control group: (a) compensatory rivalry, or John Henry effect; (b) resentful
demoralization, the Hawthorne effect; and (c) compensatory equalization treatment (Vogt,
1999).
84
Threats to external validity. In addition to controlling internal threats, other
threats must be addressed. External validity, known as generalizability, is the extent to
which the results of a research study are relevant or valid to other individuals or
situations (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). First, population validity is an issue in this study
because a convenience sample is used. Therefore, the results are probably generalizable
to like populations. It would be inappropriate to infer the instructional strategy that was
shown to be the most effective for English language learners in this study is equally
effective for all second-language learners. Second, ecological validity focuses on
whether or not the findings in a subsequent study can be attributed to a researcher's
ability to replicate the environmental conditions established by the original researcher.
To improve this study's ecological validity, the researcher has thoroughly explained the
methodology and the results.
Recommendations for Future Research
The ever-increasing interest in second-language research, especially concerning
vocabulary learning, is encouraging. The findings in this study are evidence that reading
aloud coupled with explaining words and showing their spellings is an effective
instructional strategy for English language learners in middle school.
Because a convenience sample is used, "repeated replication of the findings is
much stronger evidence of their validity and generalizability than is a statistically
significant result in one study" (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003, p. 176). Thus, to provide
others the opportunity to replicate this study, the researcher's detailed explanations have
been provided in Chapter 3. If this study is replicated, an additional delayed posttest is
85
recommended to investigate whether or not vocabulary learning of target words is
sustained over time.
It is also recommended that replication of this study using a multi-sensory
approach may be worthwhile. While listening to stories, students could have the written
text so they not only hear the words, but also see visual representations of them.
An additional recommendation includes examining vocabulary learning for
multi-lingual students. Even though most students in the United States speak one and
possibly two languages, students in other parts of the world speak three and four
languages. Of interest is whether or not the strategies investigated in this study for
second-language learners transfer to third- and fourth-language learners.
Of further interest is an in-depth investigation using specific groups of English
language learners, such as those who have recently exited the state program, to determine
if reading aloud coupled with explaining words and showing their spellings continues to
be an effective instructional practice.
One final recommendation in second-language research is the inclusion of cultural
aspects that have the potential to influence children's academic success. If the classroom
is viewed as a microcosm of society, then children bring cultural experiences from their
home to the classroom (Barrera & Bauer, 2003). Likewise, they are shaped by social and
cultural—even political and historical—contexts in their schools.
The teacher's role within the classroom has been an influential force regarding
minority children's academic development. Even though the Coleman Report of 1966, a
large-scale survey of schools and children, identified family background as a major
contribution to children's verbal achievement, Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin (1990) argued
86
that specific findings in this report showed schools and teachers rather than family
background had a significant impact on minority children's academic development.
Despite this, educators and policymakers chose to interpret family background rather than
teachers as a major influence. Jencks (as cited in Chall et al , 1990) concurred after
reanalyzing data from the Coleman Report.
More recently, members of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority
Youth and Children have analyzed five qualitative studies regarding literacy development
and the relationship of teachers' beliefs or attitudes regarding language, culture, and
achievement (August & Shanahan, 2006). Among their findings, they cite teachers'
respect for English language learners' culture enhances self-esteem. Teachers'
theoretical beliefs are aligned with their instructional practices for English language
learners. For example, teachers who believe a skill-based approach is most effective use
this instructional practice in their classroom. Interestingly, however, teachers do not
associate their theoretical beliefs, their method of instruction, or classroom materials as
possible explanations for reading difficulties among English language learners; instead,
they hold the students' cultural and language backgrounds as responsible.
The relationship between home language use and literacy outcomes for
second-language learners is still vague, according to members of the National Literacy
Panel on Language-Minority Youth and Children. Even so, literacy experiences at home
are related, not consistently, though, to superior literacy outcomes. Most encouragingly,
parents are willing and often times are able to assist their children so they find academic
success, and this is an underutilized factor (August & Shanahan, 2008). In light of these
findings, research on second-language learning should include cultural investigations.
87
Conclusion
The acquisition of vocabulary knowledge is not a goal in itself; rather, having
vocabulary sufficient for oral and written communication has been shown to be one of the
essential building blocks for listening and reading comprehension. For English language
learners, vocabulary knowledge stands as a potential roadblock or highway to understand
and to engage actively and productively in meaningful dialogue with others; to
comprehend text; and to articulate one's thoughts in written form. To foster growth in
vocabulary learning for English language learners, educators can employ the instructional
practice of read alouds coupled with word explanations and an orthographic cue;
however, it should be recognized that meaningful and lifelong learning includes the
breadth and depth of vocabulary instruction.
88
References
Abrami, P. C , Cholmsky, P., & Gordon, R. (2001). Statistical analysis for the social
sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, R. H., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation
of readers: The report of the Commission on reading. Washington, DC: The
National Institute of Education.
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressier, C, & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary
development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 20, 50-57.
August, S., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language
learners: A report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children
and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
August, S., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2008). Developing reading and writing in second-
language learners: Lessons from the report of the National Literacy Panel on
language-minority children and youth. New York: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barrera, R. B., & Bauer, E. B. (2003). Storybook reading and young bilingual children: A
review of the literature. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On
reading books to children (pp. 253-267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001a). Inviting students into the pursuit of
meaning. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 225-241.
89
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001b). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of
read-aloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10-
20.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2002). Questioning the author: Making sense of
social studies. Educational Leadership, 60, 44-47.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning
the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term
vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521.
Becker, L. (1999). Effect size calculators. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from
http://web.uccs.edu/lbecker/Psy590/escalc3.htm
Bethel, J. P. (Ed.). (1959). Webster's new collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Author.
Biemiller, A. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential [Electronic
version]. American Educator. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2001/vocab.html
Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to
stories and explanations of target words. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 415-
421.
Cardinal, R. N., & Aitken, M. F. (2006). ANOVAfor the behavioural sciences research.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
90
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressier, C, Lippman, D. N., et
al. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language
learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39,
188-215.
Chall, J. S. (1987). Two vocabularies for reading: Recognition and meaning. In M. G.
McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 7-17).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor
children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second languages for academic
purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641.
Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a
second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509-531.
Cummins, J. (1994). Acquisition of English as a second language. In K. Spangenberg-
Urbschat & R. Pritchard (Eds.), Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction
for ESL students (pp. 36-62). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ehri, L. C , & Wilce, L. S. (1979). The mnemonic value of orthography among beginning
readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 26-40.
Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research
Quarterly, 24, 174-197.
Elley, W. B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language
learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53-67.
91
Feitelson, D., Goldstein, Z., Iraqi, J., & Share, D. (1993). Effects of listening to
story reading on aspects of literacy acquisition in diglossic situation.
Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 70-79.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research an introduction (7l
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Garcia, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of
Spanish-speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371-392.
Garcia, G. E. (2000). Bilingual children's reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook for reading research, Vol. Ill (pp. 813-834).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gove, P. B. (Ed.). (1968). Webster's new dictionary of synonyms. Springfield, MA:
Merriam.
Graves, M. F. (1987). The roles of instruction in fostering vocabulary development. In M.
G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp.
165-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh:
Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hatch, E. M. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new
tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading
Teacher, 48, 470-482.
92
International Reading Association. (2001). Second language literacy instruction: A
position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: Author.
Intervention Central, (n.d.). Reliability statistics and CBA reading probe generator.
Retrieved November 13, 2007, from
http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/tools/okapi/okapi.php
Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2007). A formative experiment investigating literacy
engagement among adolescent Latina/o students just beginning to read, write, and
speak English. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 512-545.
Kindler, A. (2002). Survey of the states' limited English proficient students and available
educational programs and services 2000-2001 summary report. Washington, DC:
The George Washington University National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs.
Koda, K. (1997). Orthographic knowledge in L2 lexical processing: A cross-linguistic
perspective. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language acquisition: A
rationale for pedagogy (pp. 35-52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading. In J. Coady & T.
Huckin (Eds.), Second language acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp.
20-34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Macy, S. (Ed.). (2002). Scholastic children's dictionary. New York: Scholastic.
Manyak, P. C. (2007). A framework for robust literacy instruction for English learners.
The Reading Teacher, 61, 197-199.
McKenna, M. C , & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Assessment for reading instruction. New York:
Guilford.
93
McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2003). Taking advantage of read-alouds to help children
make sense of decontextualized text. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer
(Eds.), On reading books to children (pp. 159-176). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Direct and rich vocabulary instruction. In J. F.
Baumann & E. J. Kame'enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction (pp. 13-27). New
York: Guildford Press.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Kucan, L. (2005). Choosing words to teach. In E. H.
Heibert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing
research to practice (pp. 209-222). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nagy, W. E. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. Urbana,
IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills; Newark, DE:
International Reading Association; Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Nagy, W. E. (1997). On the role of context in first- and second-language vocabulary
learning. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description,
acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 64-83). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C, & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from
context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237-
270.
Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Vocabulary knowledge: Implications for
acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature
of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-35). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
94
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction—reports of the subgroups. Rockville, MD: National Institute
of Child Health & Human Development.
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2006). Test and item specifications
for grades 3—high school reading WASL. Olympia, WA: Author.
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2007). Annual report of the state
transitional bilingual instruction program: Educating English Language Learners
in Washington state school year 2004-05. Olympia, WA: Author.
Paivio, A., Khan, M., & Begg, I. (2000). Concreteness and relational effects on recall of
adjective-noun pairs. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 149-159.
Penno, J. F., Moore, D. W., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from
teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Overcome the Matthew
Effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 23-33.
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 11, 357-383.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1987). Remembering versus inferring
what a word means: Mnemonic and contextual approaches. In M. G. McKeown &
M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 107-127). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
95
Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking
children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97, 246-256.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Robbins, C , & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn
new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 54-63.
Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L. C. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 175-191.
Sadoski, M. (2005). A dual coding view of vocabulary learning. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 21, 221-238.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2004). Dual coding theory. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau
(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5* ed.) (pp. 1329-1362).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Scott, J. A., & Nagy, W. E. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfamiliar verbs.
Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 184-200.
Senechal, M., & Cornell, E. H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading
experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 361-375.
Sink, C. A. (2005). Assessing skewness and kurtosis indices from SPSS printout. Seattle,
WA: Seattle Pacific University.
Swedberg, N. A. (2004). Explaining word meanings in informational text read aloud by
parents: Is there a value-added effect on word acquisition? (Doctoral dissertation,
Seattle Pacific University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 2141.
96
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Pearson.
Teale, W. H. (2003). Reading aloud to young children as a classroom instructional
activity: Insights from research and practice. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E.
B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children (pp. 114-139). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for
language minority students' long-term academic achievement. Washington, DC:
Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Ulanoff, S. H., & Pucci, S. L. (1999). Learning words from books: The effects of read
aloud on second language vocabulary acquisition. Bilingual Research Journal, 23,
409-422.
United States Department of Education. (2005). Biennial evaluation report to Congress
on the implementation of the state formula grant program. Washington, DC:
Author.
Vogt, W. P. (1999). Dictionary of statistics & methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for
teaching and learning in America's schools (2n ed.). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
97
Appendix A
Letters of Consent—English, Tagalog, and Spanish
IRB Number""'07081)609" Valid Through: 04 Aniii 2009
[Logo of School District]
I N F O R M E D CONSENT
Learning V o c a b u l a r y W o r d s
Principal Invest igator; Ms. Debra L Ot terby, Seattle Pacific University doctoral candidate Phone: 360 .710 .0586 Email: [email protected]
PURPOSE Your child is invited to be in a research study with 43 students in [School District] who are learning English. Your child will listen to stories, get help with difficult words, and answer vocabulary questions about some words. Your child will also answer questions about reading.
PROCEDURES Ms. Ot terby , the Principal Investigator, was a teacher for 23 years and will conduct the study. It wil l take place at your child's school. Your son or daughter's scores on the vocabulary questions will not affect his or her grades in school.
Class 1: Your child wil l answer questions about some vocabulary words. This will take about 1 5 minutes. Here is a sample question:
1. candle A. a cold, windy day B. a stick of wax that you bum to give light C. a f i replace that keeps you warm D. a good smell from cooking in the kitchen
Class 2: Your child wil l answer questions about reading. Your child may skip any question he or she does not want to answer. This wil l take about 8-1 2 minutes. Your child wil l not have to study at home.
Classes 3-6: Ms. Ot terby will read four stories to your child. Af ter each story, your child wil l answer nine vocabulary questions. Each class will take about 20 minutes. Your child wil l not have to study at home.
$&®i@m '$* wemm ifem&m® Urn miM*
Seatlk Pacific ( I H I V I I I l J t V
98
BENEFITS If your child is in this study, he or she will help teachers understand how to teach vocabulary better. If your child has to take the reading portion of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), this study will help him or her practice for it.
PARTICIPATION AND ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION You can help your child decide whether or not to be in this study. If your child is in the study, he or she may drop out at any time, and vocabulary questions will be returned to your child or destroyed. Also, the Principal Investigator may decide not to have your child continue in the study.
PRIVACY/CONFIDENTIALITY Your child's name will not be used in any report. Your child wil l be assigned a number to make sure information is private and confidential. Information and data will be put in a secure place that is not at the school. Information and data may be used in other research, presentations, or for teaching, but your child's name will not be used.
SUBJECT RIGHTS If you or your child has questions at any time, please call Ms. Debra L Ot terby, the Principal Investigator, at 360 .710 .0586 or email her at [email protected]. If you have questions about the rights of your child in this study, please contact Seattle Pacific University's Institutional Review Board Chair at 206 .281 .2174 or [email protected]. You may also contact Dr. [Name], Director of Research and Evaluation for [School District], at [phone number] or [email address].
CONSENT By signing this form, you are saying that you understand it wel l enough to make a decision, and you are agreeing to let your child participate in this study. The Primary Investigator and Seattle Pacific University still have a responsibility to do this study in a w a y that follows the rules for research involving children in schools.
I have read the above information and al low my child to participate in this study. The Principal Investigator will give each child two copies of this form. One is to be signed and returned, and the other is for you to keep at home.
Parent/Guardian's Name (print)
Parent/Guardian's Signature
[School District] Director of Research & Evaluation [Name & Signature]
Principal Investigator Name & Signature
Ms. Debra L. Otterby
Copies to: Participant (2) and Principal Investigator (1)
100
IRIS Nurnbci~"0708b"60i) _
Valid Through: 04 April 2009
Seattle Pacific O S t » E « S H *
[Logo of School District] PAGBIBIGAY-PAHINTULOT
Ara l i ng Ta lasa l i taang- lng les
Punong Tagapagsaliksik: Bb. Debra L Ot terby, kandidata para sa pagsasanay ng pagdalubhasang doktora l , Seattle Pacific University Telepono: 360 .710 .0586 Email: [email protected]
LAYUNIN Inaanyayahan naming ang inyong anak sa isang pagsaliksik-aral in, kasama ang 43 pang mga kamag-ara l ng Salitang Ingles sa [School District]. Mangyar i lamang, na ang inyong anak ay makikinig sa mga kuwento, tutulungang matutunan ang mga mahihirap na salita, at sasagutin nila ang i lang mga katanungan tungkol sa ilang mga salita sa Talasalitaang Ingles. Sasagutin din ng inyong anak ang tungkol sa pagbabasa .
KAPARAANAN Si Bb. Ot terby , ang Punong-Tagapagsaliksik, na nakapagturo na ng dalawampu' t tatlong (23) taon, ang magsasagawa ng pag-aara l na ito. Gagaw in niya ito sa loob ng eskwelahan ng inyong anak. Ang mga iskor ng inyong anak sa mga katanungan sa Talasalitaang-lngles ay hindi makakaapekto sa kanyang magiging g rado sa eskwelahan.
Klase 1: Sasagutin ng inyong anak tungkol sa ilang mga salita sa Talasalitaan. Tatagal ito ng mga kinse(15)minuto. Mga hal imbawang katanungan:
1. KANDILA A. isang araw na medyo malamig at mahangin. B. kapirasong sebo na sinisindihan pa ra magka- i law. C. isang lugar sa bahay na nagb ib igay ng init. D. masarap na amoy mula sa pag- luto sa kusina.
Klase 2: Sasagutin ng inyong anak ang mga tanong tungkol sa pagbabasa . Maar ing lag tawan niya ang mga tanong na ayaw niyang sagutin. Tatagal ito ng mga walo hanggang lab inda lawang(8- l 2)minuto. Hindi kailanganin ng inyong anak na mag-ara l pa sa bahay.
101
Klases 3-6; Babasa ng apat na kuwento si.Bb Otterby.:. Pagkatapos ng mga kuwento mangyar i lamang sagutin ng inyong anak ang siyam(9) na katanungan.
Ang bawat klase ay ta taga l ng 20 minuto. Hindi kailanganin ng inyong anak na mag-ara l pa sa bahay.
PAKINABANG Ang pagasal i ng inyong anak sa pag-aara l na ito, ay makakatulong na malaki sa guro upang maunawaan ang tamang pagtuturo ng Talasalitaan-lngles. Kung sakaling kukuha ng examen ang inyong anak sa wikang-lngles ng "Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL)," sa bahagi ng pagbabasa . At gayundin sa inyong anak; malaki ang maitututulong ng pagsal i niya sa pag -aa ra l na ito, bilang pagsasanay upang ma-ipasa niya ang examen.
PAGSALI AT IBA PANG PARAAN NG PAGSALI Matulungan ninyong desisyunan ng inyong anak kung sasali o hindi sa ganitong pag-aara l . Kung sasali siya, maari siyang umayaw o huminto anumang oras, na gugustuhin ninyo. Ang mga tanong sa Talasalitaan ay maaring ibalik sa inyong anak o di kaya , pwedeng sirain na ito. Gayunpaman, maaring desisyunan din ng Punong-Tagapagsaliksik na pahintuin na sa pagsal i ang iyong anak, kung inyong marapat in.
PRIBADO/KONPIDENSYAL Hindi maaring gamitin sa anumang paraan ang pangalan ng inyong anak sa anumang klaseng report. Bibigyan siya ng tanging numero upang mapanga lagaan ang kanyang pr ibado at konpidensyal na kaalaman. Lahat ng kaalaman tungkol sa kanya ay i la lagak sa isang ligtas na lugar-hindi sa eskwelahan niya. Maar ing gamitin lamang ang mga kaalamang ito sa iba pang pag -aa ra l , pagsasaliksik, o di kaya sa pagtuturo, pero di-kai lnaman gagamit in ang pangalan ng inyong anak sa anumang bagay o kagamitan nito.
KARAPATANG PANSARILI Kung may mga katanungan kayo o ang inyong anak, maar i lamang tawagan ninyo, anumang oras si Bb. Debra L, Otterby, ang Punong-Tagapagsaliksik sa 360 .710 .0586 o sa kanyang email: [email protected]. Kung may tanong kayo tungkol sa mga karapatang-pansar i l i ng inyong anak, maari lamang kontakin ninyo ang Seattle Pacific University's Institutional Review Board Chair sa 206 .281 .2174 o [email protected]. Maar ing kontakin ninyo si [Name], Director of Research and Evaluation for [School District], sa [phone number] o [email address].
102
PAHINTULOT Sa pamamagitan ng inyong lagda sa kasulatang ito, sinasabi ninyo na lubos na naintindihan ninyo ito upang madesisyunan at binibigyan ninyo ng pahintulot ang inyong anak na sumali sa pag-aaral na ito. Tungkulin ng Punong-Tagapagsaliksik at ng Seattle Pacific University na gawin ang nararapat ayon sa batas at kaparaanan ng pagsasaliksik tungkol sa mga bata sa mga eskwelahan. Bibigyan ng Punong-Tagapagsaliksik ng dalawang kopya nitong dokumento. Isa na dapat ninyong pirmahan at isauli sa eskwelahan at ang isa para sa sariling kopya ninyo sa bahay.
Nabasa ko ang lahat na nakasaad sa itaas at pinapahintulutan ko ang aking anak na sumali sa pag-aaral na ito.
Pangalan ng Magulang/Tagapag-alaga (limbag)
Pirma ng Magulang/Tagapag-alaga
Petsa
[School District] Director of Research & Evaluation [Name & Signature]
Principal Investigator Name & Signature
Ms. Debra L. Otterby
Mga Kopya: Kasali (2) at Punong-Tagapagsaliksi (1)
103
1KB Number 07080609 Valid Tlirouiiri: 04 April 2009
Ef*SW9**# t?»»-»a«^*,*M^«t tfc*1***!**
w>C3.ttlC raClllC [Logo of School District]
CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO A p r e n d i e n d o vocabu la r io
Directora de Investigacion: Sra. Debra L Ot terby , postulante doctoral de Seattle Pacific University Telefono: 360 .710 .0586 Correo electronico: [email protected]
PROP6SITO Su hijo ha sido invitado a part ic ipar en un estudio de investigacion con 43 estudiantes que estdn aprendiendo el idioma ingles en el [Distrito Escolar]. Su hijo escuchara cuentos, se le da rd ayuda con palabras dificiles, y contestant preguntas de vocabulario sobre algunas palabras. Su hijo tambien contestara preguntas sobre la lectura.
PROCEDIMIENTO La Sra. Ot terby , Directora de Investigacion, fue maestra durante 23 afios y sera ella quien hard el estudio. Este se hard en la escuela de su hijo. La calificacion de su hijo en la escuela no se vera afectada por la puntuacion que el o ella reciba en las preguntas de vocabulario.
Clase 1: Su hijo contestara a preguntas acerca de algunas palabras del vocabulario. Esto l levara como 1 5 minutos. Aqui hay un ejemplo:
1. vela (candela) A. un dfa frfo, ventoso B. un pal i to de cera que enciendes pa ra dar luz C. una chimenea que te mantiene calientito D. un rico olor de comida en la cocina
Clase 2: Su hijo contestara preguntas acerca de la lectura. Su hijo se puede saltear cualquier pregunta que no quiera contestar. Esto l levara como de 8 a 12 minutos. Su hijo no tendrd que estudiar en casa.
Closes 3-6: La Sra. Ot terby le leera cuatro cuentos a su hijo. Despues de cada cuento su hijo contestara nueve preguntas de vocabulario. Cada clase se l levara como 20 minutos. Su hijo no tendra que estudiar en casa.
104
BENEFICIOS Si su hijo part ic ipa en este estudio, podra ayudar a su maestro/a a entender como ensefiar mejor el vocabulario. Si su hijo tiene que hacer el examen de lectura del WASL (Evaluacion de Aprendizaje Estudiantil del Estado de Washington), este estudio le servira de practica.
PARTICIPACION Y ALTERNATIVAS DE PARTICIPACION Usted puede ayudar a su hijo a decidir part icipar, o no en el examen. Si part ic ipa, su hijo se puede salir en cualquier momento y las preguntas del vocabulario seran destruidas, o se le devolveran a su hijo. La Directora de Investigacion tambien puede decidir que su hijo no siga en el estudio.
PRIVACIDAD/CONFIDENCIALIDAD El nombre de su hijo no se usara en ninguno de los reportes. A su hijo se le dara un numero para asegurar que la informacion es pr ivada y confidencial. La informacion y datos se mantendran en un lugar seguro fuera de la escuela, y podran ser usados en otra investigacion, presentaciones, o para ensenanza; pero no se usara el nombre de su hijo.
DERECHOS DEL SUJETO Si en cualquier momento su hijo tiene preguntas, por favor Name a la Sra. Debra L. Ot terby, Directora de Investigacion, al 360 .710 .0586 , o envie correo electronico a [email protected]. Si usted tiene preguntas acerca de los derechos de su hijo en este estudio, por favor Name a Institutional Review Board Chair (Junta Moderadora de Revision Institucional) de Seattle Pacific University al 206 .281 .2174 o [email protected]. Tambien puede hacer contacto con la [Name], Directora de Investigacion y Evaluacion del Distrito Escolar al [phone number] o [email address].
CONSENTIMIENTO Al la firma de este documento, esta usted diciendo que ha entendido lo suficiente como para tomar una decision, y que acepta que su hijo participe en este estudio. La Directora de Investigacion y la Seattle Pacific University (Universidad de Seattle Pacific) aun tienen la responsabilidad de hacer este estudio de acuerdo a las reglas de investigacion que involucran a menores en las escuelas.
He leido la informacion arriba descrita y permito que mi hijo participe en este estudio. La Directora de Investigacion dara a cada menor dos copias de esta forma. Una es para ser firmada y devuelta, y la otra es para dejar en casa.
105
Nombre del Padre o Guardian (letra de molde)
Firma del Padre o Guardian
[Distrito Escolar]: Nombre y Firma de la Directora de Investigacion y Evaluacion
Nombre y Firma de la Investigadora Sra. Debra L. Otterby
Con copia para: 2 para el participante y 1 para la Directora de Investigacion
106
ID
Appendix B
Vocabulary Pretest
Vocabulary Questions
Directions: Circle the letter (A, B, C, or D) that is the best definition for each word. Here is an example:
1. candle A. a cold, windy day B. a stick of wax that you burn to give light C. a fireplace that keeps you warm D. a good smell from cooking in the kitchen
ventures A. travels B. sleeps C. builds D. digs
3. henceforward A. for the present time B. in the future C. in the past D. of today
5. abandoned A. artif icial B. rocky C. helpless D. empty
A. B.
C. D.
va A. B. C. D.
answered without respect demanded attention from others listened carefully to stories tr ied to convince someone
gue extremely fortunate very certain too severe not clear
6. muezzin A. person who lives in the
country B. person who heals others C. person who prepares a
feast D. person who says prayers
continue to the next page
107
obstacles A. experiences that are very good B. lessons that teach you about life C. things that make doing something
difficult D. people who are not kind
8. darned A. mended B. knotted C. saved D. wasted
generation A. a group attending a performance B. a group living in the same place C. a group born at the same time D. a group competing in a game
1 0. gossiped A. ta lked about other
people B. inquired about the
weather C. invited people to a feast D. wai ted for everyone to
listen
1 1. proclaimed A. attended B. announced C. asked D. realized
1 2. calico A. old newspaper B. cotton cloth C. strong metal D. new sheepskin
1 3. neckerchief A. scarf or cloth worn around the neck B. small flashlight for camping C. sleeping bag D. coat for keeping warm
14, detected A. requested B. valued C. discovered D. tasted
15. paradise A. a situation that is bad B. a feeling of being poor C. a place of happiness D. a location that is safe
1 6. parcels A. dresses B. crates C. cans D. packages
17. vanished A. walked slowly B. gathered quickly C. stopped in a hurry D. d isappeared suddenly
1 8. endure A. watch B. breathe
C. survive D. avoid
continue to the next page
1 9. necessities A. things you need or must have B. products you save for the future C. materials you recycle D. objects you sell to make money
20. critically A. quickly and carelessly B. softly and gently C. carefully and seriously D. happi ly and excitedly
2 1 . insulated A. deep underground B. covered to keep warm C. f i l led with water D. with holes to let in air
22. disbelief A. not starting on time B. not succeeding in doing
something C. not doing what should
be done D. not accepting what
someone says
23. devoted A. answered B. accepted C. dedicated D. wanted
25. pantry A. a shopping list B. a place to keep food C. a stove to cook food D. a truck for moving material
24. scarce A. easy to earn B. avai lable to anyone C. hard to get or find D. important to everyone
26. practical A. strong B. competitive C. useful D. faithful
27. convinced 28. tweed A. expected something to happen B. persuaded to believe something
was true or false C. described something so it was clear D. added something to make it complete
A. cotton B. silk C. wool D. rawhide
29. gnawing A. running from danger B. cleaning the house C. biting repeatedly on something D. moving into a new den
30. pored A. studied B. copied C. ignored D. searched
continue to the next page
3 1 . assured A. said something confidently B. explained in detail C. argued about a situation D. ta lked about what happened
33. obvious A. difficult to f ind B. often talked about C. little known D. easily understood
35. stagecoach A. machine that flies B. wagon to carry people C. engine that makes things go fast D. equipment to f ix things
37. bitterly A. so soft you cannot hear it B. so long that you get bored C. so extreme that it hurts D. so funny that you would laugh
39. furnace A. place where things are sold B. place where things are stored C. place where things are heated D. place where things are shipped
32. mortgage A. income from selling B. tax for a city C. loan from a bank D. salary for workers
34. mightily A. grateful ly B. vigorously C. loudly D. exactly
36. fortunate A. avai lable B. lucky C. careful D. ambitious
38. appeal ing A. disgusting B. frightening C. annoying D. interesting
40 . muslin A. metal B. cloth C. silk D. wood
4 1 . legend A. tale about the future B. signal to warn of danger C. story from the past D. song about campers
42 . flickering A. burning B. freezing C. shivering D. boiling
continue to the next page
110
43. donated A. managed B. of fered C examined D. accepted
44 . seldom A. carefully B. always C. rarely D. almost
45. dynamite A. things like coins, rings, and stones B. explosives that are very powerful C. materials that are easy to collect D. products that are safe to use
46 . boasted A. questioned B. pretended C. apologized D. b ragged
47. resolved A. obtained B. refused C. decided D. struggled
48 . economic A. having to do with money B. having to do with
weather C. having to do with law D. having to do with war
I l l
Appendix C
The Reader Self-Perception Scale
International Reading Association Permission
From: Permissions To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:21 AM Subject: RE: Permission Request
Dear Ms. Otterby,
The International Reading Association grants you permission to reproduce the Henk & Melnick (1995) scale in your dissertation and translate it into Spanish and Tagalog, providing that the material is properly credited and cited as follows:
Henk, W. A.,& Melnick, S. A. (March 1995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(6), 470-482. Copyright 1995 by the International Reading Association.
THIS CREDIT LINE MUST APPEAR DIRECTLY ON T H E "SCALE."
For any translations, please also include a disclaimer that makes it clear that IRA is not responsible for the accuracy of the translation.
If for any reason you cannot comply with these terms, then please do not reproduce the material. If you have further questions, please contact me.
Janet S. Parrack Rights, Contracts, & Permissions Manager International Reading Association 800 Barksdale Road PO Box 8139 Newark DE 19714-8139 USA www.reading.org j [email protected]. or g Fax 302-368-2449
112
Appendix D
The Reader Self-Perception Scale—English, Tagalog, and Spanish
ID
The Reader Self-Perception Scale
Listed below are statements about reading. Please read each statement carefully. Then circle the letters that show how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Use the fol lowing:
SA A U D
SD
= —
=
= —
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree
Example: I think pizza with pepperoni is the best. SA A U D SD
If you are really positive that pepperoni pizza is best, circle SA (Strongly Agree).
If you think that it is good but maybe not great, circle A (Agree). If you can't decide whether or not it is best, circle U (Undecided). If you think pepperoni pizza is not all that good, circle D (Disagree). If you are really positive that pepperoni pizza is not very good, circle SD (Strongly Disagree).
1. I think I am a good reader. 2. I can tell that my teacher likes to listen to
me read. 3. My teacher thinks that my reading is fine. 4. I read faster than other kids. 5. I like to read aloud. 6. When I read, I can f igure out words better
than other kids.
7. My classmates like to listen to me read. 8. I feel good inside when I read. 9. My classmates think that I read pretty well. SA A U D SD
SA SA
SA SA SA SA
SA SA
A A
A A A A
A A
U U
U U U U
U U
D D
D D D D
D D
SD SD
SD SD SD SD
SD SD
continue to the next page
113
10. When I read, I don't have to try as hard as I used to.
11.1 seem to know more words than other kids when I read.
1 2. People in my family think I am a good reader. 1 3. I am getting better at reading. 14. I understand what I read as well as other
kids do. 1 5. When I read, I need less help than I used to. 1 6. Reading makes me feel happy inside. 17. My teacher thinks I am a good reader. 1 8. Reading is easier for me than it used to be.
19. I read faster than I could before. 20. I read better than other kids in my class. 21.1 feel calm when I read. 22. I read more than other kids. 23. I understand what I read better than
I could before. 24. I can f igure out words better than
I could before. 25. I feel comfortable when I read. 26. I think reading is relaxing. 27. I read better now than I could before. 28. When I read, I recognize more words
than I used to. 29. Reading makes me feel good. 30. Other kids think I'm a good reader. 3 1 . People in my family think I read pretty well. 32 . I enjoy reading. 33. People in my family like to listen to me read.
SA A U D
SD
SA
SA
SA SA SA
SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA
— Strongly Agree
= AS = Un
iree decided
= Disagree = Strongly Disagree
A
A
A A A
A A A A A A A A A
U
U
U U U
U U U U U U U U U
D
D
D D D
D D D D D D D D D
SD
SD
SD SD SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SA U SD
SA SA SA SA
SA SA SA SA SA
A A A A
A A A A A
U U U U
U U U U U
D D D D
D D D D D
SD SD SD SD
SD SD SD SD SD
The International Reading Association has given permission to reprint the Reader Self-Perception Scale, using this citiation: Henk, W . A., & Melnick, S. A. (March 1 995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new tool
for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, -48(6), 470-482. Copyright 1 995 by the International Reading Association.
114
ID
Ang Sukatan Ng Sariling-Pananaw ng Bumabasa
Nakalista sa ibaba ang mga pangungusap tungkol sa pagsasanay sa pagbabasa. Pakibasa ng maige ang mga pagla lahad. Pagkatapos, sagutin ang mga tanong. Bilugan ang nasa iyong pananaw kung umaaayon ka o hindi sa mga nakatalang pangungusap. Gamitin ang mga sumusunod sa iyong isasagot:
MU = Matinding Umaayon U = Umaayon
DS = Di-Sigurado DU = Dl-Umaayon MD = Matinding Di-Umaayon
Halimbawa: Para sa akin, ang pepperoni pizza ay "da best" sa lahat. MU U DS DU MD
Kung sa iyong pananaw na ta lagang "da best ang pepperoni pizza, Bilugan ang MU = Malakas na Umaayon
Kung sa iyong pananaw OK lang ang pepperoni pizza, pero di ta lagang "da best," Bilugan ang U = Umaayon
Kung sa iyong pananaw hindi ka sigurado kung Ok o Hindi "da best" ang pepperoni pizza, Bilugan ang DS = Di-Sigurado
Kung sa iyong pananaw hindi ka sang-ayon na "da best" ang pepperoni pizza, Bilugan ang DU = Di-Umaayon
Kung sa iyong pananaw ta lagang hindi "da best" ang pepperoni pizza, Bilugan ang MD = Matinding Di-Umaayon
ituloy sa susunod na pahina
115
MU = Matinding Umaayon U = Umaayon
DS = Di-Sigurado DU = Di-Umaayon
MD = Matinding Di-Umaayon
1. Sa pa lagay ko magaling akong bumasa. 2. Gustong makinig ng guro ko habang ako'y
nagbabasa 3. Alam ng aking guro na ang pagbabasa
ko ay mahusay.
4. Mas mabilis akong bumasa kaysa ibang
mga bata. 5. Gusto kong bumasa ng malakas. 6. Kapag ako'y nagbasa, nai larawan
kong maige kaysa ibang bata. 7. Gusto ng mga kamag-aral kong
makinig pag akoy' nagbasa. 8. Natutuwa ako sa aking sarili habang
nagbabasa. 9. Alam ng mga kamag-aral ko na magaling
akong bumasa. 1 0. Pag nagbabasa ako hindi na ako
nahihirapan pa katulad ng dat i . 1 1. Parang mas marami pa akong alam na
salita kaysa iba kong kamag-aral pag ako'y nagbabasa.
1 2. Alam ng mga kamag-anak ko na magaling akong bumasa.
1 3. Mas gumagaling ako sa aking pagbabasa 14. Naintindihan ko ang aking binabasa tulad
ng ibang mga bata. 1 5. Pag nagbabasa ako di ko na kailangan ng
tulong tulad ng dat i . 1 6. Ang pagbabasa ay nagbibigay ng
kal igayahan sa akin. 17. Alam ng guro ko na magaling akong
bumasa.
MU MU
MU
MU
MU MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU MU
MU
MU
MU
U U
U
U
U U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U U
U
U
U
DS DS
DS
DS
DS DS
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS DS
DS
DS
DS
DU DU
DU
DU
DU DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU DU
DU
DU
DU
MD MD
MD
MD
MD MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD MD
MD
MD
MD
ituloy sa susunod na pahina
116
MU = Matinding Umaayon U = Umaayon
DS = Di-Sigurado DU = Di-Umaayon
MD = Matinding Di-Umaayon
18. Mas madali ang pagbabasa para sa akin MU U DS DU MD di tulad ng dat i .
1 9. Mas mabilis akong bumasa ngayon kaysa MU U DS DU MD dat i .
20. Mas magaling akong bumasa kaysa ibang MU U DS DU MD bata sa klase.
2 1 . Matiwasay ako pag bumabasa. MU U DS DU MD 22. Mas marami akong binabasa kaysa ibang MU U DS DU MD
bata. 23. Mas naintindihan ko ngayon ang aking MU U DS DU MD
binabasa kaysa dat i . 24. Mas madali kong mailarawan ang mga MU U DS DU MD
salita kaysa dat i .
25. Komportable ako habang nagbabasa. MU U DS DU MD 26. Ang pagbabasa ay nakapagbib igay ng MU U DS DU MD
katiwasayan. 27. Mas magaling akong bumasa ngayon kaysa MU U DS DU MD
noon. 28. Pag ako'y nagbabasa mas maraming akong MU U DS DU MD
natatandaang mga salita kaysa dat i . 29. Ang pagbabasa ay nagbib igay sa akin ng MU U DS DU MD
kasiyahan. 30. Alam ng ibang bata na ako'y magaling MU U DS DU MD
bumasa. 3 1 . Alam ng mga kamag-anak ko na magaling MU U DS DU MD
akong bumasa. 32. Nasisiyahan akong magbabasa. MU U DS DU MD 33. Gusto ng mga kamag-anak ko na makinig MU U DS DU MD
habang ako'y nagbabasa.
117
Ang Kapisanang Internasyonal Ng Pagbabasa ay nagbigay pahintulot ang paglimbag nitong Sukatan Ng Sariling Pananaw ng Bumabasa, gamit nitong citas:
Henk, W . A., & Melnick, S. A. (Marso 1995). Ang Sukatan Ng Sariling Pananaw ng Bumabasa (SSPB): Bagong sukatan ng kung paanong naramdaman ng mga bata bilang mga magbabasa. Ang Nagbabasang Guro, 48(6), 470-482. Kopyang-karapatan 1995 ng Kapisanang Internasyonal Ng Pagbabasa.
Walang Panagutan: Ang Kapisanang Internasyonal Ng Pagbabasa ay walang pananagutan sa kawastuan ng saling-wika nitong sukatan sa iba't-ibang wika.
118
IDENTIFICACION
Escala de Auto-Apreciacion del Lector
Enumeradas abajo, hay opiniones acerca de la lectura. Por favor lee cada opinion con cuidado. Despues haz un circulo alrededor de las letras que demuestren que tanto estas tu de acuerdo, o en desacuerdo con esa opinion. Usa la siguiente gufa:
TA = Totalmente de acuerdo A = De acuerdo I = Indeciso/a
D = En desacuerdo TD = Totalmente en desacuerdo
Ejemplo: Pienso que la pizza con pepperoni es la mejor. TA A I D TD
Si tu estas realmente seguro de que la pizza con pepperoni es la mejor, circula TA (Totalmente de acuerdo) Si tu piensas que sf esta buena; pero tal vez no muy buena, circula A (De acuerdo). Si no puedes decidir entre si es o no la mejor, circula I (Indeciso/a). Si tu piensas que la pizza de pepperoni no es tan buena, circula D (En desacuerdo). Si tu estas realmente seguro de que la pizza con pepperoni no es muy buena, circula TD (Totalmente en desacuerdo).
1. Creo que soy un buen lector. 2. Me doy cuenta de que a mi profesor/a
le gusta ofrme leer. 3. Mi profesor /a piensa que mi lectura es buena. 4. Leo mas rapido que otros ninos. 5. Me gusta leer en voz alta. 6. Cuando leo, puedo interpretar las palabras
mejor que otros ninos. 7. A mis companeros les gusta ofrme leer. 8. Cuando leo, me siento bien por dentro. 9. Mis companeros piensan que leo muy bien.
TA TA
TA TA TA TA
TA TA TA
A A
A A 1 A 1 A 1
A 1 A 1 A 1
1 D 1 D
1 D 1 D
D D
D D D
TD TD
TD TD TD TD
TD TD TD
continua a la siguiente pagina
119
TA = Totalmente de acuerdo A = De acuerdo I = Indeciso/a
D = En desacuerdo TD = Totalmente en desacuerdo
1 0. Ahora cuando leo, ya no me cuesta tanto t rabajo como antes.
1 1. Cuando leo, parece que conozco
mas palabras que los otros nifios. 1 2. Mi famil ia piensa que leo bien. 1 3. Estoy mejorando mi lectura. 14. Comprendo lo que leo tan bien como
otros ninos lo hacen. 1 5. Cuando leo, necesito menos ayuda que antes. 1 6. La lectura me hace sentir contento por dentro. 17. Mi profesor/a piensa que leo bien. 1 8. Para mi ahora es mas facil leer que antes. 1 9. Yo leo mas rapido de lo que antes podfa.
20. Yo leo mejor que otros ninos en mi salon. 2 1 . Me siento tranquilo cuando leo. 22. Yo leo mas que los otros ninos. 23. Ahora lo que leo, lo entiendo mejor que antes. 24. Puedo entender palabras mejor de lo que
las entendfa antes. 25. Me siento a gusto cuando leo. 26. Creo que la lectura es relajante. 27. Ya leo mejor que antes. 28. Cuando leo reconozco mas palabras que antes. 29. Leer me hace sentir bien. 30. Otros ninos piensan que leo bien. 3 1 . Mi famil ia piensa que leo muy bien. 32. Disfruto de la lectura. 33. A mi famil ia le gusta ofrme leer.
TA
TA
TA TA TA
TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA
TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA
A A A
A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A A 1 A 1 A A 1
A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1
D D
1 D
D D D D D
1 D D D D D
D D D D D D D D D
D
120
La Asociacion International de Lectura ha dado su permiso para reimprimir la Escala de Autoestima del Lector, utilizando esta cita:
Henk, W . A., & Melnick, S. A. (Marzo de 1 995). La Escala de Auto-Apreciacion del Lector (RSPS): Una herramienta nueva para medir como se sienten los ninos acerca de sf mismos como lectores. The Reading Teacher (El maestro lector), 48(6), 470-482. Derechos de autor, 1995 por la Asociacion Internacional de Lectura (Copyright 1995 by the International Reading Association.)
Negacion de responsabilidad: La Asociacion Internacional de Lectura (The International Reading Association) no se hace responsable de la exactitud de la traduccion de esta escala a otros idiomas.
121
Appendix E
Reading Passages
I am going to read "Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose" by Burt Heim. I will explain some words and also show you the spelling of some words.
A shiny mini flashlight, which you carefully placed
beside the sleeping bag last night, has vanished into the
night. It wasn't magic, and it wasn't one of your buddies.
You've been struck by a thief known as the pack rat.
This unusual critter runs around at night claiming
anything it wants. The pack rat's shopping list includes coins,
toothbrushes, rings, glasses, stones, sticks, shotgun shells,
flashlight batteries, socks, key rings, and even sticks of
dynamite (meaning "explosives that are very powerful").
There is one story about a camper who woke up one
morning and couldn't f ind his false teeth.
If that's true, there is a pack rat out there with a few
too many choppers.
When the little thief spots something else that looks
appealing, it drops the current pay load and picks up the
new treasure. That leads to the next pack rat legend, which
122
says that a camper woke up one time to f ind his dime had
been replaced by two nickels.
Pack rats, usually found in mountain and desert regions
of North America, live in homes they make from scratch.
Their dens consist of sticks, grass, and anything else they
might f ind useful. The den is usually hidden in a rocky ledge
or cave or sometimes in an abandoned building.
When the den builder dies, another pack rat may
move in, and each new generation ( show spel l ing;
meaning "a group born at the same time") adds more
sticks and treasures. One six-foot high den was found in
Louisiana. Another held enough material to fi l l a pickup
truck.
A pack rat house includes a pantry ( show spel l ing;
meaning "a place to keep food") where nuts, grains,
berries, and other foods are stored. There is a bedroom
insulated (meaning "covered to keep warm") with soft
grass, shredded bark, and maybe an old sock or
handkerchief.
There is even a special place for a toilet because the
pack rat keeps a clean house. There are many exits in case
of danger. This creature seldom ventures more than 50 feet
123
from home so it can scurry back when a hungry fox, skunk,
owl, snake, or bobcat comes visiting.
The pack rat is a loner, wanting nothing to do with
other pack rats until the breeding season. A mother's two or
three helpless babies first open their eyes when 17 days
old. The female raises them by herself.
The most obvious (show spel l ing; meaning "easily
understood") difference between the pack rat and the
regular house rat is that the pack rat has a bushy tai l . And
the pack rat steals from you.
The hobby of the regular house rat is gnawing
(meaning "biting repeatedly on something"), and the
hobby of the pack rat is collecting.
124
I am going to read "The Flame of a Candle" by Marci Stillerman. I will explain some words and also show you the spelling of some words.
Introduction: Nasreddin Hod/a was a real person who lived in Turkey in the thirteenth century. There are many tales about Nasreddin Hodja. In some he's wise, in some he's foolish, and in some— as in this tale—-he's a little of both. __
One bitterly cold winter night, Nasreddin Hodja sipped
hot, sweet coffee and gossiped with friends. As the howling
wind p lopped clumps of snow against the window of the
coffeehouse, the men spoke of the weather.
"You think this is cold?" Hodja asked. "When I was a
child, it was so cold the clouds froze in the sky. But it didn't
bother me. I'd go down to the river, cut a hole in the ice,
and go for a nice swim."
Hodja was known to b rag .
"I could stay out on a night like this with nothing to
keep me warm," he boasted (meaning "bragged").
"Wi th no coat, no blanket, no f i re, no hot tea?"
"Certainly."
125
The men scoffed (show spel l ing; meaning "answered
without respect") in disbelief.
"I'll show you / ' Hodja said. "If I can't stay out all night
without a f i re or any protection, I'll invite you to a feast at
my house."
W h o could refuse such an offer?
Hodja's friends went to their warm houses. They sat by
their windows and sipped hot drinks as they watched Hodja
wandering in the snow-covered marketplace, studying the
cold stars.
After a few hours, Hodja, shivering mightily (show
spel l ing; meaning "vigorously"), wished he'd never made
such a foolish offer. He was about to give up and go inside
before he froze to death. Then he saw a candle flickering
in a window of a house a hundred yards away.
He fastened his gaze on the candle f lame and was
able to endure (meaning "survive") the bitter cold the rest
of the night.
At last it was morning. Teeth chattering, Hodja entered
the coffeehouse just as his friends were sitting down for the
first coffee of the day.
126
" W e r e you out there all night? And did you have
nothing to keep you warm?" they asked.
Hodja assured them this was true.
"How were you able to do it?" they asked.
"I f i xed my eyes on a candle f lame burning in a
window a hundred yards a w a y / ' he said. "It kept me going
all night."
"So!" said Ahmet. "You did have something to keep
you warm. A candle f lame gives off heat. You warmed
yourself by the heat of that candle f lame!"
No matter what Hodja said, the men were not
convinced (show spel l ing; meaning "persuaded to
believe something was true or false"). They insisted he
must have warmed himself by the heat of the candle f lame
burning behind a closed window a hundred yards away.
He sighed and invited them to a feast at his house.
As the muezzin (meaning "person who says
prayers") sang out the prayer call at sunset, Hodja's friends
left their shoes at his door and entered his house. They sat
cross-legged on the f loor, await ing the feast.
"It may be awhile," Hodja said.
"That's all right. W e can wait ," they said.
127
Time passed. Hodja went back and forth to the kitchen,
but the men detected no good smells of roasting meat or
frying onions. They were getting hungrier and hungrier.
"When do we eat?" one of them inquired.
"The food is being prepared," Hodja answered on his
way to the kitchen.
"Maybe we can help," another one said, and they all
followed Hodja into the kitchen.
A huge pot hung on a chain from the ceiling. Beneath
it on the floor was a lighted candle.
"Hodja," Mehmet said, "it will take forever for the heat
of that candle flame to cook our dinner."
"It should boil soon," Hodja said. "After all, if a candle
burning behind a closed window a hundred yards away can
keep me warm on a winter night, the flame of this candle
just a few feet away can surely heat the pot."
128
I am going to read "To Reach the Promised Land" by Stephen Ray Lilley. I will explain some words and also show you the spelling of some words.
Nine-year-old Booker, his sister Amanda, and older
brother John stood close to their mother. Excitement f i l led
the air as the Union army moved through Virginia in the
spring of 1 865 .
For months Booker had heard his mother praying at
night as she dr i f ted off to sleep by the f i re, "Lord, let the
Yankees win this war, and let them make me and my
children f ree." Now they watched a blue-uniformed soldier
standing on the "b ig house" porch unfold a piece of paper
and begin reading.
"All persons held as slaves...henceforward (show
spel l ing; meaning "in the future") shall be f ree," he
proclaimed.
"What 's that mean, Momma?" Booker asked. Tears
streamed down her face as she smiled and hugged him.
"Mr. Lincoln says we can come and go as we please," she
said softly.
Life suddenly became very different for Booker's
family. They had always been slaves. Now f ree, they had
no home, no jobs, no money, only each other. Booker's
stepfather worked at the salt furnaces (meaning "place
where things are heated") near Maiden, West Virginia.
Putting their belongings in a small cart, the family walked
hundreds of miles through the Appalachian Mountains to join
him.
In Maiden, Booker and John went to work with their
stepfather. Work began before dayl ight and ended after
dark. As he shoveled salt into huge wooden barrels, Booker
saw children walking to school. "I had the feeling that to
get into a schoolhouse and study...would be about the same
as getting into paradise," he later said.
But the family needed Booker's income. Booker's
stepfather, a tough and practical man, told him attending
school was impossible. Knowing how much her son wanted
to learn to read , Booker's mother saved every spare penny
and bought him a well-used copy of Webster 's "Blue-
Backed Speller." For weeks he pored ( show spel l ing;
meaning "studied") over the book, memorizing the
alphabet and letter sounds.
Booker convinced his parents he should take lessons at
night from a black teacher. Then he told them he wished to
130
attend day school. His stepfather f inally accepted the idea,
on condition that Booker work before and after school.
Over joyed, Booker quickly agreed.
On the first morning he attended school, Booker sat in
a room f i l led with students of all ages. As the teacher
called the roll, Booker realized that all the students had
something those born into slavery lacked—a last name.
Booker considered how he would answer his teacher.
"Name?" the teacher asked as he reached Booker.
"Booker Washington," the new student calmly repl ied.
At that moment it seemed that he had been Booker
Washington all his l ife.
Each day Booker faced new obstacles. For a time he
worked in a coal mine deep underground in terr i fying
conditions. Sometimes his candle blew out, and he
wandered helplessly in total darkness. Still, he studied at
night. Then one day he heard some miners speaking of a
school called the Hampton Institute where poor students
could work to pay their expenses. "I resolved (meaning
"decided") at once to go to that school, although I had no
idea where it was.. .or how I was going to reach it," he later
wrote.
131
"Don't you think this might be a wi ld goose chase?"
asked Booker's mother.
"It sounds like heaven to me, Momma," Booker insisted.
"I just have to go!"
His mother smiled. "We ' l l f ind a way," she said.
Everyone helped. Again, Booker's mother found
pennies she could spare. John donated tiny sums from his
wages. O ld people, eager to see one of their own succeed,
gave nickels and dimes. Wi th this money and his own
savings, sixteen-year-old Booker began the f ive-hundred-
mile tr ip to Hampton, Virginia. Sometimes he rode a
sfagecoach, and sometimes he walked. Too poor to stay in
a hotel, he often walked all night just to stay warm. In
Richmond, Virginia, he worked during the days, earning
money to continue his journey, and slept under a wooden
sidewalk at night.
"When I f inally saw Hampton, I felt I had reached the
promised land," Booker later said. Ragged, hungry and
t i red, he presented himself to the head teacher, Miss Mary
Mackie. Wi th a raised eyebrow she examined him
critically (meaning "carefully and seriously") and said,
"Take a broom and sweep this classroom."
132
Determined to impress her, Booker swept the room
three times and dusted it four. Soon she returned and
searched every corner for dust. Finding the room spotless,
she said, "I guess you'll do."
History proved her right.
Booker T. Washington became Hampton's most famous
graduate and devoted (show spel l ing; meaning
"dedicated") his life to teaching. He taught the first classes
at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama and then built it into
one of the most important schools for African Americans in
the United States. Today, millions of people admire this
man who struggled to reach the "promised land."
133
I am going to read "Waste Not, Wan t Not" by Earl M. Weber . I will explain some words and also show you the spelling of some words.
Introduction:
Earl M. Weber lived on a small farm during the Great
Depression, a time when the United States experienced severe
economic hardships. The years of the Great Depression,
1929- 7 942, ranked as the longest and worst period of high
unemployment and low business activity in modern times.
Banks, stores, and factories were closed and left millions of
Americans jobless, homeless, and penniless. At the worst point
of the Great Depression, in 1933, one in four Americans who
wanted to work was unable to find a job.
When I was growing up in the 1 930s, the period of the
Great Depression, I didn't think of our family as poor, even
though we never seemed to have money. I l ived on a small
farm in Pennsylvania with my parents, two older sisters, and
younger brother. W e had an old horse, a cow, a few pigs,
a flock of chickens, and a big garden. Food was not a
problem. W e had our own supply of milk, meat, eggs, fresh
134
vegetables, and Momma's homemade b read . But money
was scarce.
On Sunday mornings, Momma would give each of us
two pennies for our Sunday School offerings. Carefully
knotting my two cents in the corner of a handkerchief, she
would hand it to me and caution me to "be careful not to
lose it." Today, two pennies won't buy much of anything,
but in the 1 930s every penny was important.
As a boy of nine, I had only a vogue idea of what it
meant to live during hard times. The weekly newspaper
would carry pictures of people standing in line for b read,
and the evening newscast on our tabletop Crosley radio
would tell about the huge number of jobless people and
their hardships. But these reports referred to people in the
cities, and we lived in the country. W e never went to bed
hungry, and we didn't stand in line for b read.
Although my father was fortunate to have a job at the
feed mill, his salary of eighteen dollars a week was barely
enough to pay the farm mortgage (meaning "loan from a
bank") and the electric bi l l , and to buy necessities like the
flour and yeast Momma needed to bake her b read.
135
Momma earned a few dollars baking pies and bread,
which she sold at the local market. Twenty cents for a pie
and ten cents for a loaf of bread! Sometimes I helped at
the market, and if we had a good day , Momma would give
me a nickel for an ice-cream cone.
Momma used the market money to buy clothing for the
family. Wi th four children and two adults to clothe, she
seldom ( show spel l ing; meaning "rarely") bought
anything new. One day when I walked to the mailbox at the
end of our lane, I was excited to see a package from Sears,
Roebuck, and Company. That usually meant new clothing
for one of us. As it turned out, I was the lucky one this time,
with a brand-new pair of brown tweed (meaning "wool")
knee-length pants. Although we always went to school
looking neat and clean, most of our clothing was patched, or
darned ( show spel l ing; meaning "mended"). So to me, a
new pair of knee-length pants was very special.
Momma made some of our clothing, using a treadle
(foot-powered) sewing machine. To make nightgowns, she
used the muslin sacks that our chicken feed came in. I wore
a nightgown with "PRAT'S CHICKEN FEED" printed in big
136
black letters on the front. (It wasn't until years later when
my high-school class went on an overnight tr ip that I got my
first store-bought pajamas.) Some companies actually put
their feed in sacks made of colorfully patterned calico
(meaning "cotton cloth"). Momma liked this material for
making aprons and dresses.
When a piece of clothing was worn out, it wasn't
thrown away. First, all the buttons were removed, sorted by
size and color, and put in cans or glass jars. Then the
clothing was examined, and the best parts were cut into
strips and saved for making rugs.
Almost nothing in our house was thrown away. Store
parcels ( show spel l ing; meaning "packages") were
generally t ied with string. W e saved this string by winding
it on a bal l . One of my jobs was to wash and f latten used
tin cans. W e nailed these pieces of tin over holes in the
barn roof to stop the leaks and over holes in the corncrib to
stop the mice and rats from eating the corn.
A wooden crate was considered a real prize. W e
would take it apar t for future projects, being careful not to
split the boards. W e even straightened the bent nails and
stored them in a tin can.
Although we tend to think of recycling as something
fairly new, in the 1 930s it was part of everyday life.
"Waste not, want not" was a familiar and often repeated
phrase during those Depression years.
138
ID
5.
Appendix F
Vocabulary Posttests
"Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose" Vocabulary Questions
dynamite A. things like coins, rings, and stones B. explosives that are very powerful C. materials that are easy to collect D. products that are safe to use
pantry A. a place to keep food B. a shopping list C. a stove to cook food D. a truck for moving material
obvious A. difficult to f ind B. easily understood C. little known D. often talked about
7. abandoned A. artif icial B. rocky C. helpless D. empty
9. appeal ing A. interesting B. frightening C. annoying D. disgusting
2. insulated A. deep underground B. f i l led with water C covered to keep warm D. with holes to let in air
4. legend A. tale about the future B. signal to warn of danger C. story from the past D. song from campers
6. generation A. a group attending a
performance B. a group born at the
same time C. a group living in the same
place D. a group competing in a
game
8. gnawing A. running from danger B. cleaning the house C. biting repeatedly on
something D. moving into a new den
139
ID
"The Flame of a Candle" Vocabulary Questions
1. convinced A. expected something to happen B. persuaded to believe something
was true or false C. described something so it was clear D. added something to make it complete
3. endure A. watch B. breathe C. survive D. avoid
5. scoffed A. answered without respect B. demanded attention from others C. listened carefully to stories D. tr ied to convince someone
7. bitterly A. so soft you cannot hear it B. so long that you get bored C. so extreme that it hurts D. so funny that you would laugh
9. muezzin A. person who lives in the country B. person who heals others C. person who prepares a feast D. person who says prayers
mightily A. grateful ly B. vigorously C. loudly D. exactly
4. boasted A. questioned B. pretended C. apologized D. b ragged
6. flickering A. burning B. freezing C. shivering D. boiling
8. assured A. said something
confidently B. explained in detai C. argued about a
situation D. talked about what
happened
ID
"To Reach the Promised Land" Vocabulary Questions
stagecoach A. machine that flies B. wagon to carry people C. engine that makes things
go fast D. equipment to f ix things
furnace A. place where things are sold B. place where things are stored C. place where things are shipped D. place where things are heated
3. proclaimed A. attended B. announced C. asked D. realize
4 . devoted A. dedicated B. accepted C. answered D. wanted
5. critically A. quickly and carelessly B. softly and gently C. carefully and seriously D. happi ly and excitedly
6. pored A. copied B. studied C. ignored D. searched
resolved A. decided B. considered C. obtained D. struggled
8. henceforward A. for the present time B. in the past C. in the future D. of today
practical A. strong B. competitive C. useful D. faithful
141
ID
'Waste Not, Wan t Not" Vocabulary Questions
seldom A. carefully B. always C. rarely D. almost
vague A. extremely fortunate B. very certain C. too severe D. not clear
3. darned A. mended B. knotted C. saved D. wasted
mortgage A. income from selling things B. tax for a city C. loan from a bank D. salary for workers
muslin A. metal B. cloth C. silk D. wood
parcels A. dresses B. crates C. cans D. packages
7. tweed A. cotton B. silk C. wool D. rawhide
8. economic A. having to do with money B. having to do with weather
C. having to do with law D. having to do with war
9. calico A. old newspaper B. cotton cloth C. strong metal D. new sheepskin