Gaps in reading performance between Anglo and Latino children are associated with gaps in vocabulary knowledge. An intervention was designed to enhance fifth graders' academic vocabulary. The meanings of academically useful words were taught together with strategies for using information from context, from morphology, from knowledge about multiple meanings, and from cognates to infer word meaning. Among the principles underlying the intervention were that new words should be encountered in meaningful text, that native Spanish speakers should have access to the text's meaning through Spanish, that words should be encountered in varying contexts, and that word knowledge involves spelling, pronunciation, morphology, and syntax as well as depth of meaning. Fifth graders in the intervention group showed greater growth than the comparison group on knowledge of the words taught, on depth of vocabulary knowledge, on understanding multiple meanings, and on reading comprehension. The intervention effects were as large for the English-language learners (ELLs) as for the English-only speakers (EOs), though the ELLs scored lower on all pre- and posttest measures. The results show the feasibility of improving comprehension outcomes for students in mixed ELL-EO classes, by teaching word analysis and vocabulary learning strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BearR., IvernizziM., TempletonS. R., & JohnstonF. (1996). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
BeckI., McKeownM. G., & KucanL. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction.New York: Guilford.
3.
BeckI., McKeownM. G., & OmansonR. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse vocabulary instructional techniques. In McKeownM. G., & CurtisM. E. (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 147–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
BlachowiczC., & FisherP. (1996). Teaching vocabulary in all classrooms.Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
5.
BloomP (2002). How children learn the meaning of words.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
CarlisleJ. F. (1988). Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 247–266.
7.
CarverR. P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 413–437.
8.
DonahueP. L., FinneganR. J., LutkusA. D., AllenN. L., & CampbellJ. R. (2001). The nation's report card: Fourth-grade reading 2000.Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
9.
DresslerC (2000). The word-inferencing strategies of bilingual and monolingual fifth graders: A case study approach. Unpublished qualifying paper, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.
10.
FreebodyP., & AndersonR. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 277–294.
11.
FukkinkR. G., & De GlopperK. (1998). Effects of instruction in deriving word meaning from context: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 68, 450–468.
12.
GarcíaG. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-speaking Hispanic students. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371–392.
13.
GarcíaG. E. (2000). Bilingual children's reading. In KamilM. L., MosenthalP. B., PearsonP. D., & BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 813–834). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
GarcíaG. E., & NagyW. E. (1993). Latino students' concept of cognates. In LeuD. J., & KinzerC. K. (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice.Chicago: National Reading Conference.
15.
GravesM. F. (2000). A vocabulary program to complement and bolster a middle grade comprehension program. In TaylorB. M., GravesM. F., & van den BroekP. (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 116–135). New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
GuthrieJ., & WigfieldA. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In KamilM. L., MosenthalP. B., PearsonP. D., & BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Volume III, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
HartB., & RisleyT. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
18.
HuckinT., HaynesM., & CoadyJ. (1995). Second language reading and vocabulary learning.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19.
JiménezR., GarcíaG. E., & PearsonP. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 90–112.
20.
KuhnM. R., & StahlS. A. (1998). Teaching children to learn word meanings from context: A synthesis and some questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(1), 19–38.
21.
LivelyT., AugustD., SnowC. E., & CarloM. S. (2003). Vocabulary improvement program for English language learners and their classmates.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
22.
MyersJ., & WellA. (1991). Research design and statistical analysis.New York: HarperCollins.
23.
NagyW. E. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension.Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
24.
NagyW. E. (1997). On the role of context in first- and second-language vocabulary learning. In SchmittN., & McCarthyM. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 64–83). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
NagyW. E., GarcíaG. E., DurgunogluA., & HancinbhattB. (1993). Spanish-English bilingual students' use of cognates in English reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 241–259.
26.
NagyW. E., & ScottJ.A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In KamilM. L., MosenthalP. B., PearsonP. D., & BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
NationI. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). The report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
SchoonenR., & VerhallenM. (1998). Kennis van woorden: De toetsing van diepe woordkennis (Knowledge of words: Testing deep word knowledge). Pedagogische Studien, 75, 153–168.
30.
ShanahanT., KamilM. L., & TobinA.W. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 229–255.
31.
StahlS. A. (1986). Three principles of effective vocabulary instruction. Journal of Reading, 29, 662–668.
32.
StahlS. A., & FairbanksM. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110.
33.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
34.
SternbergR (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In McKeownM. G., & CurtisM. E. (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
StollerF., & GrabeW. (1995). Implications for L2 vocabulary acquisition and instruction from L1 vocabulary research. In HuckinT., HaynesM., & CoadyJ. (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 24–45). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
36.
SwanbornM. S. L., & De GlopperK. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 261–286.
37.
VerhallenM., & SchoonenR. (1993). Vocabulary knowledge of monolingual and bilingual children. Applied Linguistics, 14, 344–363.
38.
VerhoevenL. T. (1990). Acquisition of reading in a second language. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 90–114.
39.
WhiteC. E. (2000). Implementation of a vocabulary curriculum designed for second-language-learners: Knowledge bases and strategies used by monolingual and bilingual teachers. Unpublished qualifying paper, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.
