Vocabulary Instruction for English Learners Then and Now: Do We Have it Right for the Future?

Running Head: VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION FOR ELS 1

Vocabulary Instruction for English Learners Then and Now:

Do We Have it Right for the Future?

Mary A. Avalos1, Alain Bengochea2, Irina Malova1, Shiyan Jiang1, Maria Carlo3, and

Jennifer Augustin1

University of Miami1, The Ohio State University, Crane Center for Early Childhood

Research and Policy2, The University of Texas, Health Science Center at Houston,

Children’s Learning Institute3

VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION FOR ELS 2

Purpose

Limited vocabulary knowledge becomes the most common source of difficulty

faced by English learners (ELs) as they encounter increasing reading demands and

unfamiliar, complex words in their second language (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Saville-

Troike, 1984). Though academic language is more than word-level comprehension

(Zwiers, 2008), vocabulary knowledge is the most reliable predictor of reading

comprehension, and correlates with other measures of school success (Cunningham &

Stanovich, 1998; Saville-Troike, 1984). Within the Common Core State Standards

(CCSS) for English Language Arts (National Governor’s Association Center for Best

Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010a), vocabulary and conventions

are identified as a unique strand due to its applicability and use across reading, writing,

listening, and speaking. The expectations for vocabulary acquisition by the CCSS require

instructional shifts to effectively assist students with comprehension of complex texts

(Calkins, Ehrenworth, & Lehman, 2012; Fisher, Frey, & Alfaro, 2013). Key expectations

of the English Language Arts Standards include vocabulary instruction, which expects all

students to grow vocabulary knowledge through conversations, direct instruction, and

reading. Other important student vocabulary learning expectations include determining

word meanings, appreciating nuances of words, and expanding their repertoire of words

and phrases to prepare for college and 21st century careers. Making informed and skillful

vocabulary choices to successfully express themselves through language is another focus

of the new standards (CCSS, 2010b). Overturf (2014) provides a detailed analysis of the

CCSS related to vocabulary. Specifically, Language Standard 4 includes word-learning

strategies to help students determine the meaning of unknown words (i.e., using sentence-


or passage-level context; prefixes, suffixes, or roots; and reference materials) that are

based on research demonstrating an increase of student vocabulary knowledge when

these approaches were used. Language Standard 5 focuses on semantic or word

relationships (i.e., synonyms, antonyms, homophones, polysemy), and Language

Standard 6 provides guidance on which words to teach (i.e., Tier 2 and 3 words important

for comprehension).

Given these new and rigorous expectations for students’ vocabulary learning, we

became interested in examining how the Teacher’s Guides (TGs) of commercially

available basal reading series may change to support instruction in vocabulary and

whether it would result in significantly different recommendations to teachers than what

was available in basal series used prior to the adoption of CCSS. We were especially

interested in learning how vocabulary instruction for ELs would be supported in the new

basal series. This paper compares the fourth grade TG used prior to adoption of CCSS to

the fourth grade TG now in use during implementation of the CCSS. Our work inquired

whether adoption of a CCSS-aligned basal reading series has:

1) resulted in a more rigorous set and higher tier of vocabulary words for

instruction?

2) resulted in suggestions for more robust vocabulary instruction aligned with best

practices?

3) improved the amount and quality of instructional vocabulary practices

suggested for ELs?

Theoretical Framework

Besides knowing its literal meaning, depth of word knowledge involves knowing


its various connotations; associations; morphological structure and collocations

(Verhallen & Schoonen, 1993). Several components have been described as integral to

vocabulary instruction: rich language and word experiences to enhance incidental word

learning, direct word teaching, instruction of word-learning strategies, and word-

consciousness cultivation (Graves, 2007). Literacy-based interactions are necessary for

acquisition of academically useful words that can support learning across subjects as

these provide sophisticated vocabulary and text structures that are typically infrequent in

students’ everyday language exposure.

The most critical factor affecting students’ reading comprehension as they get

older, however, is the level of conceptual difficulty of unknown words (Nagy et al.,

1987). Texts that present too many unfamiliar, complex words can impede word learning,

while texts that are too easy do little to develop students’ vocabulary knowledge (Carlisle

& Katz, 2005). Multiple encounters with words are required for robust vocabulary

teaching (Beck, McKeown & Kucan, 2002). We use work compiled by Graves, August,

and Mancilla-Martinez (2013) as a framework to guide us in determining “best practices”

for ELs vocabulary learning. Specifically, Graves and colleagues (2013) advocate a four-

pronged approach to vocabulary instruction for ELs: 1) providing rich and varied

language experiences, 2) teaching individualized words, 3) teaching word-learning

strategies, and 4) fostering word consciousness. This framework is described more as an

organizational tool to guide our discussion of results as we conclude our paper.

Methods and Data Sources

The TGs from two basal fourth grade reading series were selected for multiple

analyses based on their temporal relationship to the CCSS (i.e., before and during


implementation) and their wide use in public schools across the state. Both TGs had

distinct approaches to reading instruction based on legislated educational policies. The

pre-CCSS reading series’ instruction was aligned with state learning standards adopted in

2010, and the current series, adopted by the district in 2013, had CCSS-aligned

instruction.

Rigor of Words Selected for Instruction. We reviewed the thematic units within

each TG (designed to span across an academic year) and extracted all words targeted for

semantic-focused instruction (hereafter “instructional vocabulary words” or IVWs) by

examining each page for the unit under analysis in order to identify words highlighted for

instruction, which included but was not limited to the words introduced at the beginning

of a unit, those found for review at the end of a unit, as well as those woven into

instructional activities before, during and after a reading lesson. Two corpora were then

used to identify the IVWs’ degree of familiarity and frequency (Dale & O’Rourke, 1981;

Zeno, Ivens, Millard, & Duwuri, 1995). We identified the words’ degree of familiarity

and frequency as indexed in the Living Word Vocabulary (Dale & O’Rourke, 1981) and

Zeno Word List (Zeno, et al., 1995) corpus, respectively. The Zeno Word List was

compiled from a 60,527 samples of text obtained from 6,333 textbooks, works of

literature and popular works of fiction and nonfiction used in schools and colleges

throughout the United States. We used the Standard Frequency Index (SFI) to identify a

word’s level of frequency per million words—values ranging between 3.5 and 88.3 that

correspond to a low frequency per million words of approximately 0.0002 and a high

frequency—as well as an index of dispersion (D) to reflect how widely the words are

used across different content (Zeno et al., 1995). The Living Word Vocabulary (Dale &


O’Rourke, 1981), is a listing of 43,000 vocabulary items that was tested with students

from grade four to sixteen which indicates the percentage of students at a given grade

level who are familiar with a word.

Instructional Moves and EL Supports. To answer research questions two and

three, we sampled two of the TGs’ units (beginning and end), to determine the nature of

vocabulary instruction (i.e., any activity that instructs on the form, meaning or use of an

item as per Brown, 2011). Specifically we were interested in the quality of vocabulary

instruction as measured by teachers’ instructional moves and the extent of scaffolds for

EL instruction suggested by the TGs for the IVWs. Content analysis methods (Bazerman,

2006) were used to code the TG content pertaining to instructional moves (what teachers

were asked to do), EL supports (suggestions to scaffold word learning for ELs), location

of instruction (pre, during, or after reading), and if the IVW was a key or alternative

word. Our methods for coding were based on previous work (Dewitz, Jones, & Lehy,

2009) that modified Durkin’s, (1981) six categories of instructional moves to compare

reading series’ comprehension strategy instruction with literature-based

recommendations. Steps for TG analyses of vocabulary instructional moves and EL

supports included identifying the instructional blocks related to word meaning (i.e., entire

lessons or a part of a lesson with the objective of teaching word meaning) and

suggestions for teachers to provide support to ELs that also focused on word meaning;

typically these sections were labeled as such, but at times they were embedded within

other instructional blocks (i.e., “Comprehension,” “Figurative Language”). We

inductively created and refined codes (Cresswell, 2009) for these sampled units’

instructional blocks based on what was suggested in the TGs to combine different codes


in multiple ways. For example, each instructional block was coded to indicate if the

instruction took place pre-, during, or post-reading, what the teacher was asked to do (i.e.,

instructional move), EL support, as applicable, and if the word was identified as a “key”

vocabulary word for the unit or alternative vocabulary word (Tables 1 and 2 provide

sample codes for each area).

Table 1

Sample Codes for Content Analysis of IVW Instruction

Code Definition Excerpted Example

LOC_Pre Vocabulary instruction or activity prior to reading

selected text

See header at top of section or page of TG

LOC-During Vocabulary instruction or activity while reading selected

text


LOC_Post Vocabulary instruction or activity after reading selected

text


Absence of Move Identified IVWs but no instructional move.

List of vocabulary words provided, but no instructional moves suggested.

Adjust Language Teacher is directed to adjust language use (i.e., speak slowly, clearly).

“If a student’s response is correct, repeat it slowly and clearly for the class to hear.”

Cognates TG directs teacher to use cognates (Spanish/ English) during instruction.

“Point out the cognates for affect (afectar) and actions (acciones).”

Display the word The teacher reads, displays and/or spells the word

“Point to the word on the card and repeat it with students. Ask students to repeat the word. ”

Gestures and physical expression

The teacher is directed to use gestures and/or pantomime to explain meaning of word.

“Use gestures or physical expressions to pantomime clues for each word. Have students guess the word that you act out and use it in a sentence”

Metaphor Teacher is directed to define or explain the meaning of a

“Authors use figurative language, such as metaphors, to add rich


metaphor. meaning to a story and create images in the mind of the reader…”

VOC_Keyword Indicate words identified as instructional vocabulary and/or found at the beginning of the lesson

See beginning of Unit for identified words

VOC_Keyword + Additional Vocabulary

Indicates a mixture of words from the keyword list and new/other words not included on the keyword list for the unit/theme.

May be found throughout the unit and/or selected text

VOC_Additional Vocabulary

Additional vocabulary words not included in the original keyword list (not identified as key vocabulary for the unit/theme).

May be found throughout the unit and/or selected text

Table 2

Sample Codes for Teacher Guides’ EL Supports Code Definition Example

ELL Support- General

Teachers are directed to provide general ELL support during whole class instruction.

Header or icon provided:

ELLs

ELL Support- Beginning

Differentiated support during whole class instruction and specific to beginning/emergent

proficient English speakers

Header: ELL

Scaffold Beginning

ELL Support- Intermediate

Differentiated support during whole class instruction and specific to intermediate proficient

English speakers

Header: ELL

Scaffold Intermediate

ELL Support- Advanced/

High

Differentiated support during whole class instruction and specific to nearly fluent English

speakers

Header: ELL

Scaffold Advanced/High


Our process was both inductive and deductive as we grouped the instructional

move codes to classify them into broader categories labeled Sheltered Moves, Find Word

Meaning, Eliciting Student Talk, Language, and Instruction (Table 3) based on

instructional moves for word learning aligned with “best practices” for ELs (Graves,

August, Mancilla-Martinez, (2013). Our categories of Sheltered Moves, Find Word

Meaning, Eliciting Student Talk, Language, and Instruction align with practices found in

Graves et al.’s (2013) four-pronged framework. Using grounded theory (Glaser &

Struass, 1967) and constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) we generated

themes to draw conclusions concerning the overall quality of vocabulary instruction from

both TGs (research question two). As a final analysis, we iteratively reviewed the coded

data in light of “best practices” for ELs based on the work of Graves, August, &

Mancilla-Martinez (2013) to generate additional themes and draw conclusions

concerning quality instruction for ELs (final research question). We use the “best

practices” framework by Graves and colleagues to organize the discussion of results.

Table 3

Categories of Codes Aligned with Best Practices for ELs Vocabulary Instruction

Category Content Analysis Codes

Sheltered Moves: Teacher provides special

moves for ELs’ access to the curriculum and/or content

Adjust Language, Background Knowledge, Cognates, Gestures and Physical Expression, Pronunciation Scaffold, Visual Representation of Word, Display the Word

Find Word Meaning: Teacher demonstrates how to

determine or provides the meaning of vocabulary

Define Word, Context Clues-T Modeling, Define by Restating, Dictionary Use

Eliciting Student Talk: Teacher elicits student talk

Elaborate Students’ Answers, Elicit Words, Discussion, Question, Question_Affective, Question_Divergent, Question_Factual, Question_Higher Order, Question_In the Text, Question_Probing


Language: Teacher provides language-

focused instruction

Etymology, Grammar, Homophones/Homographs, Synonyms/Antonyms, Polesemy, Sentence Frame Scaffolding, Sentence_Word in a Sentence, Morphology_Affixes, Morphology_Explain prefix/suffix, Morphology_Review New Meaning, Proverb, Metaphor, Idioms

Instruction: Teacher moves for

differentiated or systematic whole group instruction

Absence of Instructional Move, Differentiate_Complete Task Plus, Differentiate_Scaffold Task, Differentiate_Independent Work, Graphic Organizer, Input, Guided Practice, Independent Practice, Instructional Routine, Practice Worksheet, Reinforcing/Reviewing Words

Results

Rigor of Words

A sample of 557 words were drawn for comparison from the pre-CCSS series and

212 from words from the CCSS-aligned series (as previously explained). The means and

standard deviations for the TGs on each of the Zeno SFI and D indices (described above)

were calculated in order to answer our first research question (Table 4). Two

independent-samples t-tests were then conducted to compare the IVWs across the two

TGs on the Zeno indices. The independent-samples t-test from the first analysis on Zeno

SFI was significant t(772) -9.66, p<.0001 as was the analysis on the Zeno dispersion

index t(772), -8.22, p<.0001. The t-test results indicate that the pre-CCSS curriculum

targeted IVWs of lower frequency and with less dispersion than the IVWs of the CCSS-

aligned curriculum.

Table 4

Means and standard deviations on the Zeno SFI and D indices by basal TG Zeno Index Basal Mean SD

SFI

Pre CCSS 25.98 24.31

CCSS Aligned 43.02 14.65

Pre CCSS .37 .36


Zeno Index Basal Mean SD

Pre CCSS 25.98 24.31

D CCSS Aligned .59 .27

Figure one depicts the distribution of IVWs for both TGs across the Living Word

Vocabulary grade level indices.

Figure 1

Distribution of IVW by Living Word Vocabulary grade level (4th grade)

As identified by Living Word’s corpus, the Pre-CCSS included a greater percentage of

IVWs at the fourth grade level (33%) as compared with the Post-CCSS curriculum

(20%), while the percentage of sixth grade words was higher for the Post- than the Pre-

CCSS (47% and 24%, respectively). Words identified at grade levels beyond sixth grade

were similar, ranging from 22% and 18% (Pre- and Post-, respectively) for eighth grade

to 2% and 1% (Pre- and Post) for post-secondary levels.

EL Supports

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Pre-CCSS Post-CCSS

4

6

8

10

12

13

16


While both series’ TGs follow the same trajectory of instances for EL supports

suggested, the Post-CCSS provided more instances of ways teachers could specifically

assist ELs with understanding and learning word meanings (see the Discussion section

for a detailed explanation).

Figure 2

Comparison of ELL Support Code Frequencies for Pre- and Post-CCSS Curriculum

Instructional Moves

Overall, the frequencies for both curricula indicate the Post-CCSS curriculum has

higher frequencies of varying coded instructional moves. When compared, the Pre-CCSS

curriculum code frequencies indicate fewer TG’s instructional moves (n=142) for the

sampled units’ three weeks of instruction as compared with frequencies for the Post-

CCSS TG instructional moves (n=412) (Figure 3). For the Pre-CCSS curriculum,

Absence of Move (listed vocabulary words with definitions but no suggestions for

teachers’ instruction) was the most frequent code, followed by more general instructional

0

5

10

15

20

25

Pre-CCSS Post-CCSS


moves (i.e., Guided practice, Independent Practice, Question). There were 28 codes

found as the least frequent (no instances) for Pre-CCSS; these 28 codes were generated

from the Post-CCSS TG, indicating more specific vocabulary instructional moves in the

Post-CCSS curriculum.

The Post-CCSS curriculum had greater frequency and variety of instructional

moves, demonstrating more and varied vocabulary instruction than the Pre-CCSS. The

most frequent code for the Post-CCSS curriculum was Define Word (n=29; TG directs

teacher to define the word for students), followed by three different types of questions

(Factual, n=26; In the Text, n=23; and Higher Order, n=15). The post-CCSS curriculum

provided an exact question for the teachers to ask, as opposed to the general suggestion,

“Ask students if they…” found in the pre-CCSS curriculum; therefore, we were able to

code the different types of questions suggested within the TG. Factual questions were

defined as questions requiring the recall of specific information related to word meanings

previously learned and often beginning with who, what, when, where, etc.; In the Text

questions were those related to the word meanings found in the story or text; and Higher

Order questions required students to figure out answer rather than recall information,

using generalizations related to facts in meaningful patterns.

Figure 3

Comparison of Code Frequencies for Pre- and Post-CCSS Curriculum

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Ad

just

Lan

guag

eAb

senc

e of

Mov

eBa

ckgr

ound

Kno

wle

dge

Cogn

ates

Cont

ext C

lues

- T M

odel

sDe

fine

by R

esta

ting

Defin

e W

ord

Dict

iona

ry U

seDi

ffere

ntia

te_C

ompl

ete

Task

Plu

sDi

ffere

ntia

te_S

caffo

ld T

ask

Diffe

rent

iate

_Ind

epen

dent

Wor

kDi

scus

sion

Disp

lay

the

Wor

dEl

abor

ate

on S

tude

nts'

Ans

wer

sEl

icit

Wor

dsEt

ymol

ogy

Gest

ures

and

Phy

sica

l Exp

ress

ion

Gram

mar

Grap

hic O

rgan

izer

Guid

ed P

ract

ice

Hom

opho

nes/

Hom

ogra

phs

Idio

ms

Inde

pend

ent P

ract

ice

Inpu

tIn

stru

ctio

nal R

outin

eM

etap

hor

Mod

elin

gM

orph

olog

y_Af

fixes

Mor

phol

ogy_

Expl

ain

Pref

ix/S

uffix

Mor

phol

ogy_

Revi

ew N

ew M

eani

ngPr

actic

e W

orks

heet

Pron

unci

atio

n Sc

affo

ldPr

over

bPo

lesm

yQu

estio

nQu

estio

n_ A

ffect

ive

Ques

tion_

Dive

rgen

tQu

estio

n_Fa

ctua

lQu

estio

n_H

ighe

r Ord

erQu

estio

n_In

the

Text

Ques

tion_

Prob

ing

Rein

forc

ing/

Revi

ewin

g W

ords

Sem

antic

s_ S

ynon

yms/

Anto

nym

sSe

nten

ce F

ram

e Sc

affo

ldin

gSe

nten

ce_ W

ord

in S

ente

nce

Visu

al R

epre

sent

atio

n

Pre-CCSS Post-CCSS

Sheltered moves. Overall frequencies of instructional moves provided for ELs’

access to the curriculum were higher for the Post-CCSS curriculum (Figure 3). In

particular, there were significantly more suggested moves for teachers to connect

knowledge of Spanish (L1) with English (L2) by providing cognates (Pre=0 instances;

Post=10 instances), for connecting background knowledge with word meanings in

English (Pre=4; Post=9), providing visual representations of word meanings (Pre=3;

Post=14), pronouncing the words (Pre=2; Post=10), and displaying the words (i.e., the

teacher points out the word by reading, displaying, and/or spelling the word) (Pre=4;

Post=15). There were a similar number of instances for teachers to use Gestures and

Physical Expression to pantomime the word meaning for both series (Pre=1; Post=3).

Figure 3

Comparison of Sheltered Moves Codes for Pre- and Post CCSS Curriculum

Find word meaning. Again, the Post-CCSS curriculum had significantly more

instances for teachers to explicitly teach students the meaning of vocabulary words, or

02468

10121416

Pre-CCSS Post-CCSS


how to find the word meaning (Figure 4). While there was one instance of Define by

Restating (i.e., using the word and embedding the definition within the same sentence)

for the Post- and none for the Pre-CCSS curriculum, there was one instance of Dictionary

Use (i.e., teacher uses dictionary to help students find word meaning) for the Pre- and

none for the Post-CCSS curriculum. It is important to note that the Post-CCSS curriculum

provided explicit moves for teachers to follow with more scripts to state the meaning of

words, think-alouds during modeling, and questions while using context clues as a

strategy for students to find meanings of unknown words.

Figure 4

Comparison of Find Word Meaning Codes for Pre- and Post CCSS Curriculum

Elicit student talk. This category of codes indicates the interactive nature of the

Post-CCSS when comparing it to the Pre-CCCC curriculum (Figure 5). More questions

were provided for teachers to ask about and discuss word meanings, as well as, elicit

words from students. The Pre-CCSS had a high instance of Question codes; however, as

explained previously, this code was a general suggestion to ask a question related to word

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Define Word Context Clues-T Models

Modeling Define byRestating

Dictionary Use

Pre-CCSS Post-CCSS


meaning, whereas the Post-CCSS curriculum provided a variety of question types

explicitly stated for teachers to ask..

Figure 5

Comparison of Elicit Student Talk Codes for Pre- and Post CCSS Curriculum

Language. There were higher instances for the majority of Language codes in the

Post-CCSS curriculum (Figure 6). Grammar was coded more (n=3) for the Pre-CCSS,

with no instances found in our sampled Post-CCSS curriculum. The three instances of

Pre-CCSS curriculum codes for Grammar (i.e., teacher directs students to identify the

vocabulary words’ part of speech in a sentence) indicated a traditional approach to

grammar instruction commonly known as grammar usage (Graham and Perrin, 2007).

Within three weeks of instruction, the Language Standards were well-represented within

the Post-CCSS curriculum with high instances of instructional moves around

Homographs/Homophones, Synonyms/Antonyms, Morphology taught in multiple ways,

and Idioms. There were fewer coded instances for Etymology (n=4), Proverb (n=1), and

Metaphor (n=2) in the Post-CCSS curriculum; however in comparison with the Pre-

05

1015202530

Pre-CCSS Post-CCSS


CCSS curriculum, eight of the possible twelve possible codes for this category had zero

instances.

Figure 6

Comparison of Language Codes for Pre- and Post CCSS Curriculum

Instruction. The coded instructional moves were more similar across both Pre-

and Post-CCSS curricula (Figure 7), with the exception of Absence of Move (n=51 Pre-

CCSS; n=0 Post-CCSS). The Post-CCSS curriculum offered more suggested moves to

differentiate expectations during whole class instruction (typically provided within the

same instructional block and labeled as such), use of graphic organizers, and

reinforcing/reviewing vocabulary.

Figure 7

Comparison of Instruction Codes for Pre- and Post CCSS Curriculum

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pre-CCSS Post-CCSS


Instructional Vocabulary

The vocabulary words identified for instruction were also coded as Key

Vocabulary (identified vocabulary words usually found in a list at the beginning of a

unit), Additional Vocabulary (instructed words not identified or included on the Key

Vocabulary list), or Key and Additional Vocabulary (i.e., identified plus additional

vocabulary words instructed). Interestingly, both series’ TGs had similar frequencies for

Key Vocabulary and Key and Additional Vocabulary codes; however, the Post-CCSS had

significantly more instances of codes for Additional Vocabulary than the Pre-CCSS

curriculum. Additional vocabulary included all L2 words, phrases (i.e., idioms,

metaphors), and other vocabulary not identified on the initial word list at the beginning of

the unit.

Figure 8

Comparison of Instructional Vocabulary Codes for Pre- and Post CCSS Curriculum

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pre-CCSS Post-CCSS


Location codes. There were higher frequencies of codes for the Pre-Reading

(Pre-CCSS n=10; Post-CCSS n=3), but a significantly higher frequency of codes for

During and Post (or after) Reading (Pre-CCSS n=13; Post-CCSS n=46) in the Post-

CCSS TG. When analyzing and coding the Pre-CCSS TG for During Reading, we

initially included the two or three identified vocabulary words with definitions that

correlated with the specific pages of student texts shown; however, no instructional

moves (i.e., Absence of Move) for the teachers were given or explicitly stated. Upon

reviewing the codes, we felt the Post CCSS’ During Reading frequencies were inflated by

these lists of words and definitions without any suggestions for teachers’ instruction, so

we excluded them from the During Reading codes. The Post-CCSS curriculum had a

lengthy review of vocabulary words provided at the end of each unit with multiple ways

teachers could reinforce or review word meanings that had been learned from previous

units, as well as words from the current unit. The frequencies of codes in Figure 9

indicate the Pre-CCSS curriculum emphasized vocabulary instruction more at the

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Key Voc Additional Voc Key & Additional VocPre-CCSS Post-CCSS


beginning of the unit, whereas the Post-CCSS curriculum emphasizes vocabulary

instruction across the unit, especially During and Post-Reading..

Figure 9

Comparison of Location Codes for Pre- and Post-CCSS Vocabulary Instruction

Overall, the Post-CCSS TG content analyses conducted demonstrate a higher frequency

of instructional moves, EL Supports, identified words for instruction, and vocabulary

instruction across the unit when compared with the Pre-CCSS curriculum.

Limitations. We acknowledge there are limitations to our study that should be

addressed. First, we recognize the importance of the teacher in providing vocabulary

instruction and concede that instruction suggested by a TG may look very different from

one teacher to another, even when both are following the same suggestions for

instruction. While the teacher is the most important factor in student learning, a teacher’s

guide is seen as an important resource when planning for reading/language arts

instruction, and specifically when new standards are being implemented. Second, it is

possible that there were additional vocabulary instructional blocks included in other

resources (e.g., computer activities, guided reading materials) belonging to each series

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pre-Reading During Reading Post ReadingPre-CCSS Post-CCSS


that we did not have access to for our analyses. Also, three weeks of instruction is

minimal when considering there are approximately 36 weeks of material in each of the

series’ TGs. Therefore, this work is considered to be a sampling of reading/language arts

instruction and not necessarily comprehensive of the entire curricula or other resources

provided by the publishers. Finally, we understand that standards drive instruction (or

should) and our intent in conducting this study was not to assess the standards, but rather

to assess the ways in which vocabulary instruction for ELs has been influenced (if at all)

by the CCSS within reading/language arts since language- and text-based instruction are

important components of the new standards.

Discussion

A difference in the CCSS, as opposed to previous learning standards, is the

inclusion of “rigor” into the curriculum. Blackburn (2013) defines authentic rigor as

increased expectations of, support for, and learning by students. Here we examine the

extent to which a Post-CCSS basal assists teachers with providing supports to help ELs

meet the standards’ expectations for word knowledge. First we discuss the rigor of words

selected for IVWs in relation to the fourth grade CCSS. Next, we align our content

analysis codes with fourth grade CCSS concerning vocabulary learning as a springboard

to discuss ways in which the curriculum aligns with “best practices” for ELs’ vocabulary

instruction. To do this, we first discuss the Post-CCSS curriculum codes from the

sampled three weeks of instruction in relation to fourth grade vocabulary-related CCSS

(Standards 4-6). We then use the four-pronged instructional framework by Graves,

August, Mancilla-Martinez (2013) to guide and organize our discussion of vocabulary

instruction for ELs.


Rigor of Words

The CCSS vocabulary standards (Table 5) demonstrate the need for effective

instruction in order to support ELs in meeting these expectations.

Table 5

CCSS Vocabulary Standards

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.4.4

Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including those that allude to significant characters found in mythology (e.g., Herculean).

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.4

Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grade 4 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies.


Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings.


Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation).

According to our results, the Post-CCSS curriculum included significantly more

words at the sixth grade level. With more words at the sixth grade level, the instruction

needed for ELs to acquire them must be explicit and meaningful (Graves et al., 2013).

For instance, knowledge of morphological awareness and etymology could be useful to

meet CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.4.4. For ELs, particularly emergent English speakers,

having a wide range of strategies to clarify word meanings and also using these strategies

in generative ways to acquire new words (e.g., using morphemic, contextual, and cognate

analysis; Carlo et al., 2004; Lesaux & Kieffer, 2010) while reading independently is

important for CCSS.ELA.LITERACY.L.4.4. Teacher modeling of these strategies would

be helpful to show students ways to approach clarifying word meanings while reading.

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/L/4/4/







To enable learners to develop semantic relationships (i.e., relates to CCSS.ELA-

LITERACY.L.4.5), using the Post-CCSS TG teachers are able to add more

words/phrases to key vocabulary under study and expand students’ conceptual

understandings by engaging students in various activities to consider how a set of words

may relate to one another (e.g., selecting and justifying the use of a target word from a

pair of related words to respond to a text-based question; using a semantic feature

analysis chart to examine the similarities and differences between a group of words).

Additionally, figurative language is most often based on cultural understandings, so if,

for example, there is no idiom in the L1 that mirrors what is read in the L2, ELs will have

greater difficulty comprehending the texts and acquiring deep understandings to build

their word knowledge. As noted by Bortfield (2003), interpreting figurative language

relates to the use of similar words or ideas expressed in the learners’ first language.

Discussing the nuances of meaning found in figurative language provides opportunities

for ELs to gain access to the curriculum; therefore, teachers can build on students’

backgrounds to highlight cross-linguistic relationships and determine the degree to which

these multiword units are analyzable (e.g., transparent idioms are those that can be easily

inferred, whereas opaque ones are those that might pose some difficulty) based on their

L1 linguistic and cultural understandings.

For the last vocabulary standard listed in Table 5, teacher modeling, questioning,

and discussion could be ways that students’ understandings of high-utility words used

across academic disciplines as well as low frequency, domain-specific words could be

enriched as they encounter words within meaningful contexts. Since these words are

generally used among mature language users and are words more frequently found in


written texts, students may rely on teacher-mediated instruction and opportunities for

extensive exposure to reading materials (Beck, McKeown & Kucan, 2002). Teachers’

strategic instruction of and exposure to general academic and domain-specific words

could facilitate students’ vocabulary and knowledge acquisition. By focusing on

particular words deemed indispensable for particular lessons, teachers can systematically

highlight these words repeatedly throughout instruction as a means of expanding

learners’ existing word knowledge.

CCSS Instructional Alignment

Using the codes generated from the Post-CCSS curriculum, Table 6 indicates the

number of codes and their frequencies that align with instruction to help students meet

fourth grade vocabulary-related CCSS. The left column lists the specific learning

standards for fourth grade and the right column contains our codes from the TG analysis

for instructional moves; these had suggestions for instruction or content or that reflect the

standards’ expectations.

Table 6

CCSS Vocabulary-Related Language Arts Standards and Post-CCSS Curriculum Codes for Instruction

Fourth Grade Vocabulary Standards Post-CCSS Aligned Curriculum Code

(Frequency)

Use context (e.g., definitions, examples, or restatements in text) as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase. CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.4.A

Context Clues- T Models (13) Define by restating (1) Modeling (12)

Use common, grade-appropriate Greek and Latin affixes and roots as clues to the meaning of a word (e.g., telegraph, photograph, autograph). CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.4.B

Etymology (4) Morphology_Affixes (8) Morphology_Explain prefix/suffix (5) Morphology_Review New Meaning (8)

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/L/4/4/a/

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/L/4/4/b/



Demonstrate understanding of words by relating them to their opposites (antonyms) and to words with similar but not identical meanings (synonyms). CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.5.C

Modeling (12) Synonyms or Antonyms (6)

Consult reference materials (e.g., dictionaries, glossaries, thesauruses), both print and digital, to find the pronunciation and determine or clarify the precise meaning of key words and phrases. CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.4.C

None

Explain the meaning of simple similes and metaphors (e.g., as pretty as a picture) in context. CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.5.A

Homophones/Homographs (9) Idioms (8) Metaphor (2) Proverb (1)

Recognize and explain the meaning of common idioms, adages, and proverbs. CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.5.B

Idioms (8) Proverb (1)

Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation). CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.6

Question_Affective (10) Question_Divergent (8) Question_Higher Order (15) Discussion (14) Elicit Words (1)

Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including those that allude to significant characters found in mythology (e.g., Herculean). CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.4.4

Discussion (14) Question_Divergent (8) Question_Higher Order (15) Question_Probing (4)

Instruction for meeting the vocabulary-related standards within the three-weeks of

sampled curricula were well-represented based on the aligned codes and frequencies.

Increased frequencies of suggestions and scripts provided for teacher modeling when

unsure of word meanings (e.g., context clues, clarification of word meaning) is a strong

indication of more explicit strategy instruction within the Post-CCSS curriculum.

Instruction to promote morphological awareness of words (i.e., origins, affixes, roots) and

word meanings also demonstrates a solid alignment with the new standards. Only the use

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/L/4/5/c/









of the dictionary or resource materials to find word meanings was not coded within the

three weeks of sampled units. Although not the focus of this paper, student moves (or

what students were asked to do by the teacher within the TG) were also coded from the

sampled three weeks of curriculum and there were instances (n=9) of students directed to

use a dictionary or thesaurus to find word meanings. There were high frequencies of

codes for instructional suggestions regarding meaning at and beyond the word level with

a focus on phrases or sentences for metaphor, idioms, and proverbs, and how words are

related semantically to each other (i.e., homophones, homographs, synonyms, antonyms).

Additionally, the high numbers of instances for suggestions related to specific, scripted

question types, assist teachers in helping students meet standards by promoting word

awareness. For example, suggestions were provided to prompt students to think about the

meaning of words related to emotions (affect), to explore possibilities for word meanings

based on context (divergent), or to determine word meanings based on patterns (higher

order). Finally, the frequencies for the use of discussion and elicitation of words were

well-represented to promote speaking and listening in order to acquire new or different

word meanings.

Post-CCSS Instruction and EL Supports

Not included in Table 6 are suggestions for teachers to make vocabulary

instruction more meaningful for ELs, captured within our Sheltered Moves classification

of codes. For example, the scripted questions or discussion prompts often included ways

for teachers to informally assess students’ prior knowledge in order to build on what they

already know (Background Knowledge; n=9) to relate to the word/phrase used in the text.

There were also numerous opportunities within the three weeks to ground the suggested


discussions or instruction within a visual representation of the construct or meaning of

IVWs (Visual Representations; n=14), as well as use Spanish (L1) to build knowledge of

vocabulary in English (L2) by providing IVW cognates (Cognates; n=10). The other

suggestions for teachers to support ELs include explicitly pointing out (i.e., read, spell, or

write) the word for the students (Display the Word; n=15), making a point of

pronouncing the word for students (Pronunciation Scaffold; n=10), using gestures or

physical expression (n=3), and adjust the rate of speech (n=1) to help students understand

word meanings. The remainder of the paper articulates the four-pronged framework

(Graves et al., 2013) to further describe how the Post-CCSS curriculum aligns with the

best practices found in the literature.

Providing rich and varied language instruction. According to Graves et al.

(2013), providing rich and varied language instruction includes exposing students to

vocabulary-rich environments while also engaging them in word-focused interactions that

incorporate reading writing, listening, and speaking. Meaning-based discussions, through

which contextual information about words is provided, are especially emphasized in

order to provide valuable learning experiences to ELs as they afford opportunities seen as

key to appropriate word knowledge. The coded instances for discussion in the Post-CCSS

curriculum (n=14) as opposed to the Pre-CCSS curriculum (n=3) demonstrate that

discussion is used more to help students learn words. By engaging in meaningful, word-

focused discussions, children may be able to learn the ways in which words could be

differentially represented and used in various contexts. Evidence shows that teaching

about words in authentic contexts, such as during read alouds or content-based

conversations can help to improve vocabulary outcomes (Silverman, 2007; Taboada &


Rutherford, 2011). By engaging students in print-based interactions, teachers can

introduce students to sophisticated and complex language not used in regular interactions.

In particular, word-focused discussions can provide rich and varied communicative

experiences that expand students’ receptive and productive vocabularies, which may

afford learners opportunities to negotiate and gain more complete and precise word

meanings (August & Shanahan, 2006; Cohen et al., 2012).

Teaching individual words. Previous research in teaching words indicate that

students learn best when given both definitional and contextual information related to

word meaning (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986), when able to actively process new word

meanings, and when they have opportunities to encounter/use the words multiple times

and in multiple contexts (Beck & McKeown, & Omanson, 1987; Graves, 2009).

Teachers’ guides providing suggestions for these practices may help teachers strategically

and systematically select words to facilitate students’ comprehension during a lesson, as

well as expand their vocabulary knowledge. While vocabulary instruction needs to be

“rich, deep, and extended” it is understood that not every word can be taught, thus some

words should be given more attention than others (Graves et al., 2013, p. 4). This is

evident in the location codes used throughout the sampled units as the Post-CCSS

provided suggestions for vocabulary instruction from the beginning of the unit through

the end, with extensive review activities to culminate the units’ vocabulary instruction.

Through the implementation of a series of activities as found in the Post-CCSS units,

which aim to repeatedly expose students through reinforcement and extension activities,

teachers may be able to build on existing word knowledge in the efforts to supply

learners with information learned beyond an initial encounter. In so doing, teachers may


increase the opportunities for students to develop a nexus of orthographic, phonological

and semantic information about words (Perfetti & Hart, 2001).

Teaching word-learning strategies. Using prefixes, suffixes, and roots to

recognize and learn unknown words has been proven to be an effective word learning

strategy (Baumann, Font, Edwards, & Boland, 2005; Carlyle, 2007). Moreover, the use of

word families during instruction reduces the number of individual words students need to

learn (i.e., indicate, indicates, indicated, indicating, indication, and indicator) (Graves et

al., 2013, p. 5). The provision of contextualized words can help students learn words

incidentally but may also provide an opportunity for teachers to explicitly direct students’

attention to context clues—another strategy that gives students ways to learn new words

(Sternberg, 1987). The Post-CCSS curriculum provided multiple opportunities for

teachers to think aloud and model how context clues from surrounding words and the

topic of the text could be helpful in determining unknown word meanings. Additionally,

the use of cognates could provide yet another way for Spanish-speaking ELs to make

connections with alreadyencountered words in their L1, and transfer meaning to their L2

in new contexts (Bravo, Hiebert, & Pearson, 2007; Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005). This

was done often in the Post-CCSS curriculum (n=10), as well as instructional moves

pointing out connections to Latin and Greek word origins (i.e., Etymology, n=4).

Fostering word consciousness. Word consciousness, or word awareness, can be

helpful to create an interest in words and their meanings (Graves, & Watts-Taffe, 2008).

Knowledge of word meaning and an awareness of the specific meanings words may carry

can lead to an increased number of word choices and more precise language when

communicating with others both orally and in writing (Scott & Nagy, 2004). Although


few opportunities were provided within the sampled curricula to disambiguate word

meanings of polysemous words, the Post-CCSS curriculum, in particular, provides

multiple opportunities to differentiate the meanings across words (e.g., synonyms,

antonyms).

Conclusion

In conclusion, this content analysis of Pre- and Post-CCSS curricula demonstrates

how targeted IVWs and instruction changed due to implementation of the CCSS, which

calls for more complex texts across grade levels (Calkins et al., 2012) and a focus on

vocabulary or word learning to increase the rigor of curricula (Graves et al., 2013).

Comparing the two curricula, it appears the CCSS have deeply influenced the vocabulary

identified as IVWs, as well as the way in which suggestions for vocabulary instruction

provide for more explicit, rich, and varied instruction of words. Moreover, the suggested

supports for ELs indicate vocabulary instruction is moving in the right direction as

previous studies demonstrate ELs require additional support, as well as explicit and

robust vocabulary instruction aligned with best practices to acquire and use words

(Graves et al., 2013). While our content analysis sampled three weeks of Pre- and Post-

CCSS curricula, the reader is provided with a good snapshot of the differences between

both series’ rigor and range of words selected, suggested instructional moves and EL

supports, as well as location of vocabulary instruction. Our results indicate more attention

to ELs’ vocabulary instruction and learning is included in the curriculum TG; however, it

would be interesting to include additional TGs to compare and contrast the differences

between multiple Post-CCSS reading series in a larger study.


References

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language

learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children

and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baumann, J. F., Font, G., Edwards, E. C., & Boland, E. (2005). Strategies for teaching

middle-grade students to use word-part and context clues to expand reading

vocabulary. In E. Hiebert & M. Kamil (Eds.), Bringing scientific research to

practice: Vocabulary (pp. 179-205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bazerman, C. (2006). Analyzing the multidimensionality of texts in education. In J. L.

Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods

in education research (pp. 77-94). Washington, D.C.: American Educational

Research Association and Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

vocabulary instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.

Beck, I., McKeown, M. G., & Omanson, R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse

vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.),

The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Blackburn, B. (2013, Winter). Rigor is for everyone: Rigor for students with special

needs. SouthEast Education Network, 15(3), 10-11. Retrieved online,

http://issuu.com/moorecreative/docs/seen_15-3/13?e=0

Bortfield, H. (2003). Comprehending idioms cross-linguistically. Experimental

Psychology, 50, 3, 217-30.

Bravo, M. A., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D. (2007). Tapping the linguistic resources of

http://issuu.com/moorecreative/docs/seen_15-3/13?e=0


Spanish/English bilinguals: The role of cognates in science. In R. K. Wagner, A.

Muse, & K. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary development and its implications for

reading comprehension (pp. 140-156). New York: Guilford.

Brown, D. (2011). What aspects of vocabulary knowledge do textbooks give attention to?

Language Teaching Research 15, 83-97.

Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the Common Core:

Accelerating Achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Carlo, M. S., August, D., & McLaughlin, B. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the

vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream

classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188-215.

Carlo, M. S., August, D., & Snow, C. E. (2005). Sustained vocabulary learning strategies

for English language learners. In E. H. Hiebert & M. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and

learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 137-153). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Carlyle, J. F. (2007). Fostering morphological processing, vocabulary development, and

reading comprehension. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum

(Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 78-

103). New York: Guilford.

Carlyle, J.F., & Katz, L.A. (2005). Word learning and vocabulary instruction. In J. R.

Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (pp. 345−375).

Baltimore : Brookes.

Cohen, L. E., Kramer-Vida, L., & Frye, N. (2012). Using dialogic reading as professional

development to improve English and Spanish vocabulary. NHSA Dialog: A


research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Childhood Field, 15(1), 59-80.

Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches, 3rd edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1981). The Living word vocabulary: A national vocabulary

inventory. Chicago: World Book-Childcraft International.

Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy instruction in core

reading programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(2), 102-126. doi:

10.1598/RRQ.41.2.1

Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first-

and second-language learners. Reading research Quarterly, 38(1), 78-103. doi:

10.1598/RRQ.38.1.4

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam, J., et al.

(1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill

instruction and student awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher

effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 237-252. doi: 10.2307/747707

Durkin, D. (1981). Reading comprehension instruction in five basal reader series.

Reading Research Quarterly 16(4), 515-544. doi: 10.2307/747314

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Alfaro, C. (2013). The path to get there: A Common Core road

map for higher student achievement across the disciplines. New York: Teachers

College.

Glaser, Barney G. & Strauss, Anselm L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.

Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of


adolescents in middle and high schools. Retrieved from

http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/writingnext.pdf

Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book. New York: Teachers College Press.

Graves, M. F. (2007). Conceptual and empirical bases for providing struggling readers

with multi-faceted and long-term vocabulary instruction. In B. M. Taylor & J.

Ysseldyke (Eds.), Educational perspectives on struggling readers (pp. 55-83).

New York: Teachers College Press.

Graves, M. F. (2009). Teaching individual words: One size does not fit all. New York:

Teachers College Press and International Reading Association.

Graves, M. F., August, D., & Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2013). Teaching vocabulary to

English language learners. New York: Teachers College Press.

Graves, M. F., & Watts-Taffe, S. W. (2008). For the love of words: Fostering word

consciousness in young readers. The Reading Teacher, 62, 185-193.

Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, S. E., & Kelley, J. G. (2010). The effectiveness and

ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically

diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2),

196-228.

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., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.

D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. 3, pp. 269-

284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/writingnext.pdf


National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: Trends in

academic progress 2012 (NCES 2013 456). Washington, D.C.: Institute of

Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.

National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School

Officers. (2010a). Common Core State Standards (English Language Arts

Standards). Washington D.C.: National Governor’s Association Center for Best

Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy

National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School

Officers. (2010b). Common Core State Standards (Key Points in English

Language Arts). Washington D.C.: National Governor’s Association Center for

Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.

Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/resources/key-points-in-english-

language-arts

Overturf, B. J. (2014). Interrupting the cycle of word poverty: Methods to stop the

growing gap and help build vocabulary knowledge. Reading Today, 32(3), 22-23.

Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2008, February). U.S. Population Projections: 2005-2050.

Washington D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/

Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven. C.

Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy. Philadelphia: John

Benjamins Publishing Company.

Saville-Troike, M. (1984). “What really matters in second language learning for

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy

http://www.corestandards.org/resources/key-points-in-english-language-arts

http://www.corestandards.org/resources/key-points-in-english-language-arts


Scott, J. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2004). Developing word consciousness. In J. F. Baumann &

E. J. Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 201-

217). New York: Guilford.

Silverman, R. D. (2007). Vocabulary development of English-language and English-only

learners in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 107(4), 365-383.

Stahl, S., & Fairbanks, M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based

meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110.

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. G. McKeown &

M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89-105). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Taboada, A., & Rutherford, V. (2011). Developing reading comprehension and academic

vocabulary for English Language Learners through science content: A formative

experiment. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 113-157.

academic achievement?” TESOL Quarterly, 18, 199-219.

Verhallen, M., & Schoonen, R. (1993). Lexical knowledge of monolingual and bilingual

children. Applied Linguistics, 14(4), 344–363.

Zeno, S., Ivens, S., Millard, R., & Duwuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency

guide. New York: touchstone Applied Science Associates.

Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content

classrooms. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Documents

Vocabulary Instruction for English Learners Then and Now: Do We Have it Right for the Future?