Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition

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




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





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?


planned comparison between Read/Explain and Read?


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.


significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain/Spell and

Read/Explain.


significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain and Read.

13


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?


planned comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain?


planned comparison between Read/Explain and Read?


planned comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and Read?

61


significant difference on the vocabulary posttest among the three levels of the factor

Condition—Read/Explain/Spell, Read/Explain, and Read.


significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain/Spell and

Read/Explain.


significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain and Read.


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.

http://web.uccs.edu/lbecker/Psy590/escalc3.htm

http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2001/vocab.html

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.

http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/tools/okapi/okapi.php

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

mailto:[email protected]

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


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


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


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


http://www.reading.org


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


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


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


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