Strategies for teaching high school students academic language

for Career and College Readiness

Research Question: What are the best strategies for teaching high school students academic

language for career and college readiness? Constructing and deconstructing text

Northeastern Illinois

University

LTCY 507

Maria Baltsas

1

Introduction

Vocabulary instruction is fundamental in reading and writing, for without words, readers

would not be able to comprehend the ideas that shape thinking; writers would not be able to

express ideas that spark creativity in their minds; and speakers would not be able to deliver

powerful speeches that influence the thoughts and action of their listeners. Essentially, powerful

vocabulary drives our thoughts, our words, and our actions in a literate world. Over the years,

the empirical and systematic research in vocabulary instruction has proven that there is an

inherent correlation between having a strong vocabulary and being able to comprehend text.

(Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Berninger, Abbott, Nagy, & Carlisle, 2010). Given the high

correlation between comprehension and vocabulary and the importance that vocabulary

knowledge factors in a student’s success, we cannot ignore its critical place in the high school

curriculum. The average reading vocabulary of a high school graduate has been estimated at

40,000 words (Nagy & Anderson, 1984; Stahl & Nagy, 2006).

Recently, the concepts of “metacognition” and “complex text” have quietly crept into

teaching. Metacognitive strategies are based on how students deconstruct text. Teachers can also

encourage students to deconstruct words or phrases to construct meaning, but in the past,

attention has been given to skills-based instruction rather than critical inquiry and metacognitive

thinking. As a result, educators have not attended to strengthening students’ understanding of

words as much as they should. Vocabulary instruction has clearly taken a back seat as teachers

and students plow through the curricular demands in skill and content mastery.

The Common Core Standards contain nine standards that address “Vocabulary

Acquisition” The standards dictate that students are expected to use context, patterns of word

changes, infer meanings, and determine figurative, literal, connotative, denotative, and nuanced

meanings. There are clearly several moving parts to vocabulary instruction and learning. The

final standard is a loaded one. This standard calls for students to “acquire and use accurately

general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, sufficient for reading, writing,

speaking, and listening at the college and career readiness level; demonstrate independence in

gathering vocabulary knowledge when considering a word or phrase important to comprehension

or expression.” (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.11-12.6). This standard incorporates reading

comprehension as well as verbal and written communication or “expression.”

How can teachers expect students to successfully understand complex texts or think on a

metacognitive level when they struggle with the words within an abyss of sophisticated

syntactical and semantical structures in “complex text.” Just as we teach our students how to

think about text, educators also need to teach students how to think about the unfamiliar words

and morphemes they may encounter to make sense of the bigger picture, which equates to

comprehending complex text on a metacognitive level. (Schoenbach, Greenleaf, and Murphy,

2012) discuss the importance of successful vocabulary instruction when students are taught how

to monitor their comprehension and assert that “once students are deliberately noticing

unfamiliar words, they must decide whether a particular word seems important to understand,

whether there are morphological or textual clues they can use to figure it out… and how students

can persist in understanding unfamiliar words.” It is evident that students’ thinking and learning

words must be deliberate and intentional to construct meaning.

The demands of academic learning are not only challenging, but also enormous. Barriers

in word knowledge and vocabulary are factors that can certainly impede students’ abilities to

express themselves. Therefore, teachers are tasked with how to engage students who have

deficits in vocabulary acquisition without frustrating them. To develop rich academic language,

3

that is so vital for post-secondary success, as well as social and professional success, a teacher

should implement a diverse range of strategies to foster the vocabulary development of learners.

In this review, I will initially focus on the importance of vocabulary acquisition; in the next

section, I will focus on the importance of academic language in high school instruction; in the

following section, attention to the significance of direct, or explicit teaching of vocabulary will

be emphasized; and finally, I will examine five of the most effective best practices in vocabulary

instruction.

2. What is vocabulary?

Many teachers believe that vocabulary is simply the meaning of words; yet Gardener

(2009) states that “vocabulary is not only confined to the meaning of words, but also includes

how vocabulary in language is structured.” In addition, according to Graves (2000), “these

structures are based on relationships between words, phrases, and categories that people learn

and also how people come to use and store words.” Furthermore, Cummins (1999) identified

five different types of vocabulary: listening vocabulary refers to the words that an individual

can recognize when listening to speech; speaking vocabulary refers to all the words an

individual can use in speech; reading vocabulary refers to all the words an individual can

recognize when reading a text; writing vocabulary includes all the words that an individual can

utilize in writing; and finally, lexical vocabulary, as defined by Murcia and Freeman (1999), is

a “mental inventory of words and a productive words derivational process.” Accordingly, word

compounds and multi-word phrases are also part of the derivational process. In addition,

Murcia and Freeman (1999) indicated that the three levels of lexical units include word

compounds, multi-word phrases, and the individual word. On the other hand, Nations and

Waring (2000) categorize vocabulary into general academic words, high frequency words, and

4

technical words.

There are clearly many factors that make vocabulary a complex concept. Words can

contain literal as well as figurative meanings, connotative or denotative meanings, spelling

derivations and various forms, collocations, syntactic and semantic constructions,

morphological or derivational relations; all these factors broaden one’s scope for expression

and communication of ideas through speech, writing, and reading comprehension. There are

clearly many moving parts in the equation of vocabulary that factor into a students’ literacy

development. Clearly, the need to incorporate effective vocabulary instruction should be at the

forefront of teaching and learning. Graves (2006) identified four essential components of

vocabulary instruction. These include: providing rich and varied language experiences;

teaching individual words explicitly; teaching word-learning strategies; and finally, fostering

word consciousness. If a teacher wants his/her students to unlock the complexity of meaning in

text, deconstruct text on a metacognitive level, and incorporate evidence to support

argumentative writing, the aforementioned components should be incorporated into

instructional practices and routines.

3. Why is academic vocabulary important in literacy development?

The power of words shape text, thoughts, language, and communication in literary

discourse. Nagy and Berringer (2006) state that “when students have a higher academic

vocabulary development, they can tolerate a small proportion of unknown words in a text

without disruption of comprehension and can even infer the meanings of words from context.”

Low academic vocabulary knowledge can seriously impede upon a student’s ability to

comprehend text. “Academic Vocabulary is the language that is used by teachers and students

5

for the purpose of acquiring new knowledge of skills which includes learning new information,

describing abstract ideas and developing student’s conceptual understanding. (Chamot and

O’Malley as cited in Herrell, 2004). The Academic Word List, or AWL (Coxhead, 2000) is a

compilation of the most common vocabulary terms found in college-level texts. Coxhead noted

that a full 82% of the words on the AWL are made up of Greek or Latin meaning units. Thus,

many of the words derived from a root are often important academic words that students are

likely to encounter across the content areas and in more sophisticated texts.

Academic vocabulary is based more on Latin and Greek roots than the daily spoken

English vocabulary. Stahl (2003) also found that vocabulary instruction directly improves

comprehension. He points out that “as difficulty of words in a text increase, understanding of the

text decreases.” It is therefore important for students to understand new concepts by

understanding academic vocabulary. Stahl (2003) also states that “we use academic vocabulary

to communicate to the world what we know. Individuals who can express themselves precisely

with appropriate language are more likely to have a positive impression on their employers,

colleagues, and clients. In addition, Marzano, Kendall & Paynter (2005) believe that vocabulary

is positively related to higher status occupations. The teacher’s role in preparing students to meet

the demands of post-secondary success, then, becomes critical as far as developing effective

academic vocabulary.

4. Direct Vocabulary Instruction

While some argue that students should be taught how to deconstruct unfamiliar words to

build strong, rich academic language; others argue that direct instruction is the key to unlocking

academic potential in students who are struggling with vocabulary. Direct teaching of word

6

learning strategies is necessary, especially for struggling or reluctant readers. According to Beck,

McKeown, & Kucan (2002), “The problem is that many students in need of vocabulary

development do not engage in wide reading, especially of the kind of books that contain

unfamiliar vocabulary, and these students are less able to derive meaningful information from the

context.” In addition to learning vocabulary indirectly through various reading and writing

activities, students benefit from direct and explicit teaching of individual words. (Graves, 2006).

Furthermore, the National Reading Panel found that direct instruction is highly effective for

vocabulary learning (NICHD, 2000).

Graves (2006) identifies three steps and four strategies for teaching individual words

explicitly. The first step is to identify a list of words to be taught; secondly, determine which

words to teach; and the third step is to plan how to teach the words by using the following

strategies: provide student-friendly definitions; use words in context; provide multiple exposures;

and offer opportunities for active involvement. The Pacific Resources for Education and

Learning (2008) state that particular attention should be given to the explicit teaching of

unfamiliar vocabulary if: the word is too difficult to understand without any background

knowledge; the word is critical to comprehending text; the word is a content and/or process word

that explains a concept or topic; and the word is likely to be found in future reading.

The first strategy is to provide students with student-friendly definitions. Usually, when

students learn synonyms instead of longer traditional dictionary definitions, the learning of

vocabulary is more successful. In addition, since dictionaries contain multiple definitions,

students may select an incorrect definition, which just adds to the confusion. The second

strategy calls for the use of context clues. When teachers can guide students to looking at other

7

parts of the sentence to unlock meaning, then they are equipped to make connections or

associations so that the meaning of an unfamiliar word becomes clear. The third strategy that

Graves (2006) suggests is to provide multiple exposures. According to the National Reading

Panel (2000), “it is important to give students frequent opportunities to hear the meaning of

words and to expose students to multiple contexts in which the word can be used so that they can

develop a deeper understanding of the word and how it is used flexibly.” Providing students with

multiple examples through the use of pictures or sentences broadens their understanding and

increases familiarity. The final strategy that Graves (2000) identifies is simply to offer

opportunities for active involvement. Word walls, gallery walks, and other socially interactively

engaging activities bring the learning of unfamiliar words to life and action.

5. Additional Strategies shown to be effective

a. Morphological/ Morphemic Analysis

In addition to the explicit teaching of vocabulary, morphological or morphemic analysis

is a strategy that student can use to deepen their understanding of words and develop vocabulary

acquisition. In this strategy, students are taught how to deconstruct individual words by focusing

on prefixes, suffixes, and roots. Kieffer and Lesaux (2007) note that morphological analysis can

be used as a gateway into problem solving unknown words. According to Goodwin and Pacheco

(2013), there are four research-based vocabulary strategies and instructional recommendations to

support students in determining word meanings. The four strategies include the Part-to-Whole

Strategy, the Analogy Strategy, the Whole-to-Part strategy, and Parts-to-Whole strategies.

8

The instructional recommendations that are provided not only detail what students and teachers

can do, but also make suggestions about what kinds of words work well with each of the

aforementioned strategies. Goodwin and Pacheco (2013) suggest that instead of teachers

isolating vocabulary words, students should identify challenging words by pre-reading texts; in

doing so, the learning of vocabulary is student-led as opposed to teacher lead. Next, it is

suggested that the teacher model problems solving by using the analogy strategy. The

vocabulary by analogy strategy can be especially useful for developing and encouraging critical

thinking and higher order thinking skills. Critical thinking skills factor greatly into

understanding analogies. According to Gardner (1993), vocabulary by analogy is an implicit

relationship between two pairs of objects. When making analogous relationships, students are

encouraged to identify a similar relationship between unlike objects. The major forms of

vocabulary by means of analogy are: part to whole, whole to part, characterization, words/word

structures. Synonyms, antonyms, and homonyms are also building blocks of analogous

relationships.

Vacca and Vacca (1996) outline eight categories of analogies.

The third step suggests that teachers use familiar and accessible words like Facebook, cellphone,

and iTunes to show the Whole-

to-Part strategy. For example,

the word “Facebook” can be

broken down to the words

“face” and “book.” When

students are encouraged to break down words, obscure words and concepts can instantly become

familiar. Next, students should be shown how to “get to the root of it” by using the Part-to-

9

Whole Strategy. In this strategy, students put together the meanings of word parts to figure out

what the entire word means.

For example, when a student encounters an unknown word like biosphere, helping that student

find familiar parts like bio or sphere leads to increased word learning. Students create new

words by using roots that can be real or even made up. For example, students can generate

additional words from the roots bio and sphere. Finally, it is suggested that teachers implement

Word Webs to meaningfully chunk root words that apply to other disciplines. Goodwin and

Pacheco (2013) state, “…we suggest teachers encourage chunking into meaningful parts,

highlight connections to morphemes, teach morphology in context, and leverage students’

language backgrounds. These four suggestions certainly make words more accessible and

meaningful. More importantly, they form the backbone of effective morphological instruction.

b. Generative Vocabulary

Teachers across all disciplines should incorporate vocabulary from their content as a to

improve vocabulary knowledge. Vocabulary should not just be taught by ELA teachers, but all

disciplines should address vocabulary words. Flannigan, Templeton, & Hayes (2012) focused on

a strategy known as generative vocabulary, which is a type of morphological instruction. This

type of vocabulary instruction enables teachers to focus intensely on prefixes, suffixes, and roots.

The generative vocabulary approach is based on content and general academic vocabulary;

therefore, students must be taught how to unpeel layers of words by tapping into this deep-rooted

system of meaning that underlies most English words. In this way, teachers can help students

generate a more extensive and deeply grounded vocabulary. To apply the strategy of generative

vocabulary, teachers should first identify content vocabulary terms in a unit of study. Next,

10

teachers should identify high-utility prefixes, suffixes, and roots in the selected terms. Third,

teachers should evaluate the affixes and roots both for quantity (how many derived words stem

from this prefix, suffix, or root) and for quality for usefulness and practical student application to

other contexts. Finally, teachers should determine on one or two terms that will provide students

with several more high-quality words.

Teachers should model and demonstrate how these “generative processes” work and then

guide students in their exploration of these patterns. Generative vocabulary instruction has the

potential to effectively teach students many powerful words as well ashow words work.

Whenever interdisciplinary connections are made via words and language in a “generative”

sense, students’ conceptual understanding and vocabulary generates an interconnectedness in

learning and independence is fostered.

c. From Generative to Word Generation

Researchers have also found that students are more likely to truly retain the new words

they learn if they are exposed to them multiple times (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). The

Word Generation program was first piloted in six struggling Middle Schools in the Boston Public

School District during the 2007-2008 school year. This study involved middle school students,

but its long term effectiveness was evident in longitudinal studies that examined the success of

the students during their high school years. After the initial pilot, empirical research was

conducted over a span of six years.

This program was successful on many levels. Basically, Word Generation introduces

focus words at the beginning of the week and then revisits them in several different content areas

as the week progresses to provide multiple exposures across various content areas to the same

11

words. Students also engaged in writing and large group discussions that enabled them to utilize

and “experiment” with the new words.

Word Generation provides teachers with a chart of the various forms of the focus words

and related words to expose students to elements of structure. These exposures are not merely

memorization exercises, but rather meaningful interactions with words in a variety of different

contexts. Stahl (1999) states that “when word learning happens naturally in context, word

learning that repeatedly mimics context-type word learning is likely to be effective.”

d. Semantic mapping

Semantic mapping is an effective strategy that allows students to conceptually explore

their knowledge of a new word by mapping it. In doing so, students are equipped to make

associations and connections with other related words or phrases similar in meaning to the new

word. This strategy for representing concepts, according to Hatch and Brown (1995), is a

complex process that involves network building. This strategy is powerful because it elicits a

student’s reading, writing, and thinking as far as accessing prior knowledge or making

connections with previous experiences in light of learning new information. The International

Reading Association (1996), indicates that to effectively implement this strategy, the following

steps must be considered: First, the teacher selects words for vocabulary instruction; next, the

teacher projects a blank word map on a screen and models how to construct a word map. After

doing so, the teacher uses a think aloud that is intended to model how to form relationships

between words. During the think aloud, the teacher records information about the word in the

appropriate space on the word map. Students are encouraged to add information during and after

reading. Finally, students share their maps with their classmates. At this point, students are

encouraged to write new information on the other students’ maps and to incorporate new ideas

12

by revising their own maps. For visual learners, semantic mapping, is perhaps the most

powerful strategy since the graphic output of circles or squares brings concepts to the forefront

of learning.

5. Conclusions

Construct. Deconstruct. Structure. Did you notice anything? Take a look again. Don’t all

of these words contain the root word struct within them. We can go on and on, can’t we. Imagine

the endless possibilities that exist within the understanding of a root like struct. There are clearly

inherent structures within vocabulary that educator need to attend to. Extensive research has

demonstrated how the application of morphology enables teachers to show students the

importance of constructing and deconstructing words.

This literature review opened up my eyes and mind to not only the significance of

vocabulary instruction and the critical role that morphology and its constituent parts have on

constructing meaning. Secondly, good readers deconstruct not just meaning, but words

themselves. When learning new words, the importance of deconstructing words should be

encouraged, for when readers train their minds to deconstruct a words prefixes, suffixes, and

roots, knowledge about these morphemes transfers to future applications for struggling readers.

Finally, we construct meaning. Semantic mapping lends itself to the overall structure of thought

around vocabulary words and their interrelatedness. In the end, it is morphology that allows

learners to construct meaning from text.

Research on vocabulary development and strategies will continue to inform teachers how

to apply best practices, but what has been proven effective are the multiple exposures,

13

meaningful use, structural analysis and morphemic analysis. My research clearly demonstrates

that when students are taught explicitly how to approach unfamiliar words, they can construct

meaning and deconstruct the words themselves. A growing body of research exists on the nature

of the demands that academic language places on readers and writers, and on interventions and

strategies to help students meet these demands. Metacognition, complex text, and effective

vocabulary instruction must co-exist to create more literate students who are equipped with not

only the proper mindset, but more importantly, the right strategies to construct and deconstruct

meaning. When students are taught how to construct and incorporate effective words in their

writing, their written discourse becomes even more powerful. At the same time, when they can

deconstruct literal and figurative meaning in text, their comprehension grows as they cultivate

their understanding of how words shape meaning, or conversely, how meaning is shaped by

words.

Fostering independence is an outcome of generative vocabulary instruction. Clearly,

when students are given the keys to unlock meanings of unfamiliar words, they feel in control of

their own learning. Students understand how to make sense of the vocabulary they encounter.

This level of control and independence becomes a motivational factor for students. It can be

concluded that generative vocabulary instruction can also pay great dividends in creating

independent learners who are excited about acquiring and using words.

Direct, or explicit instruction should not only be strategic, but should also incorporate a

wide range of scaffolds. Teachers should be strategic in their planning of vocabulary by using

scaffolds, spiraling, and powerful before, during, and after activities. Due to the increasing

demand to communicate effectively, it is essential that teachers are familiar with best practices as

14

far as strategies in vocabulary instruction; it is just as important to provide scaffolds to bridge the

gaps and deficits that students face. A successful classroom is one that provides opportunities

for students to communicate through not only writing, but also speaking. Allowing students to

communicate verbally or through writing is the backbone of any successful literacy intervention.

The Common Core standards have clearly incorporated the importance of academic

vocabulary, and more generally, of academic language proficiency. All teachers aspire to

incorporate best practices and attainable goals in their classroom instruction. Conducting this

research has not only informed my instructional practices, but has compelled me to re-examine

the ways in which I approach a unit of study, complex text, and writing tasks. The notion of

being able to construct and deconstruct meaning of text and of the very words is one that has

emanated from the extensive research that I have conducted.

In this literature review, I focused on how students can “determine or clarify the meaning

of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grades 11-12 reading and

content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies. (Common Core Standards, 2016). Once

students are equipped with the proper strategies, they will clearly be better able to not only

deconstruct literal, connotative, and figurative meanings, but to holistically construct meaningful

insights into literary engagement. Clearly, vocabulary affects higher level language processes

such as grammatical deconstruction through morphemic analysis and construction of schema

through semantic mapping. When all is said and done, when learners can effectively construct

and deconstruct words and meanings, then students can develop a structure of thought around the

words that shape complex text structures.

15

References

Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (2016). Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word knowledge. In B. Hutson (Ed.), Advances in reading/language research (pp. 231-256). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

16

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

Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book. An ESL/EFL teacher’s course.2nd edition.

Core, C. (2016). English Language Arts Standards » Language » Grade 11-12. Retrieved November 27, 2016, from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/L/11-12/

Coxhead, A. (2000). The Academic Word List: A Corpus-based Word List for Academic Purposes. Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis, 72-89. doi:10.1163/9789004334236_008

Flannigan, Kevin, Templeton, Shane & Latisha Hayes. (2012) What’s in a Word? Using Content Vocabulary to Generate Growth in General Academic Vocabulary Knowledge. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 56(2). International Reading Association.

Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2009). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics.

Graves, M. (2000). A vocabulary program to complement and bolster a middle-grade comprehension program. In B. Taylor, M. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Graves, M. (2006). The Vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. Newark, DE:L International Reading Association.

Hanson, Susan and Jennifer F.M. Padua. (2006). Teaching Vocabulary Explicitly (book)

Herrel. A.L. (2004). Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners. An ESL teacher‘s tool kit. Second edition. Winnipeg. Canada. Penguin Publishers.

Kieffer, M.J., & Lesaux, N.K. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 134– 144. doi:10.1598/RT.61.2.3

Marzano, R.J., Kendall, J.S., & Paynter, D.E. (2005). A list of essential words by grade level. In Paynter, S., Bodrova, E., & Doty, J. (Eds.), For the love of words: Vocabulary instruction that works. (pp. 127–202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Reading Panel (U.S.). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, D.C: US Government Printing Office.

Nagy, W.E. & Berringer, V.W. & Abbott R.D. (2006). Contributions of Morphology Beyond

17

Phonologt to literacy outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1) 134-147.

Nagy, W., & Scott, J. (2000). Vocabulary Processes. In Kamil, M., Mosenthal, P. , Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research , Volume III (pp. 269-284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pacheco, M. B., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Putting Two and Two Together: Middle School Students' Morphological Problem-Solving Strategies For Unknown Words. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(7), 541-553.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2012). Reading for understanding: How reading apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley imprint.

Snow, C., Lawrence, J., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325-344.

Stahl, S. (2003, April). How words are learned incrementally over multiple exposures. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from EBSCO.

Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. A. (2002). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Zimmerman, C.B. (2007). Vocabulary learning methods. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

18