web viewfinally, student c, a female mandarin ... using this strategy during instruction was helpful...

Running Head: VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION IN THE ELL CLASSROOM 1

VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER (ELL)

CLASSROOM

An Action Research Project

By

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Concordia University: EDU 6556 Seminar in Reflective Practice

Mr. Greg Wolcott

Month Date, Year

VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION IN THE ELL CLASSROOM 2

Abstract

For English language learners (ELLs), vocabulary development is essential to

make content comprehensible. ELL students require a solid foundation of vocabulary

knowledge to exhibit success in the classroom, especially in the content areas. With the

recent influx of ELL newcomers in XXXXXXXX School District #XX, explicit

vocabulary instruction in content areas is critical.

Research shows that limited time is spent in the regular classroom on vocabulary

development. Therefore, as an ELL teacher, it is crucial that I devote more time to

vocabulary instruction. Past studies indicate success in using graphic organizers,

visualizations and sentence frames. These vocabulary strategies positively affect

students’ vocabulary acquisition.

After three weeks of vocabulary instruction using research-based strategies, my

students established a solid understanding of content vocabulary. This was evident in

their ability to use the vocabulary words in speaking and writing. Discussions

incorporated multiple vocabulary words. Overall, data showed an increase in students’

scores on a post-assessment vocabulary test and in utilizing spoken vocabulary words.

No correlation was evident between a student’s gender and their method of vocabulary

explanation; rather, there was a correlation between the amount of time a student has

been exposed to English and their method of vocabulary explanation.

Keywords: English language learners, vocabulary instruction, content areas, vocabulary strategies, speaking, writing, method of vocabulary explanation


Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….....4

Literature Review……………………………………………………………………….. 4

Methodology……………………………………………………………………………. 10

Results…………………………………………………………………………………... 15

Discussion………………………………………………………………………………. 21


Introduction

Vocabulary development occurs when students increase their internal word banks

and refer to the vocabulary when listening, speaking, reading and writing. As a teacher

of English language learners (ELLs), it is essential that students receive a solid

foundation of vocabulary instruction. Though often overlooked, vocabulary development

is a crucial part of learning as it determines whether students understand and are able to

apply information. Vocabulary significantly affects the development of students’

listening, speaking, reading and writing skills. A lack of vocabulary knowledge can

adversely affect every part of an ELL student’s day.

With a recent influx of ELL students at my school, including newcomers, there

was a need for vocabulary development. My action research focus was on vocabulary

because it is essential for ELL students to succeed academically: vocabulary affects every

domain and determines whether a student comprehends content. As an educator, it is my

responsibility to scaffold students throughout their learning, provide multiple

opportunities for them to acquire knowledge and present the instruction so that it allows

for comprehensible input.

Literature Review

“Few things have greater impact on how well one listens, speaks, reads and

writes than the depth and breadth of one’s vocabulary knowledge” (Green, 2004, p. 1).

Vocabulary instruction with all students, English language learners (ELLs) especially, is

crucial to academic success. Unfortunately, not much time is devoted to vocabulary

development. Scott, Jamieson-Noel and Asselin (2003) discovered that “only 1.4% of

instructional time” was devoted to vocabulary during core subject instruction (as cited in


Flynt & Brozo, 2008, p. 500). Regardless of why vocabulary instruction is not taught, it

is unfortunate as White, Graves, & Slater (1990) found that “vocabulary knowledge is the

single best predictor of ELs’ academic achievement” (as cited in Wessels, 2011, p. 46).

Today’s classrooms are incredibly diverse with the number of languages spoken

ever-increasing. The increase of language diversity combined with “the academic

language of middle and high school classrooms and texts” necessitates immediate,

effective teaching of academic vocabulary to ELL students (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux,

Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006, p. 20). The development of academic vocabulary “becomes

increasingly important with increasing years of schooling, as student read to acquire

concepts, ideas, and facts in content areas such as math, science, and social studies”

(Francis et al., 2006, p. 15).

Research on vocabulary instruction for ELL students overwhelmingly shows the

need for teachers to devote time to vocabulary instruction, especially content-specific

vocabulary. This instruction is essential for students to understand the vocabulary so that

they can comprehend the content. It also recommends incorporating a variety of

strategies and activities when teaching vocabulary to make the learning engaging,

interactive and meaningful. McKeown (1993) writes, “Traditional vocabulary instruction

produces only superficial understanding, and students rapidly forget words” (as cited in

Wessels, 2011, p. 50). Some of this traditional instruction includes looking up

definitions; however, this is not effective, interactive or engaging. In addition, this task is

useless for ELL students as they will not able to comprehend the definitions because of

the difficult vocabulary used to define the words (Kurjakovic, 2008).


Using vocabulary in a variety of writing activities is strongly encouraged as ELL

students need to apply the vocabulary for effective learning. “[A]uthentic opportunities

to use words in extended writing can serve as an opportunity for consolidating knowledge

of word meanings” (Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller & Kelley, 2010, p. 206). Writing vocabulary

activities, which can easily be implemented, allows students to reflect or analyze the

reading using key vocabulary. In addition, the writing task gives students a purpose for

reading and can serve as an assessment to determine if students can apply vocabulary

appropriately and accurately.

“[U]sing target words in sentences that construct a narrative” is also

recommended to teach vocabulary (Chung, 2012, p. 109). This is more effective than

students writing isolated sentences with vocabulary words. This strategy was

incorporated in a study, which found that ELL students acquired more vocabulary words

by using them in a narrative rather than individual, unrelated sentences (Chung, 2012).

ELL students can use the vocabulary words in a meaningful way through storytelling as

they are more personally invested. It also gives students more creativity; writing

individual, random sentences is less impactful and not as memorable.

Francis et al. (2006) also encourage the use of writing, specifically during reading

instruction. They suggest using “writing activities before, during, and after reading” to

“provide ELLs with essential opportunities to strengthen comprehension as well as

develop academic language” (Francis et al., 2006, p. 24). These activities give ELL

students multiple encounters with the vocabulary because they are pre-viewing the

vocabulary, reading it in a text and referring to it after reading. These types of activities

allow students to make meaning of the vocabulary as they use it in context.


A different approach for vocabulary integration in writing is to incorporate

“sentence stems,” a tool utilized during Beck’s research (as cited in Kurjakovic, 2008, p.

13). This is a less overwhelming activity, which lowers their affective filter, because

“[i]nstead of requiring students to start from scratch to create context, meaning and

syntax simultaneously in one sentence, sentence stems serve to isolate meaning”

(Kurjakovic, 2008, p. 13). This tool can also assess students on whether they know the

meaning of a vocabulary word depending on how they complete the sentence, thus giving

the teacher the opportunity to reteach the vocabulary word if used improperly

(Kurjakovic, 2008).

Donnelly and Roe’s (2010) research utilized a version of sentence stems, which

they call “sentence frames” (p. 132). Their sentence frames were unique in that the

teachers created them based off of their language proficiency levels (Donnelly & Roe,

2010). This results in a more effective activity for ELL students because it is tailored to

their needs. As they develop their writing skills, the structure of the sentences will be

more appropriate to their proficiency level (Donnelly & Roe, 2010). Donnelly and Roe

also used this activity to help ELL students practice speaking with the vocabulary.

Using visuals to teach vocabulary is another approach often supported in the

research. This approach is recommended by many researchers through various activities,

such as creating a vocabulary quilt, using visualizations and incorporating graphic

organizers. These activities will facilitate vocabulary comprehension. Onofrey and

Theurer (2007) state that “‘proficient readers visualize what they read as they construct

meaning from a text,’” a crucial skill for ELL students (as cited in DeLuca, 2010, p. 31).


A vocabulary quilt can “actively engage students with the academic vocabulary

words throughout all phases of instruction” (Wessels, 2011, p. 50). This quilt, which can

be used before, during and after reading, is essentially a large piece of paper with many

boxes, each containing a vocabulary word (Wessels, 2011). Before reading, students

draw pictures of what they think the words mean by using their prior knowledge to make

initial connections (Wessels, 2011). During reading, they utilize the quilt to make

connections from their understanding of the word to how a word is used in a text

(Wessels, 2011). After reading, students create a definition of the word on a post-it and

put it on the quilt (Wessels, 2011). This activity is beneficial because vocabulary

learning is supported throughout the lesson in all domains with ELL students having

numerous opportunities to use and think about the vocabulary. In addition, students are

constantly referring back to the vocabulary words.

Research in the literature also supports the use of visuals through graphic

organizers. Creating semantic webs “forces [ELL students] to use higher-order thinking

skills” because they are “symbolizing abstract ideas” (DeLuca, 2012, p. 31). Another

type of graphic organizer, which was utilized by the Intercultural Development Research

Association, is “definition diagonals” (Green, 2004, p. 5). This graphic organizer, which

has proven to be successful for ten years, requires ELL students to create “at least four

‘clues to meaning’ for each word they are studying” (Green, 2004, p. 5).

Research strongly supports frequent vocabulary instruction in order for it to be

remembered and utilized by ELL students (Kurjakovic, 2008). Additionally, they need to

be exposed to vocabulary through a variety of approaches and across all domains (Francis

et al., 2006). Explicit vocabulary instruction was proven to effectively increase student


achievement when examining the data from other studies. Not surprisingly, one study

found that ELL students with higher proficiency levels made more growth compared to

those students with lower proficiency levels (Townsend, 2009). This finding was logical

because those with higher proficiency levels “have more linguistic resources necessary to

build their knowledge of abstract, academic words in English” (Townsend, 2009, p. 249).

In short, the implementation of vocabulary instruction is a necessity. Without it,

ELL students will face great difficulty in comprehending the content. If they cannot

understand the individual terms a teacher is using, or cannot read the same in a text, they

will not be able to understand the overall lesson being instructed (Sibold, 2011).

According to Krashen (2003), “we acquire language when we understand the messages

that we receive orally and from texts” (as cited in DeLuca, 2010, p. 32). Vocabulary

acquisition is essential for ELL students to achieve in reading, writing, speaking and

listening. As Kurjakovic states, “The more English words students know, the more they

can understand and speak. The more they can understand and speak, the more they will

be able to comprehend what they read and develop their writing abilities” (2008, p. 15).

Research Questions

Many of the fourth grade ELL students on my caseload this year were

newcomers. After weeks of taking anecdotal notes and having discussions with these

students, it was apparent that they struggled with many of the English vocabulary terms

in content areas. This caused frustration as they completed assignments and various tests.

Therefore, I was curious as to what kind of effect specific vocabulary instruction had on

their achievement in the content areas. My overarching research question became: How

does the implementation of specific vocabulary instruction improve fourth grade English


language learner (ELL) students’ achievement in content areas? My sub-question was:

How will explicit vocabulary instruction impact the usage and frequency of vocabulary in

ELL students’ speaking?

Methodology

Participants

The research project included the participation of three English language learner

(ELL) students, two females and one male, all fourth graders. To ensure confidentiality,

the participants were referred to as Student A, Student B and Student C. The research

took place during my regular scheduled time with them as they need to receive ELL

services every day. Instruction was conducted during their regular social science period

for twenty-five minutes each day in my classroom.

The male Korean student was represented as Student A. He moved to the United

States in February 2014. After taking the W-APT screener, his proficiency levels for

reading, writing, speaking and listening were all determined to be 1.0. His overall

composite score was 1.0. Since last February, he made substantial gains, achieving at

least a 2.0 in all domains. Student A’s reading level was a Level M, according to the

Fountas and Pinnell assessment.

Student B represented the female Spanish student. She immigrated to the United

States a few months ago from Madrid, Spain. After taking the W-APT screener over the

summer, her proficiency levels for reading, writing, speaking and listening were 3.0, 3.0,

5.0 and 2.0, respectively. Her overall composite was 3.4. Her reading level was also a

Level M, according to the Fountas and Pinnell assessment.


Finally, Student C, a female Mandarin-speaking student, recently immigrated to

the United States from China. Her reading, writing, speaking and listening scores from

the W-APT screener were 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 2.0, respectively. She received an overall

composite of 2.0. Her reading level, Level G, was considerably lower than her

classmates. This was expected given that she has lived in the United States for less than

two months.

They were chosen for this project because they were three newcomers in my

school, each having lived in the United States for less than ten months. Therefore, they

needed the most support in learning the academic vocabulary in their content classes.

Additionally, it was beneficial for them to receive an extra lesson in social science as the

academic vocabulary was most difficult to learn.

Intervention/Innovation

Over the course of three weeks, I implemented a variety of vocabulary strategies

into my social science instruction. This instruction occurred in my classroom with three

ELL students every day for twenty-five minutes per day. Our sessions were in addition

to their classroom teachers’ instruction of social science. Every day, students participated

in vocabulary activities to improve their knowledge of content-specific vocabulary.

One vocabulary activity I utilized was “sentence stems” (as cited in Kurjakovic,

2008, p. 13). This activity was used two ways. First, students were given the beginning

of a sentence that they needed to finish. A related activity was the use of a sentence

frame. Students were given parts of a sentence; they needed to fill in the blanks with

appropriate vocabulary and explanations.


Another strategy I incorporated was a vocabulary quilt, a visual representation of

vocabulary (Wessels, 2011). The vocabulary quilt was utilized as a small group activity.

This was incorporated daily as target social science vocabulary words were introduced. It

was a beneficial resource for students’ discussions.

Finally, students utilized a graphic organizer to create their own definitions and

explanations of the key vocabulary. This graphic organizer was similar to Stahl and

Nagy’s “‘four square’ method” (Steele & Mills, 2011, p. 365). In addition to writing the

word with a student definition, they included examples and drew an illustration of the

word (Steele & Mills, 2011). Using this strategy during instruction was helpful as it was

used as a personal dictionary for students to refer to throughout the unit.

The incorporation of these strategies into my specific vocabulary instruction

allowed the content to become more comprehensible for ELL students. The strategies

required students to utilize vocabulary through reading, writing, speaking and listening.

In addition to these strategies, I incorporated others, such as vocabulary word games, for

reinforcement.

Data Collection

Data collection occurred over a fifteen day period. There were three different

types of data collected: a pre- and post-test, vocabulary tally and student work. This data

assisted in determining whether the implementation of vocabulary strategies improved

student achievement. The vocabulary words utilized for this project came from the

classroom teachers’ social science unit on the Northwest Region. The use of three

different types of data from the students ensured validity in my research as I did not rely


on one assessment to determine whether the implementation of vocabulary instruction

affected student achievement.

The first type of data was a pre- and post-assessment on vocabulary. This was

collected on the first and last day of the data collection. The results were used to

determine if students’ knowledge of the vocabulary words increased. Students were

administered these assessments in my classroom. The pre- and post-assessment each

contained the same vocabulary words; however, the words were rearranged on the post-

test so that the words and definitions were not in the same order as the pre-assessment.

Both tests consisted of twelve vocabulary words. There was one extra vocabulary

definition in each section for the students to choose from. The extra word was included

to improve the validity of the results.

The second type of data was a vocabulary tally. I used an iPad to record my

sessions with these students over a thirteen day period. At the end of each school day, I

listened to the recording and recorded three different types of information on the tally

sheet. First, I tallied the number of times students used one of the twelve vocabulary

words during the lesson. Then, I tallied the number of different vocabulary words

students utilized in speaking. When determining the variety of words spoken, I only

counted the original twelve words I chose for the study. Finally, I recorded what

vocabulary words were spoken by students. This included the twelve vocabulary words I

taught the students and any word that was associated with those twelve target words. For

example, since one of the target words was “landform,” I recorded when a student said,

“mountain,” “hills,” “plateau,” and so on. This documentation of target vocabulary


words and related words also assisted in answering my sub-question, which focused on

vocabulary usage and frequency in speaking.

The third type of data was student work, specifically exit slips. This was used to

assess if students were able to explain and apply their understanding of the meaning of

vocabulary words. The exit slips required students to answer questions about vocabulary

words, utilize maps to find information and complete sentence frames with vocabulary

words. When I asked students to describe a particular vocabulary word, they had the

option of drawing or writing to explain their understanding of a word. Students were

given an exit slip twice a week. In all, I collected results from six exit slips per student

over the course of three weeks.

Ethical Considerations

To ensure confidentiality, the participants were referred to as Student A, Student

B and Student C. Student A represented the male Korean student. Student B represented

the female Spanish student. Student C represented the female Chinese student. On

students’ work, each paper was labeled as Student A, Student B or Student C. In

addition, all of the iPad voice recordings were deleted upon completion of the research

project.

The research occurred during my regularly scheduled time with students as they

must receive ELL services every day; therefore, informed consent was not needed.

Instruction was conducted the period before their social science class. The students were

instructed for twenty-five minutes each day in my classroom with the exception of one

lesson, which was a short ten minute lesson. To ensure ethical treatment, I participated in

the Institutional Review Board training and received proper certification.


Results

At the beginning of the study, students were given a pre-assessment on twelve

target social science vocabulary words. The topic of the unit was “The Northeast

Region.” In order to understand the concepts in this unit, the English language learner

(ELL) students needed to establish a strong foundation of certain vocabulary words.

These words included the following: state, landform, occupation, product, land region,

physical feature, climate, city, natural resource, capital, industry and geography.

On the pre-assessment, Student A, the male Korean student, received seven out of

twelve (58%). Student B, the female Spanish student, received a score of six out of

twelve (50%). Finally, Student C, the female Chinese student, received a score of five

out of twelve (42%). These scores were higher than I predicted, though I observed

students struggling to read the vocabulary words. They made statements such as, “I don’t

know what this is,” and, “How do you say this?” It was apparent that the students

encountered difficulty when completing the pre-assessment. Therefore, I believe there

was a slight margin of error seeing as I watched students correctly guess on matching the

words to the definitions.

Three weeks later, the students were administered the post-assessment on the

twelve target vocabulary words. The results for Students A, B and C were eleven out of

twelve (92%), ten out of twelve (83%) and eleven out of twelve (92%), respectively.

There was one term that every student answered incorrectly, that word being

“geography.” This was not surprising to me for a couple of reasons. First, it was rarely

spoken by students during the three preceding weeks. It was also a harder word for them

to illustrate.


Analyzing the graph, all three students made significant gains in matching

vocabulary words to the correct definitions. Student C made the most significant gains,

as seen in Figure 1. This was surprising as Student C speaks the least amount of English

and has been in the United States the shortest amount of time. Additionally, Student C

quickly completed her post-assessment before the other two students had finished. While

Student B did show academic success from her pre- to post-assessment, she also had the

lowest score. This might be attributed to the fact that she was absent for two days during

this three week period whereas the other two students had no absences.

Figure 1

Student A Student B Student C0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Vocabulary Pre-Test PercentagesVocabulary Post-Test Per-centages

The second type of data collected was the vocabulary speaking tally. These

results are displayed in two graphs (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Figure 2 shows the number

of times one of the twelve vocabulary words was spoken during the lesson and the variety

of the vocabulary words spoken (that is, the number of different words used of the

twelve). The x-axis in Figure 2 represents the days while the y-axis represents number of

words. Both the frequency and variety of words spoken are represented on the same

graph in order to compare whether the total number of words spoken incorporated a

variety of words.


Looking at the blue line, which represents the number of times a vocabulary word

was spoken, it is apparent that there are two outliers on days seven and ten. Day seven’s

lesson was focused on states. This was a more difficult concept for the students to

understand as they were confusing states with countries and cities. In that lesson’s

discussion, the students mentioned the words “state” and “city” multiple times. They

often questioned what it was and tried to give examples, saying, “What is a state? Is this a

state?” Therefore, the data from that day was skewed because it took the whole lesson to

understand “state.” When comparing the variety of words spoken on that same day, it is

obvious that not many vocabulary words were utilized, but rather the same words were

repeated multiple times.

Figure 2

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

Day 6

Day 7

Day 8

Day 9

Day 10

Day 11

Day 12

Day 13

Day 14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

# of Times a Vocabulary word was spokenLine of Best Fit # of Variety of Words Spoken

The second outlier occurred on day ten. The graph in Figure 2 shows that only

four vocabulary words were spoken during that lesson. There were two plausible reasons

for this huge decline. First, one student was absent, leaving only two students for

discussion. Second, this lesson was ten minutes compared to the usual twenty-five

minutes due to a fire drill that occurred immediately before the lesson. These factors

played a role in the substantial decrease of words spoken throughout that lesson.


Due to these two outliers, a line of best fit (the black line) was created to

determine how many words the students generally utilized during each lesson. The

students said between twenty to twenty-five vocabulary words each lesson, while the

variety of words they actually used never reached above ten different words. This was

not a surprise as certain words were taught on specific days. Though the increase in

vocabulary words per day only showed a slight increase, there was an increase in word

variety over the study’s last four days. This was probably because students had reviewed

the vocabulary words through games. Overall, there does not appear to be a substantial

effect on utilizing the vocabulary words in speaking.

As data was collected on students’ speaking, it seemed beneficial to record what

vocabulary words were spoken by each student. The results are shown on Figure 3. The

words that were counted included the twelve target words and any words associated with

those that students utilized in speaking. For example, if a student said “North East” or

“compass rose,” then those words were recorded because they related to the target

vocabulary word “region.” Looking at Figure 3, the x-axis on the graph represents the

day and the y-axis represents the number of words spoken.

Figure 3

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

Day 6

Day 7

Day 8

Day 9

Day 10

Day 11

Day 12

Day 13

Day 14

05

101520253035404550

# of words said by Student A# of words said by Student B# of words said by Student C


The results in Figure 3 show that Student A, the male student, used a significant

number of vocabulary words in discussions. This was unsurprising as he had been in the

United States for eleven months, compared to the other two students who had been in the

United States for less than six months. Student B had two significant drops; however,

these can be accounted for as she was absent on day eight and day ten. Other than those

two days, Student B increased her vocabulary usage at a steady pace. Finally, Student C

showed growth in using vocabulary words in her speaking; however, she showed the least

amount of growth. This could be due to the fact that she speaks the least amount of

English compared to the other two students.

Unsurprisingly, the results of this data collection show more academic success in

speaking compared to the data collected for Figure 2. It is logical to expect students to

utilize the target vocabulary words in discussions by giving examples. Student

discussions were beneficial in helping students have a better understanding of the

vocabulary words. For example, one of the target vocabulary words was “physical

features.” When this was discussed, students mentioned examples such as “rivers,”

“lakes,” “plains,” “Rocky Mountains” and “Rio Grande.” They also made connections to

the vocabulary words which assisted in having a deeper understanding of the words. For

example, when discussing capitals, students talked about the capitals from their native

countries. This connection assisted in their understanding of the word “capital” when

looking at states in the United States. Therefore, it makes sense to see an increase in an

overall number of words spoken related to the target vocabulary words.

The final data type was an exit slip. Figure 4 shows the students’ scores on the

exit slips. The bar graph includes the results from all three students. The x-axis shows


the six exit slips, each identified by number and with some words describing the topic.

The y-axis shows the percentage of correct answers.

Figure 4

#1 -

Land

Reg

ions

#2 -

Stat

es &

Land

Reg

ion

Revi

ew

#3 -

Stat

e, C

apita

l & C

ity

#4 -

Clim

ate

& P

hysic

al F

eatu

res

#5 -

Natu

ral R

esou

rces

, Pro

duct

s &

Indu

stry

#6

- Lan

dfor

ms &

Bod

ies o

f Wa-

ter R

evie

w

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Student AStudent BStudent C

Student A performed well on all of the exit slips with his lowest score being an

83% on the second exit slip. Student B grasped many of the concepts; however, she

scored low on the fifth exit slip which was about natural resources, products and

industries. This dip in her performance could be due to the fact that she was absent twice

before this exit slip was given; thus, she missed two days of discussions with these

vocabulary words.

Student C received high scores on the exit slips with her lowest score being a 75%

on the fourth exit slip. This exit slip was about climate and physical features. Looking at

her answers on the actual exit slip, she was able to explain what climate was by using

words like hot, cold, hail and snow. In class, the students learned the definition of

climate as a region’s average precipitation and temperature. On the exit slip, the students

had to complete the sentence frame: Climate is a region’s average _____________ and

______________. Student C lost a point because she did not use the words


“precipitation” and “temperature;” however, it should be noted that she was able to

describe what those two words meant by writing hot, cold, hail and snow. This was her

understanding of climate. Therefore, though that score was low, she understood what

climate was in her own words.

Overall, the results in Figure 4 generally show success on most of the vocabulary

terms. Looking at their actual answers on the exit slips, Student A relied more heavily on

using his words to describe and explain vocabulary, while Students B and C relied on

illustrations. Initially, I wanted to compare whether males or females utilized more

illustrations or words in their explanations; however, I realized that the only male in the

group had more time in an American school and had more time to develop his speaking

compared to the female students. Therefore, even though there was a difference between

males and females, it was most likely because the male student had further advanced his

speaking ability compared to the females. The data supports the idea that an English

language learner student’s ability to use words rather than illustrations is not dependent

on gender. Rather, a student’s time and experience in the United States is a more reliable

factor in predicting their ability to utilize words in explaining content.

Discussion

After analyzing the results of three different types of data, specific vocabulary

implementation showed a positive effect on student achievement in content areas.

Students displayed a substantial increase in knowledge of vocabulary from the pre-

assessment to the post-assessment. Also, student scores on the exit slips generally

resulted in high scores with the exception of a few. Additionally, there was a steady

increase over time in the amount of vocabulary words spoken by fourth grade students.


Regular use of the vocabulary words was beneficial in creating a strong understanding of

the words, evidenced by the data.

When examining the sub-question of whether vocabulary instruction impacts the

usage and frequency of vocabulary in English language learner students’ speaking, results

showed some positive effects. There was moderate growth in utilizing the twelve target

vocabulary words in speaking over three weeks. This data, however, cannot be compared

to how often the students utilized vocabulary words in speaking before the

implementation of vocabulary instruction; that is, there is no baseline data from before

instruction. More impressively, factoring in related words with the twelve target

vocabulary words, students’ use significantly increased over time. This may indicate a

better understanding and mastering of the vocabulary words.

The implementation of multiple interventions, such as sentence frames, graphic

organizers and illustrations, proved to be beneficial in students’ learning of vocabulary.

The scores from their pre- to post-assessment showed a significant increase. This

particular type of data was the only one that included an assessment before actual

vocabulary instruction began. If these interventions were not successful, the post-

assessment scores would not have shown such a large growth in identifying vocabulary

words.

Research from others showed success with sentence stems for writing and

speaking (Kurjakovic, 2008). This strategy was utilized with my students in both of

those areas. Additionally, research supported the use of illustrations, of which a

vocabulary quilt was one activity (Wessels, 2011). Used over the course of three weeks,

the quilt allowed students to draw pictures of what they thought specific words


represented. The vocabulary quilt was posted on the wall every day for students to refer

to and, if necessary, make additions.

A second strategy implemented was a vocabulary booklet. Students created and

referred to this visual aid throughout the study. Every page in the booklet was a graphic

organizer for students to complete on one of the vocabulary words. Students benefited

from writing a definition in their own words with examples, both written and drawn.

This vocabulary booklet was also used as a resource for students during regular

classroom instruction.

Though positive results were observed, there are limitations to this study. First,

there was no pre-research baseline data of students’ average vocabulary usage in

speaking. Data was only collected during the three weeks when vocabulary instruction

was implemented. It is not definitively known whether a student’s vocabulary usage

increased, decreased or remained the same. While one assumes an increase, it still

remains an assumption.

Another limitation is the small sample size. Specific vocabulary instruction was

effective with these three students, but this may be the result of the size. It would seem

that any instruction with a group of three students would be more beneficial in students’

achievement than with a whole classroom of students. Future research could be

expanded to a larger sample size.

Finally, while students’ speaking was recorded to monitor their use of vocabulary,

it was not taken into context how the students were using the words. In other words,

students might have been just repeating the vocabulary words that they were reading. For

example, students might have been engaged in a matching activity where they read the


words aloud. Regardless of the context, every utterance of a vocabulary word was

counted. The question then becomes: Did the students effectively utilize vocabulary

words in speaking? Using this question, further research should be conducted

specifically looking at how students utilize vocabulary in their speaking.

Overall, the implementation of specific vocabulary instruction was effective. At

the start of this research, students struggled to read the words on the pre-assessment. By

the end of the study, students were having meaningful discussions with the words and

using their background knowledge to make connections. Students were able to illustrate

their understanding, use sentence frames during discussions and make connections to

their own background knowledge with these words. More impressively, over three short

weeks, students were also able to apply these vocabulary words as they utilized maps and

participated in a compare and contrast project.

As an English language learner (ELL) teacher, I plan to implement these

strategies in subsequent lessons as I felt students gained a deeper understanding of the

words. The incorporation of vocabulary quilts will be utilized as they have helped

students visualize the content vocabulary words. Additionally, the graphic organizer will

also be used with students in science and social science. Both of these strategies made

the content comprehensible as both required students to provide a visual representation of

a vocabulary word.


Future research on this topic promises to be beneficial. These strategies’

effectiveness over a longer period of time and with a larger group of students should be

considered as it could substantiate the results from this study. Additionally, when

investigating the usage of vocabulary in speaking, further research should be completed

to determine if students were utilizing the vocabulary effectively and purposefully in the

classroom. Continuation of research on specific vocabulary instruction would be

valuable for all teachers as it could provide them with effective strategies; these could be

easily implemented into the classroom to assist their English language learner (ELL)

students.


References

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

instruction. New York: Guilford Press.

Chung, S. F. (2012). Research-based vocabulary instruction for English language

learners. The Reading Matrix, 12 (2), 105-120.

DeLuca, E. (2010). Unlocking academic vocabulary: Lessons from an ESOL teacher. The

Science Teacher, 77 (3), 27-32.

http://www.washingtonesds.org/cms/lib4/WA07001775/Centricity/Domain/68/

Unlocking%20Academic%20Vocab.pdf

Donnelly, W. B., & Roe, C. J. (2010). Using sentence frames to develop academic

vocabulary for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 64 (2), 131-136. doi:

10.1598/RT.64.2.5

Flynt, E. S., & Brozo, W. G. (2008). Developing academic Language: Got words? The

Reading Teacher, 61(6), 500-502. doi: 10.1598/RT.61.6.9

Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical

guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based

recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH:

RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from

http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ELL1-Interventions.pdf

Green, L.C. (2004, April). Bilingual word power: Research-based vocabulary strategies

for English language learners. IDRA Newsletter, 1-10.

Krashen, S.D. (2003). Explorations of language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.


Kurjakovic, K. (2008, April 21). Vocabulary instruction for English language learners.

Educator’s Voice, 1, 12-15. Retrieved from http://www.nysut.org/resources/all-

listing/2008/april/educators-voice-1-early-literacy

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

ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically

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

196-228. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3

McKeown, M.G. (1993). Creating effective definitions for young word learners. Reading

Research Quarterly, 28(1), 16–31. doi:10.2307/747814

Onofrey, K., & Theurer, J. L. (2007). What’s a teacher to do: Suggestions for

comprehension strategy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 681–684.

Scott, J. A., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Asselin, M. (2003). Vocabulary instruction throughout

the day in twenty-three Canadian upper elementary classrooms. The Elementary

School Journal, 103, 269-286.

Sibold, C. (2011, January). Building English language learners’ academic vocabulary:

Strategies & tips. Multicultural Education, 18 (2), 24-28.

Steele, S. C., & Mills, M. T. (2011). Vocabulary intervention for school-age children

with language impairment: A review of evidence and good practice. Child

Language Teaching and Therapy, 27 (3), 354-370. doi:

10.1177/0265659011412247

Townsend, D. (2009, November). Building academic vocabulary in after-school settings:

Games for growth with middle school English-language learners. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(3), 242-251. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.53.3.5


Wessels, S. (2011). Promoting vocabulary learning for English learners. The Reading

Teacher, 61 (1), 46-50. doi: 10.1598/RT.65.1.6

White, T.G., Graves, M.F., & Slater, W.H. (1990). Growth of reading vocabulary in

diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 82(2), 281–290. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.281


Appendices

Appendix A

.


Appendix B


Appendix C


Appendix D

Vocabulary Speaking Tally – Words Used in Speaking (Part 3)

Day 2Student A – Southwest, West, region, Northeast, North, South, Midwest, West, compassStudent B – North, Northeast, State, region, compass roseStudent C- East, West

Day 3Student A – Midwest, West, Southwest, compass rose, state, regionStudent B – state, regionStudent C- Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, West, Midwest

Day 4Student A – land region, Northeast, Northwest, stateStudent B – region, state, city, map key, west, south west, compass roseStudent C- land region, Northeast, state

Day 5Student A – Maryland, Rhode Island, Chicago, Springfield, New York, president, government, capital, Rhode Island, city, state, country, California, Montana, Delaware, MassachusettsStudent B – cities, state, country, Delaware, Canada, America, Maine, Texas, MadridStudent C- New York, Naperville, Vermont, New Jersey, Canada, Country, Beijing, China, country

Day 6Student A – West, Southwest, Middle East, Northeast, Mexico, Germany, city, map, United States, Russia, state, region, capital, North Korea, South Korea, capital, country, AlaskaStudent B – region, state, country, West, map, Spain, Canada, United States, Mexico, capital, city, countryStudent C- state, region, country, Canada, China

Day 7 Student A- weather, desert, precipitation, region, climate, Earth, Washington, D.C., planet, government, China, North Korea, Springfield, South Korea, IllinoisStudent B- temperature, precipitation, Austin, Texas, climate, Madrid, Spain, country, capital, state, China, IllinoisStudent C- country, Beijing, city, Florida, state, Illinois, China

Day 8 Student A- climate, weather, temperature, precipitation, water, rain, snow, sleet, hail, Antarctica, cold, hot, sleet, South Korea, city, capital, government, country, people, buildings, trains, rivers, Seoul, Beijing, Chicago, downtown, Milwaukee, Deijun, Texas,


state, New York City, water, oceans, river, pond, lake, Great Salt Lake, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Atlantic ocean, Pacific Ocean, USA, mountain, Student B- ABSENTStudent C- precipitation, snow, ice, hail, China, cold, city, country, mountains, water, ocean, river, bikes (describes what’s in a city)

Day 9 Student A- climate, temperature, precipitation, rain, snow, hail, geography, body of water, ocean, lakes, river, pond, Atlantic Ocean, delta, Lake Huron, Great Salt Lake, Lake Ontario, landform, Earth, map, plains, Lake Michigan, hills, plateau, Rocky Mountains, West, Southwest, Northeast, Southeast, mountainsStudent B- hot, cold, snow, rainy, ocean, lakes, saltwater, rivers, Great Salt Lake, Lake Michigan, city, landform, mountains, hills, plains, coastal plain, Rocky MountainsStudent C- climate, snow, rain, hail, sleet, precipitation (for geography: “I heard that but I don’t know what that means.”), Pacific Ocean, lake, river, plateau, hills, plains, mountains,

Day 10Student A- climate, temperature, precipitation, water, rain, snow, hail, hot, cold, physical features, mountains, hills, plateaus, plains, ocean, river, lakeStudent B- ABSENTStudent C- weather, rain, hot, cold, hail, plains, hills, mountains, plateaus, New Mexico, land, river,

Day 11Student A- United States, Earth, East, West, North, West, Southeast, Southwest, Northeast, Northwest, plateau, Great Lakes, Lake Ontario, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, river, hill, landforms, bodies of water, climate, temperature, precipitation, minerals, natural, iron, metal, fuelStudent B- city, country, region, West, Middle West, North, Northeast, Southeast, landforms, bodies of water, plateau, mountain, Rio Grande, lake, river, mountain, canyon, valley, state, capital, climate, temperature, natural resources, renewable, minerals, nonrenewable, diamondsStudent C- region, state, country, plateau, river, plains, Middle West, snow, fuel, coal,

Day 12Student A- wood, nonrenewable, renewable, natural resources, farmer, industry, wheat, fishing, fish, lumberjack, mining, fisherman, China, South KoreaStudent B- tree, renewable, water, ocean, minerals, natural resources, forest, occupation, industry, plants, vegetables, fisherman, logging, mining, lumberjack, Korea, Spain, Madrid, Student C- occupation, farmer, milk, industry, product, logging, mining, China, country

Day 13 Student A- natural resource, minerals, iron, lumberjack, physical feature, landform,


bodies of water, mountains, hills, plains, plateaus, climate, lake, ocean, South Korea, Washington, D.C., Atlantic Ocean, Pacific OceanStudent B- climate, physical feature, landform, body of water, mountain, plains, lumberjack, natural resources, land, water, lake, ocean, hills, regions, Spain, salt water, Spain, capital, Atlantic OceanStudent C- lumberjack, natural resource, city, hill, plains, regions, capital, China

Day 14Student A- landform, regions, mountains, Middle West, Great Lakes, rivers, Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Ontario, oceans, Atlantic Ocean, capital, Washington, D.C., compass rose, New York, Florida, plains, Canada, Pennsylvania, state, country, bodies of waterStudent B- physical feature, bodies of water, landform, Northeast, region, mountains, plateau, plains, Pacific Ocean, Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Ontario, river, Mississippi river, city, United States, Washington, D.C., country, North, Canada, Mexico, Illinois, hills, cities, states, landformsStudent C- mountains, landforms, states, plateau, mountains, hills, plains, map key, lakes, Pennsylvania, ocean, capital, Harrisburg, Washington, D.C., Canada, Mexico, country, city


Appendix E

Exit Slip Example

1. What is a natural resource? Why is it important to people?

2. Give 2 examples of a landform.


Appendix F


Appendix G


Appendix H


Appendix I


Appendix J


Appendix K

web viewfinally, student c, a female mandarin ... using this strategy during instruction was helpful...

Documents