The Effects Of Powerful Vocabulary Instruction On Students .
1521 PVfRS Eff Rep.qxd3/15/0712:09 PMPage 1lacho sticSThe Effects ofPowerful Vocabulary Instructionon Students’ Reading Vocabularyand Comprehension AchievementResearch &Results
1521 PVfRS Eff Rep.qxd3/15/0712:09 PMPage 2Powerful Research Story: Word Forward It has long been established that vocabularyAknowledge is critical to successful reading comprehension and, therefore, to becoming an expertreader. Further, research-based data reveal how best to provide students with effectivevocabulary instruction and practice.Dr. Cathy Collins Block and Dr. John Mangieri are nationally recognized academic leaders who haveused what they have learned from their own research to build two powerful programs for classroom use.These two programs, used on their own or in tandem, provide students with specific word-learningstrategies that research shows are essential if students are to learn the thousands of new words theyencounter in books, on tests, and in their daily lives.First, Dr. Block and Dr. Mangieri published Powerful Vocabulary for Reading Success, a program thatoffers a systematic and explicit instructional approach, which has been proven effective in significantlyincreasing the vocabulary and comprehension performance of students on literacy assessments. At thecore of Powerful Vocabulary for Reading Success are interactive, consumable student books.Then, building on the compelling findings presented in this research report, Dr. Block and Dr. Mangierideveloped an innovative read-aloud book-based approach to vocabulary and reading comprehensioninstruction called Word Forward. For teachers, Word Forward provides research-based instructionalresources and highly motivating read-aloud books. Each book in the program was personally selected byDrs. Block and Mangieri and reflects their research findings about exemplary literacy instruction.Word Forward offers a flexible instructional model, allowing for ultimate ease-of-use in the classroom.Like Powerful Vocabulary for Reading Success, Word Forward supports teachers as they implementproven strategies and promote vocabulary learning with ease.To find out more, visit www.scholastic.com
1521 PVfRS Eff Rep.qxd3/15/0712:09 PMPage 1The Effects ofPowerful Vocabulary Instructionon Students’ Reading Vocabularyand Comprehension AchievementResearch Report 2963-005 of theInstitute for Literacy EnhancementDr. Cathy Collins Block, Professor of EducationTexas Christian UniversityDr. John Mangieri, DirectorInstitute for Literacy Enhancement
1521 PVfRS Eff Rep.qxd3/15/0712:09 PMPage 2Table of ContentsTheoretical Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Assessment Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Full Sample Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Grade-By-Grade Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Qualitative Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1521 PVfRS Eff Rep.qxd3/15/0712:09 PMPage 1Theoretical FoundationVocabulary instruction is ill-defined within America’s classrooms today.On the one hand, few, if any, teachers or literacy professionals would argueabout the important role that a strong reading vocabulary plays in a student’sability to derive meaning from text. Conversely, vocabulary instruction hasnot occupied a distinct role in many reading classrooms. Over the years,efforts to develop students’ vocabulary have generally been ineffective andfraught with erroneous instructional practices and learning premises.In the past two decades, numerous research investigations have shown theeffects of vocabulary instruction on students’ literacy growth. Those studiesthat describe instructional interventions and are pertinent to the hypothesis of this investigation are described below.Beck, Perfetti, and McKeown (1982) demonstrated that fourth graderswho received vocabulary instruction performed better on semantic tasksthan those who did not receive instruction. McKeown, Beck, Omanson,and Perfetti (1983) also found that vocabulary instruction had a strongrelation to text comprehension for fourth-grade students. Stahl andFairbanks (1986) conducted a meta-analysis of all vocabulary studies from1924–1984 and concluded that vocabulary instruction was an importantcomponent for the development of comprehension. They found that thebest instructional techniques were (a) mixes of definitional and contextualprograms; (b) the “key word method,” which produced some significantgains in recall; and (c) repeated systematic exposures to words.Other studies also found direct instruction in definitional and contextualstrategies to be highly significant in increasing vocabulary learning(Tomeson & Aarnoutse, 1998; White, Graves, & Slater, 1990; Dole,Sloan, & Trathen, 1995; Rinaldi, Sells, & McLaughlin, 1997). The moreconcrete and personal connections that students can make to a specificword, the better it seems to be learned. For example, there is empiricalevidence indicating that making connections with other reading material1Stahl andFairbanks . . .concluded thatvocabularyinstructionwas animportantcomponentfor thedevelopmentofcomprehension.
1521 PVfRS Eff Rep.qxd3/15/0712:09 PMPage 2or oral language in other contexts seems to have a significant effect on thedevelopment of a rich reading vocabulary.It also seems clear from the National Reading Panel’s (NICHD, 2001) data thathaving students encounter vocabulary words often, and in various ways, can have asignificant effect on the development of increased reading vocabulary (NICHD,2001; Senechal, 1997; Leung, 1992; Daniels, 1994; Dole, Sloan, & Trathen, 1995).Although not a surprising finding, it does have direct implications for instruction.Students should not only repeat vocabulary terms while learning them, but theyshould also learn words that frequently appear in many texts and contexts (toreinforce the retention of these words’ meanings and expand the value of timespent in vocabulary instruction).In much the same way that multiple exposures are important, the context in whicha word is learned is critical (McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, 1985; Kameenui,Carnine, & Freschi, 1982; Dole, Sloan, & Trathen, 1995). Vocabulary wordsshould be ones that the learner will find useful in many contexts. To that end, alarge portion of vocabulary items should be derived from content-learning materials.Ideal vocabulary instruction will also have effects that carry over and benefit students in the reading of materials that are new to them. Such instruction includeswords that students encounter frequently in language usage. Biemiller (2003)stated that “children need this body of familiar words so that they can read newand even advanced text” (p. 331). In addition, Biemiller noted the importance oflearning to apply morphological strategies to words, which has been shown toincrease students’ vocabulary abilities. These studies suggest that such strategiesmay apply to students’ meaning-gaining abilities when reading novel texts.Because of these data, we incorporated a test of these strategies in novel text inour research investigations.In summary, the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2001) recommended that(a) vocabulary should be taught both directly and indirectly; (b) repetition andmultiple exposures to vocabulary items are important; (c) learning in rich contextsis valuable for vocabulary learning; (d) how vocabulary is assessed and evaluatedcan have differential effects on instruction; and (e) dependence on a singlevocabulary-learning strategy will not result in optimal learning.2
1521 PVfRS Eff Rep.qxd3/15/0712:09 PMPage 3This research investigation sought to answer five important questions:1. What is the effect of specific vocabulary-instruction strategies onstudents’ overall vocabulary and comprehension achievement?2. Does increased vocabulary ability result in increased scores onstandardized comprehension tests?3. Were the effects of this type of vocabulary instruction different bygrade levels?4. Does entry level of attitude toward reading mediate achievement on theStanford vocabulary posttest and vocabulary transfer test?5. Can students apply the vocabulary strategies reported in this study to thelearning of new vocabulary in (a) material that they have not previouslyread; (b) previously unread material at a higher grade level than the gradeat which student is in; and (c) will learning how to determine the meaningof one classification of English words make it easier to deduce the meaningof words from other categories of English words?MethodPARTICIPANTSThis study involved 644 elementary- and middle-school students who participatedin a 22-week research study to assess the effects of four types of vocabulary building strategies in the Powerful Vocabulary for Reading Success (PVRS) program(Block & Mangieri, 2005) on students’ reading abilities. This population camefrom Grades 3–6, and of the 644 students, 282 were in the experimental groupand 362 were in the control group. Of these children, approximately 26% wereabove grade-level readers, approximately 38% were on grade-level readers, and the3
1521 PVfRS Eff Rep.qxd3/15/07This studyinvolved 644elementary- andmiddle-schoolstudents whoparticipated in a22-week researchstudy to assess theeffects of thePowerfulVocabulary forReading Success12:09 PMPage 4remaining 34% read below their grade-level placements, based on scores of stateassessment tests for Texas, New Jersey, and Maryland. This population wassocioeconomically and ethnically diverse, and represented the spectrum of studentswho attend schools in the U.S.Students were enrolled in an urban, intercity school; a middle-class suburbanschool; or a rural, middle-class county school. All schools were public institutionsof education and had a total school population that was within 23 students of thenational mean. Student’s origins included Caucasian (42%), African-American(29%), and Hispanic (19%).PROCEDUREThe classrooms of the students in the three elementary schools and one middleschool were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups by sitecoordinators prior to the study. These schools were located in Texas, New Jersey,and Maryland, and they represented the demographics of public institutes in theU.S. (as determined by 2000 Census data). Forty teachers were randomly assignedas experimental- or control-group teachers. They volunteered to participate andwere paid for their involvement in this study. At each site, a program coordinatorwas also paid to direct the study’s implementation.In addition to their regular literacy block of instruction, experimental-group studentsreceived approximately 20–25 minutes of daily instruction using the PowerfulVocabulary for Reading Success program. As described in greater detail on theScholastic Web site, lary, thisprogram (a) teaches high-utility words; (b) provides students with a range ofinstructional experiences including reading, writing, speaking, and listening;(c) has a detailed teaching plan for each lesson that includes a Think Aloud activity, which explicitly models thinking about word meanings; (d) uses metacognitivestrategies to aid students in the acquisition and retention of words; and (e) measuresa student’s mastery of a lesson’s objective, which includes vocabulary word meanings,four vocabulary-building strategies, and word-learning principles, known asVocabulary Building Clusters.4
1521 PVfRS Eff Rep.qxd3/15/0712:09 PMPage 5The four vocabulary-building clusters that were taught in this experimentalstudy are described below:1. Vocabulary Building Cluster 1 taught students how to think aboutthe part of speech that a word serves in a sentence, and how to usecontext clues as strategies to learn the meaning of words that appearfrequently in our language.2. Vocabulary Building Cluster 2 taught students how to recognizewhen a word is affixed or has distinct, morphological units. Forthese words, students were taught to divide unknown words intoprefixes, roots, and suffixes. Then students were taught to add themeanings of parts within this word together to derive its meaning.3. Vocabulary Building Cluster 3 taught students how to identify themeaning of content-specific words. Students learned that manylong, unfamiliar words that they have not seen frequently will mostoften have a meaning that is related to the particular content areaand theme of the paragraph in which the unknown content-areaword appears. Students are also taught how to connect the meaningsof known content-area words to the possible specific object, event,phenomenon, etc. to which the unknown word must refer by relat ing all meanings from all other content-specific words to theunknown word. The unknown word will contain a meaning thatdescribes a unique aspect of the theme not portrayed by the othercontent-specific words in that paragraph.4. Vocabulary Building Cluster 4 taught students to use the unusualletter or sound combination of a word as a signal that the word’smeaning has to be memorized, as it likely has an unusual wordhistory or is derived from a foreign language. Students were taughtto create their own personalized mnemonic device to learn thisunusual word’s meaning.Students in the control group did not receive instruction using thePowerful Vocabulary for Reading Success, but continued to receive theircustomary literacy instruction for an additional 20–25 minutes a day.5In addition totheir regularliteracy blockof instruction,experimentalgroup studentsreceivedapproximately20–25minutes ofdailyinstructionusing thePowerfulVocabulary forReadingSuccessprogram.
1521 PVfRS Eff Rep.qxd3/15/0712:09 PMPage 6Thus, the total block of time devoted to reading instruction in control groups wasthe same as that which occurred in experimental groups.To collect qualitative data, the researchers performed three actions. First,experimental-group teachers in the study were instructed to send questions,comments, or concerns regarding the study or the research materials directly to theresearchers via email, as needed. Second, one of the researchers sent an email toevery experimental-group teacher at three different times during the study. Eachone asked three questions concerning the study. For example, in November weasked (a) if the students are having adequate time to complete their work in class;(b) how many days a week the lessons were used and why; and (c) if this programwould be valid if used four days per week rather than five. While the specificanswers to these questions were read and studied by the researchers, all commentswere collapsed for a single qualitative data analysis. To determine fidelity to thisprogram, we computed the total number of pages every student in every classcompleted (as a measure of quality of implementation). This page count variablewas used in statistical analyses.At two of the sites (New Jersey and Maryland), all experimental-group teacherswere interviewed individually in one-to-one settings one month after the studyended. The purpose of these interviews was to receive feedback regarding theirlikes and dislikes of the study. All emails and interview data were collapsed intocategories using the constant comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).ASSESSMENT MEASURESAt the inception of this investigation, all subjects were assessed with theStanford 9 Achievement Test Battery (Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement,1996), specifically the Vocabulary and Comprehension Tests. This measure wasselected because of its content validity and congruence with state competencybased literacy curricula, which were followed in these states and in the interventionmaterials. Following 22 weeks of instruction, the Stanford 9 Test Battery wasre-administered to all subjects. The Vocabulary and Comprehension tests given atthis time were one grade level higher in order to suit the new chronological agesof the subjects.6
1521 PVfRS Eff Rep.qxd3/15/0712:09 PMPage 7In addition, two metacognitive transfer vocabulary tests were given to all studentsin the investigation at pre- and posttest. The first transfer test contained passagesfrom basal readers, not being used in the study’s schools, but which had beenwritten between 2001–2005. These passages were written at the grade-levelplacements of the students. The second transfer test was constructed in the samemanner as the first one, but the passages were written at a grade level that was onegrade level above students’ grade placements.When creating these metacognitive transfer vocabulary tests, researcherscompleted the following procedures. First, they selected a one-page, single-typedopening page from a basal reader that had been published since 2001. Forexample, several of the stories were selected from Macmillan and Scott Foresmanpublications. To be chosen, the stories had to not only appear in the grade levelfor which they were to be used, but they had to contain a readability of that gradelevel as measured by the Fry Readability Graph (1977). Next, every passage wasread and four words from each category of English vocabulary terms wereencircled in a box. In the first category of English words (Type I) are the basicwords of the English language that occur frequently in all types of publications.Type II words are affixed words. Type III words are content-specific words, termsthat relate to specific subject areas. Type IV words are foreign derivatives or wordswith unusual letter or sound patterns. Each word was identified as to whether itwas a Type I, II, III, or IV word. Each test contained four Type I, II, III, and IVwords for a total of 16 test words. Tests were constructed so that students woulddefine each of the words that appeared in a box. None of the words had beenexplicitly taught to students during the study.This test had directions printed on the top of the page. It was a multiple-choicetest, with four possible answers for each item. Correct answers were randomlyassigned to be choice “a,” “b,” “c,” or “d,” through the selection procedure ofrandomly assigning numbers. Answer foils were constructed following theseguidelines. Every item had one foil, which was the definition of a different wordthat occurred in the same sentence in which the vocabulary word appeared. Asecond incorrect answer choice was the definition of a word that looked similar tothe word that was in the box. For example, with the word roll-top one of theanswer choices was “a type of skate or shoe.” Therefore, students would have to7
1521 PVfRS Eff Rep.qxd3/15/0712:09 PMPage 8know the difference between roller and roll-top. A third incorrect answer choice wasa definition of a word that had a meaning similar to that of the word in the box, butthis meaning would clearly be an incorrect answer.In construct
Other studies also found direct instruction in definitional and contextual . reinforce the retention of these words’ meanings and expand the value of time spent in vocabulary instruction). . This research investigation sought to answer five important questions: 1. What is the effect of specific vocabulary-instruction strategies on
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Vocabulary for Colloquial English Vocabulary for English: FCE Vocabulary for English: IELTS Vocabulary for English: PET Vocabulary for English: TOEFL Vocabulary for Hotels, Tourism, Catering Vocabulary for Law Vocabulary for Marketing Vocabulary for Medicine, 2nd edition -948549-96-3 1-901659-27-5 -948549-97-1 1-901659-11-9 1-901659-60-7 1 .
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
