Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 965–989 | Cite as

The moderating influence of instructional intensity and word type on the acquisition of academic vocabulary in young English language learners

  • Diane August
  • Lauren Artzi
  • Christopher Barr
  • David Francis
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study used a within-subjects design to explore two instructional conditions for developing vocabulary in second-grade Spanish-speaking English learners (ELs)—extended instruction and embedded instruction implemented during shared interactive reading. Words assigned to the extended condition were directly taught using a multifaceted approach that included visuals, bilingual definitions, examples, spelling, and partner-talk about the words’ meaning. Words assigned to the embedded condition were taught solely through brief definitions to embedded text, writing activities, and songs. In the control condition students heard the target words read aloud during shared interactive reading but without definitions or direct instruction. The study also explored the interaction between instructional condition and word type. Four types of words—abstract cognates, abstract noncognates, concrete cognates, and concrete noncognates—were randomly assigned to each condition. Nine teachers in four schools and 187 second-grade ELs participated in this within-subjects intervention, which took place in transitional bilingual classrooms. Findings indicated that across all word types, both extended and embedded instruction were more effective than the control condition in helping ELs acquire vocabulary. Findings also indicated that extended instruction was more effective then embedded instruction for all word types except concrete cognates suggesting that these young Spanish-speaking ELs were advantaged by word knowledge in their home language. Finally, while embedded instruction was less effective than extended instruction, it was much more effective than a control condition. Embedded instruction takes significantly less preparation and instructional time than extended instruction, offering teachers a practical way to teach more vocabulary to ELs.

Keywords

Young English learners Extended vocabulary instruction Embedded vocabulary instruction Abstract and concrete cognates Abstract and concrete non-cognates 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support of Iris Gutierrez, Edna Navarro, and Lindsey Massoud, research assistants for the study; and Donna Christian, President of the Center for Applied Linguistics at the time of the study who provided research guidance and review. This research was supported by a Grant No. (HD039530) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Center for Child Health and Human Development to the Center for Applied Linguistics.

Supplementary material

11145_2018_9821_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1261 kb)

References

  1. August, D., Artzi, L., & Barr, C. (2016) Helping ELLs meet standards in english language arts and science: An intervention focused on academic vocabulary. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 32(4), 373–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., & Morris, J., et al. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school, NCEE 2014–4012. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. Elementary School Journal, 107, 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 44–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498–520.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brace, H. (1998). Aprenda la prueba de logros en Espanol. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement.Google Scholar
  7. Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlo, M. S., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Sustained vocabulary-learning strategy instruction for English-language learners. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., & Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary intervention for kindergarten students: Comparing extended instruction to embedded instruction and incidental exposure. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30, 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R., Jr., & Kapp, S. (2009). Direct vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Teaching breadth vs. depth. Elementary School Journal, 110, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crevecoeur, Y. C., Coyne, M. D., & McCoach, D. B. (2013). English language learners and English-only learners’ response to direct vocabulary instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 30, 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011). Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing, 28(4), 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1981). The living word vocabulary: A national vocabulary inventory. Chicago: World Book-Childcraft International.Google Scholar
  15. de Groot, A. M. B., & Keijzer, R. (2000). What is hard to learn is easy to forget: The roles of word concreteness, cognate status, and word frequency in foreign language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning, 50, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. L. (2006). First-and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners (pp. 197–241). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Elley, W. B. (1989). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41(3), 375–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellis, N. C., & Beaton, A. (1993). Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43(4), 559–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall, C. J. (2002). The automatic cognate form assumption: Evidence for the parasitic model of vocabulary development. IRAL, 40(2), 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hiebert, E. H. (2005). In pursuit of an effective, efficient vocabulary program. In E. H. Hiebert & M. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 243–263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Hoover, W., & Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  23. Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, E. S., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Kelly, J. G., & Harris, J. R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, L., Dreyer, L. G., & Hughes, K. E. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT) (4th ed.). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nagy, W., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, R. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nation, I. S. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning english: Promising futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors.Google Scholar
  32. Neuman, S. B., & Koskinen, P. (1992). Captioned television as ‘comprehensible input’: Effects of incidental word learning from context for language minority students. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 95–106.Google Scholar
  33. Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., Uccelli, P., Biancaroa, G., Mo, E., Snow, C., et al. (2011). Improving comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Reading and Writing, 24, 517–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Proctor, C. P., & Mo, E. (2009). The relationship between cognate awareness and English comprehension among Spanish-English bilingual fourth grade students. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1991). Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 223–250). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Silverman, R. D., Martin-Beltran, M., Peercy, M. M., Hartranft, A. M., McNeish, D. M., Artzi, L., et al. (2017). Effects of a cross-age peer learning program on the vocabulary and comprehension of English learners and non-English learners in elementary school. The Elementary School Journal, 117, 485–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tonzar, C., Lotto, L., & Job, R. (2009) L2 vocabulary acquisition in children: Effects of learning method and cognate status. Language Learning, 59: 623–646.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00519.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Nelson, J. R. (2015). Effectiveness of supplemental kindergarten vocabulary instruction for English learners: A randomized study of immediate and longer-term effects of two approaches. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8, 490–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American Institutes for Research (AIR)WashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics (TIMES)University of HoustonHoustonUSA
  3. 3.BethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options