Four Practical Principles For Enhancing Vocabulary Instruction
Four Practical Principles For Enhancing Vocabulary Instruction
Four Practical Principles For Enhancing Vocabulary Instruction
Vocabulary Instruction
By: Patrick Manyak, Heather Von Gunten, David Autenrieth, Carolyn Gillis, Julie Mastre-O'Farrell ,
et al.
Drawing on instructional materials, classroom images, and observational data from research, the
authors illustrate these principles: establishing efficient, rich routines for introducing target word
meanings; providing review activities that promote deep processing of word meanings;
responding directly to student confusion; and fostering universal participation in and
accountability for vocabulary instruction.
Comment
RELATED
Think about your current word-meaning instruction. Do you teach a high number of
target words, provide efficient yet rich introduction to these words, and review the words in
ways that promote deep processing? Which of these elements could be improved based on the
approaches presented in this article?
How might you adapt the instructional examples in the article for the primary grades?
The introduction of the article stresses the need for consistent emphasis on vocabulary
instruction throughout the elementary grades. How might this article and the principles it
presents promote schoolwide discussion and enhancement of vocabulary instruction at your
site?
Over the course of the project, the researchers and teachers met roughly twice a month during
the school year to discuss the project, and researchers observed in MCVIP classrooms weekly. In
addition, students took pretests and posttests on general vocabulary knowledge and specifically
taught words and on other aspects of word learning. Overall, quantitative findings were very
positive, as students in all three years of the project showed more than expected growth on a
standardized test in general vocabulary knowledge and very large positive effect sizes on
specifically taught words (Graves et al., 2014).
We identified the instructional principles we describe in this article through reading and coding
field notes of classroom observations and team meetings. They are highly influenced by the
teachers' own commentary on their experience of MCVIP instruction. In Table 1, we succinctly
outline the four principles that we found to enhance the quality of word recognition instruction in
the Highline School classrooms. In the remainder of the paper, we describe and illustrate each of
these principles in greater detail.
2.
3.
4.
Present the word in the context in which it appears in text (whenever possible): the
attendants insisted
2.
Provide a kid-friendly definition: Insist or, the past tense, insisted means someone tells
you strongly that you have to do something, like my mother insisted that I do my homework
before watching TV.
3.
Provide multiple examples of use: I might say, Our coach insisted we run the play
until we got it right. Or, I was hot, but my sister insisted I close the window. Or, His
mother insisted that he clean up his room before his friend came over.
4.
Prompt student use: Think of all the things that your parents insist that you do. Who
can share one? Make sure that you use the word insist, like My mom insiststhat I
5.
Show and briefly discuss a visual image: Look at this picture. Who can explain why I am
showing you this picture for the word insist?
6.
Interactive Activity: OK, ready for a little quiz? I am going to say a sentence. If
someone in the sentence insisted on something, say insist. If not, don't say anything.My dad's
boss told him he had to work late, even though my dad didn't want to.My teacher let us
choose what we wanted to do for P.E.
Our early observations of this routine revealed that the teachers had a difficult time moving
efficiently through this sequence of steps, frequently making additions such as engaging students
in a discussion of what they thought a word might mean before presenting the definition,
discussing connections between the words and other texts or content that the class had studied,
or elaborating on student example sentences and allowing students to engage in tangential
discussion based on such examples. Although we recognized that many of these instructional
moves could support the students' developing understanding of the word meanings, the overall
effect of these additions was to substantially increase the time required for introducing word
meanings. For instance, Patrick (first author) observed Carolyn (fourth author) spend 30 minutes
introducing seven target words, a lesson that was targeted for 15 minutes (field notes, 2/16/10).
As the teachers gained more experience with the target word introduction lessons and the
researchers prompted them to continue to focus on pacing, the routine became more efficient in
each of the classrooms. Reflecting on this development, the teachers stressed that it was
important for them to realize that the students would continue to interact with the target words
through ongoing review and thus that mastery of the meanings did not need to occur in the
initial introduction. This recognition freed the teachers to move briskly through the word
introductions with the confidence that review sessions would allow for additional examples,
further connections, and deeper learning.
Although the teachers utilized the six-step MCVIP model as a routine for introducing many target
words, they found it necessary to diversify their instructional approaches in order to maintain
student engagement and to address other aspects of vocabulary learning. However, the team
continued to place an emphasis on efficiency as the teachers developed alternative approaches
for introducing word meanings.
In one example, David (third author) developed a routine that prompted his students to practice
using context clues to infer target word meanings. As illustrated in Figure 1, this routine involved
three PowerPoint slides per word. The first slide presented the word as it appeared in the context
of the reading selection (in this case, Number the Stars [Lowry, 1989]) and also a second
example of use featuring more familiar context that David created. David asked the students to
think about possible context clues in these examples and called on one or two students to come
up and underline phrases that they felt offered insight into the meaning of the target word. David
then asked several students to articulate possible meanings for the target word.
Next, he briefly discussed a second slide that provided the part of speech and a kid-friendly
definition of the word. Finally, he showed the students a third slide with a visual image related to
the target word and asked students to explain how it represented the word's meaning. Patrick
observed this lesson, noting that David introduced seven words in 19 minutes (field notes,
1/10/11). Although this pacing was slightly slower than typical word introductions featuring the
six-step model, Patrick and David noted that the instruction also provided students with valuable
practice in inferring word meanings.
Although the teachers utilized a wide variety of review strategies, the team found that four such
strategies were particularly robust in promoting deep processing; thus, the teachers used these
activities regularly. Here, we succinctly describe these deep-processing word review activities.
Connect Two (Blachowicz, 1986): Students find two words on the VWW (or one from
each of two short columns of 610 words from the wall that the teacher has prepared) that are
connected and prepare to explain the connection. The teacher calls on students to explain the
connection between their two words. Variations: Connect Three; Write the Connection
(Muffled and hoarse are connected because); Content Connect Two (Look at our social
studies word wall. Find a word in the Concepts column and a word in the Actions column that
are connected and be ready to explain the connection.)
Two-in-One (Blachowicz, 1986): Students write one or more sentences that use two or
more VWW words. Several students read their sentences and the teacher asks others to
evaluate the usage of the words in the sentence. Variation: Content Two-in-One (Look at our
science word wall. Find a word in the Concepts column and a word in the Parts and Things
column and write a sentence that uses both words.)
Character Trait Writing: Students select a target character trait word and write two to
three sentences about how it fits a character in a current or past narrative text. Several
students read their texts, and the teacher asks other students to evaluate their usage of the
character trait words.
Concept Word Prcis Writing: Students select a word from the Concepts column of the
VWW and explain it in writing, staying under a word limit set by the teacher (e.g., Pick a word
from the Concepts column and explain what it means in no more than 15 words). Several
students read their texts, and the teacher asks other students to evaluate their explanations.
To give a clearer sense of the deep processing of word meanings that occurred during these
review activities, we offer two examples from MCVIP classrooms. The first interaction occurred
during Character Trait Writing in Carolyn's class. The students chose one of two character trait
words that the class had used to analyze a picture book about Martin Luther King Jr. and wrote
briefly about how that word applied to the characters in the story.
Tell me why this character trait is important for the story or the character.
Carolyn moves over to a student and asks what word he circled. She says, So we decided that
Martin's dad was frank Write about why that was important to the story.
Carolyn calls on a student to share. He reads, I chose the word frank. Someone who
was frank was Martin Luther King. I thought he was frank because he told the truth that he didn't
like segregation.
Another student reads I chose dignified. This character trait was important to MLK because he
stood up and told the truth... Mr. Martinez [school principal] is also dignified because he does
what is right.
In this brief activity, students focused on the target words frank and dignified, actively using
them to analyze characters in the biography they had heard. Although students had previously
engaged in this kind of analysis orally as a class, this was the first time the students were
challenged with this writing task. The challenge was apparent, but the students who shared their
writing all used the target words effectively.
Here is another example of deep processing that occurred in Carolyn's class, this time during the
review activity Two-in-One.
that the task was challenging for students and that they might not use the target words
accurately, prompted the students to evaluate the sentences that their peers shared. The
students responded by identifying sentences that included incomplete meanings of the target
words and suggesting revisions that attempted to improve such usages, thus attending carefully
to the nuance of the word meanings.
These examples highlight the deep processing experiences with target word meanings that
students in MCVIP classrooms experienced through brief review activities that complemented the
efficient initial exposure to target word meanings provided by the introduction routines described
in the previous section. We encourage teachers to envision word-meaning instruction as this
combination of efficient introductory routines and review activities promoting deep processing.
With regard to the review side of this formula, we believe that the creation of an appealing VWW
is an essential first step and suggest that teachers consider following the MCVIP teachers' lead in
utilizing images and categorizing words to help students continue to process the word meanings.
Next, we recommend that teachers schedule regular, brief review times, thus ensuring that the
VWW maintains a living presence in the classroom and that students view it as a useful
resource. Finally, although we encourage teachers to keep the word review time fresh by drawing
on a wide variety of engaging activities, we believe that key activities that promote deep
processing, like the four that we describe in this section, should constitute the backbone of
ongoing vocabulary review.
Student 1
She's perceptive.
David
Why?
Student 1
Cause. I don't know. Pass.
David
We are talking about the word perceptive. Why do we think that Rosita is perceptive?
Student 2
Because she felt it.
David
You feel or sense things that other people don't.
Student 2
She was the only one who felt her grandma.
Here, two students struggled to apply the term perceptive to a character. After an ambiguous
response, David stepped in with an anchor definition. This prompted the second student to
amplify her comment, more clearly illustrating why Rosita was perceptive.
The interactions in this section represent a common experience in MCVIP classrooms: students
expressing incorrect or partial meanings for target words. Given that learning of word meanings
is often incremental rather than all or nothing (Stahl & Nagy, 2006), this finding is not
surprising. However, the examples underscore the importance of teachers directly addressing
such misunderstandings. Without correction or amplification, these misunderstandings can
spread. By providing students with anchor definitions or examples directly at the moment of
need, teachers can support students' developing comprehension and use of novel word
meanings.
Who can tell me what people in our society like to do? In a good complete sentence.
Tell a partner Students share with partners for about 30 seconds.
We found that this simple task added a needed dimension of accountability to target word
instruction and provided the teachers with useful feedback on student learning. In conclusion,
the combined use of techniques that promoted universal participation and of this kind of
formative assessment made clear to students that MCVIP instruction was not just for a few
vocabulary virtuosos, but rather that they were all responsible for learning new word meanings.
Based on these experiences in our research classrooms, we recommend that teachers plan to
use simple strategies such as brief studentstudent discussion and random turn-nomination to
ensure that all students have the opportunity and responsibility to participate in vocabulary
discussions. However, as David's example illustrates, including all students in such discussions
will likely require teachers to scaffold contributions from students who may have difficulty
responding with appropriate examples or usages. So, teachers need to be on their toes, ready
to engage in brief, careful exchanges that enable students to make correct contributions to
vocabulary discussions.
We also encourage teachers to consider simple forms of informal vocabulary assessment, such as
the MCVIP cloze sentences, that they can use in the classroom on a regular basis. Such
assessments not only provide formative feedback on the effectiveness of instruction but also
create an atmosphere of accountability with regard to target word learning.
Concluding thoughts
The need for effective vocabulary instruction throughout the elementary grades is absolutely
clear (Biemiller, 1999; Graves, 2006; Nagy,2005; National Reading Panel, 2000), and we could
recommend several professional books that describe research-informed activities for teaching
word meanings (Beck & McKeown, 2013; Blachowicz & Fisher; 2010; Graves, 2009; Stahl &
Nagy, 2006). However, as we found out during the MCVIP Project, the use of such activities does
not in and of itself guarantee efficient and effective voca-bulary instruction. Rather, such
activities require high-quality implementation that maximizes student learning.
In this article, we have described four pragmatic principles that enhanced the quality of wordmeaning instruction in the MCVIP classrooms at Highline School and provided examples and
suggestions to help teachers incorporate the principles in their own classrooms. These principles
were documented and developed during three years of ongoing collaboration among MCVIP
researchers and teachers, and we are confident that they will enable teachers using a variety of
instructional activities to enhance the effectiveness of their vocabulary instruction.
Take action!
1.
Look over your lesson materials and texts for a week of instruction. Be sure to include the
content area materials and texts. Select approximately 12 high-priority vocabulary words for
the week.
2.
Prepare introductions for each of these target words. Try using the MCVIP model for
introducing target word meanings or another comparable efficient yet rich instructional
routine.
3.
Select images to pair with each of these target words and create word wall cards that
include each word and an image.
4.
Introduce the target words to students across the first day or two of the week. After you
do so, begin a vocabulary word wall with your prepared word cards. Consider posting the
words in categories as in the MCVIP example.
5.
Plan at least two short periods of review of the words on the word wall for later in the
week. Try using the MCVIP strategies such as Connect Two, Two-in-One, or Concept Word
Prcis Writing.
6.
Prepare a cloze assessment that includes all or a portion of the target words and a simple
spreadsheet to record student scores on a weekly basis. Have the students work on the cloze
assessment on the last day of the week. Correct the assessment with students, discussing the
proper word for each sentence. Record the student scores and analyze them to determine if
the instruction effectively promoted student learning or if certain students need more intensive
practice with the words.
7.
Reflect on this trial week and consider what adaptations you might make for this kind of
instruction to be more feasible or effective in your settin