Strategies for Teaching High School Students Academic Language

Strategies for teaching high school students academic language

for Career and College Readiness

Research Question: What are the best strategies for teaching high school students academic language for career and college readiness? Constructing and deconstructing text

Northeastern Illinois University

LTCY 507

Maria Baltsas

1

Introduction

Vocabulary instruction is fundamental in reading and writing, forwithout words, readers would not be able to comprehend the ideas that shape thinking; writers would not be able to express ideas that spark creativity in their minds; and speakers would not be able to deliver powerful speeches that influence the thoughts and action of their listeners. Essentially, powerful vocabulary drives our thoughts, our words, and our actions in a literate world. Over the years, the empirical and systematic research in vocabulary instruction has proven that there is an inherent correlation between having a strong vocabulary and being able to comprehend text. (Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Berninger, Abbott, Nagy, & Carlisle, 2010). Given the high correlation between comprehension and vocabulary and the importance that vocabulary knowledge factors in a student’s success, we cannot ignore its critical place in the high school curriculum. The average reading vocabulary of a high school graduate has been estimated at 40,000 words (Nagy & Anderson, 1984; Stahl & Nagy, 2006).

Recently, the concepts of “metacognition” and “complex text” have quietly crept into teaching. Metacognitive strategies are based on how students deconstruct text. Teachers can also encourage students to deconstruct words or phrases to construct meaning, but in the past, attention has been given to skills-based instruction rather than critical inquiry and metacognitive thinking. As a result, educators have not attended to strengthening students’ understanding of words as much as they should. Vocabulary instruction has clearly taken a back seat as teachers and students plow through the curricular demands in skill and content mastery.

The Common Core Standards contain nine standards that address “Vocabulary Acquisition” The standards dictate that students are expected to use context, patterns of word changes, infer meanings, and determine figurative, literal, connotative, denotative, and nuanced meanings. There are clearly several moving parts to vocabulary instruction and learning. The final standard is a loaded one. This standardcalls for students to “acquire and use accurately general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, sufficient for reading, writing, speaking, and listening at the college and career readiness level; demonstrate independence in gathering vocabulary knowledge when considering a word or phrase important to comprehension or expression.” (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.11-12.6). This standard incorporates reading comprehension as well as verbal and written communication or “expression.”

How can teachers expect students to successfully understand complex texts or think on a metacognitive level when they struggle with the words within an abyss of sophisticated syntactical and semantical structures in “complex text.” Just as we teach our students how to think about text, educators also need to teach students how to think about the unfamiliar words and morphemes they may encounter to make sense of the bigger picture, which equates to comprehending complex text on a metacognitive level.(Schoenbach, Greenleaf, and Murphy, 2012)discuss the importance of successful vocabulary instruction when students are taught how to monitor their comprehension and assert that “once students are deliberately noticing unfamiliar words, they must decide whether a particular word seems important to understand, whether there are morphological or textual clues they can use to figure it out… and how students can persist in understanding unfamiliar words.” It is evident that students’ thinking and learning words must be deliberate and intentional to construct meaning.

The demands of academic learning are not only challenging, but also enormous. Barriers in word knowledge and vocabulary are factors that can certainly impede students’ abilities to express themselves. Therefore, teachers are tasked with how to engage students who have deficits in vocabulary acquisition without frustrating them.To develop rich academic language, that is so vital for post-secondary success, as well as social and professional success, a teacher should implement a diverse range of strategies to foster the vocabulary development of learners. In this review, I will initially focus on the importance of vocabularyacquisition; in the next section, I will focus on the importance of academic language in high school instruction; in the following section, attention to the significance of direct, or explicit teaching of vocabulary will be emphasized; and finally, I will examine five of the most effective best practices in vocabulary instruction.

2. What is vocabulary?

Many teachers believe that vocabulary is simply the meaning of words; yet Gardener (2009) states that “vocabulary is not only confined to the meaning of words, but also includes how vocabulary in language is structured.” In addition, according to Graves (2000), “these structures are based on relationships between words, phrases, and categories that people learn and also how people come to use and store words.” Furthermore, Cummins (1999) identified five different types of vocabulary: listening vocabulary refers to the words that an individual can recognize when listening to speech; speaking vocabulary refers to all the words an individual can use in speech; reading vocabulary refers to all the words an individual can recognize when reading a text; writing vocabulary includes all the words that an individual can utilize in writing; and finally, lexical vocabulary, as defined by Murcia and Freeman (1999), is a “mental inventory of words and a productive words derivational process.” Accordingly, word compounds and multi-word phrases are also part of the derivational process. In addition, Murcia and Freeman (1999) indicated that the three levels of lexical units include word compounds, multi-word phrases, and the individual word. On the other hand, Nations and Waring (2000) categorize vocabulary into general academic words, high frequency words, and technical words.

There areclearly many factors that make vocabulary a complex concept. Words can contain literal as well as figurative meanings, connotative or denotative meanings, spelling derivations and various forms, collocations, syntactic and semantic constructions, morphological or derivational relations; all these factors broaden one’s scope for expression and communication of ideas through speech, writing, and reading comprehension. There are clearly many moving parts in the equation of vocabulary that factor into a students’ literacy development. Clearly, the need to incorporate effective vocabulary instruction should be at the forefront of teaching and learning. Graves (2006) identified four essential components of vocabulary instruction. These include: providing rich and varied language experiences; teaching individual words explicitly; teaching word-learning strategies; and finally, fostering word consciousness. If a teacher wants his/her students to unlock the complexity of meaning in text, deconstruct text on a metacognitive level, and incorporate evidence to support argumentative writing, the aforementioned components should be incorporated into instructional practices and routines.

3. Why is academic vocabulary important in literacy development?

The power of words shape text, thoughts, language, and communication in literary discourse. Nagy and Berringer (2006) state that “when students have a higher academic vocabulary development, they can tolerate a small proportion of unknown words in a text without disruption of comprehension and can even infer the meanings of words from context.” Low academic vocabulary knowledge can seriously impede upon a student’s ability to comprehend text. “Academic Vocabulary is the language that is used by teachers and students for the purpose of acquiring new knowledge of skills which includes learning new information, describing abstract ideas and developing student’s conceptual understanding. (Chamot and O’Malley as cited in Herrell, 2004). The Academic Word List, or AWL (Coxhead, 2000) is a compilation of the most common vocabulary terms found in college-level texts. Coxhead noted that a full 82% of the words on the AWL are made up of Greek or Latin meaning units. Thus, many of the words derived from a root are often important academic words that students are likely to encounter across the content areas and in more sophisticated texts.

Academic vocabulary is based more on Latin and Greek roots than the daily spoken English vocabulary. Stahl (2003) also found that vocabulary instruction directly improves comprehension. He points out that “as difficulty of words in a text increase, understanding of the text decreases.” It is therefore important for students to understand new concepts by understanding academic vocabulary. Stahl (2003) also states that “we use academic vocabulary to communicate to the world what we know. Individuals who can express themselves precisely with appropriate language are more likely to have a positive impression on their employers, colleagues, and clients. In addition, Marzano, Kendall & Paynter (2005) believe that vocabulary is positively related to higher status occupations. The teacher’s role in preparing students to meet the demands of post-secondary success, then, becomes critical as far as developing effective academic vocabulary.

4. Direct Vocabulary Instruction

While some argue that students should be taught how to deconstruct unfamiliar words to build strong, rich academic language; others argue that direct instruction is the key to unlocking academic potential in students who are struggling with vocabulary. Direct teaching of word learning strategies is necessary, especially for struggling or reluctant readers. According to Beck, McKeown, Kucan (2002), “The problem is that many students in need of vocabulary development do not engage in wide reading, especially of the kind of books that contain unfamiliar vocabulary, and these students are less able to derive meaningful information from the context.”In addition to learning vocabulary indirectly through various reading and writing activities, students benefit from direct and explicit teaching of individual words. (Graves, 2006). Furthermore, the National Reading Panel found that direct instruction is highly effective for vocabulary learning (NICHD, 2000).

Graves (2006) identifies three steps and four strategies for teaching individual words explicitly. The first step is to identify a list of words to be taught; secondly, determine which words to teach; and the third step is to plan how to teach the words by using the following strategies: provide student-friendly definitions; use words in context; provide multiple exposures; and offer opportunities for active involvement. The Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (2008) state that particularattention should be given to the explicit teaching of unfamiliar vocabulary if: the word is too difficult to understand without any background knowledge; the word is critical to comprehending text; the word is a content and/or process word that explains a concept or topic; and the word is likely to be found in future reading.

The first strategy is to provide students with student-friendly definitions. Usually, when students learn synonyms instead of longer traditional dictionary definitions, the learning of vocabulary is more successful. In addition, since dictionaries contain multiple definitions, students may select an incorrect definition, which just adds to the confusion. The second strategy calls for the use of context clues. When teachers can guide students to looking at other parts of the sentence to unlock meaning, then they are equipped to make connections or associations so that the meaning of an unfamiliar word becomes clear. The third strategy that Graves (2006) suggests is to provide multiple exposures. According to the National Reading Panel (2000), “it is important to give students frequent opportunities to hear the meaning of words and to expose students to multiple contexts in which the word can be used so that they can develop a deeper understanding of the word and how it is used flexibly.” Providing students with multiple examples through the use of pictures or sentences broadens their understanding and increases familiarity. The final strategy that Graves (2000) identifies is simply to offer opportunities for active involvement. Word walls, gallery walks, and other socially interactively engaging activities bring the learning of unfamiliar words to life and action.

5. Additional Strategies shown to be effective

a. Morphological/ Morphemic Analysis

In addition to the explicit teaching of vocabulary, morphological or morphemic analysis is a strategy that student can use to deepen their understanding of words and develop vocabulary acquisition. In this strategy, students are taught how to deconstruct individual words by focusing on prefixes, suffixes, and roots. Kieffer and Lesaux (2007) note that morphological analysis can be used as a gateway into problem solving unknown words. According to Goodwin and Pacheco (2013), there are four research-based vocabulary strategies and instructional recommendations to support students in determining word meanings. The four strategies include the Part-to-Whole Strategy, the Analogy Strategy, the Whole-to-Part strategy, and Parts-to-Whole strategies.

The instructional recommendations that are provided not only detail what students and teachers can do, but also make suggestions about what kinds of words work well with each of the aforementioned strategies. Goodwin and Pacheco (2013) suggest that instead of teachers isolating vocabulary words, students should identify challenging words by pre-reading texts; in doing so, the learning of vocabulary is student-led as opposed to teacher lead. Next, it is suggested that the teacher model problems solving by using the analogy strategy. The vocabulary by analogy strategy can be especially useful for developing and encouraging critical thinking and higher order thinking skills. Critical thinking skills factor greatly into understanding analogies. According to Gardner (1993), vocabulary by analogy is an implicit relationship between two pairs of objects. When making analogous relationships, students are encouraged to identify a similar relationship between unlike objects. The major forms of vocabulary by means of analogy are: part to whole, whole to part, characterization, words/word structures. Synonyms, antonyms, and homonyms are also building blocks of analogous relationships.

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

The third step suggests that teachers use familiar and accessible words like Facebook, cellphone, and iTunes to show the Whole-to-Part strategy. For example, the word “Facebook” can be broken down to the words “face” and “book.” When students are encouraged to break down words, obscure words and concepts can instantly become familiar. Next, students should be shown how to “get to the root of it” by using the Part-to-Whole Strategy. In this strategy, students put together the meanings of word parts to figure out what the entire word means.

For example, when a student encounters an unknown word likebiosphere, helping that student find familiar parts like bio or sphere leads to increased word learning. Students create new words by using roots that can be real or even made up. For example, students can generate additional words from the roots bio and sphere. Finally, it is suggested that teachers implement Word Webs to meaningfully chunk root words that apply to other disciplines. Goodwin and Pacheco (2013) state, “…we suggest teachers encourage chunking into meaningful parts, highlight connections to morphemes, teach morphology in context, and leverage students’ language backgrounds. These four suggestions certainly make words more accessible and meaningful. More importantly, they form the backbone of effective morphological instruction.

b. Generative Vocabulary

Teachers across all disciplines should incorporate vocabulary from their content as a to improve vocabulary knowledge. Vocabulary should not just be taught by ELA teachers, but all disciplines should address vocabulary words. Flannigan, Templeton, & Hayes (2012) focused on a strategy known as generative vocabulary, which is a type of morphological instruction. This type of vocabulary instruction enables teachers to focus intensely on prefixes, suffixes, and roots. The generative vocabulary approach is based on content and general academic vocabulary; therefore, students must be taught how to unpeel layers of words by tapping into this deep-rooted system of meaning that underlies most English words. In this way, teachers can help students generate a more extensive and deeply grounded vocabulary. To apply the strategy of generative vocabulary, teachers should first identify content vocabulary terms in a unit of study. Next, teachers should identify high-utility prefixes, suffixes, and roots in the selected terms. Third, teachers should evaluate the affixes and roots both for quantity (how many derived words stem from this prefix, suffix, or root) and for quality for usefulness and practical student application to other contexts. Finally, teachers should determine on one or two terms that will provide students with several more high-quality words.

Teachers should model and demonstratehow these “generative processes” work and then guide students in their exploration of these patterns. Generative vocabulary instruction has the potential to effectively teachstudents many powerful words as well as how words work. Whenever interdisciplinary connections are made via words and language in a “generative” sense, students’ conceptual understanding and vocabulary generates an interconnectedness in learning and independence is fostered.

c. From Generative to Word Generation

Researchers have also found that students are more likely to truly retain the new words they learn if they are exposed to them multiple times (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). The Word Generation program was first piloted in six struggling Middle Schools in the Boston Public School District during the 2007-2008 school year. This study involved middle school students, but its long term effectiveness was evident in longitudinal studies that examined the success of the students during their high school years. After the initial pilot, empirical research was conducted over a span of six years.

This program was successful on many levels. Basically, Word Generation introduces focus words at the beginning of the week and then revisits them in several different content areas as the week progresses to provide multiple exposures across various content areas to the same words. Students also engaged in writing and large group discussions that enabled them to utilize and “experiment” with the new words.