Word Meanings Matter Cultivating English Vocabulary Knowledge in Fifth-Grade Spanish-Speaking Language Minority Learners

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
(TESOL)
Word Meanings Matter: Cultivating English Vocabulary Knowledge in Fifth-Grade SpanishSpeaking Language Minority Learners
Author(s): JEANNETTE MANCILLA-MARTINEZ
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 4 (December 2010), pp. 669-699
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27896759 .
Accessed: 12/12/2014 18:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 82.33.77.134 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Word Meanings Matter: Cultivating

English Vocabulary Knowledge in Fifth
Grade Spanish-Speaking Language
Minority Learners
JEANNETTE MANCILLA-MARTINEZ
UniversityofIllinois at Chicago
Chicago, Illinois, United States
This pilot study investigated the effects of a 20-week quasiexperimental

vocabulary intervention aimed at improving Spanish-speaking language
students'
minority
outcomes.
writing
=
49) in a
samples of fifth graders (N
urban
low-income
Latino,
predominantly
and
vocabulary
English
Participants were twomatched
Pre-
school.
and
posttest
analyses revealed that the treatment group gained knowledge of a

larger number of targetwords than did the contrast group and that the
treatment
students
group
were
generally
at
better
their
determining
own word knowledge. Further, individual growth modeling revealed

the treatment students' overall writing quality improved over the course
of
the
20-week
intervention,
even
though
writing
instruction
was
not
part of the intervention, and improvements in students' writing quality

were larger during the last 10 weeks of the intervention. The need for
purposeful activities that provide students with authentic contexts to
learn
and
productively
use
dot: 10.5054/tq.2010.213782
newly
taught
words
is discussed.
are approximately
98 million ethnic minority group members
of
in the United
the
33%
States, with
There (or
country's population)
the
and
fastest
Latinos
comprising
largest
growing segment of this
the past 30 years the
Census
Over
Bureau,
(U.S.
2005).
population
number of school-age children who spoke a language other than English
at home, known as language minority
learners, nearly tripled
(LM)
to 10.6 million; U.S. Department
of Education,
National
(3.8 million
Statistics, NCES,
2007a), with Spanish being the
statistics
have clear and immediate
These
language.
as the number
children
for
of Latino
U.S.
is
schools,
implications
to
to
decades
in
the
continue
increase
(Harwood,
coming
expected
Carlson, Asencio, & Miller, 2002). Of concern is that this
Leyendecker,
LM learners accounts
of Spanish-speaking
rapidly growing population
Center for Education

most common home
TESOL
QUARTERLY
Vol. 44, No. 4, December
2010

669
for a disproportionate
of struggling comprehenders
percentage
(August
& Shanahan,
2006; NCES,
2007b). Given that Latino families continue
to be overrepresented
8c Paez,
(Suarez-Orozco
poor
among America's
a
status
and
is
well-known
risk
associated
that
low-income
factor
2002)
outcomes
with poor academic
(Hart 8c Risley, 1995), a considerable
Latino
of Spanish-speaking
students is doubly at-risk for
proportion
school failure. It is beyond
the scope of this article to attempt to
status on
the effect of LM status from low socioeconomic
disentangle
student academic outcomes, but it is clear that these variables tend to be
to successful academic
obstacles
confounded,
creating compounding
outcomes for the growing population
of low-income LM students. Many
factors are associated
with LM
students'
reading
comprehension
of
continue to emerge
difficulties, but low levels
vocabulary knowledge
as key impediments
to successful comprehension
(Garcia, 1991; Nagy,
of Health
and Human
1997; Stahl 8c Nagy, 2006; U.S. Department
Institutes of Health, National
Institute of Child Health
Services, National
and Human Development,
the
NICHD,
2000; Verhoeven,
1990). Despite
link between vocabulary and comprehension

strong and well-established
(Anderson 8c Freebody, 1981; Anderson & Nagy, 1991; U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educational
Research
and Improvement, RAND
over
the
2002),
past 20 years relatively few
Study Group,
Reading
on the effectiveness of
studies
researchers have conducted
experimental
LM
interventions
with
students
2006;
vocabulary
(August 8c Shanahan,
8c Cheung,
Duran,
Madden,
Slavin,
Calder?n,
2005). The
August,
this research
domain
the
present
by assessing
study strengthens
to improve
effectiveness of a pilot vocabulary
intervention designed
fifth-grade (ages
10-11 years) LM
students'
literacy outcomes.
LITERATURE REVIEW
the poor academic outcomes of many LM learners at
Notwithstanding
all grade levels, reading research has tended to focus on the reading
of young monolingual
development
English
speakers
(e.g., NICHD,
2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), and that which has been conducted
with LM learners has similarly focused on young children (for a review,
see Lesaux,
research
and
Koda,
2006). Thus
Siegel, & Shanahan,
practice
have focused more
on word
skills. However,
reading
skills than vocabulary and

evidence
finds that LM
comprehension
converging
learners tend to develop relatively strong word reading skills, but often
without the necessary
skills to support comprehension
(e.g.,
language
8c
Hoover
& Gough,
Verhoeven,
2003;
1990; Hutchinson,
Droop
Smith, & Connors,
2003; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow,
Whiteley,
2005;
670
Proctor, August,
Carlo,
&
Snow,
2006; Verhoeven,
1990, 2000).
TESOL QUARTERLY

Thus
distinction
between
word
and knowledge
of the
reading
of
the
in
words
read
is
under
meanings
being
especially
important
LM
It
learners'
is
estimated
that
students
standing
literacy development.
at least 95% of the
need to know (not simply recognize and/or decode)
in text for successful comprehension
words they encounter
(Calder?n
et al., 2005; Lipson & Wixson,
2003). Estimates of words learned during
a typical school year range from 1,000 (Goulden, Nation, & Read, 1990)
to 3,000 (Nagy & Herman,
1987); although clearly most of these words
are learned
instruction has also been
incidentally, explicit vocabulary
to contribute
to word
found
2003).
learning
(e.g., Biemiller,
the early vocabulary knowledge
that many
Considering
disadvantage
LM learners face, a sole reliance on incidental vocabulary
learning for
this group of learners is both impractical and negligent. However,
only
on LM
five vocabulary
intervention
studies have focused
learners
et al., 2005; Carlo et al., 2004; Perez, 1981; Ramirez,
1986;
(Calder?n
1990), and only one (Carlo et al., 2004) has targeted
Vaughn-Shavuo,
students.
upper-elementary
(1990) doctoral dissertation

Vaughn-Shavuo's
investigated the effect
of vocabulary instruction by randomly assigning two groups of first-grade
children to two groups. Over the course of 3 weeks,
Spanish-dominant
were
to both groups. Group one (the experimental
31 words
presented
on elaborated meanings.
group) received vocabulary instruction focused
in meaningful
paragraphs
Specifically,
they learned the target words
the target words formed narratives), they
(i.e., the sentences containing
were provided with picture cards of the target words that illustrated their
and they dictated their own sentences using the target words.
meanings,
In contrast, the other group
received instruction
(the control group)
focused
on
individual
sentence
contexts
(i.e.,
the
sentences
containing
the target words were unconnected).

Results
showed that the experi
mental group learned more words than the control group. In another
that the
work with
third graders
revealed
(1981)
study, Perez's
min
of
oral
instruction
group receiving 20
experimental
daily
language
on word
over the course of about
3 months,
showed
meanings,
on
over
word
the
group receiving
significant improvements
learning
The
(i.e., reading text and answering questions).
regular instruction
on
third vocabulary
also
focused
1986)
third-grade
study (Ramirez,
a
called suggestopedia (a language
Spanish speakers. In this study, method
to
that uses music to create an atmosphere
conducive
learning method
was used. Ten words were
learning)
taught per day in 40-min lessons
over the course of 4 days, and the
groups performed
experimental
better
than
the
control.
Calder?n
and
(2005)
colleagues
significantly
third graders' word learning, but
likewise investigated Spanish-speaking
the major goal of their 22- to 25-week intervention (an adaptation of the
Success for All reading program) was on facilitating students' Spanish-to
WORD MEANINGS MATTER

671
an
transition from a Spanish
reading program. However,
English
additional goal of the intervention was on building English vocabulary.
Thus, in the 90-min lessons, vocabulary was a major focus, as 30 min were
to oral
activities
around
devoted
revolving
grade-level
language
on
children's
literature. Their results revealed modest
positive effects
most
and
Carlo
and
students' English
recently,
vocabulary.
Finally,
a 15-week vocabulary
intervention with
conducted
(2004)
colleagues
LM
learners.
found
that, while the
fifth-grade Spanish-speaking
They
a
was
to
3045-min
intervention
of
their
greater on
day
impact
on
were
there
than
vocabulary
reading
comprehension,
significant
in both domains.
improvements
The scope of vocabulary intervention work with LM learners is sparse,

most notably beyond the primary grades, but findings to date point to
role of vocabulary
instruction to improve LM learners'
the promising
the
Further,
strong and significant correlation
vocabulary knowledge.
between vocabulary
and reading comprehension
among LM learners
et al.,
&
&
Hoover
2003;
1990; Hutchinson
Verhoeven,
(Droop
Gough,
1990, 2000) suggests that
2003; Proctor et al., 2005, 2006; Verhoeven,
LM learners can benefit from targeted vocabulary
instruction. Further,
even though vocabulary might be expected
to also impact writing, which
an
role in evaluating
students' academic
increasingly prominent
a
after
the
limitation
in the field is that
primary grades,
key
performance
none of the vocabulary
to date have
intervention studies conducted
plays
examined
writing
outcomes.
Some work with third- and fourth-grade monolingual

English speak
ers suggests that limited vocabulary knowledge
to depen
contributes
dence on repetitive uses of the same words and thus to underelaboration
of thoughts and ideas in writing (Moats, Foorman,

8c Taylor, 2006).
note
and
Saddler
Graham
that
writers'
(2007)
Additionally,
familiarity
with the writing topic is related to writing performance,
suggesting that
a central role in students' writing
background
knowledge plays
quality.
LM
Because
learners tend to have more
limited vocabularies
and
interrelated
than their
(two highly
areas)
we
can
LM
students'
counterparts,
expect
monolingual
English-speaking
to
be
the
National
Assessment
of
2002
greatly impeded. Indeed,
writing
one
assessment
Education
revealed
that
about
Progress writing
only
quarter of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders performed at or above the proficient
level in writing (NCES, 2004), but even more
troubling is the fact that
substantial differences emerged when examining
the data by ethnicity:
At all grade levels, on average, Whites and Asians scored above the 50%
percentile, while Blacks and Latinos scored near the 25% percen tile.
background
knowledge
to postulate
It seems reasonable
that vocabulary
instruction might
result in improved writing outcomes, but there is a surprisingly limited
research base on the effect of vocabulary
instruction on students'
672
TESOL QUARTERLY

(Duin 8c
writing, even amongst native-English-speaking
populations
even
8c
is
to
Graham
It
thus
difficult
draw
Perin, 2007).
Graves, 1987;
tentative conclusions
about
the impact of vocabulary
instruction on
students' writing and particularly difficult to ascertain the nature of this
LM learners. To my knowledge,
for Spanish-speaking
only
relationship
four studies have directly investigated
of
the writing development
LM
learners
&
Prater, 1994; Davis, Carlisle,
(Bermudez
Spanish-speaking
& Beeman,
& Snow, 1989).
1999; Ferris & Politzer,
1981; Lanauze
none
of
these
studies
examined
the
However,
relationship
potential
between vocabulary and writing development.
Students need vocabulary
to write, but the only evidence available on the role of vocabulary
in
comes
second
from
language
writing
English-as-a-foreign-language
context of LM learners differs
(EFL) college students. The educational
in substantive ways from that of older EFL students, greatly limiting the
that can be drawn from EFL work to the LM learner
generalizations
EFL
studies with college
school-age
population.
Notwithstanding,
students indeed find that a key determinant
in nonnative
English
speakers' overall writing quality is vocabulary
(e.g., Leki & Carson, 1994;
lack of empirical
research
Raimes,
1985; Walters & Wolf,
1996). The
investigating this potential relationship amongst the large and growing
of school-age LM learners is a major limitation in the literacy
population
research field.
Because
receptive vocabulary knowledge
generally precedes produc
tive vocabulary knowledge
1996; Nation,
1990;
(Laufer, 1998; Meara,
that students, and
Pearson, Hiebert, & Kamil, 2007), it can be expected
to actively
in particular LM learners, will require ample opportunities
use newly
are
in
oral
able to use
taught vocabulary
language before they
the new words in their writing. To date, very few studies have examined
students' use of newly taught vocabulary
in writing (Bravo 8c Tilson,
Lee
&
2006; Lee,
2003;
Muncie,
2006). As part of a larger study
an
the
effects
of
examining
integrated science-literacy curriculum, Bravo
and Tilson
second- and third-grade students' use of
(2006) analyzed
in writing, finding that students spontaneously
used
vocabulary
use
in
science
words
their
The
authors
that
suggest
newly taught
writing.
in writing represents growth in science
of newly taught vocabulary
knowledge and also indicates that students have productive control over
an analysis of whether
science vocabulary. However,
students' overall
science
was not conducted,

showed
and
the
quality
improvements
were
of
in
this
students
White
native
study
majority
English
speakers,
to LM learners.
that can be made
limiting the generalizations
use
other two studies investigated productive
in
The
vocabulary
school
intermediate
multinative
among
secondary
writing
language
in Canada.
students
Lee
English-as-a-second-language
Specifically,
in the writing of
(2003) investigated correct usage of target vocabulary
writing

673
=
65 students, and Lee and Muncie
48)
(2006) investigated learners' (N
use of target vocabulary and how their target vocabulary use influenced
their lexical frequency profile (see Laufer 8c Nation,
1995, for details).
not
Like Bravo and Tilson
Lee
did
(2006),
(2003)
investigate the effects
in reading instruction on students' overall
of vocabulary encountered
considered
the relationship
between
writing quality. Lee and Muncie
use
in
encountered
and
learners'
of
the
vocabulary
reading
vocabulary
in writing,
in writing quality, finding
that
improvements
including
teacher elicitation, explicit explanation,
discussion and negotiation, and
to target vocabulary
increase students' productive vocabulary
exposure
use in
like
the
other two studies, student income levels
writing. However,
were not reported, effectively limiting our understanding
of whether
can be expected
to be replicated
these findings
with low-income
populations.
the limited number and limited scope of studies exploring

Despite
the relationship
between vocabulary
instruction and writing, there is
reason to believe that vocabulary instruction may indeed be a step in the
right direction to improve the writing skills of LM learners. Drawing on
research to date, two reasonable hypotheses are that (1) LM learners will
use
to do so on
newly taught words in their writing z/given opportunities
a consistent
learners'
effects
instruction will strengthen LM

basis, and (2) vocabulary
overall writing quality over time. To adequately
the
explore
on
of vocabulary
instruction
students'
outcomes,
literacy
research-based
be attended
Components
to.
vocabulary
of Effective
instruction
Vocabulary
components
and
strategies
must
Instruction
that there is no single best research

(2000) concluded
method
for vocabulary
that a variety of
instruction, noting
are needed,
methods
incidental
and
structured
instruction.
including
to
is
indirect
instruction
vital
any program aiming to develop
Although
students' vocabulary, direct, carefully designed
instruction is also an
The NICHD
based
integral part of the puzzle. The goal of explicit instruction is for students
to learn the meanings
of words across various contexts to ultimately
Researchers
agree that the specific
improve their literacy outcomes.
to aid students'
words to be taught should be guided by their potential
text
of
and
that
words
students are
and/or
concepts
understanding
to
encounter
should
be
likely
relatively frequently
targeted (e.g., Beck,
& Kucan, 2002; Biemiller & Slonim, 2001; Nation, 2001). In

McKeown,
other words, words to be taught should be functional, cross-disciplinary,
and developmentally
(see Beck et al., 2002, for one widely
appropriate
used
674
system for selecting words).
TESOL QUARTERLY

the more limited vocabulary levels of many LM learners,

Considering
for LM learners must target students' language
instruction
vocabulary
skills not only more intensively, but also more broadly. Because
exposure
to academic
is largely confined to the regular school day for
language
LM
learners arguably need more
both
learners, LM
opportunities,
incidental and structured, to hear and use academic
than
language
native English speakers. Additionally,
effective vocabulary programs for
LM
learners
should
of word
target the development
specifically
consciousness
and of word learning strategies to help LM learners catch
up with monolingual
English speakers. Further, the target vocabulary for
instruction should be presented
in meaningful,
engaging contexts that
are not only relevant to students' interests
(e.g., Carlo et al., 2004) but
serve
to bolster their overall background
that also
knowledge. Finally, an
area that is seldom attended
to is ensuring that students are provided
to actively use newly taught vocabulary, both orally
with opportunities
a major form of evaluation
and in writing. Writing becomes
after the
on average, over one-quarter
for
all
of
students
and,
primary grades
Latino
students write at the below basiclevel
(NCES, 2003). Itmay be that,

to write on a consistent basis
LM
learners
by giving
ample opportunities
as part of a vocabulary program, their understanding
of the words they
are
use of newly
That
sheer
will
be
the
is,
strengthened.
being taught
taught words
in writing may
foster learning of the words.
PRESENT STUDY
Given that LM students tend to have both less breadth and less depth
of vocabulary knowledge and knowing that vocabulary is strongly related
to students' overall school success, LM students with limited vocabularies
are very disadvantaged
academically. The vocabulary program piloted in
on effective vocabulary
this study draws from the research
base
instruction and rests on the premise
that vocabulary
instruction can
to
be
10-11
improve fifth-grade (ages
years) LM
expected
reasonably
an
outcomes.
is
learners'
Fifth
school
year to
literacy
optimal
grade
more
enter
the
before
students
intervene,
academically
demanding
middle
school grades when
rapidly fall
struggling comprehenders
in all content areas. The study addressed
the following
further behind
research questions:
the 20-week vocabulary intervention, do the treatment or
(1) Following
contrast group students gain knowledge
of
of a greater number
targeted words?
(2) In the treatment group's weekly student essays, what is the extent of
use
word
target vocabulary
intervention? Specifically, do
over
the course
use the
students
of
the
20-week
target vocabulary

675
words cumulatively, or is their use confined to words taught in the

current week? Further, is there any change
in the quality
(e.g.,
of
and academic
the
coherence
use)
essays over time?
language
METHOD
Research
Context
taken from one

in the
school
study were
in an on-going study designed
States participating
This
students'
school, known by the
literacy outcomes.
a
is
the
Research
School,
pseudonym
Mystic
Strategic Education
an
site.
SERP
is
the
with
(SERP)
Partnership
organization
overarching
the wisdom of
by acknowledging
goal of improving student outcomes
to bear.
and bringing well-established
research knowledge
practice
The
data
Northeastern
to improve
for
this
United
this SERP partnership,

and middle-school
Within
upper-elementary
teachers from the participating
schools attend cross-university research
collaborate
with the teachers on research
seminars, and researchers
an
urban K-8 school serving a 91% Latino,
projects. The Mystic School is
91% low-income population.
Seventy-nine percent of the student body is
LM (Spanish), with 46% designated
limited English proficient and 8%
The
of the Mystic
education.
primary concern
designated
special
and
teachers centered on students' low levels of vocabulary knowledge
outcomes.
poor reading comprehension
and
Design
Participants
a matched-control
pilot study employed
quasiexperimental
a
As
the
of a vocabulary
effects
design.
pilot study exploring
preliminary
intervention, piloting of the intervention was limited to one grade level
in the same predominantly
Latino,
low-income, urban K-8
(fifth grade)
to carefully monitor
school in the Northeast
the implementation
of the
intervention. There were only three fifth-grade classrooms in this school;
This
two were mainstream
contained
One
contrast
All
and the other was a self

classrooms,
English
for recent immigrants and thus did not participate.
served as the treatment group and the other as the
classroom
classroom
group.
53 students
in the two mainstream
classrooms participated,
but
treatment
two
from the
students from the contrast
and
classroom transferred to other schools during the intervention; thus the
final sample for statistical analyses consisted of 24 students from the
treatment and 25 from the contrast classroom. Except for the number of
two students
676
TESOL QUARTERLY

students formerly identified as limited English proficient, with more

in
the treatment classroom,1
in
there were no significant differences
across
and
first
the
characteristics
classrooms
race,
gender,
language
(see Table
1). The treatment group received the 20-week intervention,
starting in January 2007 and ending in May 2007, while the contrast
continued
with the regular, district-wide
group
literacy instruction.
on at least
in
this
instruction
school
district
centered
Regular
literacy
a
of the reading
80 min
model
in which
and writing workshop
to
"balanced"
instruction
is
followed.
approach
literacy
Intervention
Overview
and
Implementation
a SERP collaborative
Word
Generation
(WG), developed
through
effort under the leadership of Dr. Catherine
Snow, is a research-based
to build students' academic
intervention designed
20-week vocabulary
vocabulary across the content areas. Academic
vocabulary refers towords
in textbooks and on tests (e.g., infer
that students are likely to encounter
and element), but not in spoken language. Without explicit instruction on
these types of words, students, and especially LM learners, are likely to
The goal ofWG is to increase
experience difficulty with comprehension.
students' academic vocabulary, in an effort to improve literacy outcomes.
are
The
(1) building
following components
emphasized:
vocabulary
knowledge
through repeated exposure to frequently occurring academic
in various
words
contexts,
(2) cultivating general word and world
TABLE 1
Characteristics
Background
of Treatment
Treatment
Gender
Female
Male
Race
Latino
Black
White
Asian
and Contrast
(n
24)
Group
Contrast
Students
{n
(N
49)
p value
25)
17
14
11
1.16
0.28
23
21
1
3
0
5.07
0.17
22
3
1.00
0.32
9
16
5.97
0.01
0
0
1
First language
23
Spanish
1
English/other
Formerly limited English
Yes 17
proficient
No 7
1
to classrooms
and thus the greater
Students at the Mystic School are randomly assigned
number of limited-English-proficient
students in the treatment group compared with the
contrast group happened
by chance.

677
knowledge, as well as word study strategies, and (3) engaging students in

core program
centers on the weekly
weekly persuasive writing. The
to
of
words
be
learned in the context
five
high-utility target
presentation
in the
of brief passages outlining controversies currently under debate
inmath and science
United States (ranging from the abilities of women
are therefore relevant to a
to global
warming).2 The 100 target words
areas
were
and
and
selected
from the Academic
of
range
settings
subject
as a support
List (Coxhead, 2000), which was originally developed
for instruction to college-level nonnative English speakers and does not
include words that are in the most frequent 2,000 words of English. The
main criteria in selecting the 100 target words were that they be high
A for the
and cross-disciplinary
(see Appendix
utility, high-functional,
full list of WG words). The cross-content focus on a small number of
words each week aims to enable students to understand
the variety of
to words in
ways in which words are related, and the multiple exposures
Word
different contexts
(e.g., math and history) seek to provide students with

for deeper understanding
of the words. The WG
ample opportunities
materials
include a teacher's guide that explains
the structure of the
a
set of 20 engaging
and
rationale
behind
it;
program
vocabulary
current
in
about
written
style, which
topics
journalistic
paragraphs
connect
to real word issues and to students' lives; brief instructional
activities associated with weekly topics and target words; and references
to support teachers in implementing WG
activities (see http://www.
wordgeneration.org/index.html
WG,
including
access
for more
to the Teacher's
detailed
Guide
information
and
sample
about
weekly
lesson).
of every WG
lesson to build students'
component
is
classroom
talk.
Aside
from
vocabulary
improving students'
of
the
classroom
discussion
and talk
vocabulary knowledge,
promotion
of students' reasoning and their
also aims to support the development
ability to express their reasoning. Thus the following are key features of
theWG intervention: revoicing by the teacher (i.e., repeating a student's
utterance with the purpose
of checking back with them for clearer
or
statement
of
their
student repetition
(i.e.,
interpretation
position),
or
another student's position in
having other students repeat
paraphrase
order to check on their interpretation of the statement), asking students
Another
central
academic
to debate
to agree and disagree and

(i.e., giving students opportunities
state
their
them
and
make
clear
and partner talk
having
reasoning),
are less inclined
to join whole
(i.e., giving students who
group
to talk with a partner to ensure that all
discussions
the opportunity
students are on the same page). Finally, the end-of-week writing activity
2
are written at a 6th grade
The WG paragraphs
theWG materials
readability level, because
were specifically developed
for use with middle
school students (grades 6-8).
678
TESOL QUARTERLY

is essential toWG, because

the goal is tomake writing an integral part of
to
the vocabulary program,
such that students have the opportunity
a
on
short
based
the
controversial
have
compose
piece
topic they
discussed all week. This provides yet another means of allowing students
to express their thoughts and opinions. For LM learners, in particular,
serves as a nonthreatening
to express
their views.
way
writing
a
aims to
the
of
Additionally,
incorporation
weekly writing component
use
to
of
the
students
the
opportunity
newly taught
provide
explore
in their writing, which is critical to cultivate deeper
vocabulary
learning
of the words.
The teacher was asked to implement WG for at least 15 min daily, 5
the Tuesday
days a week. Though
toThursday activities varied from week
to week (these were the days that the target vocabulary was discussed
in
the content areas of math, science, and social studies), the structure of
WG
is such that the first day of the week (typically Monday)

begins with
of the passage
and ends
(typically Friday) with the
the introduction
open-ended
essay-writing activity.
On Monday,
the teacher began the weekly WG
the controversial
topic of the week. For example,
lesson by introducing
the teacher would tell
the class that they would be discussing
their thoughts on whether rap
on
a
music has
kids, and she would explicitly tell her
negative
impact
in bold
students that they would be learning five words, which appeared
type in the passage. Before reading the weekly passage with the class,
the teacher showed the five weekly target words on large index cards to
this
the class, one at a time, asking if they knew what the words meant;
was a way for the teacher to gauge her students' knowledge
of the five
target words. Most of the time, the students were asked to complete a
word chart for homework, during which they were asked to do one or
more of the following: provide the part of speech and meanings
of the
inflectional forms of the words,
words, provide
identify prefixes and
and
suffixes, and list any related words. On Tuesday, Wednesday,
the teacher selected from an array of math,
science, and
Thursday,
social studies related activities. For math, there was typically a problem
at least two of the five target words were
of the day, in which
a word
that resembled
the type of word
into
problem
incorporated
on
state
tests.
encounter
standardized
students would
likely
problem
on
was
not
of the day
The
inclusion of the math problem
teaching
the focus was on exposing
students to the
math skills per se. Rather,
in a math context to the extent possible. The
weekly target vocabulary
in which many
science activities tended to consist of cloze paragraphs,
to be filled in to complete
the sentences
of the five target words needed
a
most
social
studies
the
with
science
typical
dealing
topic. Finally,
was
the
students
class
debate.
the
whole
debate,
activity
During
weekly
were asked to take a stance on the controversial
topic they had been

679
an
to present
their view to the group holding
were
to
time
students
allowed
rebut
permitted,
opposing
the opposing
argument.
Finally, on Friday, students were
group's
a
to
"take
stand"
required
by writing a short persuasive essay about the
controversial topic they had been discussing. Students were encouraged
to use the five weekly target WG words, as well as previously
learned
was
not
in
their
this
essays. However,
target words,
required. On
to
students
tended
finish
their
essay in
average,
persuasive
writing
learning
about and
view. When
10 min.
Importantly, the teacher did not provide any writing
instruction related to theWG intervention or give students feedback on
the weekly essays they produced.
a
The treatment group teacher completed
weekly feedback form to
on
of the intervention (see Appendix
the implementation
B). She
report
the form each of the 20 weeks. Her responses indicated that
completed
about
she had implemented WG every week. Additionally,

in
38 observations
were
the treatment
classroom
and
12 in the contrast classroom
to ensure
that the treatment teacher was implementing
conducted,
as expected and that the contrast teacher was continuing with the
or some other instruc
regular instruction and not implementing WG
WG
tional program
targeting academic
specifically. The direct
language
revealed
the teacher imple
classroom
observations
that, on average,
with the teacher
mented WG for about 20 min a day. In accordance
on
the
the
direct
observations
confirmed
that the
reports
weekly form,
even
the
intervention was being implemented
faithfully,
during
periods
of district-mandated
testing.
Measures
in the treatment and contrast groups were administered
Students
in
the
fall of 2006 and posttests in the spring of 2007. Pretest
pretests
measures
included researcher-developed
and standardized
(for match
tests
and
administered
of
group
individually
ing purposes)
language
word reading, reading comprehension,
and writing.
comprehension,
tests only. All
Posttest measures
included
the researcher-developed
measures were administered
during the school day.
Researcher-Developed
Measures
of students' knowledge of the target vocabulary words

Two measures
were administered.
The multiple-choice
(MC) test and the vocabulary
were
test was
self-check
both group administered.
The MC
(VSC)
a
comprised of
randomly selected sample of 30 of the 100 target WG
words. Following
standard format, students silently read a phrase or
short sentence in which the target word was printed in bold type, and
680
TESOL QUARTERLY

the appropriate meaning

of the target word from a list of
For example,
students read the following sentence: The
building collapsed after the earthquake. After reading the sentence, students
were required to choose the word or group of words that mean
the same
or almost the same as the underlined
In this example,
word.
their
choices were: (a) exploded,
fell
and
(b)
(d)
apart, (c) stayed standing,
on work by Dale
collated. Based
and Paribakht
(1965) and Wesche
(1996), the VSC assesses students' familiarity with the same 30 words3
of the words
and 10 pseudowords.
Students rated their own knowledge
not
I
the
I
scale:
do
know
have
heard
it, (2)
it, (3) I
(1)
using
following
can
use it.
know something
about
and
I
know
it
well
and
it,
(4)
on
were
an
the
VSC
for
such
that
overall
Responses
analysis,
averaged
score
to
close
four
indicated
students
the
average
reported knowing
to use them, whereas an average score close to one
words well enough
they selected
four choices.
indicated that students reported knowing few word meanings.

On
the
fall pretest, only 4 of the 30 WG words were reportedly known by 80% or
more
of all students, indicating' that the WG
target words merited
were
as
instruction.
the
10
Further,
explicit
pseudowords
reported
were
unknown
49
of
all
that
students
students, suggesting
(88%)
by
assess their own word
Both the MC and
generally able to
knowledge.
VSC
correlated
the
standardized
with
pretests
significantly
literacy
measures
C).
(see Appendix
students in the treatment group wrote persuasive essays
Additionally,
on a weekly basis. All essays were transcribed by three trained research
assistants and scored using a researcher-developed
rubric that consisted
of
three
sections:
overall
cohesion/structure,
Interrater agreement was
D).
(see Appendix
language
Coefficient
of Concordance),
and raters were blind to
were
in
which
the
week)
essays
Analyses
produced.
information on WG
target word use, as well
provided
writing quality.
Standardized
Vocabulary,
were assessed
ideas,
and
.81
the
of
as
academic
(Kendall's
time (i.e.,
the essays
on overall
Measures
listening comprehension,
the Group Reading
using
Evaluation (GRADE)
and reading
Assessment
(Williams, 2002). The GRADE
comprehension
and Diagnostic
is an untimed
test that includes vocabulary,

reading
listening
sentence
and passage comprehension
comprehension,
comprehension,
sub testmeasures
students' vocabulary
sub tests. The Reading Vocabulary
without
the
benefit
of
clues.
Students
contextual
silently read
knowledge
group-administered
3
There
was
pretest:
appears
one exception
to this set of 30 randomly selected WG
target words for the
on the self-check and not on the multiple-choice
reluctant appears
test; culture
on the multiple-choice
test and not on the self-check. This was corrected for the
posttest.

681
a phrase or short sentence in which

type, and they select the appropriate
four or five choices. The Listening
one of the words
is printed in bold
from a list of
of
the
word
meaning
measures
subtest
Comprehension
without printed cues. Students listen

students' linguistic comprehension
to a sentence or pair of sentences
that are read aloud by the test
one of four
that best
and
then
select
administrator,
they
pictures
matches what was read aloud to them. Finally, the Sentence and Passage
the
subtests
yield
"comprehension
composite."
Comprehension
measures
students'
of a
Sentence
comprehension
Comprehension
or
as a whole
sentence
unit.
Students
read
short
thought
silently
sentences in which one of the words ismissing
(as indicated by a blank),
and they then select the appropriate word from a list of choices. Passage
measures
students'
skills with an
comprehension
Comprehension
a
extended
passage. After silently reading
passage with one or more
answer
the
students
about
questions
multiple-choice
paragraphs,
Level 5, Form A was used at pretest. Internal consistency
passage.
reliability was reported as .95.
were assessed
Word
individually using
reading accuracy and fluency
the Test of Word Reading
&
Efficiency (TOWRE; Torgesen, Wagner,
Rashotte,
1999). The Sight Word Efficiency subtest assesses the number
a student can read in 45 s; the Phonemic
Decoding
assesses
nonsense
of pronounceable
subtest
the number
Efficiency
subtests were combined
words a student can read in 45 s. The TOWRE
Internal consistency reliability was
for analysis (r = .8219, p = < 0.0001).
scorer reliability as .99.
as
.95
and
reported
of real words
RESULTS
1: Following
Research
the 20-week vocabulary
intervention,
question
do the treatment or contrast group students gain knowledge of a greater
number of targeted words?
Analytic Approach
on all
groups were compared
to the
and
standardized)
(researcher-developed
prior
on
of
the
intervention.
the
Next,
posttest performance
beginning
measures was examined
Bonferoni
researcher-developed
by conducting
?-tests on the gain scores (change from pretest to
posttest). Finally,
First,
measures
the
standardized
treatment
effect
using differences
deviation.
682
sizes
inmean
and
contrast
d; Cohen,
divided
performance
(Cohen's
1988) were computed

standard
by the pooled
TESOL QUARTERLY

Pretest
Performance
on which the treatment group scored slightly

Except for the TOWRE,
treatment
contrast groups were very well matched
at
the
and
higher,
Table
2).
(see
pretest
Posttest
Performance
Table 3 presents the results of posttest performance,

including means,
standard deviations, gain scores, significance tests, and effect sizes on the
measures.
Word
Generation
Test
Multiple-Choice
treatment group students gained knowledge of approximately

six
contrast
whereas
the
students
group
vocabulary words,
gained
one. Only 30 of the 100 taught WG
knowledge of about
vocabulary words
were
randomly included in the MC test, and thus a gain of 6 target words
on the MC
test translates into gained knowledge
of approximately
20
a
1
ratio
of
into
words
and
3.
Put
target
approximately
differently,
gain
students in the treatment group went from knowing about 65% of the
target words at pretest to knowing about 83% at posttest, whereas
students in the contrast group went from knowing 65% of the target
words at pretest to knowing about 68% at posttest. The difference in the
was
an impressive effect size (d = 1.24).
gain
statistically significant, with
The
targetWG
TABLE 2
Fall Pretest
=
49)
Scores
on All Literacy Measures
for the Treatment
Treatment
(n
WG
self-checkb
Mean
SD
Mean
self-
Mean
testa
multiple-choice
WG
real words
WG
nonsense
checkc
words
GRADE
vocabulary
GRADE
listening
hensiond
hensione
comprecompre-
word reading
ency composite
GRADE
comprehension
TOWRE
flu-
compositef
SD
SD
24)
19.71
4.16
2.97
0.37
1.28
0.32
and Contrast
Contrast
=
(w 25)
Group
Bonferroni
Rvalues
19.96
4.63
0.06
1.00
2.97
1.00
0.00
1.44
0.46
0.36
0.55
0.55
Mean
15.08
13.84
1.00
0.28
Mean
13.50
13.36
1.00
0.07
Mean
SD
56.06
48.50
9.39
0.040.86
8.23
Mean
28.67
26.32
1.000.25
SD
SD
SD
4.35
1.77
8.83
4.63
Students
(N
Effect
size
2.18
9.91
= 4
= 30. bMaximum
= 4. 'Maximum
SD = standard deviation.
aMaximum
(a high
as
nonsense
not
is
it
indicates
students
words well
that
desirable,
average
reported
knowing
f
= 39.
= 35. '"Maximum = 17. Maximum
to use them). dMaximum
enough
Note.

683
TABLE 3
Spring Posttest
Contrast Group
and Gain
Students
Scores on Researcher-Developed
=
(n
49)
Spring
Treatment
(n
WG multiple
choice testa
WG real words
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
self-Checkb
WG nonsense
words
24)
scores
Contrast
{n
for the Treatment
Treatment
25)
21.12
4.22
3.41
0.29
0.47
1.77
0.60
(n
Contrast
24)
(n
5.58
0.003
0.27
0.55
3.72
0.67
0.35
Bonferroni
25)
1.16
3.40
0.44
0.44
0.33
and
scores
Gain
25.29
3.14
3.64
1.29
0.30
SD
self-checkc
Measures
Rvalues
Effect
size
0.0005
1.24
0.1200
0.58
0.0400
0.80
Note. SD = standard deviation.

aMaximum = 30. bMaximum = 4 (a higher average is desirable,
as it indicates that students
use them). cMaximum
reported knowing real words well enough to
= 4
(a higher average is not desirable, as it indicates that students reported knowing nonsense
to use them).
words well enough
Word
Generation
Vocabulary
Self-Check
there were no significant differences between

the two
Although
on
the
for
the
VSC
real
direction
of
the
effects
words,
groups
suggest
that, on average, students in the treatment group reported knowing
more
of the target words from pretest to posttest. On
for
the VSC
nonsense words, the treatment group
a
reported knowing
significantly
lower number of known nonsense words than the contrast group. In
fact,
except
for
two
nonsense
words
reported
as
known
well
enough
to
use by one student in the treatment group, none of the students in the
treatment group reported knowing the nonsense words well enough
to
use them. However,
each of the 10 nonsense words were consistently
reported as known well enough to use them by students in the contrast
group.
Research
question 2: In the treatment group's weekly student essays,
is the extent of target vocabulary word use over the course of the
20-week intervention? Specifically, do students use the target vocabulary
to words
words cumulatively or is their use confined
taught in the
current week?
is there any change
in the quality
Further,
(e.g.,
over time?
coherence
and academic
of
the
use)
essays
language
what
Analytic Approach
All
available
of
essays were
transcribed
format
in the codes
of
for the human
the child
data
(CHAT)
transcripts
language
&
1995; MacWhinney
Snow,
1985,
system (MacWhinney,
exchange
and
the computerized
1990),
(CLAN)
program
language
analysis
2000) was used for analysis. The focus of analysis was
(MacWhinney,
analysis
684
TESOL QUARTERLY

on whether students used the newly

taught WG vocabulary words in their
were
Thus
all
corrected
essays
writing.
prior to being scored with the
E for an example).
rubric
(see Appendix
writing
as
counts
as of past target
of
the
well
Frequency
weekly target words,
run
were
in
To
CLAN.
determine
whether
students'
overall
words,
across
the
individual
20-week
intervention,
writing quality improved
for change
(IGM) using the multilevel model
growth modeling
(Singer
& Willett, 2003) was used. The analyses were conducted
in a person
that contained
the longitudinal
data on all sampled
period dataset
SAS
PROC
with
full
maximum
likelihood
MIXED4
children, using
estimation. The use of IGM allows for robust estimates of growth, even
or
for individual
with occasional
data points
missing
incomplete
children. As suggested by Singer and Willett
the likelihood
(2003),
ratio test was used as the primary criterion for evaluating model fit, and
as
the Akaike
and Bayesian
information criteria were also provided
of fit.
additional
indicators of goodness
Target Word Use

Over the course of the 20-week intervention, students used an average
of two of the five weekly target words in their weekly essay (SD = 1.21).
Further, on average, 10 previously taught words were used in the weekly
essays from week 2 to week 20; the use of previously taught words was
greater toward the end of the intervention: Students used an average of
8 past target words during weeks 2-10 compared with an average of 12
substantial
11-20. At the individual
level, there was
during weeks
variability in the total number of past target words individual students

used across the 20-week intervention; 21% of the students used more
than 12 past target words in their essays, 42% used 6-11 past target
words, and 33% used 5 or fewer past target words.
Writing Quality
The
students'
final
area
of
overall
involved
improved over
investigation
whether
of the 20
that
indicate
examining
the course
writing quality
Individual Growth Modeling
results
intervention.
of the intervention
the average writing quality score at the beginning
was 4.53 (SD = 1.05; scale of 0-9 points), with an average growth of
to an average
.04 points per week
(see Table
4). This corresponds
over the
1
of
full
.71
points
(nearly
point)
writing quality growth
week
SAS PROC
of the general linear model

is a generalization
(GLM) ; it fits the wider
random effects, allowing for the specification
linear models,
incorporating
for handling missing values.
structures, and providing a better mechanism
MIXED
class of mixed
of covariance

685
TABLE 4
Individual
Results
Growth Modeling
for Students' Writing Quality

Model
Fixed effects
Initial status
Weeks
Weeks
1-20
1-10
Weeks
11-20
Variance
Level
Level
(N
24)
Model
4.5308***
0.0353***
4.5931***
0.0291
0.0406*
components
Growth
0.6988***
1.0636***
Wi thin-person
Between-person
Deviance
AIC
BIC
(?2
0.6988***
1.0633***
1,393.40
1,401.40
1,406.20
LL)
1,393.30
1,403.30
1,409.20
1= overall average writing quality growth across the 20-week vocabulary intervention;
Note. Model
= Akaike
1-10 versus weeks
Model
10-20. AIC
2 = writing quality growth across weeks
< 0.001.
information criterion; BIC = Bayesian
information criterion; LL = lower limit.
of the 20-week intervention, translating into a substantial effect

size (d = .67).
broken
into separate
linear
The
up
trajectories were
growth
to
the
of
differential
between
components
growth
investigate
possibility
& Bryk,
the early and the later period of the intervention (Raudenbush
2002). Writing quality was significant only during the last 10 weeks of the
intervention
the first
1): 0.03 points per week during
(see Figure
10 weeks
(or .29 points over the course of the first 10 weeks) did not
course
reach significance, but .04 points per week during the last 10 weeks of
the intervention was statistically significant. These
differential results,
as
are
subtle,
substantively important,
though
they suggest that the
effects on students' writing would
have gone undetected
had
the
vocabulary
intervention
lasted only 10 weeks.
A Note on Essay Length

A long-standing
finding in the writing field is that essay length
correlates with overall writing quality (e.g., Hiller, Marcotte, & Martin,
of whether students in the present
1969). This may raise the question
more and thus
more
were
study
merely writing
producing
high-quality
over
was
time.
As
correlated
with
essay length
essays
expected,
=
<
students' overall writing quality
.45, p
(r
.05). However,
essay
stable throughout
the duration of the intervention
length remained
=
=
90, SD
(mean
18), indicating that students were not writing more
over
the course
length,
686
of
the
the correlation
intervention.
between
for essay
Indeed,
controlling
use
word
and
target
writing quality
TESOL QUARTERLY

5.5
Average
11-20 Growth
Weeks
Weeks
1-10 Growth
=
(<tf
= .71
points over the 20-weeks
growth
= not
significant
significant
ID
Vocabulary
.67)
15
Intervention Weeks
- Weeks 1-10Growth
?Weeks
10-20Growth I
1. Comparison
of individual growth modeling
results for students' writing quality
FIGURE
1-10 (not statistically significant) and their writing quality growth across
growth across weeks
=
weeks
10-20 (statistically significant;
24).
=
.42, p <
.05), suggesting that the observed
significant (r
use
and writing quality was not an
between
word
target
relationship
artifact of essay length.
remained
DISCUSSION
This 20-week pilot vocabulary
intervention aimed
to evaluate
which
upper-elementary
predominantly
literacy outcomes would improve as a result
Results underscore
the promise of theWG
learners. There are multiple
implications
the extent to
LM
students'
Spanish-speaking
of explicit vocabulary instruction.
vocabulary intervention for LM
and discussion points?practical
and theoretical?to
address when interpreting the results of this pilot study.
was
for only 15-20 min a day, and yet the treatment
WG
implemented
of whom were formerly identified as limited
students, more
group
a
substantially larger number of
English proficient, gained knowledge of
LM
words
than the contrast group. Finding
that upper-elementary
of words intended for college
learners were able to learn the meanings
level nonnative English speakers is noteworthy. Further, at posttest, the
treatment group reported knowing
of fewer nonsense
the meanings
words than the contrast group. This difference in performance
suggests
that the treatment
group
had
a heightened
awareness
of their word

687
This word awareness

is critical for comprehension,
with
knowledge.
the need to encourage
students to ask when they
research underscoring
of words
do not know the meanings
(Biemiller, 2003; Graves & Watts,
2002; Nagy & Scott, 2000). Taking these findings together, and given the
stability of low vocabulary among LM students at all grade levels, the
effects of explicit vocabulary instruction (even if for just a few minutes a
day) should not be underestimated.

to examining
In addition
effects on
to
extent
to which
the
explore
designed
study was
words
would
newly taught
current
in
The
students'
results
of
the
appear
writing.
study begin to
shed light on this relationship
LM
in the United
learners
amongst
some
occurs
transfer
with
that
States,
analyses
revealing
relatively
use of newly taught words in writing suggests that the
quickly. In fact,
are at least partially
in students'
words
lexicons.
it was
Further,
to
find
that
students
used
from
words
target
previous
encouraging
weeks in their essays. Not surprisingly, a greater number of past target
words were
used
vocabulary,
this
the final 10 weeks of the intervention. A key

to
the fact that students need opportunities
implication?highlighting
use newly taught words?is
to
that it will take time for students
internalize
the newly taught words before they are willing or able to
use them in writing. For
research shows that it
productively
example,
to new words for receptive word knowledge
takes 5-16 exposures
is more difficult,
(Nation, 1990). Because
productive word knowledge
even longer for students to use words in
it
should
take
presumably,
their writing. The key takeaway point is thus that finding multiple ways
of exposing
students to the newly taught words is critical.
The final area of investigation involved examining
the effects of the
intervention on writing quality. The dearth of research exploring
this
during
LM
learners effectively limits our
amongst
relationship
school-age
of
whether
increased
results in
understanding
vocabulary knowledge
to write results in better
better writing quality, whether opportunities
there is a reciprocal
the
vocabulary, or whether
relationship. Though
current study does not provide any definitive answers about the nature
of these relationships,
results of this study do
that the
suggest
of vocabulary
combination
instruction (including other aspects of the
such as the weekly debates
that fostered
increased
intervention,
and having
students write on a weekly basis
use)
language
likely
to
students'
overall writing quality gains.
contributes
Importantly,
during the course of the 20-week intervention, feedback on the essays
was not provided
by the teacher, and the teacher did not provide
or
instruction focused on persuasive
argumentative
writing. Further,
the writing quality gains cannot be attributed to increased essay length,
as students did not
produce
longer essays over time. A possibility to be
further explored,
then, is that students' writing quality
improved
688
TESOL QUARTERLY

a store
because
they were practicing and because
they had accumulated
of new words that could make
their writing more precise and effective.
in students' writing quality were smaller
improvements
Importantly,
the
of
the
the need for
first
10
weeks
intervention, underscoring
during
sustained vocabulary
instruction combined with ample opportunities
for students to write. A clear implication
from this study is thus that
to detect improvements
in
sustained vocabulary
instruction is needed
students' writing.
Implications
for Research
measures
were
In this pilot
study, only researcher-developed
measures
at posttest, because
administered
effects on standardized
were not
(1986) noted more than two
expected. As Stahl and Fairbanks
decades
ago, a relatively high number of explicitly taught words must
in standardized measures
for them to be sensitive to the
be present
effects of vocabulary
instruction; only 2 of the 30 words on the GRADE
test were target WG words. Regarding
standardized
reading
vocabulary
WG
students to a wide range of
outcomes,
comprehension
exposed
topics, from global warming to the death penalty, and therefore helped
broaden
students' general background

knowl
knowledge.
Background
a strong
is
of
students'
edge
predictor
reading
comprehension
& Freebody,
& Pearson,
1981; Anderson
(Anderson
performance
and
the
&
it
is
that
value
of the
1984; Droop
Verhoeven,
1998),
likely
outcomes will be evident over
intervention for reading comprehension
about
time, as students encounter
(or related to) the topics
passages
to
have
been
WG.
Thus
the benefits of WG on
exposed
they
through
can be expected
to be cumulative,
students' reading comprehension
The
the
intervention.
rather than immediately
20-week
following
are
is
that
interventions
however,
challenge,
commonly
pervasive
for short periods of time with the expectation
of large,
implemented
immediate gains. Accordingly, many interventions with high potential
are erroneously deemed
"ineffective" and consequently
terminated on
the basis
results. An
of
implication
can
be effective for LM
instruction
of weak
this research
is that
learners and should

vocabulary
sustained
become
part of students' every day curriculum,
throughout
the elements
of effective vocabulary
the school
years. Refining
to meet
the differentiated
of students will be a
needs
instruction
critical next step, but it should be clear that lasting gains can only be
sustained
with well-designed
and,
equally
importantly,
expected
instruction
instruction. Further, the effects of vocabulary
vocabulary
should be evaluated more robustly (e.g., examining effects on writing).
of LM learners who enter school with low
For the growing population

689
levels of vocabulary,
school day.
Limitations
and
vocabulary
Future
instruction must
be
a part
of their
Research
First, the demonstrated

literacy gains found in this quasiexperimental
cannot
be
causally related to the intervention; a randomized
pilot study
a
as was the case in this study,
next
is
necessary
step. Second,
study
are
tests
to
used
index students' vocabulary
multiple-choice
widely
future
of vocabulary
but
work
should
incorporate measures
knowledge,
that attend to depth of word knowledge. Third, the relatively small sample
size limited the feasibility of investigating whether, as some research has
instruction varies by ability levels, with
found, the effect of vocabulary
lower performing
students exhibiting greater benefits (e.g., Nelson &
a related note,
a
On
2007).
Stage,
monolingual-English-speaking
comparison group would help disentangle whether vocabulary instruction
has differential effects for LM versus non-LM students, and the extent of
those differential effects on various literacymeasures. Finally, longitudinal
to track students' literacy progress, including writing,

studies designed
over time are needed
to robustly evaluate the components
of effective
In
different
of
learners.
the
instruction
for
types
present study,
vocabulary
an open question
iswhether the demonstrated
gains will be lasting ones
can be
and whether gains on comprehension
expected. Notwithstanding
these limitations, students in the study are representative of a growing
of learners in the United
States?children
from Spanish
population
in
homes
enrolled
schools?and
urban,
low-income,
generally
speaking
intervention study thus extends previous

the present pilot vocabulary
of the effects of vocabulary
work and strengthens our understanding
LM students.
instruction on upper-elementary
CONCLUSION
Because
is cumulative, greater
instructional
vocabulary
knowledge
to vocabulary is needed
in
and
well
starting
continuing
beyond
the primary grades. This point must be underscored
for LM learners, who
tend to have fewer English
and thus more
limited
language models
attention
to native English speakers. Further, aside from

compared
students'
vocabulary knowledge, itappears that explicit vocabulary
increasing
instruction has the potential for increasing students' overall writing quality,
even without
explicit writing instruction. This pilot study suggests that
sustained vocabulary instruction, not short-term interventions, are needed
and that purposeful activities that provide students with authentic contexts to
learn and productively use newly taught words are integral components of
vocabularies
690
TESOL QUARTERLY

effective vocabulary instruction. Until vocabulary becomes an integral, daily

aspect of the K-12 curriculum, all students, and in particular LM learners,
to learn to read (i.e., decode),
but the development
of
may continue
success.
and
skills
is
essential
for
academic
vocabulary
writing
simultaneously
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
like to thank Catherine
E. Snow, Nonie
K. Lesaux,
and Terrence
Tivnan
for
on this
comments
was made
their helpful
This
by the
manuscript.
study
possible
the Carnegie
Education
Research
funded
(SERP),
Strategic
Partnership
by
the William
and
Flora
Hewlett
and
The
Foundation,
Corporation,
Spencer
I would
Foundation.
THE AUTHOR
in Literacy,
Mancilla-Mart?nez
is an Assistant
Professor
Jeannette
Language,
at the Universityof
at
Culture
Illinois
Her primary
research
interest
Chicago.
of at-risk populations,
students
and
language
literacy development
including
and
students.
learners,
minority
struggle with reading,
language
immigrant
and
is the
who
REFERENCES
R. C,
Anderson,
&
P.
T. Guthrie
(1981).
Inj.
Vocabulary
knowledge.
DE:
reviews
Research
Newark,
77-117).
teaching:
(pp.
Association.
Freebody,
and
(Ed.),
Comprehension
International
Reading
R. C,
8c Nagy, W. E.
Anderson,
8c P. D. Pearson
Mosenthal
256).
White
Plains,
NY:
Word
(1991).
(Eds.),
Handbook
meanings.
of reading
In R. Barr, M. L. Kamii,
P.
research
(Vol. II pp. 231
Longman.
P. D.
(1984).
A schema-theoretic
in
view of basic processes
In P. D. Pearson,
R. Barr, M. L. Kamii,
& P. Mosen
thai
comprehension.
New York, NY: Longman.
(Eds.), Handbook
of reading research (pp. 255-291).
T.
D., &
Shanahan,
(Eds.)
(2006).
Developing
literacy in second-language
August,
on
learners: Report of theNational
Children and Youth.
Literacy Panel
Language-Minority
Anderson,
R. C,
8c Pearson,
reading
Erlbaum.
NJ: Lawrence
to
M. G., & Kucan,
L.
words
McKeown,
(2002).
B?nging
life: Robust
instruction. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
vocabulary
A. B., & Prater, D. L. (1994).
the effects of gender
and second
Bermudez,
Examining
on
discourse.
writers'
Research
Bilingual
persuasive
language
proficiency
Hispanic
Mahwah,
I. L.,
Beck,
18, 47-62.
fournal,
A.
Biemiller,
(2003). Vocabulary:
Needed
ifmore
children
are
to read well.
Psychology,24, 323-335. doi: 10.1080/02702710390227297.
Biemiller,
A.,
normative
8c Slonim,
and
N.
advantaged
vocabulary
acquisition,
10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.498.
.A., 8c Tilson,
Bravo,
J.
Reading
root word
in
vocabulary
growth
Estimating
for a common
of
Evidence
sequence
populations:
doi:
93, 498-520.
fournal
of Educational
Psychology,
(2001).
Assessment
(2006 April),
and science understanding.
reading comprehension
Association
Education
Research
Annual
magazines:
Gauging
Talk presented
Meeting,
San
students'
at
Francisco,
WORD MEANINGS MATTER 691

depth of
the American
CA.
Calder?n,
A.
.,& Cheung,
D., Slavin, R., Duran,
D., Madden,
(2005).
August,
to life in classrooms
In E. H.
with English-language
learners.
words
8cM. L. Kamil
and learning vocabulary: Bnnging
research to
(Eds.),
Teaching
Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Mahwah,
NJ:
(pp. 115-136).
M.,
Bringing
Hiebert
practice
Carlo,
M.,
B.,
D., McLaughlin,
August,
Snow,
C,
C,
Dressler,
Lipman,
D., White,
C.
Quarterly,
39,
(2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English Language
in
Learners
doi:
88-215.
and mainstream
bilingual
10.1598/RRQ.39.2.3.
Statistical power
Cohen,
J. (1988).
Erlbaum.
NJ: Lawrence
A new
A.
Coxhead,
(2000).
classrooms.
the behavioral
analysis for
academic
word
Research
Reading
list. TESOL
10.2307/3587951.
sciences
(2nd
ed.).
213-238.
34,
Quarterly,
Hillsdale,
doi:
measurement:
and major
Vocabulary
Techniques
findings.
895-901.
42,
Elementary English,
.M.
L. H., Carlisle,
children's
in
Davis,
(1999). Hispanic
J. F., 8c Beeman,
writing
In T. Shanahan
and
when
is
the
of
instruction.
Spanish
English
English
language
8c F. Rodriquez-Brown
(Eds.), National
reading conference yearbook (pp. 238-249).
IL: National
Conference.
Reading
Chicago,
E.
Dale,
(1965).
L.
8c Verhoeven,
M.,
Droop,
and
second-language
(1998).
reading
Background
comprehension.
253-271. doi: 10.1080/10862969809547998.
L. T.
M., & Verhoeven,
(2003).
Droop,
first- and
learners.
second-language
10.1598/RRQ.38.1.4.
Duin, A. H., & Graves,
M.
F.
Reading
linguistic
of Literacy
Journal
and
proficiency
Research Quarterly,
complexity,
30,
Research,
ability in
reading
doi:
38, 78-103.
as a
Intensive
instruction
prewriting
vocabulary
doi:
10.2307/747971.
Quarterly, 22, 311-330.
Effects of early and delayed
second
(1981).
language
(1987).
Research
Reading
R. L.
8c Politzer,
technique.
Ferris, M. R.,
Language
knowledge,
acquisition: English composition skills of Spanish-speaking junior high school

TESOL
students.
Garcia,
E.
G.
(1991).
Spanish-speaking
10.2307/747894.
Goulden,
doi:
10.2307/3586752.
test performance
the
influencing
English
reading
children.
Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371-392.
15, 263-274.
Quarterly,
Factors
R., Nation,
Hispanic
P.,
8c Read,
J.
(1990).
How
large
can
receptive
Applied Linguistics, 11, 341-363. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.4.341.
Graham,
S., 8c Perin, D.
(2007).
adolescents
in middle and high
DC: Alliance
Washington,
S. M.
Graves, M. F., & Watts,
based
program.
vocabulary
to say about
has
reading
International
Reading
Hart, B., 8cRisley, T.

American
Writing
schools?A
for Excellent
vocabulary
of
doi:
be?
next:
Effective strategies to improve uniting of

report to Carnegie
ofNew York.
Corporation
Education.
The
of word
in a research
consciousness
(2002)
place
In S. J. Samuels,
8cA. E. Farstrup
(Eds.), What research
instruction
DE:
ed.,
Newark,
(3rd
140-165).
pp.
Association.
(1995). Meaningful differencesin theeverydayexperienceofyoung

MD:
children. Baltimore,
R. L., Leyendecker,
Latino
among
Parenting
Paul
H.
Brookes.
B., Carlson
M., 8c Miller, A. M.
(2002).
V.J., Asencio,
in the U.S.
In M. Bornstein
families
(Ed.), The handbook
Harwood,
Erlbaum.
4, pp. 21-46).
Mahwah,
(2nd ed., Vol.
of parenting
NJ: Lawrence
D. R., & Martin,
T.
and
Hiller,
(1969).
vagueness,
J. H., Marcotte,
Opinionation,
traits measured
American Educational
specificity-distinctions:
by computer.
Essay
Research Journal,
6, 271-286.
Hoover,
W.
A,
&
Gough,
P.
B.
(1990).
The
simple
view
of
reading.
Reading
and
Writing:An Interdisciplinary
Journal 2, 127-160. doi: 10.1007/BF00401799.
692
TESOL QUARTERLY

. E., Smith,
L.
The
C. D.,
8c Connors,
(2003).
skills in children
of
learning
developmental
progression
comprehension-related
in Reading,
doi:
EAL. Journal
10.1111/1467-9817.261003.
26, 19-32.
of Research
between
first- and second-language
The
relation
Lanauze,
M., 8c Snow, C. E. (1989).
in
Rican
school
children
Puerto
from
skills:
Evidence
elementary
writing
doi:
and Education,
10.1016/S0898
1, 323-339.
programs.
Linguistics
bilingual
J. M.,
Hutchinson,
Whiteley,
5898(89)80005-1.
.
Laufer,
The
(1998).
of passive
development
and
active
in
vocabulary
language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19, 255-271. doi:
applin/19.2.255.
., 8c Nation,
Laufer,
P.
written production.
(1995).
Vocabulary
size
and
use:
Lexical
Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-322.
16.3.307.
doi:
second
10.1093/
in L2
richness
10.1093/applin/
use in
and the effects of explicit
ESL
S. H.
learners'
(2003).
vocabulary
writing
doi:
instruction.
10.1016/j.system.2003.02.004.
System, 31, 537-561.
vocabulary
to
ESL
From
S. H.,
8c Muncie,
Lee,
Improving
J. (2006).
receptive
productive:
use of
in a
task. TESOL
learners'
composition
Quarterly,
vocabulary
postreading
Lee,
40, 295-320. doi: 10.2307/40264524.

J. G.
across
I., 8c Carson,
needs
Leki,
writing
3587199.
Lesaux,
D.
Students'
(1994).
the disciplines.
instruction
of EAP writing
perceptions
TESOL
Quarterly, 28, 81-101.
doi:
and
10.2307/
T.
of literacy. In
(2006).
Development
in
learners:
(Eds.),
literacy
second-language
Developing
on
Children
and Youth
Language-Mino?ty
Literacy Panel
8c Shanahan,
N., Koda,
K., Siegel, L.,
8c T. Shanahan
August
of the National
Mahwah,
75-122).
(pp.
M. Y., 8cWixson,
Lipson,
Report
Erlbaum.
NJ: Lawrence
.K.
and
Assessment
(2003).
instruction
and
of reading
uniting
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

difficulty.
MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES Project: Took for analyzing talk (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence
Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence
B., 8c Snow,
MacWhinney,
Journal
of
Child
B.,
MacWhinney,
Erlbaum.
(2000). The CHILDES Project: Toob for analyzing talk (3rd ed.).
MacWhinney, B.
Erlbaum
C.
Language,
8c Snow, C.
An update. Journal
S0305000900013866.
Associates.
E.
The
child
data exchange
(1985).
language
doi:
10.1017/S0305000900006449.
12, 271-296.
The
child
data exchange
E. (1990).
language
of Child Language,
doi:
17, 457-472.
system.
system:
10.1017/
In G.
K.
The
of
lexical
dimensions
Brown,
(1996).
competence.
in second language
8c J. Williams
and
(Eds.),
competence
Performance
Press.
University
Cambridge,
England:
Cambridge
(pp. 35-53).
acquisition
of writing
P.
How
instruction
B., 8c Taylor,
Moats,
L., Foorman,
(2006).
quality
Meara,
P.
Malmkjaer,
high-risk
impacts
fourth
graders'
writing.
Reading
and Writing:
An
Interdis?plinary
Journal, 19, 363-391. doi: 10.1007/sl 1145-005-4944-6.

the role of the context
(1997). On
. 8c
In Schmitt,
M.,
McCarthy,
Nagy, W.
learning.
in first- and
(Eds.),
second-language
Vocabulary:
vocabulary
description,
acquisition
and pedagogy (pp. 64-73). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Nagy, W.
E.,
8c Herman,
P. A.
for acquisition
Implications
and depth
of vocabulary
Breadth
(1987).
8c
In M. G. McKeown
and
instruction.
knowledge:
. E. Curtis
(Eds.), The nature of vocabularyacquisition (pp. 19-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
E.,
Nagy, W.
Mosenthal,
pp.
&
269-284).
In M.
(2000).
processes.
Vocabulary
J. A.
& R. Barr
Pearson,
(Eds.), Handbook
of reading
Erlbaum.
Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence
Scott,
D.
P.
Kamil,
research
(Vol.
L.
WORD MEANINGS MATTER 693

B.
3,
I. S. P.
Nation,
Publishers.
Nation,
I. S. P.
Cambridge
Nelson,
(1990).
J. R.,
knowledge
and
Teaching
(2001).
Learning
Press.
University
&
and
in another
(2007).
meaning
P. D., Hiebert,
E. H.,
Pearson,
we know and what we need
8c Kamil,
to learn.
M.
language.
the
Fostering
reading
comprehension
instruction.
Education
vocabulary
MA:
Boston,
vocabulary.
vocabulary
S. A.
Stage,
learning
Heinle
8c Heinle
Cambridge,
of
development
England:
vocabulary
through
contextually-based
and Intervention
of Children,
L.
Reading
multiple
30, 1-22.
assessment:
What
(2007). Vocabulary
Research Quarterly,
doi:
42, 282-296.
10.1598/RRQ.42.2.4.
E.
Oral
Perez,
(1981).
skills of Mexican
competence
improves
language
reading
third graders.
Teacher, 35, 24-27.
Reading
8c Snow, C.
C. P., Carlo, M., August,
Native
D.,
Proctor,
(2005).
Spanish-speaking
a model
in English:
of
children
Toward
reading
Journal
comprehension.
Educational
doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.246.
Psychology, 97, 246-256.
8c Snow, C. E.
The
C. P., August,
role
D., Carlo, M.,
Proctor,
(2006).
intriguing
American
of
of
Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading compre

of Educational
hension.
Journal
0663.98.1.159.
Raimes,
A.
unskilled
What
(1985).
ESL
159-169.
98,
Psychology,
students
do
as
doi:
they write:
10.1037/0022
classroom
study
of composing. TESOL Quarterly,19, 229-258. doi: 10.2307/3586828.
Ramirez,
S. Z.
effects of suggestopedia
in teaching
English
third graders.
School fournal,
Ekmentary
The
(1986).
vocabulary
86, 325-333.
Chicano
Spanish-dominant
doi: 10.1086/461453.
to
linear models: Applications

and
S. W.,
8c Bryk, A
S. (2002). Hierarchical
Raudenbush,
data analysis methods
CA: Sage Publications.
Oaks,
(2nd ed.). Thousand
S. (2007).
The
between
and
Saddler,
B., 8c Graham,
relationship
writing knowledge
more
and
less skilled writers.
&
among
Reading
Writing
writing
performance
Quarterly,23, 231-247. doi: 10.1080/10573560701277575.

Singer, J. D., 8cWillett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinaldata analysis:Modeling change
and
event occurrence. New
Press.
York, NY: Oxford
University
on achievement
N. A. (2000).
Research
to critics. Phi Delta
and response
Kappan,
Slavin, R. E., 8cMadden,

for All: A summary
Snow, C. E., Burns, M.
outcomes
of Success
82, 38-40,
59-66.
S., 8c Griffin, P. (Eds.)

(1998).
Preventing
reading difficulties in
children.
DC:
Press.
National
young
Washington,
Academy
M. M.
S. A., 8c Fairbanks,
instruction:
A
The
effects of vocabulary
Stahl,
(1986).
model-based
Review
Research, 56, 72-110.
ofEducational
meta-analysis.
Stahl, S. A.,
Erlbaum.
8c Nagy,
University
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
E.
(2006).
Teaching
M. M., & Paez, M. M.

of California
Press.
Suarez-Orozco,
Torgesen,
W.
(2002).
R. K., 8c Rashotte,
J. K., Wagner,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Austin,
(TOWRE).
Census
Bureau.
(2005).
U.S.
Census
word meanings.
Latinos:
C. A
Remaking
(1999).
Bureau,
Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence
America.
Berkeley,
Test of word reading
Population
Estimates
CA:
efficiency
Program,
April 1, 2000, and July 1, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/

population/www/ pop-profile/files/dynamic/RACEHO.pdf
of Education,
National
Center
for Education
Statistics.
Department
nation's
trial urban district assessment
report card: Writing 2002,
(Report
DC: Government
2003-530).
Washington,
Printing Office.
Department
of Education,
condition of education 2004
Government
Printing
Office.
National
Center
for Education
(Report No. NCES
Statistics.
The
(2003).
No. NCES
(2004).
2004-007). Washington,
The
DC:
694 TESOL QUARTERLY

U.S.
Department
The condition
Government
U.S.
of Education,
Center
for Education
National
2006
2007-064).
of education
(Report No. NCES
Printing Office.
(2007a).
DC:
Center for Education

Assessment
National
Statistics, National
(2007b). The nations report card: Reading 2007
(Report No. NCES
States Government
DC: United
Printing Office.
Progress.
2007-496).
Washington,
of Education,
Department
Reading StudyGroup.
U.S.
Washington,
of Education,
Department
of Education
U.S.
Statistics.
in reading
of Educational
Office
Research
RAND
Improvement,
(2002). Reading for understanding:Toward an R&D program
Santa Monica,
CA: RAND.
comprehension.
of Health
and Human
National
Institutes
of Health,
Services,
Department
of Child Health
Institute
and Human
National
(2000).
Teaching
Development.
to read: An
assessment
children
evidence-based
literature on
of the scientific research
reading and its implications

for reading instruction(NIH Publication No. 00-4769).
DC:
Printing Office.
and language
story grammar
Using
experience for improving
to
in the teaching
of ESL
comprehension
first-graders
Spanish-dominant
New York, NY.
doctoral
Hosfra
dissertation).
University,
(Unpublished
L. (1990). Acquisition
in a second
of reading
Verhoeven,
Reading Research
language.
Washington,
Government
F.
Vaughn-Shavuo,
recall and
(1990).
Quarterly,25, 90-114. doi: 10.2307/747596.

L.
Verhoeven,
T.
(2000).
spelling.
Scientific
S1532799XSSR0404_4.
Walters,
8c Wolf,
J.,
Metalinguistic
judgments
in
Components
Studies
early
of Reading,
second
4.
language
313-330.
awareness
(1996).
Language
of need
for revision.
Language
in
doi:
10.1207/
non-native
Awareness,
and
reading
writers:
doi:
5, 3-25.
10.1080/09658416.1996.9959888.
Wesche,
&
M.,
Williams,
Paribakht,
vs.
Depth
knowledge:
13-40.
.T.
(2002).
T.
S.
(1996).
The
breadth.
Assessing
Canadian
Assessment
Group Reading
Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
second
Modern
and Diagnostic
vocabulary
Review,
53,
language
Language
Evaluation
(GRADE).
Appendix A
100Word Generation
1
Week
1. Analyze
2. Factor
3. Function
4. Interpret
5. Structure
Week
Week
6. Context
7. Indicate
8. Variable
9. Create
10. Benefit
Week
21. Considerable
22. Contribute
26. Rely
27. React
23. Demonstrate
24. Sufficient
28. Alternative
25. Valid
29. Justify
30. Proportion
Target Vocabulary Words

4
Week
16. Design
17. Features
18. Impact
3
Week
11. Complexity
12. Culture
13. Element
14. Resourceful
19. Potential
20. Transfer
15. Tradition
6
Week
31. Access
32. Civil
33. Despite
34. Integrate
35. Promote
Week
36. Attribute
37. Cycle
38. Hypothesis
39. Project
40. Statistics

695
9
Week
41. Compounds
42. Conflict
43. Fundamental
44. Substitution
45. Alter
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
13
Week
61. Advocate
66. Phenomenon
71. Abandon
Contrary
Reverse
Release
67. Priority
68. Transmission
69. Intervention
Prohibited
70. Suspended
72.
73.
74.
75.
62.
63.
64.
65.
Week
Modified
Monitor
10
Adjustment
Transition
Exposure
14
Week
Week
17
Week
81. Decades
18
86. Bulk
87. Accommodate
88. Unethical
89. Route
90. Confine
82. Violation
83. Temporary
84. Unified
85. Incompatible
11
Week
51. Acknowledge
52. Incidence
53. Incorporate
54. Initiatives
55. Transport
Week
Week
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
15
Migration
Presumed
Reveal
Week
16
76. Accumulation
77. Contradict
78. Exhibit
Biased
Contemporary
Dramatic
79. Inevitable
80. Manipulate
Exploit
Week
91. Collapse
92. Conceive
93. Incline
12
Diversity
Enhance
19
Week
20
96. Convince
97 Enormous
98. Integrity
99. Persistent
100. Reluctant
94. Intrinsically
95. Nonetheless
Appendix
Word Generation Weekly Teacher
Area_Day
Grade_Subject
Please fill in this anonymous
1.What
activity did you do
2. Word
Generation
of Week_
forWEEK_of
questionnaire
inWG
Word
Form
Generation
(WG).
this week?
went well this week.
Yes_No_
Because of (check all that apply):
enthusiasm
_Student
of Materials
_Design
from teachers/coach/administrator
_Support
own
_My
preparation
_Other_
this week.
enough time forWG
Yes_No_
Because of (check all that apply):
3. I had
level
actions/interest
(or lack of support) from others
_Support
own
_My
preparation
of preexisting
curriculum
_Nature
ofWG materials
_Nature
_Students'
_Other_
4. I struggled with
696
the WG
materiah
this week.
TESOL QUARTERLY

Yes_No_A
little_
If you said Yes or A little, it's because of (check
resources
_School
etc.)
(e.g., photocopier,
content was hard to prepare
_WG
WG
did not fit with
Amount
the rest of my
all that apply)
lesson
of time required
of support
_Lack
_Other_
5. I talked with other

Yes_No_
If Yes, it's because
_Their
_To
_To
_To
teachers about WG
(check
this week.
all that apply):

to me
is of help
knowledge
vent frustration
information
exchange
coordinate
WG
lesson plans
_Other_
IfNo, it's because_
6. I talked with a literacy coach about WG.
Yes_No_
If Yes, it's because
_I
_To
(check all that apply):

on
needed
general advice
vocabulary
vent frustration about WG
instruction
lesson
get help with thisWG
_Other_
If you said vent frustration it's because
_To
7. I will make
Yes_No_
If Yes, explain
changes to how
I do WG
next week.
briefly:_
8. Any comments?

Appendix
Correlations Among All Measures at Pretest, Partialing Out

GRADE Vocabulary (N = 49)
Definitions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
of Headings
Nonsense Words
GRADE Vocabulary
GRADE
Listening
1-7
.34*
.22
Comprehension
TOWRE
Composite
GRADE
Comprehension
1.0
WG Multiple Choice
Self-check:
WG Vocabulary
Real Words
WG Vocabulary
Self-check:
.54*
1.0
-.08
.37**
.35*
-.35*
1.0
?
.09
.09
.49***
.03
.42**
-.34*
-.12
.22
-.02
.33*
4g***
22
.40** -.58***
1.0
-.17
06
.49***
1.0
.28~
6
.44**
.66***
.36*
.66***.51***
1.0
74**
50***
55***
.21
Composite
are uncontrolled,
above the diagonal
Note. Correlations
on control for GRADE
vocabulary.
display results
<
.001.
.01, ***/? <
.10, *jfr<
.05, **p <
Key: ~p
and
correlations
below
the diagonal
Appendix D
Word Generation Weekly Writing Rubric
Score
Ideas
0
Did not succeed
in articulating
ideas
coherent
1
a couExpressed
or
pie of ideas
claims, not an
argument
0
Lack of organiza
tional pattern;
more
like a non
related
list
0
is con
Writing
strained by lack
of vocabulary
698
2
(or
Expressed
an argu
attempted)
ment, but only some
or insufficient evi
argument,
Cohesion/Structure
Overall, writing is
organizaand com
tion; can deciorganized
municates
ideas
piler ideas, but
with relative ease
usually with
effort
Academic
Language
Uses mostly
bulary
a well
dence
Overall
Some
grade-level
Expressed
developed
elaborates
_/3
iswell organized
Writing
and effective in commu
_/3
nicating ideas (organiza

tion bolsters the
argument)
Uses
voca-
several aca
to
demie words
express
ideas
TOTAL SCORE
Word
choices
are varied
and purposeful
the piece
throughout
_/9
TESOL QUARTERLY

Appendix
Example
of a Word
Generation
Essay
Correction
text was always preserved,

Below you will find an example
of a corrected essay. Student
errors to the extent that
except for capitalization,
they could be identified
(e.g.,
spelling
"weare" for "wear"), and run-on sentences. Note
that incorrect spelling,
stemming from
incorrect word choices such as "their" for "there," were preserved.
WEEK 9 ESSAY: SCHOOL UNIFORMS
Original
Student Text
I believe Their chould Not be sticter dress codes because most of the student in school Now
that they have to weire their uniform and they do weare
them but some of the student belive
their chould be strick dress code and I think itsNot fair for kids to wear their uniform every
wear their uniform on special days and or
single day and I think its ok if the student don't
dose are the days that the kids don't like to wear their unifor so I belive their
fridays because
chould Not be strick dress code because
it's Not fair for the student to be wearing
the same
on
so that what I
thing every single day for school and spechily of friadays and
special days
believe that their chould Not be strict dress codes and I think the kids keep modtify of what they
wear or what they don't wear And I think is time to trastion of the uniform.
Corrected
Text
I believe their should not be stricter dress codes because most of the student in school now
that they have to wear their uniform. They do wear them but some of the student believe their
should be strict dress code. I think it's not fair for kids to wear their uniform every single day. I
think it's ok if the student don't wear their uniform on special days and/or Fridays because
those are the days that the kids don't like to wear their uniform. I believe their should not be
strict dress code because
it's not fair for the student to be wearing
the same thing every single
that their
day for school and especially on Fridays and on special days. That what I believe
should not be strict dress codes and I think the kids keep modify of what they wear or what they
don't wear and I think is time to transition of the uniform.

699

Word Meanings Matter Cultivating English Vocabulary Knowledge in Fifth-Grade Spanish-Speaking Language Minority Learners

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Word Meanings Matter Cultivating English Vocabulary Knowledge in Fifth-Grade Spanish-Speaking Language Minority Learners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

This content downloaded from 82.33.77.134 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:58:01 PM