Vocabulary for the Common Core. Robert J. Marzano
Читать онлайн книгу.
so does the other. For correlations, the closer the decimal number is to 1.00, the stronger the relationship. Although effect sizes are also expressed using a decimal number, they are commonly interpreted in terms of how many standard deviations a student can be expected to improve as the result of a strategy’s use. So, an effect size of .40 might be interpreted to mean that a student’s performance would be expected to improve four-tenths of a standard deviation when a specific strategy is used.
Effect sizes are often translated into expected percentile gains. For example, Steven Stahl and Marilyn Fairbanks’s (1986) meta-analysis found that if a teacher used direct vocabulary instruction, a student at the 50th percentile would be expected to improve to the 83rd percentile. In comparison, a student who didn’t receive direct vocabulary instruction would be expected to remain at the 50th percentile. Table 1.3 shows effect sizes from various meta-analyses on direct vocabulary instruction with their corresponding percentile gains, including the Stahl and Fairbanks example.
Table 1.3: Meta-Analyses on the Effects of Direct Vocabulary Instruction
a As reported in Marulis & Neuman, 2010.
b As reported in Hattie, 2009.
Stahl (1999) pointed out that direct vocabulary instruction can have a significant impact on students whose vocabularies are small or whose vocabulary growth is slower than their peers’.
If one can teach 300 words per year, this will be a larger percentage of words for a child who might ordinarily learn 1000 words a year … than it would be for a child who would ordinarily learn 3000 or 5000 words. (p. 13)
Over the past three decades, Isabel Beck, Margaret McKeown, and their colleagues (Beck & McKeown, 1991, 2001, 2007; Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002, 2008; Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982; McKeown, Beck, & Apthorp, 2010; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Perfetti, 1983; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, 1985) have researched direct vocabulary instruction and concluded that the characteristics of effective direct vocabulary instruction are “frequent exposures to the words, encounters in multiple contexts, and deep or active processing of the words” (McKeown et al., 2010, p. 1). To summarize, the research on the effectiveness of direct vocabulary instruction is strong. Direct instruction about a targeted set of vocabulary terms helps students learn new words and gain the vocabulary knowledge they need for success in school.
As shown in this chapter, vocabulary development and knowledge are crucial for students’ success. Vocabulary is a fundamental aspect of reading and literacy, and it also allows students to think about information and experiences in broader and deeper ways. However, students from lower-SES families often enter school with smaller vocabularies than their higher-SES counterparts. This disadvantage can affect their literacy abilities, their interest in reading, and their development of important mental processes. The good news is that direct vocabulary instruction can increase students’ vocabularies and help them gain the vocabulary knowledge they need for success in school. Research provides support for the effectiveness of direct vocabulary instruction and guidance about the characteristics of that instruction. In the next chapter, we present a six-step process based on those characteristics that teachers can use to develop their students’ knowledge and familiarity with terms from the CCSS.
2
A Six-Step Process for Vocabulary Instruction
Vocabulary knowledge develops gradually over time. Therefore, vocabulary instruction should be thought of as a process—not a singular event. The following depiction is a useful way of thinking about vocabulary development.
The first few times we encounter an unknown word, we create a container for that word in our brains. As we encounter the word more and more, we gradually fill up that container with bits of knowledge about the word: what it means, how to pronounce it, how to spell it, how it is used in sentences, what other words are normally used with it, its role in sentences, how often it is used, and how it is related to other words (Nation, 1990), among other things. Words whose containers are mostly full are generally the ones we use in our speech and writing. Words whose containers are half full or less are those we understand but don’t use. Mostly empty containers contain words we profess not to know but are still able to answer questions about or distinguish between their correct and incorrect usage. Francis Durso and Wendelyn Shore (1991) and Mary Curtis (1987) found that even when people reported that a word was unknown, they were able to identify sentences in which it was used correctly, correctly identify its synonyms, and correctly answer questions about it.
The metaphor of words as containers is useful because it highlights the fact that direct vocabulary instruction does not necessarily have to produce in-depth understanding of vocabulary terms to be useful. Marzano (2004) stated that “the goal of direct vocabulary instruction is to provide students with a surface-level, not an in-depth, understanding of vocabulary terms” (p. 120). Similarly, Nagy and Herman (1987) wrote:
Although a strong case can be made for rich, knowledge-based vocabulary instruction, one should not underestimate the possible benefits of less intensive instruction…. One should not underestimate the value of any meaningful encounter with a word, even if the information gained from the one encounter is relatively small. (pp. 31–32)
Useful guidelines for vocabulary instruction are implicit in these findings. If time is available to provide an in-depth understanding of vocabulary words to students, teachers should by all means encourage as much learning as possible. However, if only a limited amount of time is available, teachers should not neglect direct vocabulary instruction because they are only able to provide a surface-level understanding of the terms. Even brief instructional activities aimed at providing an initial surface-level understanding might help students form a “cup” or container for a word that allows them to connect future learning to that word.
Chapter 1 described elements of effective vocabulary instruction from research and theory. In this chapter, we describe a six-step process for vocabulary instruction based on that research and theory. This process has its own unique body of research supporting its effectiveness (Dunn, Bonner, & Huske, 2007; Gifford & Gore, 2008; Haystead & Marzano, 2009; Marzano, 2005, 2006). The first study supporting the utility of the six-step process (called “Building Academic Vocabulary” or BAV) was completed in 2005 (Marzano, 2005). During the 2004–2005 school year, 11 schools, 118 teachers, and 2,683 students participated in an evaluation study of the BAV process for vocabulary instruction. The study found that “students who participated in the BAV program exhibited greater ability to read and understand grade-appropriate materials in mathematics, science, and general literacy than their counterparts who did not participate in the program” (Marzano, 2006, p. 1). Furthermore, the study found that the BAV program was particularly effective for students who were English learners or who qualified for free and reduced lunch (indicating low socioeconomic status). Given Hart and Risley’s (1995, 2003) previously reviewed conclusion that students from low SES families typically have smaller vocabularies than other students, these findings are particularly compelling.
Additionally, Haystead and Marzano (2009) synthesized the results of a number of studies conducted by classroom teachers on the effectiveness of the six-step process for vocabulary instruction. They found that the process was associated with an effect size of 0.51, which is associated with a gain of 20 percentile points. In other words, a student at the 50th percentile whose teacher used the six-step process for vocabulary instruction would be expected to improve to the 70th percentile, compared to a student whose teacher did not use the process. These findings indicate that the process can be effective in increasing vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension for a variety of students in a variety of school situations.
The six steps of the vocabulary instruction process are as follows:
1. Provide a description, explanation, or example of the new term.
2. Ask students to restate the description,