|
|
| |
| Word Lab is Research Based |
| The single most accurate predictor of how well a reader understands text is
general vocabulary knowledge.
In the literature-based classroom, teachers find themselves in a dilemma.
Because of time constraints, teachers rely on increasing student vocabulary
through the incidental word-learning that results from shear volume of reading.
Research proves this is seriously inadequate.
Studies show that of 100 unfamiliar words encountered in reading (written context),
a reader learns from 3 to 15 of them.*
The gap in "word bank" sizes between students starts early and grows rapidly. Studies show it can grow to a disparity of 30,000 words by eighth grade when intentional, rigorous intervention is not applied. Additionally, these studies confirm there is a direct correlation between "word bank" size and success in school.
| |
Also insufficient is the common practice of locating the dictionary definition and using the word in context. Current research recognizes three general requirements for in-depth teaching of new words: variety of approach, relevancy, and repetition. Applying these requirements to its Workbook activities, Word Lab has included eleven of the most highly recommended word acquisition techniques. The techniques are structured so that the student is guided by mediated scaffolding that connects with student background knowledge and expands and refines that knowledge, creating new connections.
|
|
*Baumann, J.F., & Kameenui,E.J. (2005). Vocabulary Instruction - Research to Practice. New York: Guilford Press.
|
| List of researched recommendations |
The eleven best approaches for teaching word acquisition as recommended by researchers:
- Learning within a context (Word Lab Learning Stations 1,2,3)
- Active processing by accessing prior knowledge and by challenging thinking (Word Lab Learning Stations 1,2,3)
- Categorization activities (Word Lab Learning Stations 1,2,3)
- Visualizations* (Word Lab Learning Station 1, see below)
- Peer interaction* (Word Lab all stations - see below)
- Word choices and learning activities catered to student needs (Word Lab Pre-assessment and Learning Stations 1,2,3)
- Teaching/modeling of word awareness skills (Word Lab Learning Stations 1,2,3,4)
- Accessing a variety of word associations (Word Lab Learning Stations 1,2,3)
- Repeated opportunities to practice (Word Lab Learning Stations 1,2,3,4)
- Knowledge of derivatives (Word Lab Learning Station 4)
- Awareness of grammatical category or function of the words (Word Lab Learning Station 1)
|
| *Teachers may choose to enhance these two recommended areas of approach. Students may work in teams of two, discussing and putting in their ideas as a team, and highly visual students may profit from making drawings of their target word meanings to add to their Personal Dictionaries.
|
| Computer-Assisted Instruction |
Research recommends the use of computer-assisted instruction for the following reason:
- Graphic organizers (word maps, categorization charts) can be easily manipulated and visualized for more focused and organized learning (Word Lab Learning Stations 1,2,3).
- Personalized data in the form of student-made word maps and other word analyses can be neatly and easily saved, printed, and organized into personalized resources (Word Lab Learning Station 1).
- Computer drill and practice is motivating due to ease of access and immediate reinforcement (Word Lab Learning Stations 1,2,3,4 and assessments).
- Repetition, as needed, is easily provided (Word Lab Learning Stations 1,2,3,4 and assessments).
- The extra practice and immediate feedback have a strong positive effect on the amount of student effort, and students know they can always succeed (Word Lab Learning Stations 1,2,3,4 and assessments).
- Learning can easily be tailored to student needs and is self-directed (Word Lab and Word Lab Administrator).
|
| Word Choice |
| Words have been chosen from a variety of standard student literature and texts based on their level of frequency. A full list may vary from 30 words total to more than 150 words. Eight to ten words are pre-assessed at a time and then taught, based on the results of the pre-assessment.
|
| Student Choice |
| The average student does not need to complete every activity at each station. Two out of three activities will usually suffice. This gives the students some choice, which acts as a motivator and individualizes the learning process. Teachers may change this requirement at their discretion.
|
| Pre-assessment |
| As research indicates, student learning works best if it is individualized to that student's needs. In the pre-assessment, the student rates his/her knowledge of that set's target words and is then asked to prove her/himself in an assessment. The words that the student fails to comprehend become the words to practice in the remaining Learning Stations for that set.
|
| Learning Station 1 - Definition |
| Learning Station 1 establishes a base understanding of the words, beginning the mediated scaffolding process that is recommended as an effective teaching tool. It connects the student to the traditional dictionary definition, provides a context for use of the word, and then requires students to personally elaborate on their understanding so far. Using semantic mapping (Word Maps and T-Bar Charts) and categorization (Feature Grids) students become familiar with the words in a mode that brings relevancy to the words. The ideas they include in their semantic maps are saved and may be printed or accessed through the program, along with the definitions, for use as a reference during the rest of the set's Learning Stations. This process provides repeated relevant reasons for students to refer to the definitions and associations. These reference materials are referred to as their "Personal Dictionaries."
|
| Students must meet Station requirements before proceeding beyond. Station 1. The program provides an initial set of Station requirement guidelines, but these may be overridden by the teacher.
|
| Learning Station 2 - Associations |
| Learning Station 2 further refines the student's knowledge of his/her targeted words, as they climb the scaffolding ladder. The activities require the student to recognize correct use of the word in the context of sentences and/or associate the word with synonyms. An additional word categorization exercise is also provided. The student refers to her/his Personal Dictionary while working with each activity, reinforcing memory and understanding of the word meaning. Each activity produces a score to provide feedback on progress. The default mastery expectation is set at 80% accuracy for 2 out of 3 of the activities at each station. Teachers may change this using Word Lab Administrator. Word Lab directs students in the completion of all activities and the repetition of the lowest scoring one until the required mastery percentage is achieved. Thus students can always realize success.
|
| Learning Station 3 - Analysis |
| This station focuses on higher level thinking skills and includes the following activities: Belong, Analogies, Antonyms. Students continue to use their Personal Dictionaries as they work through each exercise. The program continues to provide feedback on progress and students must continue to meet Station mastery requirements before proceeding.
|
| Learning Station 4 - Affixes |
| This Station provides exposure to common affixes and roots, and practice with those used within the student's target words. Knowledge of derivatives is an additional valued tool according to research. Feedback and mastery requirements continue to guide forward progress.
|
| Post Assessment |
| This assessment may only be accessed after the student has successfully completed the Pre-assessment, the Learning Stations. No studying is necessary at this time, as the repetition and variety built into the program helps students fully internalize meanings. It asks the student to discriminate between varied definitions of the initial complete set of target words. The student score for this assessment is recommended for use in formal grading systems if such is needed. The average student will score between 85-100% on this test when the mastery expectation is set at 80% accuracy for 2 out of 3 of the activities at each station. A student who does not do well needs more repetition and should have the number of activities required increased and perhaps mastery levels changed as per the discretion of the teacher. This flexibility in the program allows teachers to adjust for different student learning styles.
|
| Writing Assignment |
| At the end of each set, students may use five or more of the words targeted from the set in a creative writing assignment. Teachers may review this work, make comments, grade, or require students to rework the assignment online. The student's home page is automatically updated to inform them that their teacher has requested them to rework a writing assignment. Student's may then view the teacher's comments and rework the assignment.
|
| Final Post Assessment |
| This final assessment asks students to choose the most appropriate use of the word in a sentence. Word knowledge is most often applied within context in daily life and this final assessment tests for this skill. The program randomly chooses 50 of the student's specific target words to test.
|
| Reports |
| At any time, the teacher may access information about the student's progress in Word Lab Administrator. Included is information on how many times a student had to repeat an activity to match required mastery levels, the date the student started a set of activities, which activity is current, how many target words the student has to learn per set, and the Assessment scores. Teacher intervention needs are clarified and made simpler through access to this information. Teachers also use the reports area to review student writing assignments (as explained above in the Writing Assignments section).
|
| Summary |
| Word Lab immerses the student in a wide variety of approaches for learning words using researched techniques. This immersion method augments the student's ability to use the learned words in a variety of situations. Additionally, students are challenged to develop their language skills as they work with the vocabulary. In the classroom, students derive great satisfaction from the mastery achieved and the feedback provided. Students are expected to "think outside of the box," Their success rate is high and the program fun and easy to use, making the experience positive for students and teachers alike. Students increase the size and wealth of their "word banks" thus improving there ability to succeed in school.
|
| References |
| Anderson, R. C., Nagy, W. E. (1993). The vocabulary conundrum. Technical report no. 570 . Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 489)
Armbruster, B. B., Nagy, W. E. (1992 March). Reading to learn: Vocabulary in content area lessons. The Reading Teacher, 45(7),550-551.
Avery, N. L. (1995, April). Utilizing right brained assists, vocabulary in content, and prior knowledge to improve vocabulary instruction in the third grade. Nova Southeastern University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 393 069)
Baker, S. K., Simmons, D. C., Kameenui, E. J., (1995). Vocabulary acquisition: Curricular and instructional implications for diverse learners. Technical report n. 13. Eugene, OR: National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386 860)
Baker, S. K., Simmons, D. C., Kameenui, E. J., (1995). Vocabulary acquisition: Curricular and instructional implications for diverse learners. Technical report n. 14. Eugene, OR: National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386 861)
Bazeli, M. J., and Olle, R. E. (1995). Using visuals to develop reading vocabulary. Chicago, IL: Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 391 519)
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C.A., McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506-521.
Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Lee, J. J. (1991, November). Vocabulary development in the whole literacy classroom. The Reading Teacher, 45(3), 188-195.
Butler, D. L., Winne, P. H. (1995, Fall). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 5(3), 245-278.
Carr, C. (1997). Reading instruction for struggling readers part 2: Strategies across the curriculum: How to give everyone an advantage. Unpublished Manuscript. Seattle Public Schools.
Cudd, E. T., Roberts, L. L. (1993 December/1994 January). Teaching reading: A scaffolding technique to develop sentence sense and vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 47(4), 346-349.
French, M. P., Danielson, K.E., Conn, M., Gale, W., Lueck, C., Manley, M. (1990, April). In the classroom: vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 612-614.
Gill, N. (1985). Vocabulary boosters. Belmont, CA: Fearon Teacher Aids.
HuffBenkoski, K. A., Greenwood, S. C. (1995, February). The use of word analogy instruction with developing readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(5), 446-452.
Igelsrud, K.. (1991, August). Enhancing long-term retention of new vocabulary using visual images. Nova University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 336 741)
Irvin, J. L. (1990). Vocabulary knowledge: Guidelines for instruction. What research says to the teacher. Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319 001)
Kitao, K. S., Kitao, Kenji. (1996). Testing vocabulary. Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japah. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 398 254)
Klemp. (1994, November). Word Storm: Connecting vocabulary to the student's database. The Reading Teacher, 48(3), 282-283.
Konopak, B. C. (1988, March). Using the keyword method to help young readers learn content material. The Reading Teacher, 682-687.
Miller, G. A., Gildea, P. M. (1987, September). How children learn words. Scientific American, 257, 94-97.
Nagy, W. E. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298 471)
Nagy, W. E. (1988, August). Vocabulary instruction and reading comprehension. Technical report no. 431. Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 300 781)
Nagy, W. E. (1995, November). On the role of context in first - and second - language vocabulary learning. Technical report no.627. Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 391 152)
Nelson-Herber, J. (1986, April). Expanding and refining vocabulary in content areas. Journal of Reading, 626-633.
Project MAPP. (1989). The vocabulary booklet #1. Implementing the instructional program: A competency-based adult education learning system. Baltimore, MD: State Dept. of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 344 097)
Robinson, J. (1989). The roots of language. Belmont, CA: Fearon Teacher Aids.
Smith, C. B. (1988 December). Building a better vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 238.
Smith, C. B. (1990, March). Vocabulary development in content area reading. The Reading Teacher, 508-509.
Spiegel, D. L. (1991, March). Materials to promote vocabulary development. The Reading Teacher, 44(7), 504-507.
Sterl, A. A. (1996, September). Controversial issues relating to word perception. The Reading Teacher, 50(1), 10-14.
Stevenson, S. L. (1991, May). Vocabulary development. Kean College, NJ. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 951)
Summers, S. (1991, December). Improving fourth grade students' word meaning vocabularies in the content areas through an eclectic approach. Nova University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 079)
Vianna, J. M. (1994, March). Vocabulary teaching: A way to improve learners' fluency. Baltimore, MD. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 371 606)
Washburn, J. W. (1992, May). Teaching difficult vocabulary in reading. Biola University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 347 836)
Wesche, M., Paribakht, T. S. (1994). Acquisition through reading: A hierarchy of text-related exercise types. Ontario, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369 291)
Williams, T. R. (1993, November). What's so different about visuals?. Technical Communication, 40 (4), 669-677.
Wills, L. (1990, June). A program to develop vocabulary success through multimedia techniques. Nova University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323 532)
|
|
|
You are here::Home::Research