Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition

Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners'
Vocabulary Acquisition
Debra L. Otterby
Seattle Pacific University

UMI Number: 3353761
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3353761
Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctoral
Degree at Seattle Pacific University, I agree that the library shall make its copies freely
available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this dissertation is
allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with "fair use" as prescribed in the
United States Copyright Law. Requests for copying and reproduction of this dissertation
may be referred to University Microfilms, 1490 Eisenhower Place, PO Box 975, Ann
Arbor, MI 48106, to whom the author has granted "the right to reproduce and sell
(a) copies of the manuscript in microfilm, and/or (b) printed copies of the manuscript
from microfilm."
Signature
D^ 07laA/rJi/ zoo*?

Acknowledgements
To the staff and English language learners in the district where this study was conducted,
thank you for the opportunity to work with you.
To my professors at Seattle Pacific University,
thank you for providing me with rigorous and challenging curricula.
To my dissertation committee, including Dr. Scott F. Beers, Dr. William E. Nagy,
and Dr. Christopher A. Sink,
thank you for your willingness to be my committee members and
for your insight and encouragement.
To Dr. William E. Nagy, my dissertation chair,
thank you for sharing your expertise in vocabulary learning,
for your thoughtful feedback, and for your positive attitude.
To Becky, Diane, Eileen, Glenice, Jody, Kathy, Kirsten, Molly, Noyuri, Sharon,
Valerie, and Vivian,
thank you for your wisdom and for your laughter and thoughtfulness.
To Diane, Kurt, and Mark, my siblings,
thank you for your constant support and for your kindness.
To June, my mother-in-law,
thank you for your cheerfulness and for your optimism.
To Garry, my dear husband,
thank you for the freedom to pursue a lifelong goal and
for your unconditional love.

in loving memory of my father,
The Reverend Leslie H. Otterby
and
in appreciation to these children who have given me
a perspective of learning through their eyes,
Adriana
Erica
Hailey
Jacob
Katie
Kirsten
Luis
Marco
Maxwell
Mayra
Ryan
Sonja
Susana

Table of Contents
Page
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
List of Appendixes viii
Chapter 1: Introduction 4
Vocabulary Learning 4
Mandatory Testing for English Language Learners 8
Purpose of the Study 10
Significance of the Study 10
Research Questions and Hypotheses 12
Research Question 1 12
Hypothesis 1 12
Hypothesis 2 12
Hypothesis 3 12
Hypothesis 4 13
Variables 13
Participants 13
Review of Chapters 13
Chapter 1 13
I

Chapter 2 14
Chapter 3 14
Chapter 4 14
Chapter 5 14
Terminology 15
LI 15
L2 15
Criteria for English Language Services 15
Conclusion 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review 18
Introduction 18
Section 1: Theoretical Foundation 19
Vocabulary Learning Within Reading Development Theory 19
Second-Language Vocabulary Theory 20
Theories Regarding Orthographic Cues 22
Section 2: Review of Research 25
Reading Development 26
Read Alouds 27
Word Explanations 31
Read Alouds Coupled With Word Explanations 35
Orthographic Cues 37
Conclusion 42
ii

Chapter 3: Method 43
Introduction 43
Research Design 43
Sampling Procedure 44
Participants 45
Materials 46
Selection of Target Words 47
Measures 49
Vocabulary Pretest 49
Vocabulary Posttest 52
Test Reliability 56
Procedures 57
Conclusion 59
Chapter 4: Results 60
Introduction 60
Research Questions and Hypotheses 60
Hypothesis 1 61
Hypothesis 2 61
Hypothesis 3 61
iii

Hypothesis 4 61
A Priori Decisions 61
Variables 62
Within-Subjects Factor 62
Dependent Variable 62
Descriptive Statistics of Participants 62
Data Snooping 64
Descriptive Statistics for the Vocabulary Pretest and Posttest 65
Statistical Analyses 66
Assumptions 66
Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance 61
Planned Pairwise Comparisons 68
Holm's Sequential Bonferroni Procedure 69
Effect Sizes Using Pooled Cohen's d 70
Conclusion 71
Chapter 5: Discussion 73
Introduction 73
Purpose of Research 73
Theoretical Implications 74
Other Theories to Conceptualize Vocabulary Learning 75
Pedagogical Implications 78
Vocabulary Learning 78
Mandatory Testing 80
iv

Limitations of the Research 82
Threats to Internal Validity 82
Threats to External Validity 84
Recommendations for Future Research 84
Conclusion 87
References 88
Appendixes 97
Appendix A: Letters of Consent—English, Tagalog, and Spanish 97
Appendix B: Vocabulary Pretest 106
Appendix C: The Reader Self-Perception Scale—International
Reading Association Permission Ill
Appendix D: The Reader Self-Perception Scale—English, Tagalog, and
Spanish 112
Appendix E: Reading Passages 121
"Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose" 121
"The Flame of a Candle" 124
"To Reach the Promised Land" 128
"WasteNot, WantNot" 133
Appendix F: Vocabulary Posttests 138
v

List of Tables
Table 1. Percentages of Students Meeting the Reading Standard on the
2006-2007 Statewide Criterion-Referenced Assessment of Learning 9
Table 2. Assignment of Participants in a Repeated-Measures Method 44
Table 3. Posttest Target Words Matched for Difficulty Using Pretest Scores 56
Table 4. Distribution of Participants by Grade, Deleted Cases, and Gender 63
Table 5. Home Languages of Participants 64
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for the Pretest and Posttest 65
Table 7. Planned Pairwise Comparisons for the Factor Condition Using
Posttest Scores 69
VI

List of Figures
Figure 1. Pretest and Posttest Means for three levels of the factor Condition 67
vii

List of Appendixes
Appendix A: Letters of Consent—English, Tagalog, and Spanish 97
Appendix B: Vocabulary Pretest 106
Appendix C: The Reader Self-Perception Scale—International
Reading Association Permission Ill
Appendix D: The Reader Self-Perception Scale—English, Tagalog
and Spanish 112
Appendix E: Reading Passages 121
"Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose" 121
"The Flame of a Candle" 124
"To Reach the Promised Land" 128
"Waste Not, Want Not" 133
Appendix F: Vocabulary Posttests 138
viii

2
Seattle Pacific University
Abstract
Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners'
Vocabulary Acquisition
By Debra L. Otterby
Chairperson of the Dissertation Committee: Dr. William E. Nagy
School of Education
Vocabulary learning has long been considered one of the essential components of literacy
instruction (International Reading Association, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000).
Recently, members of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and
Youth have maintained the need to research how English language learners develop their
literacy skills (August & Shanahan, 2006). This is critical because of the ever-increasing
linguistic heterogeneity in classrooms. The purpose of this study was to investigate
instructional strategies that may increase vocabulary learning for English language
learners in their middle school years. It was of interest to determine which intervention
best facilitated vocabulary learning: (a) read alouds with explanations of target words
and an orthographic cue; (b) read alouds with explanations of target words; or (c) read
alouds with neither explanations of target words nor an orthographic cue. In a public
school district in Northwestern United States, 50 of the potential 52 English language
learners in grades 5 through 9 enrolled in the state's Transitional Bilingual Instruction
Program participated in the study. A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted using
vocabulary posttest scores to analyze differences among 3 levels of the factor Condition:
(a) Read/Explain/Spell; (b) Read/Explain; and (c) Read. Significant difference was found,

3
Wilks's lambda, A = .24, F(2,48) = 75.35,p = .00, multivariate n2
= .76. Three planned
pairwise comparisons with a Holm's sequential Bonferroni procedure were conducted, all
of which were significant, and effect sizes were calculated using pooled Cohen's d:
(a) Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain, t(49) = 8.529, p = .000, d= 1.267;
(b) Read/Explain and Read, t(49) = 3.512,p = .001, d= .543; and (c) Read/Explain/Spell
and Read, /(49) = 12.018,/? = .000, d= 2.039. These results showed reading aloud
coupled with in-flight word explanations and an orthographic cue significantly increased
vocabulary learning for English language learners. Implications for instructional
practices for second-language learners during their middle school years are included.

4
Chapter 1
Introduction
Vocabulary Learning
Vocabulary has long been considered one of the essential components of literacy
instruction (International Reading Association, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000).
After students have mastered the alphabetic principle, phonological awareness, and
fluency—the building blocks of learning to read—they have transitioned to reading to
learn by continuing their fluency development, increasing their vocabulary knowledge,
and comprehending written text more fully (Chall, 1987).
Over a decade ago, Congress charged members of the National Reading Panel
(2000) with the task of assessing research-based evidence and recommending effective
approaches regarding comprehension. They formulated seven overarching questions, two
of which focused on vocabulary and oral reading instruction:
1. Does vocabulary instruction improve reading? If so, how is this instruction
best provided?
2. Does guided oral reading instruction improve fluency and reading
comprehension? If so, how is this instruction best provided? (p. 3)
These questions led to the idea that investigating instructional practices regarding
vocabulary was of merit, especially if they included oral reading. Because of the
ever-increasing linguistic heterogeneity in classrooms, it was of further interest to
examine these strategies with second-language learners. The National Reading Panel's
(2000) members recognized their recommendations applied to first-language learning,

and there was a need to examine second-language learning; however, they did not include
this aspect because, at that time, there was another research initiative focused on
second-language learning. Recently, authors of the Report of the National Literacy Panel
on Language-Minority Children and Youth suggested there was a need to research how
second-language learners develop their literacy skills (August & Shanahan, 2006).
Recommendations from members of these national panels have demonstrated the
continued need to investigate instructional practices educators can use to assist English
language learners (ELLs), many of whom are placed in English-only classrooms despite
arguments to the contrary. The International Reading Association's (2001) position has
been that second-language learners should, if they desire, have the opportunity to learn in
a multi-lingual environment; however, in the state where this study was conducted nearly
60% of English language learners have begun their educational endeavors in English-
only classrooms (Kindler, 2002).
Because of this, ELLs in their middle or junior high school years not only have to
negotiate communicating their basic needs, but also have to study rigorous curricula in a
new language. This two-fold challenge has been known as Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Skills (CALPS)
(Cummins, 1994). Simply, both of these challenges are unavoidable in English language
learners' everyday and academic life.
For example, in school ELLs have to learn basic communicative sentences, such
as "When do I have to finish this assignment?" or "How do I find a book in the library?"
They also have to grasp cognitively challenging academic vocabulary in subject-specific
courses so they can read fluently and comprehend written text. In social studies, they

6
have to understand vocabulary such as democracy, diversity, and colonial. In science,
they have to grasp concepts such as hypothesis, ecosystem, and velocity. In mathematics,
they encounter vocabulary such as equation and variable during teachers' instructions
and in students' textbooks.
To become proficient in a second language, English language learners need time.
Those who already have 2 to 3 years of first-language schooling in their home country,
require 5 to 7 years to become proficient in a second language, and if there has been no
first-language schooling, then 7 to 10 years are needed (Cummins, 1994). The process
becomes more daunting because second-language learners must become proficient while
their first-language classmates continue to learn. Because ELLs face this challenging and
often demanding task when they are in the initial stages of learning a new language, it is
incumbent upon researchers and educators to find instructional strategies that facilitate
vocabulary learning.
Vocabulary acquisition and knowledge have been outlined by many researchers,
and there has been a concerted effort to find commonalities. This has encompassed
analyzing the development of word meaning vocabulary and determining how students
vary in their development. It has involved examining what it means to know a word and
exploring how individuals differ in their knowledge of words. It has warranted
investigating the connection between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension.
Additionally, there has been a call to analyze social-cognitive factors that potentially
motivate students to read.
Some of the well-established instructional practices for first-language learners
include reading aloud (McKeown & Beck, 2003; Teale, 2003); engaging students in

7
Questioning the Author (Beck & McKeown, 2001a; Beck & McKeown, 2002; Beck,
McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1997); having Text Talks (Beck & McKeown, 2001b);
creating literature circles (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 1998); and encouraging frequent
reading (Nagy & Herman, 1987).
Of these practices, reading aloud using a direct instructional approach is of
interest because it may provide second-language learners the opportunity to hear stories
they might not otherwise be able to read if given the written text. Direct and indirect
instructional approaches to teach vocabulary have been shown to be effective (National
Reading Panel, 2000); however, providing ELLs with explicit, direct instruction of
definitions may be more beneficial for vocabulary growth than having them rely on
contextual support (Nagy, 1997). A direct instructional approach of reading aloud and
explaining reading strategies helps students understand how to use these effective
approaches (Teale, 2003). Reading aloud using a variety of genres may encourage
students to read more broadly (Ivey & Broaddus, 2007), and ELLs can gain information
about specific topics while listening (Read, 2000). Hearing stories read aloud gives ELLs
the opportunity to observe someone who reads fluently (Manyak, 2007). For
less-motivated readers, hearing stories may spark their interest to read. Children of all
ages enjoy having stories read to them because it is a social and interactive activity
(Barrera & Bauer, 2003). In light of these reasons, reading aloud coupled with direct
instruction of vocabulary may be an effective strategy to assist second-language learners
as they acquire new vocabulary.

8
Mandatory Testingfor English Language Learners
In order to understand written text on state- and federally mandated tests in core
subject areas, such as reading, language arts, and math, English language learners must
have basic vocabulary knowledge. At the federal level, Title III has specified that annual
achievement objectives must be developed to measure English language learners'
language proficiency so they meet the same standards as other students (United States
Department of Education, 2005). Within the federal No Child Left Behind legislation,
ELLs must be tested annually regarding their educational progress (Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2007). In the state where this study was conducted,
ELLs are assessed annually using a language proficiency test that is given to those who
quality for state services in addition to a statewide criterion-referenced assessment that is
administered to all students.
When comparing ELLs in the school district where this study was conducted to
ELLs statewide, the percentage of students meeting the reading standard on the mandated
criterion-referenced test for the school year 2006-2007 was consistently in the 40% range
for both groups; however, when comparing ELLs in the district to all students statewide,
the percentage of ELLs in the district meeting the reading standard was considerably
lower than all students (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2007; see
Table 1).

9
Table 1
Percentages of Students Meeting the Reading Standard on the 2006-2007
Statewide Criterion-Referenced Assessment of Learning
Grade
District
Migrant
Percentages
State
Migrant
State
All Students
5
6
7
8
44
51
48
33
40
42
42
44
72
68
69
65
Note. On the website of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, data for the school district in
this study were reported in the category Migrant instead of Limited English. Also, school districts vary
regarding reading tests for ninth graders, and there were no scores reported to the Office of Superintendent
of Public Instruction; therefore, ninth-grade data were not included in the above table.
In analyzing other data, a notable portion of English language learners narrowly
missed meeting the reading standard. The percentage of students at Level II, which is
just below the standard, for Grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 was 48%, 36%, 42%, and 46%,
respectively. These data on reading show English language learners in the school district
where this study was conducted are struggling on mandated assessments.
The effects of testing have been studied by researchers, such as Garcia (1991)
who reported Latina/o students in Grades 5 and 6 knew fewer vocabulary words in
reading passages than monolinguals, and this adversely affected their performance on

10
tests. Additionally, a 5-year study conducted by Thomas and Collier (2002) examined
the long-term effects of various academic courses on student achievement. The results
showed there was an association between ELLs' reading scores and their post-secondary
admissions test scores.
In light of state- and federally mandated testing throughout English language
learners' academic lives, it is worthwhile to investigate strategies that help them improve
their reading skills. One variable could be certain instructional practices that have the
potential to increase vocabulary learning, which in turn may improve comprehension
skills. It is recognized, however, there are innumerable factors that may influence
vocabulary learning and comprehension.
Purpose of the Study
This study explored instructional strategies that potentially enhance vocabulary
learning for English language learners in their middle school years. It was of interest to
determine which intervention best facilitated vocabulary learning: (a) read alouds with
explanations of target words and an orthographic cue; (b) read alouds with explanations
of target words; or (c) read alouds with neither explanations of target words nor an
orthographic cue.
Significance of the Study
As a result of this study, educators may have a better understanding of certain
factors that increase vocabulary learning for English language learners. This may give
them insight into effective strategies for teaching vocabulary so ELLs learn challenging
academic vocabulary essential for comprehension in subject-specific courses and on
mandatory tests.

11
Even though there has been abundant research for first-language learners
regarding read alouds and word explanations, there has been an increasing need for
in-depth studies that focus on these strategies as an avenue for ELLs to learn vocabulary.
Research that includes reading aloud coupled with word explanations and the use of
orthographic cues is needed as this may provide ELLs with a multi-sensory approach
when learning new vocabulary.
Studies that have focused on primary-aged students have been plentiful, yet
research with participants in their middle school years is needed, and research that
exclusively focuses on English language learners in their middle school years is scarce.
This study has provided needed insight into students who are learning a new language in
their middle or junior high school years, specifically Grades 5 through 9.
English language learners in the state where this study was conducted are exempt
from the mandated criterion-referenced test during their first year of residency.
Thereafter, they are required to participate in the yearly examination even if they do not
understand the vocabulary. It is of interest, then, to use released items from this
assessment so ELLs have experiences with the kind of vocabulary needed to perform
well.
Therefore, this study was conducted to determine if certain instructional strategies
had the potential to promote English language learners' vocabulary learning because
vocabulary knowledge is essential for comprehending academically challenging content
in subject-specific courses and on mandated assessments.

12
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to determine which instructional practice best
facilitated vocabulary learning for English language learners. The research questions and
hypotheses are as follows:
Research question 1. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ across the
three levels of the intervention factor Condition: (a) Read/Explain/Spell—read alouds
with explanations of target words and an orthographic cue; (b) Read/Explain-—read
alouds with explanations of target words; and (c) Read—read alouds with neither
explanations of target words nor an orthographic cue?
Research question 2. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ for the
planned comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain?
planned comparison between Read/Explain and Read?
planned comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and Read?
Hypothesis 1. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest among the three levels of the factor
Condition—Read/Explain/Spell, Read/Explain, and Read.
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain/Spell and
Read/Explain.
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain and Read.

13
significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain/Spell and Read.
Variables
For this repeated-measures analysis of variance, there was one within-subjects
factor Condition with three levels: (a) Read/Explain/Spell; (b) Read/Explain; and
(c) Read. The dependent variable was the vocabulary posttest.
Participants
In the school district where this study was conducted, 50 of the potential 52
English language learners in Grades 5 through 9 enrolled in the state's Transitional
Bilingual Instruction Program (TBIP) participated in a 7-week study. During this time
they followed this schedule:
1. Returned the Informed Consent document to participate (see Appendix A);
2. Completed a researcher-created vocabulary pretest (see Appendix B);
3. Answered questions on The Reader Self-Perception Scale1
(Henk & Melnick,
1995; see Appendixes C and D);
4. Listened to four stories, read at separate times, in which nine target words were
presented using different instructional strategies (see Appendix E); and
5. Completed a researcher-created vocabulary posttest after each reading (see
Appendix F).
Review of Chapters
Chapter 1. Included in the Introduction is an explanation of several challenges
facing English language learners, namely vocabulary learning and mandatory testing.
1
The International Reading Association granted permission to reprint this scale and have it translated into
Spanish and Tagalog.

14
These provide the basis for articulating the purpose and significance of the study and for
determining relevant research questions, developing hypotheses, and defining the
variables. The final section provides definitions for terms germane to English language
learning.
Chapter 2. The first section of this chapter details the theoretical foundation for
conducting this study by explaining the reading development theory, second-language
vocabulary learning theory, and various theories supporting the use of orthographic cues.
The second section reviews pertinent research that supports these theories.
Chapter 3. This chapter details the design of the research study, the sampling
procedure, and the participants. The materials include four reading passages from the
state-released assessment of student learning. The process for creating a vocabulary
pretest and posttest is described, and the procedure for conducting the intervention
sessions with participants is explained.
Chapter 4. The research questions, the hypotheses, and the variables are identified
in the first section of this chapter. Then, the results of the statistical procedures,
including descriptive statistics, repeated-measures ANOVA, planned pairwise
comparisons, and effect sizes using pooled Cohen's d are detailed.
Chapter 5. The final chapter provides the justification for conducting this research
study. The study's purpose is summarized, and theoretical and pedagogical implications
are discussed. Limitations to the research and recommendations for future research are
proposed.

15
Terminology
Because of specialized terminology in second-language research, it is necessary to
define certain jargon and to explain the state program for second-language services.
LI. Students' first language (LI) is their primary or native language.
L2. Students' second language (L2) is the language they are acquiring, having
learned the spoken and/or written register of a first language. Terminology for
second-language learning has varied from state to state—even school district to school
district: (a) ESL, English as a Second Language; (b) LEP, Limited English Proficient;
(c) ELD, English Language Development; and (d) ELL, English Language Learner. For
consistency, the terms second-language learners and English language learners are used
throughout the chapters.
Criteriafor English language services. Even though there are many
second-language learners nationwide, only students who meet certain criteria receive
Title III services. Data collected from educational agencies regarding the process to
identify students for services revealed that home language, parental information,
students' grades and records, and teachers' observations and interviews were frequently
used. To assess language proficiency, four tests were commonly given: (a) Language
Assessment Scales, LAS; (b) IDEA Language Proficiency Tests, IPT; (c) Woodcock-
Munoz Language Survey; and (d) Language Assessment (Kindler, 2002). These large-
scale tests have varied regarding students' eligibility and cut-off scores; therefore, their
results should be interpreted cautiously.
In the state where this study was conducted, students eligible for the Transitional
Bilingual Instruction Program must have "a primary language other than English and

16
their English language skills must be sufficiently deficient or absent to impair their
learning in an all-English classroom setting" (Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 2007, p. 6).
In the district where this study was conducted, the following criteria have been
used to identify English language learners. Parents or guardians complete a registration
form. If certain questions indicate their child's primary language is not English, or the
language spoken at home is not English, parents or guardians fill out an in-depth Home
Language Survey. The district coordinator conducts a student interview. A
state-required language proficiency placement test is administered to determine eligibility
for the state's Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program. (S. Nolan, personal
communication, December 17,2007).
According to the state's guidelines, English language learners remain in TBIP
until one these criteria has been met:
1. On the state-required language proficiency test, ELLs must reach the highest
level on the reading assessment (Level IV—Transitional) and the
second-highest level on the writing assessment (Level III—Advanced).
2. On the state-required criterion-referenced assessment of learning, ELLs must
reach the reading standard (400 points), and they must score just below the
writing standard (7 of 12 points in Grades 4 and 7; 13 of 24 points in
Grade 10).
3. On a nationally normed test of reading and language arts, ELLs must reach the
35th
percentile (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2007).

17
In order for students to remain in the program longer than 3 years, district personnel must
justify students' needs with empirical evidence.
Conclusion
This chapter detailed several challenges—vocabulary learning and mandatory
testing—facing English language learners as they begin their educational life. In light of
these, it is important for researchers and educators to find effective instructional
strategies that promote vocabulary learning so ELLs can use their knowledge of word
meanings to help them comprehend cognitively challenging language. Three potential
practices include read alouds, word explanations, and orthographic cues.

18
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Introduction
Vocabulary is a crucial component in the reading development of children.
During the emergent literacy phase, learning to read, instruction focuses on alphabetic
principle, phonological awareness, and fluency. As children learn letters, sounds, and
words, they connect the pronunciations of words with their spellings and meanings in
their memory. For instance, children learn the letters rat are associated with the sounds
Ixl Id HI, and with time, they make a connection between the spelling of rat and its
pronunciation and its meaning (Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008).
Vocabulary learning continues to be crucial during and after the transition from
learning to read to reading to learn because of the vocabulary-comprehension cycle: As
students acquire vocabulary knowledge, their comprehension increases, and this provides
them with the cognitive ability to acquire more vocabulary knowledge and to improve
comprehension even further.
In reading development theory, constructs regarding vocabulary learning for
first-language learners have been well developed and validated in quantitative research;
however, consensus has yet to be reached regarding a theoretical framework for
second-language vocabulary learning (Read, 2000). August, Carlo, Dressier, and Snow
(2005) have argued that very few quasi-experimental or experimental studies have been
conducted in the past 25 years to examine various theories regarding vocabulary
acquisition for English language learners, and few researchers have investigated and
created programs to enhance second-language reading vocabulary (Garcia, 2000).

19
Furthermore, while various theories regarding the usefulness of orthographic cues have
been proposed, "few, if any, studies to date have examined experimentally whether
seeing the spellings of words contributes to vocabulary learning" (Rosenthal & Ehri,
2008, p. 176). Even so, there are various suppositions and pertinent research studies that
correspond to the purpose of this study.
Section 1: Theoretical Foundation
Vocabulary learning within reading development theory. The contextual
framework for analyzing vocabulary learning was based on reading development theory,
first proposed in 1979 (Chall, 1987). Reading was conceptualized "not as a process that
is the same from the beginning stage through mature, skilled reading but as one that
changes as the reader becomes more able and proficient" (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin,
1990, p. 9). Simply, reading development for first-language learners was viewed as a
fluid process among six stages: Stage 0, prereading; Stage 1, initial decoding and
reading; Stage 2, confirmation and fluency; Stage 3, reading for learning the new;
Stage 4, multiple viewpoints; and Stage 5, construction and reconstruction.
Even though children passed from stage to stage at different times, Stage 3
typically occurred for native speakers of a language between ages 9 and 13 and in Grades
4 through 8 (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990). During this time they transitioned from
Stage 2 learning to read to Stage 3 reading to learn using a variety of fiction and
nonfiction sources, such as textbooks, trade books, reference materials, newspapers,
magazines, and online references. In other words, there was a significant shift from a
word recognition vocabulary in which students identified words and decoded them to a
word meaning vocabulary where students learned unfamiliar words in increasingly

complex and decontextualized text.
The process of learning to read for second-language learners has also been
considered developmental in nature, according to members of the National Literacy Panel
on Language-Minority Youth and Children (August & Shanahan, 2008). They asserted
the "relationships among the components of literacy are not static and may change with
the learners' age, levels of second-language oral proficiency, cognitive abilities, and
previous learning" (p. 7).
Second-language vocabulary theory. One essential component of reading is
learning vocabulary, and the challenge facing English language learners when developing
a word meaning vocabulary has been gaining enough vocabulary knowledge to
comprehend words and sentences, and, in turn, comprehending enough words and
sentences so that more vocabulary can be learned (Laufer, 1997).
Read (2000) maintained, "There is no comprehensive, generally accepted
conceptual framework for L2 vocabulary work" (p. 153). Despite this, Nation (2001)
postulated a construct that provided the theoretical foundation for this study because it
integrated the importance of vocabulary acquisition, vocabulary knowledge, and
vocabulary use. Nation proposed a goal-oriented construct for second-language learning:
(a) language items, including pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammatical constructions;
(b) ideas, involving the content of the subject matter and cultural knowledge; (c) skills,
consisting of accuracy, fluency, strategies, and subskills; and (d) text, including
conversational discourse guidelines and text schemata. To cover these goals effectively,
educators were advised to provide ELLs with a balanced approach that included four
strands of language learning.

The first strand involved learning a new language from meaning-focused input in
which 95% of the words were understood by a student. Listening and reading activities
were introduced for the purpose of gaining information. The second strand highlighted
language-focused learning, and within this strand, teaching and learning vocabulary was
embedded. The goal was to produce an ongoing progression of vocabulary knowledge
through direct instruction as a means to benefit language learning. The third strand
identified meaning-focused output as integral to language learning. In this strand,
students engaged in speaking and writing activities as a means to convey information.
The goal was to use a productive mode in order to strengthen knowledge of words they
already knew. The final strand was fluency development in which learners increased
their fluency of already known words. For example, students may have learned new
words in a second language and have felt confident in their speaking ability, but when
they have interacted with a store clerk who speaks too quickly, the words have become
incomprehensible. Because of this, it has been imperative that second-language learners
not only learn new words, but also speak and write them fluently.
Therefore, Nation (2001) asserted that when developing reading competency,
teachers should focus on each strand approximately 25% of the time. Even though
vocabulary was embedded in the four strands, the first and second strands provided the
underlying principles for this study: (a) Meaning-focused input included the skill of
listening, and (b) language-focused learning necessitated vocabulary teaching and
learning using direct instruction.
The construct of second-language vocabulary learning must be narrowed because
of various suppositions regarding what it actually means to know a word. Has a student

22
learned a word if he or she can recognize, spell, and define it? Or, has he or she learned a
word when it has been used correctly in speaking and writing? Nation (2001) proposed a
construct for knowing a word that included three aspects: (a) form, in terms of spoken,
written, and word parts; (b) meaning, in terms of form and meaning, concept and
referents, and associations; and (c) use, in terms of grammatical functions, collocations,
and constraints. Of these three aspects, the first and second facets are associated with
Stage 3 of the reading development theory because English language learners need to
know the spoken and written forms of words and to understand the meanings of
vocabulary words in order to be proficient in Stage 3—reading for learning the new.
Theories regarding orthographic cues. Nation's (2001) goal-oriented theory
regarding second-language learning, explained in the previous section, provided one
assumption for this study's theoretical framework. Equally important was
information-processing theories regarding orthography as they provide the rationale for
showing students the spellings of words. The theoretical basis has been derived from the
supposition that word meanings are stored visually and linguistically, and utilizing mental
images enhances the learning and memory-retrieving process (Sadoski & Paivio, 2004).
In other words, there has been the assumption that connecting the orthographic and
phonological representation of words secures them in memory for later retrieval.
First proposed by Paivio in 1971, the Dual Coding Theory has evolved to presume
"cognition occurs in two independent but connected codes: a verbal code for language
and a nonverbal code for mental imagery" (Sadoski, 2005, p. 221). Therefore, one
hypothesis in this study has assumed instructional practices that include multi-sensory
modalities facilitate vocabulary learning.

23
The use of concrete rather than abstract language has been theorized as an
effective means of retrieving words from one's memory. Paivio, Kahn, and Begg (2000)
provided this explanation:
Dual coding theory explains positive effects of word concreteness in target tasks
primarily in terms of the following empirically supported assumptions:
(a) Nonverbal images are more likely to be aroused by concrete than abstract
words; (b) the memory traces of the activated images are "stronger" than the
verbal traces of the words themselves; (c) the image and verbal traces are
mnemonically independent and additive; (d) concrete word pairs promote
activation of compound images that function as integrated memory traces; and
(e) the integrated image can be redintegrated by presentation of one pair member
as a retrieval cue, thereby mediating response recall, (p. 149)
The second of these assumptions provided the rationale for the inclusion of an
orthographic image: "Memory traces of the activated images are 'stronger' than the
verbal traces of the words themselves" (Paivio, Kahn, & Begg, 2000, p. 149). In other
words, it can be assumed that the use of an orthographic cue as a means to learn
vocabulary is stronger than just the verbal code.
The importance of orthographic cues can be understood using the theory of
comprehension skill and the Lexical Quality Hypothesis (Perfetti, 2007). Regarding the
theory of comprehension skill, first theorized in 1985, Perfetti postulated the central issue
regarding word identification involved phonological procedures that allowed words to be
retrieved from one's memory—even if their meanings were or were not retrieved. It was
assumed that alphabetic reading skill was based on the ability to decode words, and

24
phonology played an important role because it not only stored parts of words, but also
connected the subunits of those words.
Perfetti (2007) further proposed in the Lexical Quality Hypothesis that
comprehension was dependent on reading words successfully. Specifically, knowledge
of the quality of word representations—orthography, phonology, grammar, and
meaning—had consequences for processing word meanings, and equally important, the
knowledge of how these four processes were bound together impacted comprehension.
Thus, the underlying premise of the Lexical Quality Hypothesis was "variation in the
quality of word representations has consequences for reading skill, including
comprehension" (p. 357). It was presumed that orthographic forms having high lexical
quality were retrieved quickly and consistently, and those having low lexical quality led
to problems in comprehension.
The lexical quality of words was defined as the degree to which a mental
representation of them occurred, and there were two qualities: preciseness and flexibility
(Perfetti, 2007). For example, preciseness referred to knowing that base and bass or
metal and medal were different. Flexibility referred to knowing the "meanings of
'roaming charge' and 'a fee charged by a mobile phone service for calls initiated or
received outside a contracted service area' are the same" (p. 359). At times precision and
flexibility were needed to pronounce and to comprehend words, such as "The bow of the
ship hit the dock" and "A bow is used in archery."
The variability for readers, then, included not only vocabulary size, but also the
stability of knowledge regarding the representation of words. Components of knowledge
included word forms and meanings, and when this knowledge was practiced via reading

25
experiences, efficiency occurred. Perfetti (2007) delineated efficiency from speed in that
efficiency was "the knowledge a reader has about words, specific lexical representations"
(p. 359). When readers efficiently and rapidly retrieved words, they reached high levels
of comprehension. In light of this, Perfetti hypothesized that knowledge of word
representations had its place with other cognitive processes, such as decoding,
phonological processes, and automaticity.
Dual Coding Theory and Lexical Quality Hypothesis can be further substantiated
by Rosenthal and Ehri's (2008) connectionist theory that presumed spellings of words
were mnemonic devices that facilitated a reader's ability to connect them to their
pronunciations and meanings. For example, the process of connecting the spelling of rat
with its pronunciation and its meaning secured it in memory. Then, when this word was
seen sometime in the future, it was easily retrieved from memory.
These theories—reading development theory, goal-oriented theory, and
information-processing theories regarding orthographic cues—have provided the
framework for this study. It is theorized that hearing a target word read aloud and seeing
its written form connects that word with its definition, and for English language learners
this may promote vocabulary learning, an essential component of reading to learn.
Section 2: Review of Research
The second section of this chapter reviews pertinent quantitative and qualitative
research that correlates with the theoretical suppositions outlined in the first section. Of
importance are studies relating to five aspects of vocabulary learning: (a) general reading
development; (b) read alouds; (c) word explanations; (d) read alouds coupled with word
explanations; and (e) orthographic cues.

26
Reading development. Because the focus of this research was vocabulary learning
for English language learners, it was of interest to identify, as closely as possible, where
vocabulary becomes critical in the five stages of reading development. Knowing this
provided the researcher with a guideline for choosing the grade levels of students to
include in this study.
In reading development theory, vocabulary learning has been shown to be an
essential skill throughout all stages of reading. However, as children's reading
development transitions from Stage 2 learning to read to Stage 3 reading to learn and
thereafter, vocabulary learning has evolved from a word recognition vocabulary to a
word meaning vocabulary. This progression has been validated using two factor
analyses.
In factor analysis 1, students' scores in Grades 2, 4, and 6 were examined on
measures of reading, writing, and language. Literacy (reading and writing) was defined
as the strongest factor, and the highest loadings were oral reading, phonics (decoding),
and word recognition, .85, .83, and .82, respectively (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990).
These findings revealed that students were in Stage 2 learning to read.
The transition to Stage 3 reading to learn was shown in factor analysis 2 that
examined students' scores in Grades 3, 5, and 7 on measures of reading, writing, and
language. The strongest factor was defined as reading, and the highest loadings were
vocabulary knowledge, silent reading comprehension, and word meaning, .82, .81, and
.78, respectively (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990). These results indicated a word
meaning vocabulary was an important aspect of reading to learn. The grade levels in
each of these studies were fairly similar, and this indicated the fluidity from one stage to

27
the next in reading development. Readers do not instantaneously leave one stage and
begin another at a particular age; instead, development through the stages has been a
gradual back-and-forward progression.
Because having a word meaning vocabulary has been shown to be crucial in Stage
3 and thereafter, it was of interest to review research regarding instructional practices that
promoted vocabulary learning at this stage, especially for English language learners.
August, Carlo, Dressier, and Snow's (2005) recent review showed various strategies have
assisted ELLs in their vocabulary development, one of which is knowing the meaning of
basic words.
Studies that have focused on learning word meanings have shown various
methods to be effective, such as read alouds (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson,
1985; Elley & Mangubhai, 1983; Feitelson, Goldstein, Iraqi, & Share, 1993; Ivey &
Broaddus, 2007; Robbins & Ehri, 1994); word explanations (Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown,
1982; Carlo, et al., 2004; Chall, 1987; Graves, 1987; Manyak, 2007; Nation, 2001); read
alouds with word explanations (Brett, Rothlein, & Hurley, 1996; Elley, 1989; Penno,
Moore, & Wilkinson, 2002); and the use of orthographic cues (Ehri & Wilce, 1979;
Koda, 1997; Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008).
Read alouds. Reading aloud received much attention from the National Academy
of Education's Commission on Reading, the National Institute of Education, and the
Center for the Study of Reading when the authors of Becoming a Nation of Readers
concluded, "The single most important activity for building the knowledge required for
eventual success in reading is reading aloud to children" (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, &
Wilkinson, 1985, p. 23). Since then, research has shown that reading aloud to students

28
has increased literacy growth for first- and second-language learners.
The nature of reading aloud to students has varied from classroom to classroom.
In some, there have been regularly scheduled times for teachers to read aloud, whereas in
other classrooms there may have been a concentrated read-aloud time when, for instance,
a teacher has read a novel to students. Despite the range of instructional practices,
research over the past three decades has shown that reading aloud has been useful for
most children (Teale, 2003).
In a study 25 years ago, Elley and Mangubhai (1983) analyzed the effect of either
reading aloud or not reading aloud on students' listening comprehension and found
reading aloud was more beneficial. Students between the ages of 9 and 11 in eight rural
Fijian schools were randomly assigned to one of two book-flood methods. In the first
method Shared Book Experience, teachers read aloud new books in either their entirety or
a portion of them and included follow-up activities. In the second method Silent
Reading, teachers displayed new books, read aloud regularly, and provided 20 to 30
minutes of daily sustained silent reading. The control group continued with the normal
English-learning curriculum called Oral English Syllabus in which words and structures
were taught in a sequential order with little exposure to trade books.
The results for listening comprehension in Class 5—approximately one half of the
study's participants—showed a significant difference between reading aloud using book
floods and the normal English-learning curriculum, F(, 266) = 35.74,/? < .001. Also,
the Shared Book group where teachers read aloud new books in their entirety surpassed
the Silent Reading group where teachers read aloud regularly, F(l, 266) = 5.19,/? < .01.
Even though the study's main focus was whether or not exposure to rich and high-interest

29
books showed gains in English language, students' listening comprehension improved in
the two methods where reading aloud was an integral feature (Elley & Mangubhai, 1983).
More recently, a formative experiment, which included a mixed-method of
quantitative and qualitative measures, was conducted with 14 English language learners
in Grades 7 and 8 who qualified for school services because they were in the initial stages
of literacy learning. Interventions over the course of a school year included two aspects:
(a) self-selected reading, and (b) teacher-directed reading and writing exercises. The
original classroom schedule was changed to modify aspects of the study the researchers
felt promoted reading, one of which was introducing daily teacher read alouds. The
teachers reported benefits, such as students selecting more English texts than
Spanish-only texts; valuing the teachers' choices as it meant these books were
worthwhile; and choosing the read-aloud books as a choice during independent reading,
which increased the students' confidence in reading (Ivey & Broaddus, 2007).
Despite the fact that reading aloud as a general practice has been beneficial, it was
necessary to determine if students really benefited from either hearing or not hearing
target words during a read aloud. A focal point in another study analyzed whether
students' word knowledge increased when teachers either read the target words aloud or
did not read them aloud. Thirty-three students in kindergarten heard one of two edited
stories The Boy Who Cried Wolf and A Crocodile's Tale with readability levels at Grade
2. The repeated measures factor Heard-Not Heard was found to be significant,
F(l, 32) = 29.258,/? < .001, demonstrating the importance of reading target words aloud
so students can hear them. Anecdotally, the researchers commented that during
interviews after the posttest some students recognized the target words with statements,

30
such as, "You said clamor on The Boy Said Wolf, " (Robbins & Ehri, 1994, p. 58).
Another aspect of reading aloud that has been of interest is whether or not to use
students' most familiar language or the one they are learning. Feitelson, Goldstein, Iraqi,
and Share (1993) investigated whether reading stories aloud in FusHa, the formal
language in the Arab world, assisted skill development in emergent literacy despite the
fact students' everyday language was a colloquial dialect Aamiyya. Over the course of 5
months, students in the experimental group listened to stories in FusHa. Posttest scores
on listening comprehension showed the experimental group surpassed the control group,
demonstrating the benefit of reading aloud using the language students were acquiring.
A unique feature of reading aloud to English language learners has been the use of
concurrent translations. It has been argued that if both languages were available to
students, they concentrated on their native language rather than the target language. In
Ulanoff and Pucci's (1999) study, three classes of students in Grade 3 were randomly
assigned to one of three treatment conditions. Even though data were collected for all
students, the study included a random sample that spoke Spanish as their primary
language. Of these students, the control group listened to a story in English. Another
group heard the same story in English, but received a concurrent translation. The third
group received a preview-review scaffolding approach where the teacher used Spanish to
share pertinent information and to discuss difficult words prior to and following reading
the story in English.
While the results of this study showed using scaffolding to build background
knowledge was the most effective, Ulanoff and Pucci (1999) also found concurrent
translations did not significantly facilitate vocabulary acquisition. The subjects in the

31
preview-review group had mean gains of 57%. The control group that heard the story
and received no treatment had mean gains of 19%, whereas students in the concurrent
translation group had mean gains of only 12%. The researchers indicated that while the
total sample included 60 students, dividing them into three groups was a limitation.
These findings are contradictory to what members of the National Literacy Panel on
Language-Minority Youth and Children found: "Students perform better when they read
materials in the language they know better and when the text language is clearly written
and accessible" (August & Shanahan, 2008, p. 106).
These research studies over the past few decades have shown reading aloud has
been a beneficial instructional practice to learn target words; however, students must also
learn the meanings of words, and certain instructional practices have been proven to be
effective.
Word explanations. Providing students with explanations of words has been
shown to be a useful instructional strategy for learning vocabulary. Researchers have
investigated how to deliver explanations—directly or indirectly. They have also
examined the length, suitability, and quality of explanations.
There have been various direct instructional methods for explaining words, such
as in-flight definitions where the reader pauses to give a concise explanation or synonym
(Elley, 1989), or where a more in-depth dialogue occurs between the reader and the
listener (Beck & McKeown, 2001a, 2001b; McKeown & Beck, 2003).
As early as 1938, Gray and Holmes explored which of two methods, wide reading
or direct instruction, increased word meaning vocabularies. For students in Grade 4,
gains on vocabulary and comprehension tests were significant using direct instruction,

32
most notably for students with lower abilities. Research over the next few decades
showed a variety of direct instructional methods to be effective over no instruction;
however, this was pessimistically interpreted that because no superior method came to
the forefront, direct instruction was not a beneficial means to increase word meaning
vocabularies (Chall, 1987).
Despite this, a study in the early 1980s showed that instruction of target word
meanings was effective. Even though the participants were not English language learners,
the findings have had instructional implications. Over the course of 5 months, 27
students in Grade 4 in the instructed group were given a specific vocabulary training
program in which they learned 104 words. During a 5-day cycle, they learned a set of 8
to 10 words. The first day included direct instruction of target word meanings, and the
other days included various instructed activities. The control group of 39 students
followed the school's textbook language arts curriculum. Results of this study showed
the instructed group made gains in "all tasks, ranging from single-word semantic decision
through text recall and even apparent transfer to standardized tests of vocabulary and
comprehension" (Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982, p. 518).
Researchers during this time, however, questioned whether or not the most
comprehensive explicit instruction was enough to establish a substantial size in
vocabulary and suggested a more global viewpoint was needed. Nagy and Herman
(1987) argued that direct teaching of word meanings for a particular reading lesson may
have been beneficial, but it did not provide a considerable increase in students' total
vocabulary size. This argument has had merit for second-language learners because other
practices, such as repeated exposures to text or high-interest books, may be more

effective avenues to increase vocabulary.
Even so, in a seminal study conducted by Carlo et al. (2004), one particular
analysis showed that mastery of words explicitly taught resulted in an effect size of .34.
English language learners in Grades 4 and 5 participated in a 2-year study to analyze
whether improvements in vocabulary correlated with improvements in reading
comprehension when useful words and word-learning strategies were taught. At the end
of the study, second-language learners who received English instruction that focused on
the depth of vocabulary knowledge and on strategies for word comprehension performed
as well as or better than an English-only control group in areas of word knowledge and
reading comprehension.
Even though explanations of words via direct instruction have been shown to be
an effective instructional strategy, there have been varied opinions as to the appropriate
length of the explanations. Chaudron's study (as cited in Nation, 2001) showed teachers'
oral definitions that were overly complicated and lengthy made it difficult for learners to
grasp how all the words in the definition were connected: Were they the same, or did
they provide more information? In another study, Ellis (as cited in Nation, 2001) found
vocabulary instruction was effective when concise, simple definitions were used. Ellis
examined input factors that influenced vocabulary learning. One intervention involved
giving definitions and elaborations that were short and included few defining
characteristics, and this method, compared to pre-modified input in which definitions
were embedded in the text, showed vocabulary learning was more likely to occur. Ellis
reasoned concise definitions were effective because longer definitions overloaded
learners' short-term memories, thereby making lengthy and elaborate definitions rather

34
useless to learners as there was too much information to process. As a cautionary note,
initial exposure to word meanings using brief instruction was beneficial for second-
language learners if it was followed by more in-depth learning of word knowledge
(Graves, 1987). This was also true for their academic vocabulary development in that
instruction should be explicit, yet thorough (Manyak, 2007).
Another aspect of providing students with definitions has been the suitability and
the quality of word explanations. Nagy (1988) argued that definitions from dictionaries
may be accurate, but that did not mean they were helpful enough for the reader to use
them correctly. Even in basal readers, glossaries may not provide suitable definitions. In
the second of two experiments, Scott and Nagy (1997) examined the quality of three
types of definitions. Conventional definitions were defined as meanings of words from
traditional dictionaries. Another format was the use of conventional definitions
supplemented with an example sentence. The third type was considered transparent,
which has been recently used in children's dictionaries. Basically, words have been
defined first by giving a phrase using the entry word and then a paraphrase that explains
the entry word. For instance, in the current study one of the target words was convinced,
and in the Scholastic Children's Dictionary (Macy, 2002) the definition was, "If you
convince someone, you make the person believe you" (p. 118). The results showed no
significant difference among the three formats of definitions. Even though the focus of
the study was on fragment selection errors, it was noteworthy that no superior form of
quality among the three formats was found. Even though these studies have shown the
particularized benefits of either read alouds or word explanations, further inquiry into
studies that included both of these strategies was necessary.

35
Read alouds coupled with word explanations. While the studies featured in this
section did not focus solely on second-language learners, they represented the most
comprehensive research over the past 2 decades on read alouds coupled with word
explanations. Generally, they showed that participants benefited from a combination of
listening to stories with short explanations of words.
In the second of two studies conducted nearly 20 years ago, Elley (1989) explored
the effects of teachers' explanations of words during read alouds to no explanations
during read alouds. Group A and B included 127 students who were 8 years old, and
Group C included 51 students who were of similar age and background. Results for
Rapscallion Jones, one of the stories that was read aloud, showed overall mean gains for
Group A (with explanations) and Group B (without explanations) were 39.9% and 14.8%,
respectively. Group C, the control group, had a less than 2% gain. Also, for all groups
the mean gain on five control words was close to zero.
Further research has confirmed students' vocabulary knowledge increases from
listening to stories and hearing short explanations of target words. In a study conducted
by Brett, Rothlein, and Hurley (1996), 175 students who were ages 9 through 11 listened
to Bunnicula and The Reluctant Dragon and were given short explanations of target
words; other students just listened to the stories; and the control group had no exposure to
either the stories or the target words. The group that listened to stories and received word
explanations learned on average three new word meanings for each of the two books, and
a delayed posttest, given six weeks later, showed they remembered six new word
meanings.

36
More recently, Penno, Moore, and Wilkinson (2002) showed that reading aloud
and explaining target words contributed significantly to vocabulary growth; however,
another factor Repeated Exposure was included. Even though the 47 subjects in this
study were described as having English as their first language, Maori was used for 30%
of the instruction in one of the classes, implying that some of these participants were
multi-lingual. Students' ages ranged from 6 years, 6 months (Class A) to 5 years, 8
months (Class B), and they were at the beginning stages of reading to ensure any
vocabulary gains were attributed to listening to stories and explaining words.
Anak the Brave and No Place Like Home, two children's books, were chosen
because classroom teachers determined they were above the students' reading levels.
The interventions included reading aloud the stories along with one of two treatment
conditions: (a) word explanations in which the reader used Elley's (1989) in-flight
explanations for 10 target vocabulary words, and (b) no explanations. Afterwards,
students completed a multiple-choice test for each story and retold the story to the
examiner. The results showed a significant interaction between the factors Pre-posttest
and Explanation, noting that although Group A and B had similar pretest scores, students
in Group A that had stories read aloud to them with in-flight explanations of target words
did better on the posttest than Group B (Penno, Moore, &Wilkinson, 2002).
On the other hand, some studies have shown that including word explanations
may not be more effective than just having students listen to stories. In a study
conducted by Senechal and Cornell (1993), four reading conditions were used:
(a) questioning where students were asked what and why questions; (b) recasting in
which the target words were introduced and then synonyms were given; (c) word

37
repetition where target-word sentences were repeated; and (d) verbatim in which students
listened to the story and were not encouraged to contribute. The results of this study
showed the verbatim condition was just as effective for learning target words as recasting
and questioning. A limitation, however, was the age of the subjects as they were 4- and
5-year-olds, and this may have been too young to assess accurately the full effectiveness
of certain strategies.
Results from another study indicated that learning the meanings of target words
was equally effective using either read alouds with explanations of words or just reading
aloud (Swedberg, 2004). Twenty parent-child dyads from two Montessori schools
participated, and prior to the intervention, a multiple-choice vocabulary pretest was given.
Then, parents read aloud researcher-simplified sections of an informational text in which
15 target words were explained and 15 were just read, followed by the children
answering multiple-choice vocabulary questions. Results showed significant learning
occurred because posttest scores were higher than pretest scores; however, greater
learning did not occur for words that were explained compared to words that were merely
read aloud during the story.
Nevertheless, most research that has focused on read alouds with word
explanations has shown this strategy to be beneficial. Another instructional practice that
has the potential to facilitate vocabulary learning has been the use of orthographic cues to
learn words and their meanings, and the following section details various pertinent
studies.
Orthographic cues. Nation (2001) postulated that English language learners'
knowledge of a word involved recognizing what it sounds like, what it looks like, and its

38
meaning; however, it was the depth of the relationship among these three aspects that
determined how quickly words were learned. For second-language learners, possibly
hearing and seeing the spellings of target words—what words sound and look like—may
be a value-added effect in order to connect them with their meanings for later retrieval.
Additionally, these skills can be improved and reach the level of monolinguals (August &
Shanahan, 2008).
Extensive research regarding the value of orthography was conducted by Ehri and
Wilce (1979). In four experiments, they found "spellings are effective because they
provide readers with orthographic images useful for symbolizing and storing sounds in
memory" (p. 26).
In Experiment 1, 48 students in Grades 1 and 2 were taught four different
paired-associate sound learning prompts, one of which was the initial letter sound of a
word accompanied by its spelling. Results of post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed
this pairing allowed for significantly faster learning over other prompts—squiggles,
initial letters, and initial letters with misspellings. The researchers also conducted a
correlational study to explore the relationship between students' performance on sound
learning tasks and their knowledge of printed language. While cause and effect cannot be
determined using correlational studies, the results showed that to explain the variability in
the knowledge of printed language for beginning readers, the use of spellings to
remember oral sounds was an independent factor up and beyond general
learning-memory ability.
Experiment 2 included 30 students in Grade 1 and replicated the procedures in the
first experiment except the prompt of initial letter sounds with misspellings was not

39
included and two measures were added: (a) naming accuracy and speed for letters of the
alphabet, and (b) phonemic segmentation. Results of post hoc tests confirmed the
findings in Experiment 1 that beginning readers learned words significantly faster with
spelling aids versus no spelling aids, and learning occurred more quickly when initial
letters were used rather than squiggles. Of particular interest in Experiment 2, though,
was the distinction between less advanced and more advanced beginning readers and
their capability to use orthographic mnemonics. The researchers compared the reading
skills of children who benefited from spellings with those who did not benefit from
spelling aids. Results of / tests showed beginning readers who were advanced in their
spelling-aided sound capability had better basic reading skills compared to beginning
readers who were less advanced in their spelling-aided sound capability. These findings
supported the researchers' assumptions that there was a strong relationship between
orthographic memory and learning to read, and "when children learn to read, they acquire
an orthographic mnemonic system, and this capability enables them to build up a
repertoire of printed words in lexical memory" (Ehri & Wilce, 1979, p. 33).
For Experiment 3, the researchers explored the possibility of alternative
explanations regarding the influence of spelling, such as repetition, additional rehearsal,
segmented pronunciations, and a nonvisual feature of letters. This was done to further
support their hypothesis that recalling words visually was superior to other methods. One
of the independent variables was Condition with four levels, including visual spellings,
oral spellings, phonetic segmentation, and repetition. An analysis of variance showed a
main effect for Condition, F(3, 69) = 10.13,/? < .01; a main effect for Trial,
F(6, 138) = 76.21,p < .01.; and an interaction effect between Condition and Trial,

F(18, 414) = 2.33, p < .01. Post hoc tests revealed the mean value for visual spellings
(M= 2.24) was superior to the other three levels that had fairly similar means (oral
spellings, M = 1.53; phonemic segmentation, M= 1.55; and repetition, M= 1.43). This
demonstrated that over time beginning readers' recall using visual spellings increased
when compared to the other conditions.
Another aspect in Experiment 3 concerned whether spelling coupled with other
kinds of stimuli in paired-associations affected recall. The condition initial letters plus
correct spellings was replaced with numbers plus correct spellings to determine if there
was an inherent relationship between the stimuli and responses. Providing spellings
increased recall regardless of the stimuli (numbers), and the researchers noted that "what
is important about spellings is not their ability to connect responses to stimuli (i.e., to
facilitate the associative phase of learning) but their capacity to improve response
learning" (Ehri & Wilce, 1979, p. 35).
In the final experiment of Ehri and Wilce's (1979) study, the researchers
hypothesized that spellings facilitated recall because they prompted the formation of
orthographic images of the sounds, which were stored in beginning readers' memories.
To explore this, students in Grade 2 were given two conditions: (a) image formation, in
which oral spellings were coupled with images of the spellings; and (b) repetition, in
which sounds were rehearsed several times. One of the independent variables of the
ANOVA was Task (image versus repetition), and results showed a significant main effect
for this factor, F{, 16) = 4.73, p < .05, indicating the use of sounds coupled with the
images of spellings was superior to repeating the sounds.
Ehri and Wilce (1979) provided these conclusions from the four experiments:

41
1. For beginning readers, there was a mnemonic value regarding orthography.
Sounds that were coupled with spelling aids (visual or imagined) were learned
faster.
2. Visual representation of spellings facilitated recall. In the third experiment,
hearing letters named was less effective than seeing the letters, and in the
fourth experiment, hearing the letters improved students' sound memory when
they were coupled with visual images.
3. Beginning readers had the capability to generate alphabetic images to map
sounds, and they utilized this when needed. In the first three experiments,
participants were simply shown the spellings of words either before or after
pronouncing the sounds; there was no explicit teaching of how sounds could
help them remember the spellings. Nevertheless, they most likely used the
spellings to recall the sounds.
4. Central to learning to read was the skill of using spellings to remember sounds.
Experiments 1 and 2 showed this skill delineated between less- and
more-advanced beginning readers.
Ehri and Wilce (1979) concluded, "The orthographic mnemonic explanation for
the facilitative effects of spelling aids is the one favored by present findings" (p. 37).
In a recent study, Rosenthal and Ehri (2008) concluded the orthographic cue
spelling was a means to increase students' memory of word pronunciations and meanings.
In the second of two experiments, 32 participants in Grade 5 were randomly assigned to a
counterbalanced design in which one set of target words was taught with spellings and
the other set without spellings. During the trial study, students were introduced to target

42
words using these methods: (a) showing a picture of the word, (b) hearing the word
pronounced along with it embedded in a definitional sentence, and (c) repeating the word
and the sentence. Then, students were given five to eight opportunities to learn the words
and their meanings. The main effect of Condition (spelling aids versus no spelling aids)
was significant, F(, 28) = 33.56, p < .05, indicating the benefit of having students see
the spelling of words.
These research studies have provided the rationale for assuming that an
orthographic cue may be a value-added strategy for English language learners to learn
words and their meanings.
Conclusion
In light of the theoretical framework detailed in the first section of this chapter
and substantiated in the second section using pertinent research studies, the purpose of
this study was to determine if the instructional practice of read alouds coupled with word
explanations and an orthographic cue significantly increased vocabulary learning for
English language learners.

43
Chapter 3
Method
Introduction
This chapter addresses the methodology for conducting this study. Included are
the design, the sampling procedure, and a description of the participants. The processes
for selecting reading materials, choosing target words, and generating the
researcher-created vocabulary pretest and posttest are described. Additionally, the
procedure for conducting the intervention is explained.
Research Design
In the interest of improving vocabulary learning for English language learners, the
researcher chose to create an intervention with multiple treatment levels and to administer
a vocabulary pretest and posttest. By definition, this kind of research was considered
experimental because the independent variable was manipulated; however, because the
participants were not randomly selected, it was considered quasi-experimental (Gall, Gall,
& Borg, 2003). An important aspect of the research design was having all participants
receive all levels of the intervention and measured repeatedly. This meant the means that
were subsequently analyzed were derived from the same participants. Table 2 shows the
assignment of participants using a repeated-measures method (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001).

44
Table 2
Assignment of Participants in a Repeated-Measures Method
Condition
Read/Explain/Spell Read/Explain Read
Pi Pi Pi
Participant P2 P2 P2
P3-50 P3-50 P3-50
Note. P = Participant. #=50.
Sampling Procedure
A convenience sampling was used in this research study for various reasons:
(a) English language learners, a special population, were needed for the purpose of the
study; (b) some data needed to analyze the descriptive statistics were available in the
district; (c) the sample population was located in multiple locations; and (d) seven
sessions were needed, so it was most feasible to have the participants located near the
researcher (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
The researcher submitted a comprehensive proposal to the school district's
Director of Research and Evaluation who met with district-level cabinet members and
personnel in the Office of Teaching and Learning to discuss the feasibility of conducting
this study; they approved the research study, and the researcher signed a contract with the
district that required adherence to ethical principles for conducting research. Then, the
sampling process began with meeting potential participants to explain the Informed
Consent document, the permission slip. The researcher read it aloud in its entirety and

45
answered questions so students understood their participation was voluntary and their
classroom grades would not be affected. Also, it was explained that scores on their
vocabulary questions and responses on their survey would be kept confidential.
The researcher provided each potential participant with two copies of the
Informed Consent as stipulated by the school district. Students discussed the form with
their parents or guardians, and if they agreed to allow their child to participate, the
parents or guardians signed one copy and had their child return it to the researcher and
kept the other copy at home for reference. The researcher paid a locally owned
interpreting service $376.80 to have the consent form translated into Spanish and
Tagalog, the two most commonly spoken languages, for parents or guardians who did not
understand English.
Because the participants received all levels of the intervention rather than one
level, they were required to participate more extensively. To alleviate the possibility of
becoming discouraged throughout the study, the researcher scheduled intervention
sessions over the course of 7 weeks with each session lasting 15 to 20 minutes.
In light of using a convenience sample, the researcher took extensive precautions
to distribute equitably the target words across the three levels of the factor Condition
based on word difficulty using pretest scores. Also, the researcher thoroughly
randomized the order in which words were presented on the vocabulary pretest and
posttest.
Participants
In the state where this study was conducted, the target population included
English language learners in the Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program. For the

46
2004-2005 school year, this included an enrollment of 87,343 students, which was nearly
10,000 more students than the previous year (Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 2007). The accessible population, however, was 52 English language
learners in Grades 5 through 9 from a school district with a population of nearly 14,000
students. Of these students, one was absent during the entire study and was removed.
Another student returned the Informed Consent, but was absent for most of the
intervention sessions and was removed. Therefore, 50 participants completed the study.
The descriptive statistics for these students are detailed in Chapter 4.
Materials
Deciding which texts to read aloud required a thoughtful process for various
reasons. Selecting text that was either fiction or non-fiction was of concern because
some students may have found reading informational text about cultures more appealing
than a fictional piece about unicorns, and possibly one format provided more contextual
support. The researcher did not administer a reading interest survey prior to the study, so
knowledge of this kind was not available. It has been found, however, there has been "no
consistent difference between the narrative and expository texts either in the absolute
level of contextual support or in the range of levels of support, as reflected in the standard
deviations" (Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987, p. 264).
Proficiency levels of the participants were potentially problematic because some
students had been in the United States less than six months, whereas others had lived here
10 or more years. Since they must take state- and federally mandated assessments even if
they do not have proficiency levels to be able to read and to understand cognitively

challenging vocabulary, using texts from these assessments was of interest because it has
been an underrepresented aspect in second-language research.
Therefore, stories that had reading levels appropriate for students in Grades 5
through 9 were selected. Four reading passages that were released items from a statewide
annual assessment were chosen, and they represented variety of fiction and nonfiction,
including two at a sixth-grade reading level and two at an eighth-grade reading level:
1. "Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose" was a story that described how
a pack rat took items to build its den.
2. "The Flame of a Candle" was a tale in which Hodja, the main character,
bragged to his friends that he was able to endure bitterly cold nights outside,
so they challenged him to do so.
3. "To Reach the Promised Land" was a biography that chronicled the obstacles
Booker T. Washington overcame in order to reach his dream of receiving an
education.
4. "Waste Not, Want Not" was a personal narrative written by Earl M. Weber
who detailed his experiences during the Great Depression of the 1930s (Office
of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2006).
Selection of Target Words
Determining which target words to use from the four reading passages was
challenging. McKeown and Beck (2004) maintained there was neither a formula nor
principles that determined which words were the most age-appropriate even though word
inventories, such as fifth-grade words, existed. Stories that had controlled vocabulary
may not have provided students with the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to learn

48
academically challenging words; instead, it was recommended to use grade-level texts as
they provided a continuum of words (Nagy & Herman, 1987).
Because of this, target words were selected by using a web-based readability
analysis and input from 20 educators. First, the four reading passages were typed into the
Dale-Chall Readability Test using a web-based program called Intervention Central (n.d.).
On the readability analysis printout, difficult words were italicized. Basically, words that
were identified as difficult were ones that did not appear on the Dale-Chall list. These
difficult words were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and were given a value of 1 in
each cell.
More data were needed to select the target words so the four reading passages
were sent to current and retired teachers, all of whom have taught core curriculum. For
each of the passages, the researcher asked them to circle 10 to 15 words they thought
were difficult for English language learners. Of the 22 teachers who were sent the
readings, 20 returned their forms, some of whom circled as few as 2 and as many as 36
words per reading passage. To rectify this discrepancy, two analyses were conducted. In
analysis 1, every word teachers chose received 1 point, designated by the value of 1 in
each spreadsheet cell. This meant that despite one teacher circling only 2 words and
another teacher circling 36 words in a reading passage, every word received 1 point. The
words were then sorted by the total column in descending order, and those that received
the most tallies were considered the most difficult.
Analysis 2 used an item-weighted approach in which each word received a
weighted score. First, a weight-per-word was calculated for each teacher based on 12.5
(the average number of words he or she was supposed to circle) divided by the total

number of words that teacher actually circled. Then, for each word the teacher chose,
this weighted number was entered into the spreadsheet, and a new weighted score was
calculated. The words were sorted by the total column in descending order, and those
that received the most tallies were considered the most difficult.
Even though a comparison of the two analyses showed minimal discrepancy
between these approaches for choosing the target vocabulary words, the item-weighted
approach was selected because this method ensured equity among the teachers' choices
for the most difficult words.
Measures
Vocabularypretest. A researcher-created vocabulary pretest was generated using
guidelines from Laufer (1997); McKenna & Stahl, 2003; McKeown, Beck, & Kucan
(2005); Nation (2001); Read (2000); and "Test and Item Specifications for Grades 3-High
School Reading WASL" (Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2006).
The process for determining whether to use a multiple-choice, cloze procedure, or
another testing format was based on Read's (2000) three dimensions for second-language
assessment: (a) construct—discrete to embedded; (b) range—selective to
comprehensive; and (c) context—independent to dependent. Regarding the first
dimension, it was of interest to create a vocabulary test that measured, as closely as
possible, a construct separate from other constructs. Thus, it was necessary to create a
discrete test rather than one in which a construct was embedded. Read identified three
purposes for designing discrete vocabulary tests: (a) for researchers to understand
vocabulary knowledge and how it is acquired; (b) for teachers and language testers to
assess progress, measure achievement, and determine proficiency; and (c) for decision

50
makers regarding program evaluation. This study focused on the second aspect of
designing discrete vocabulary tests: to measure the progress or success of learning new
target vocabulary words after receiving various instructional interventions.
The second dimension to consider was the range of vocabulary used for the
assessment. In this study, the vocabulary was considered selective because
pre-determined target words were used. The third dimension was determining the role
context played in the assessment. In light of the desire to measure vocabulary learning
using specific instructional practices, the target words in the assessment needed to be
independent, which meant context on the assessment had to be minimized.
The most appropriate option to operationalize these three assessment dimensions
was a multiple-choice test. Read (2000) preferred having three target words (1,2, 3)
listed, and then having students choose the answers from five possible choices (A, B, C,
D, E). The researcher believed this format had the potential to give students an
opportunity to use a process of elimination. For example, if a student knew two of the
three words, their corresponding answers could have been eliminated, thereby making the
task of answering word 3 easier. Therefore, a different format was used because each
target word needed to be measured separately in order to assess accurately the
effectiveness of the instructional intervention. Each target vocabulary word had its own
set of four choices (A, B, C, D).
To create the multiple-choice selections (A, B, C, D) for each of the 48 target
words, the researcher used three guidelines based on recommendations of
second-language experts:

51
1. The four choices had to be easier than the target word. If the words for the
definition were more difficult than the target word, they were not appropriate
(McKeown, Beck, & Kucan, 2005). This was particularly crucial when
creating second-language assessments (Read, 2000).
2. The four choices had to be plausible (Nation, 2001). This was important
because if the three distracters were either nonsensical or unrelated, some
participants may have been able to choose the correct answer by virtue of
elimination. For ELLs, though, this may not have been the case because they
may have thought they knew certain words when, in fact, they did not know
them, or there were words that were impossible to guess (Laufer, 1997).
3. The definitions needed to be "specific, direct, unambiguous, and simple. The
'Goldilocks principle' may apply here—not too much, not too little, but just
right" (Nation, 2001, p. 83).
Using this framework, the researcher created the correct answer and three
distracters for each of the 48 target words. First, potential choices for the correct answer
were found using dictionaries that were at the level of the learners, especially second-
language learners (Read, 2000); however, it was also necessary to reference other
dictionaries: (a) Scholastic Children's Dictionary (SCD) (Macy, 2002); (b) Webster's
New Collegiate Dictionary (WCD) (Bethel, 1959); and (c) Webster's New Dictionary of
Synonyms (WDS) (Gove, 1968). If a word in the dictionary definition was on the
General Service List (GSL) or the Academic Word List (AWL), it became a potential
correct answer. For example, to create the correct answer for the target word necessities,
SCD and WCD provided potential choices—words that were easier than the target word,

52
plausible, and specific. Those choices were narrowed further using the GSL and AWL,
creating the correct answer: things you need or must have.
Second, three distracters for each target word were created using the GSL and the
reading text (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2007; Read, 2000). Once
again, the distracters had to be easier than the target word, plausible, and specific. For
example, to create the distracters for the target word seldom, three words that were easier
than the target word, plausible, specific, text based, and found on the GSL were used:
(a) carefully, (b) always, and (c) almost. Third, the correct answer and the three
distracters for each of the 48 target words had to be assigned a specific multiple choice
(A, B, C, or D). To do so, the researcher used a web-based randomizing sequence
program. Finally, the overall order of the 48 multiple-choice items was randomized
using the same web-based program.
The pretest was given to the participants and scored by the researcher in which 1
point was given for each correct answer and 0 points for incorrect answers or no answer.
The results determined which target words were most difficult for the participants.
Vocabularyposttest. Creating a posttest for each of the four readings followed a
structured process, and "Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose" has been used as
an example. First, the 12 target words were ranked from most difficult to least difficult
using pretest scores. The three least difficult (most known) words were deleted, leaving
nine target words. Second, these nine words were analyzed for contextual support,
examined for frequency, and compared with the teachers' choices. This proved, however,
to create many inconsistencies, so ultimately the pretest scores were the main determiner
for ranking the words from most to least difficult.

53
Third, the nine target words were distributed among three columns that did not
have Condition factor levels assigned to them. Using a basic Latin-square sequence
design (LSD), the three most difficult target words were distributed among three columns.
For "Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose," the most difficult words were
abandoned, insulated, and generation, and they were distributed among the three
columns using the first LSD sequence 1, 2, 3. This meant abandoned was placed in
column 1, insulated in column 2, and generation in column 3. The third- to sixth-ranked
target words gnawing, pantry, and appealing were distributed among the three columns
using the second LSD sequence 2, 3, 1. This meant gnawing was placed in column 2,
pantry in column 3, and appealing in column 1. The seventh- to ninth-ranked target
words obvious, legend, and dynamite were distributed among the three columns using the
third LSD sequence 3,1,2. Thus, obvious was placed in column 3, legend'in column 1,
and dynamite in column 2. This process ensured there was an equitable distribution of
words across the three columns based on levels of difficulty.
Fourth, a web-based random sequence generator was used to assign one of the
three levels of the factor Condition to each of the columns. The random sequence was 3,
2, 1 so the first level of Condition (Read/Explain/Spell) was assigned to column 3; the
second level of Condition (Read/Explain) was assigned to column 2; and the third level
of Condition (Read) was assigned to column 1.
At this point, the nine target words had been assigned to one of three columns
using a LSD, and the three Condition levels (Read/Explain/Spell, Read/Explain, and
Read) had been assigned to the columns using a web-based randomizing program;
however, the order in which the nine target words appeared on the posttest had not been

54
determined, so further randomization was needed. To do so, a four-step process was
followed using a web-based randomizing program. Once again, "Stop, Thief! There's a
Pack Rat on the Loose" has been used as an example:
1. The three target words for the Condition Read/Explain/Show were randomized
2, 1,3. This meant generation was second in the word order, pantry was first,
and obvious was third.
2. The three target words for the next Condition Read/Explain were randomized
3,2, 1. This meant insulated was third in the word order, gnawing was
second, and dynamite was first.
3. The three target words for the third Condition Read were randomized 2, 3, 1.
This meant abandoned was second in the word order, appealing was third,
and legend was first.
4. Then, the entire group of nine target words was randomized 3, 6, 5, 1, 8, 2, 4, 7,
9. This meant the final word order on the posttest was as follows:
dynamite, insulated, panty, legend, obvious, generation, abandoned, gnawing,
and appealing.
The above process was repeated for the other three reading passages. To
determine if the target words had been equitably distributed among Read/Explain/Spell,
Read/Explain, and Read, the researcher conducted a test of within-subjects contrast, and
Condition was not significant, F(l, 49) = .014,p = .908, indicating the target words had
been equitably distributed.

55
A posttest of nine items was given to the participants following each of the four
readings (see Table 3). It was scored by the researcher in which 1 point was given for
each correct answer and 0 points for either incorrect answers or no answer.

56
Table 3
Posttest Target Words Matchedfor Difficulty Using Pretest Scores
Condition
Read
Reading Explain Read
Passage Spell Explain Read
generation
pantry
obvious
scoffed
mightily
convinced
pored
devoted
henceforward
parcels
darned
seldom
insulated
gnawing
dynamite
muezzin
boasted
endure
furnace
resolved
critically
calico
tweed
mortgage
abandoned
appealing
legend
flickering
bitterly
assured
stagecoach
practical
proclaim
vague
muslin
economic
Note. a
"Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose".b
"The Flame of a Candle".c
"To Reach the
Promised Land".d
"Waste Not, Want Not".
Test reliability. The reliability of a test has been based on the classical test theory
that has included three assumptions: (a) every subject has a true score, which in this study

57
is the actual amount of vocabulary learning as measured by the posttest; (b) any test has
some amount of measurement error; and (c) this error is assumed to be random. The
reliability of a test has been estimated using four methods: (a) alternate-form, (b)
test-retest, (c) internal consistency, and (d) inter-tester (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
However, these methods were either inappropriate or impractical for this study. There
was no alternate form of the test. Test-retest was not a suitable method because the
participants not only saw the target words on the pretest, but also heard them during the
readings. Additionally, they heard in-flight definitions and saw the spellings of some
target words, which could have given them further opportunities for learning. There
could have been one possibility of using the test-retest method if there had been other
participants, but 50 of the 52 accessible students participated in the study.
Because these reliability methods were problematic, the use of conventional
quantitative measures was not appropriate; instead, the process for creating a vocabulary
multiple-choice test followed precedent. The researcher used well-established,
long-standing principles to construct the individual multiple-choice test items, detailed
earlier in this chapter.
Procedures
The first session was explained in a previous section as it involved the sampling
process of gaining permission from parents or guardians to have their children participate
in the study. At the beginning of the second session, the researcher explained the
procedure for answering the vocabulary questions on the multiple-choice pretest by using
an example that was printed at the top of the students' forms. The participants completed
the pretest in which they answered 48 multiple-choice vocabulary questions. There were

Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition

Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition

Ähnlich wie Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition (20)

Mehr von NOR RUBA'YAH ABD RAHIM

Mehr von NOR RUBA'YAH ABD RAHIM (12)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition